0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

12 (de) vizualizări9 paginiIOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) vol.12 issue.5 version.4

Nov 04, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) vol.12 issue.5 version.4

© All Rights Reserved

12 (de) vizualizări

IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) vol.12 issue.5 version.4

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 12, Issue 5 Ver. IV (Sep. - Oct. 2015), PP 60-68

www.iosrjournals.org

Structures, Using FEM

Costel Boariu

Department of Hydraulic Structures Engineering, Faculty Hydrotechnical Engineering, Geodesy and

Environmental Engineering, Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iai, Romania

Abstract: The interaction between the foundation and the deformable soil calculated by finite element method

is based on various models representing terrain behavior. Of these models, most commercial calculation

programs implemented in their content models Winkler and Pasternak. Article shows the influence of these

computing models on conventional rigid hydraulic construction. It was calculated the stiffness matrix structure

and deformations developed, by considering these two models.

Keywords: FEM, Pasternak model, rigid structure, stiffness matrix

I.

Introduction

The traditional method for simulation the mathematical load-deformation response of a beam in

uniaxial bending is a differential equation (Horvath 2002) [1]. The basic form of the matrix formulation for

beam flexure is

(1)

S d q

where:

[S] = stiffness matrix; {d} = displacement vector; {q} = load (force) vector.

The relevance of equation (1) is that all of the variations in beam behavior can be explained as variations solely

in the formulation of the stiffness matrix, [S].

In Winkler model (Fig.1) the flexural behavior of this beam is given by equation (2)

lo a d

B e a m (E , I)

x

V e r t ic a l s o il s p r in g ( p = k w w )

4

EI

d w(x)

dx

p(x) q(x)

(2)

p(x) kw w(x)

E = elasticity modulus of beam

I = beam moment of inertia

Solving ecuation (2) by FEM is expressed by relation (3)

S S d q

e

(3)

wherein elastic stiffness matrix expression [Se] and subgrade reaction matrix [Sw] are determined with

the following shape function(4) according to Cook [2] Chang [3] Teodoru [4]

N1 x 1

N3 x

3x

l

3x

l

2x

l

2x

l

N2

N4

2x

x

l

x

l

x

l

3

2

(4)

3

2

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

60 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

12 6l

2

4l

E I 6l

S e

3

12 6l

l

2

6l

2l

12

6l 2l

12 6l

2

6 l 4 l

6l

(5)

54 13l

156 22l

2

2

4l

1 3l

3l

k wl 22l

1 3l 1 5 6 2 2 l

420 54

13 l 3 l 2 2 2 l 4 l 2

S w

(6)

In Pasternak model (fig.2) The flexural behavior of this beam is given by equation (7)

4

EI

d w(x)

dx

d w(x)

p(x) g

q(x)

(7)

where g = the shear stiffness of the shear layer. Solving ecuation (7) by FEM is expressed by relation (8)

Sw

Sg

d q

(8)

wherein elastic stiffness matrix expression [Se] is subgrade reaction matrix [Sw] are the same like those

from relations (5) and (6) and matrix [S g] is given by equation (9)

36

3l

g

Sg

30l 36

3l

3l

4l

36

3l

3l

36

3l

3l

2

l

3l

2

4l

(9)

The introduction of second parameter for soil (shear stiffness) have the same effect like siffness grovth

of the beam (the terms of stiffness matrix is increase)

lo a d

B e a m (E , I)

S h e a r la y e r ( g )

x

V e r t ic a l s o il s p r in g ( p = k ww )

Stiffness matrix is obtained considering continuum bearing on soil like in fig. 3

y

y

S 41

EI

S 21

S 23

EI

S 43

1 .0

S 31

S 11

1 .0

S 13

kw

kw

S 33

y

S 24

1 .0

1 .0

S 42

EI

S 22

EI

S 44

S 12

S 32

l

kw

S 34

S 14

kw

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

61 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

II.

In beam on elastic foundation calculus by FEM, subgrade reaction matrix of Winkler spring was given

by Bowles [5] in configuration (10)

S w

kwl 0

2 0

(10)

This expression is direct suggestion by calculus scheme from fig. 4, where can be see that only

elements S11 and S33 of stiffness matrix have values different of zero values. (There's an element stiffness matrix

Sij is generalized force that develops on i direction when in the direction of j is imposed on movement or

rotation unit)

y

y

S 41

EI

S 21

S 23

EI

S 43

1 .0

1 .0

S 31

S 11

S 13

kw

k w l/2

k w l/2

S 33

y

S 24

1 .0

1 .0

S 42

EI

S 22

EI

S 44

S 12

S 32

S 34

S 14

k w l/2

k w l/2

In ecuation (7) apart from term which include Winkler springs and for which stiffness matrix member

S11 and S33 are easy to find (intuit) , apear and terms which include shearing efect for which stiffness matrix

intuition is not simple. The term of the equation that considers the earth shear, contain second derivative of

beam deformation(d2w/dx2). To calculate the stiffness matrix expressing shear earth [Sg] in case of nodal

bearing, on use similar functions to those for calculating matrix form [Sw]

Relation (10) for [Sw] rezult by solving with Galerkin method of differential ecuation (7)

Seeing that expression we(x) = N1(x)w1+N2(x)1+N3(x)w2+N4(x)2

(11)

is an approximal solution of differential ecuation (7) it rezult an residuum

4

(x) EI

d we ( x)

dx

d we ( x)

kwe ( x ) q ( x ) 0

(12)

in which k=kw1 considering an unitar width beam or k=kwB for a beam of B width; after Chung [6]

With this reziduum on form balanced reziduum functionals with shape functions

l

N i x x,t dx EI

Ni x

d we ( x)

dx

dx g

d we ( x)

N i (x)

dx

dx

(13)

x we ( x)dx

( x)q ( x)dx 0

From first integral of expresion (13) on obtain nodal force vector and elastic stiffness matrix of the

beam(5). From the third integral obtain subgrade reaction matrix of Winkler spring, considring relation (11)

write in form: w(x)=[N(x)]{de}, cu {de}={w1 1 w2 2}

l

S w k N i x we ( x )dx

0

l

i

(x)N jdx k

N1(x)

N (x)

2

N (x)

1

N 3 (x)

N 4(x)

N 2 (x)

N 3 (x)

N 4 (x) dx

(14)

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

62 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

2

N1

N1 N 2 N1 N 3 N1 N 4

2

N 2 N1

N2

N2N3 N2N4

N3

N3 N4

N 3 N1 N 3 N 2

S w k

N N

4 1

N4N2

N4N3

dx

(15)

l

1, x

N1(x)

0,

N 2 ( x ) 0, x 0, l

N 4 ( x ) 0, x 0, l

(16)

x l

2

l

0, x

N 3 (x)

1,

x l

S w

0

k

0

0

0

0

0

l

2

0

(17)

In this way was find the same subgrade reaction matrix of Winkler spring, like that given by

Bowles(1996)

Folowing on use shape function for matrix [S g] calculation

If from ecuation (13) using the first two integral and consider shear stress attached to g parameter ,

after Zhaohua apud Teodoru [4]

3

EI

d we

dx

Q g

dwe

dx

l

N i x EI

d we

dx

N i '( x ) E I

N i x Q (x)

dx

0

l

gN i (x)

dwe

dx

d we

EI

2

0

''( x )

d w

dx

dx gN i (x)

N i (x) M (x)

l

0

dx

EI

dwe

''

i (x)

d we

dx

dx gN i (x)

'

i

dwe

dx

dx

(18)

dwe

dx

g

0

'

i

dwe

dx

dx

From ecuation (18) the last member give stiffness matrix wich simulate shear stres in soil

N1(x)

'

N 2 (x) N '(x)

N ' (x) 1

3

'

N 4 ( x )

'

Sg g

N x

'

dwe ( x)

dx g

dx

'

i

(x)N jdx g

'

'

N 2 (x)

'

N 3(x)

N 4 (x) dx

'

(19)

2

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

N1

N1N 2 N1N 3 N1N 4

2

'

'

'

'

'

N 2' N 1'

N2

N2N3 N2N4

2

' '

'

'

'

'

'

N3

N3N4

N 3N1 N 3N 2

Sg g

4

2

4

3

4 1

N

'

4

dx

(20)

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

63 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

If using shape functions (16) like those used for subgrade reaction matrix of Winkler spring

calculation, [Sw] (17) , shear matrix is [S g] = 0

If using for matrix [Sw] calculation linear shape function (21)

N1 ( x, t) 1

N 2 ( x ) 0,

N 3 (x)

x

l

N 4 (x) 0

(21)

S w

kl 0

6 1

0

1

0

0

g

Sg

l 1 0

0

0

1

0

1

0

(22)

(23)

Stiffness matrix obtained with relation (22) and (23) as well those given by (17) and Sg=0 are very

approximal because of rough shape function expresion used (16) and (21).

In folowing example on use the interaction model with continuum bearing. The goal of calculus example is to

find stiffness matrix and displacements for a special structure with large rigidity

III.

Calculus Example

The structure is bottom discharge at an earth dam(Ibaneasa dam from Botosani county Romania).

The conduit is made by steel concrete with polygonal cross section (fig. 5) - internal quadratic and external

trapezoid.

S id e s e e p a g e s to p

2 .6 0

45

3 .2 0

2 .3 0

1 .7 0

45

3 .2 0

9 .0 0

The conduit is separated in 9m length transom. It shall be calculate a central transom of bottom

discharge.

The load and bearing schedule is in fig. 6. It shall be consider a sigle beam finit element between two

joints with length l

3.2. Earth (soil) and beam (conduit) parameters

The conduit parameters are:

A=5.36 m2; Ib=6.67 m4; Eb=26 GPa (for C12/15 concrete)

The ground under conduit

Each node will be thought of as a spring with its elasticity determined according to Chung [ ] by :

ks = B k in which

B = 3.2 m is the width of the conduit

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

64 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

lo a d q

B e a m ( E , I)

S h e a r la y e r ( g )

x

V e r tic a l s o il s p r in g ( p = k ww )

l

a ) c o n tin u u m b e a r in g

The marginal nodes will have the same coefficient of subgrade reaction as the other ones according to

Bowles

lo a d q

Coefficient of subgrade reaction according to Vesi apud Bowles [5]

B e a m ( E , I)

k 0 .6 5 1 2

EpB

Eb Ib

S h e a r la y e r ( g )

B (1 p )

2

Ep=35 MPa; p=0,35; p=19 kN/m3

k 0 .6 5 1 2

3 5 3 .2

(24)

35

2 6 0 0 0 6 .6 7 3 .2 (1 0 .3 l5 )

2

V e r tic a l s o il s p r in g ( p = k w l/2 w )

5875

kN/m3

b ) te r m in a l p o in ts b e a r in g

Shear modulus for shear layer in foundation is

g

Ep

2 (1 p )

= 13 Mpa

(25)

gs= B g

Foundation parameters k and g may be calculated according Horvath [7] with following relations

k

Ep

(26)

H

g

Ep

(27)

2 (1 p ) 2

The effective rigid base is defined as the depth at which settlements caused by the structure can be

taken to be zero. For decades it has been assumed that the depth of influence for settlement equivalent

conceptually to the effective depth to rigid base is twice the width of a square loaded area and four times the

width of an infinite strip-Colasanti and Horvath [8]

With this assumptions H=6,4 m ; k=5468 kN/m2; g=41,5 MPa

Earth load on conduit may be consider uniform distributed (crown width is 6 m and conduit beam

length is 9 m).

Earth load together with self weight of conduit is q=826 kN/m

With this parameter it shall be calculate structure wich schedule is presented in fig 6

3.3. Solving equilibrium equation sistem

Matrix equation is (8) S e S w

Sg

(1) is

S D Q

in which members are:

S Se Sw

Sg

= stiffness matrix

{Q}={q} = load (force) vector.

Solving ecuation (1) is by partitioning matrix S; D and Q whereby it separate out free displacement for degree

of freedom (2 and 4) by degree of freedom with elastic bearings (1 and 3)- Jerca [9], see Fig 7

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

65 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

S nn

S rn

S nr D n

Qn Rn

S rr D r

Qr Rr

(28)

S nn D n S nr D r Q n R n

(29)

S rn D n S rr D r Q r R r

Dn

1

;

2

Qn

12

q

2

l

1 2

Dr

2

w1

w2

Qr

l

2

R1

d1

Rr

ks ksDr

R3

d3

R2

0

Rn

;

0

R4

(30)

R1

ks

Rr

R3

0

S nn D n S nr

1

ks

Rr

(31)

, in eq (29) obtain

Rr Qn

ks

(32)

S rn D n ( S rr

Dr

0 d1

ks Dr

ks d3

I )Rr Qr

ks

Rr (

S rr I )

ks

( Q r S rn D n )

(33)

S nn D n S nr

[ S nn S nr

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

( Q r S rn D n ) Q n

S rn ] D n Q n S nr

1

ks

;

(

S nn D n S nr

1

ks

S rr I )

1

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

Q r S nr

1

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

S rn D n Q n

Qr

D n S nn

*

S nn S nn S nr

*

in wich

Qn

1

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

(34)

1

S rn ;

Q n Q n S nr

*

1

ks

1

ks

S rr I )

Qr

After ends of beam displacement calculation it shall be calculated middle of the beam displacement

with next relation:

we(x=l/2) = N1(x)w1+N2(x)1+N3(x)w2+N4(x)2

(35)

which in matrix shape is:

w N d

(36)

in which shape function for x=l/2 are (4 equations)

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

66 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

N1 x 1

N3 x

3x

l

3x

l

2x

l

2x

l

= 0 .5 ;

N2

= 0 .5

N4

2x

3

2

1 .1 2 5

(37)

3

2

1 .1 2 5

3.4. Results

a) Continuum bearing and soil stiffness considering (Pasternak)

Stiffness matrix of structure is: (obtained with Mathcad software)

S Se Sw

Sg

S

e

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

7.70 8 10

1.28 5 10

3.85 4 10

S

w

S

g

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

3.85 4 10

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

7.70 8 10

6.28 5 10

7.97 7 10

2.17 5 10

4.71 3 10

7.97 7 10

1.30 5 10

4.71 3 10

9.78 9 10

2.17 5 10

4.71 3 10

6.28 5 10

7.97 7 10

4.71 3 10

9.78 9 10

7.97 7 10

1.30 5 10

5

3

5.53 1 10

4.14 8 10

5.53 1 10

4.14 8 10

4.14 8 10

4.97 8 10

4.14 8 10

1.24 4 10

4.14 8 10

5.53 1 10

4.14 8 10

2.92 3 10 6

1.29 3 10 7

S

6

2.83 8 10

7

1.28 10

4.14 8 10

5.53 1 10

1.24 4 10

4.14 8 10

4.97 8 10

1.29 3 10

2.83 8 10

7.72 6 10

1.28 10

3.84 3 10

1.28 10

2.92 3 10

1.29 3 10

3.84 3 10

1.29 3 10

1.28 10

7.72 6 10

End of beam displacements are (calculated with eq. 34; 33 and 30)

0.05 55

4

3.33 8 10

D

0.05 55

4

3.33 8 10

w1

1

w2

rad

rad

Middle of the beam displacement, calculated with eq. 36 for x=l/2, is: w= - 0.0563 m

b) Continuum bearing and without soil stiffness considering (Winkler)

Stiffness matrix are obtained with Mathcad software:

S Se Sw

S

e

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

7.70 8 10

1.28 5 10

3.85 4 10

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

3.85 4 10

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

2.85 5 10

1.28 5 10

1.28 5 10

7

7.70 8 10

www.iosrjournals.org

67 | Page

Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic Structures, Using FEM

S

w

6.28 5 10

7.97 7 10

2.17 5 10

4.71 3 10

7.97 7 10

1.30 5 10

4.71 3 10

9.78 9 10

2.17 5 10

4.71 3 10

6.28 5 10

7.97 7 10

4.71 3 10

2.91 7 10 6

1.29 3 10 7

S

6

2.83 3 10

7

1.28 10

9.78 9 10

7.97 7 10

6

1.30 5 10

1.29 3 10

2.83 3 10

7.72 1 10

1.28 10

3.84 4 10

1.28 10

2.91 7 10

1.29 3 10

3.84 4 10

1.29 3 10

1.28 10

7.72 1 10

0.05 63

4

3.37 2 10

D

0.05 63

4

3.37 2 10

w1

1

w2

rad

rad

IV.

Conclusions

Displacements in those two calculus hypothesis are very close (2% difference )

Shear stiffness of the soil considering in Pasternak hypothesis is inconsequent because of structure particulars.

This is possible due to the overall rigidity of the structure. The rigidity of one section is according to Gorbunov

Posadov [10] Paulos [11]

t

2

3

1 b E p (B / 2)

2

p

Eb

4I

10

E p ( B / 2)3

Eb

The explanation lies in the rigidity of the bottom-discharge conduit structure. Thus the elastic stiffness

matrix of the structure is a little modified of rigidity matrix resulted by taking into consideration the specific

earth stiffness of the Pasternak model.

So for rigid structures, earth stiffness change (increase) settled by Pasternak hypotthesis and many

other researchers (Thangaraj [12], Tiwari [13]) is not suitable.

References

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Cook R.,D., Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995

Chang-Yu Ou, Deep Excavation. Theory and practice. Taylor & Francis/Balkena Leiden 2006

Teodoru I.,B., Musat V., Soil structure interaction numerical modelling. Foundation beams Editura Politehnium Iasi 2009

Bowles Joseph E., Foundation Analysis And Design 5 th ed, McGraw-Hill Book Co - Singapore 1996

Chung Jae H., Finite Element Analysis of Elastic Settlement of Spreadfootings Founded in Soil, University of Florida, Gainesville,

FL, USA; http://bsi.ce.ufl.edu/Downloads/Files/newsletter-shallow-foundation.pdf 2011

Horvath John S., Regis J. Colasanti Practical Subgrade Model for Improved Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis: Model

Development International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 11, No. 1, February 1, 2011

Regis J. Colasanti, John S. Horvath, Practical Subgrade Model for Improved Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis: Software

Implementation Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 1, 2010. ASCE

Jerca S.,H., Ungureanu N., Diaconu D., Numerical methods in construction design (in Romanian) UT Gh. Asachi Iasi, Romania

1997

M.I. Gorbunov Posadov On Elastic soil construction design (in romanian) Editura Tehnica Bucuresti 1960

Poulos H.G., Davis E.H., Elastic Solutions For Soil And Rock Mechanics Centre For Geotechnical Research University Of Sydney

1991

Thangaraj D.,D., Ilamparuthi K., Parametric Study on the Performance of Raft Foundation with Interaction of Frame The Electronic

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. H

Tiwari K., Kuppa R., Overview of Methods of Analysis of Beams on Elastic Foundation IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil

Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) Volume 11, Issue 5 Ver. VI (Sep-Oct. 2014), PP 22-29

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

68 | Page

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.