Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

# IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

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

## Soil Structure Interaction Calculus, For Rigid Hydraulic

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)

## kw = Winkler coefficient of subgrade reaction

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

## Stiffness matrix are:

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 )

## Fig. 2 The Pasternak model

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

## Fig. 3 Stiffness matrix calculation by continuum bearing

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068

www.iosrjournals.org

61 | Page

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

## Stiffness Matrix Calculation By Punctual Bearing Of The Beam

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

## Fig. 4 Stiffness matrix calculation by nodal bearing

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)

## Following stiffness matrix became

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)

## In relation (15) if accepted for shape function the relations(16)

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

## subgrade reaction matrix of Winkler spring become

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

## obtain integration by parts

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)

## Forward stiffness matrix become

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)

## where () denotes differentiation with respect to x

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)

## it obtain the folowing stiffness matrix

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

## 3.1. Design structure and calculus schedule

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

## Fig. 5 Cross and longitudinal section by bottom discharge (concrete steel)

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

## Ground parameters are (silty clay):

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

## ks = 3.2 5875 = 28 200 kN/m;

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

## where H is depth to effective rigid base

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

## d q , whitch write like

(1) is

S D Q
in which members are:
S Se Sw

Sg

= stiffness matrix

## {D}={d} = displacement 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

## Replacing eq (30) writen like

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)

## wich indroducing in first one, guide to displacement calculation

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

## Displacement in free(no bearing) degree of freedom directions(2 and 4, Fig. 6) are

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

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

## Middle of the beam displacement is: w = -0.0571 m

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
t

2
3
1 b E p (B / 2)

2
p

Eb

4I

10

E p ( B / 2)3
Eb

## Given this data, we have t=0,0007<<1 so the conduit is (very)rigid.

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]

## Horvath John S., Soil-Structure Interaction Research Project (2002) www.engineering.manhattan.edu/civil/CGT.html.

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,
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