Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
structures analysis
Giuseppe Gariup , Igino Pitacco & Pere Roca Fabregat
*
**
**
ABSTRACT: A multi-body approach to solid dynamics is presented. The numerical method implemented is a
discrete element method (d.e.m.) specifically intended for the analysis of masonry structures. Contacts
between different blocks are treated using interacting forces. Contact forces are modelled using penalty method for the normal component and an elasto-plastic behaviour for the shear. The model considers 3 different
types of damping. A first quantitative validation phase is presented together with possible future developments.
1INTRODUCTION
A brief review of the theoretical details and the numerical implementation of a discrete numerical
method for the analysis of blocky structures is
presented together with an initial phase of validation
of the model.
Discrete element methods were first introduced to
study stability of jointed rock (Cundall 1992) and
were later applied to static and dynamic analysis of
granular material and finally to seismic analysis of
masonry structures (Mamaghani 1999).
Masonry, due to the presence of mortar or dry joints
separating stone blocks or bricks, can be considered
a discontinuous material (Loureno 1996).
Each brick or stone block is modelled as a single
block with infinitesimal deformability. The finite deformation of the structure, typical of a seismic response, is therefore ascribable to the relative rototranslation of the blocks (Fig. 1).
Experimental campaigns on loading walls and macro-blocks structures (Oliveira 2003) and observation of seismic effects on real structures (Ordua
2003) confirm that collapse of masonry structures is
mainly due to relative displacements of bricks or
stones.
The numerical method should be used at first to perform dynamic 2D and 3D analyses of structures
formed by a limited number of macro-blocks, like
stone arches or loading walls, modelling each stone
or brick with a single block. Applicability of this
- Formulation of the physical background for the development of the model (Simo 1998). Choice of finite strain theory and hyper-elastic behaviour of
block material.
- Geometrical and finite element definition of the
blocks (Belytschko 2000).
- Definition of the contact algorithm including the
geometrical definition of contact, contact updating
through the analysis, the description of the normal
response using a penalty method approach and the
description of the shear response considering sticking and sliding and plastic behaviour of the shear reaction (Wriggers 2002).
- Definition of damping, considering mass, stiffness
and contact damping (Zhong 1993).
- Numerical method used to solve the system of differential equations representing the f.e. problem.
Choice of an explicit integration algorithm (Bathe
1996).
The phase of validation is focussed on two-block dynamic analysis. The two blocks are superposed, the
lower one serves as ground for the motion of the
upper one and displacements are constrained on its
base. Different cases are modelled and analyzed with
the numerical code. The results are confronted with
analytical ones or with the expected behaviour. Each
case has been specifically chosen to test a particular
characteristic of the model:
- Damping tests: the upper block is inclined with respect to the vertical and touches the lower one with
an edge at the beginning of the analysis. Varying the
damping coefficients different rocking responses are
simulated. Gravity is the only force considered.
In the next sections the theoretical introduction and
the results of the numerical tests are presented.
2CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Discrete element method analyzes the interactions
between a finite number of distinct blocks. Each
block, in the implementation used in this work, is
elastically deformable, while non-linear deformation
is concentrated in the contacts.
All the equilibrium and constitutive equations have
been obtained under the hypothesis of finite deformations. The deformation of a single block has been
considered infinitesimal but the one of the whole
system, due to possible roto-translation of its parts,
can be large compared to the usual finite elements
problems.
Each block or body is composed by one or more 8node hexahedrons depending on the complexity of
the geometry. In the contact routine each body is
identified and interact with the others with its external surface.
The external surface of a block is given by the external faces of the finite elements forming it (Fig. 2).
(1)
physical system which are not considered in the numerical algorithm. In this formulation the
elastoplastic behaviour of contact shear is the only
possibility the system has to dissipate energy. Other
forms of damping have to be introduced in order to
get a better modelling of real structural dynamic behaviour.
The damped system of equations becomes
C u Fext Fc Fint
M u
(2)
where C is the damping matrix and u is the first derivative of the displacement vector.
Three types of damping have been introduced:
- Mass damping. The damping matrix is proportional
to the mass matrix:
C M
= 2600 kg/m3,
= 8.33 109 and
= 12.50 109.
(3)
3.1 Stability
- Stiffness damping. The damping matrix is proportional to the matrix corresponding to finite element
stiffness:
C K
(4)
(5)
The values of constants and have to be determined to adjust the model to experimental observations.
The third form of damping seems the one with
stronger connection to the dissipative nature of the
impact. The first one has no physical meaning and it
is purely a numerical tool to dissipate energy. Stiffness damping is related to the dissipation due to
anelastic phenomenons in the deformation of the
blocks which are normally neglectable in masonry
analysis.
In the next section some examples of discrete element analysis are presented and validated.
3EXAMPLES
A first phase of testing and validation of the discrete
element numerical code has been carried out. Numerical simulations of different cases of two-block
interactions have been completed. The material com-
Figure 4. Stability: (a) geometrical model; (b) forces and constraints; (c) node numbering of block A.
3.2 Impact
Two cubic blocks A and B, with side equal to 1.0 m,
are considered. The blocks are aligned in the horizontal directions. The lower one B has its base constrained.
In the initial configuration the bottom of block A is
placed 10 cm above the upper part of B.
The gravitational force is the only force acting.
The geometrical configuration, forces and constraints and node numbering are summarize in Figure 6.
At first no damping is considered.
A should bounce on B going back periodically to the
initial configuration. At first no damping is considered. A should bounce on B going back periodically to the initial configuration.
This configuration should test the reaction of the
contact, as any error or deviation in the calculation
3.3 Friction
A cubic block A with side equal to 0.5 m, is placed
upon the upper face of a parallelepiped B with base
equal to 0.7 m 4.0 m and height 1.0 m. Besides the
1
a t2 ,
2
(6)
where a = 0.1g.
The analytical result can be compared with the numerical one (Fig. 9).
Using the same configuration the static frictional
coefficient is set equal to 0.6. The elastic limit of the
shear force is therefore exceeding the applied force
and no plastic sliding should occur. The elastic sliding is neglectable due to the high shear stiffness considered in the model.
The elastic response is clearly depicted in Figure 10.
Figure 11. Rolling: (a) geometrical model; (b) forces and constraints; (c) node numbering of block A.
The geometrical configuration, forces and constraints and node numbering are summarize in Figure 11.
The static frictional coefficient is set equal to 1.1.
Contact and mass damping have been considered in
the analysis. The initial tilting couple, due to friction, equals the righting one, due to WA, leading to
an instable configuration. A small perturbation, like
the one induced by the deformability of blocks or by
the penalty approach, can start the motion.
A should roll over the inclined face of B. The face of
A impacting with B is changing at each overturn
(Fig. 12).
This configuration is therefore useful to check the
contact updating routine.
Figure 13. Rocking: (a) geometrical model; (b) forces and constraints; (c) node numbering of block A.
Figure 14. Block A oscillation angle: comparison between undamped and damped solutions (contact damping equal to 0.2
and 0.4).
4ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The initial phase of validation has shown a satisfactory behaviour of the model with regards to the following aspects:
- The method seems to be numerically stable.
- Modelling normal contact force with the penalty
method has given good qualitative results.