Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 12, Issue 5 Ver. IV (Sep. - Oct. 2015), PP 60-68
www.iosrjournals.org
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 )
EI
d w(x)
dx
p(x) q(x)
(2)
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
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 )
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
(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)
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)
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
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)
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
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
N
'
4
dx
(20)
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
45
3 .2 0
2 .3 0
1 .7 0
45
3 .2 0
9 .0 0
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
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
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
Sg
(1) is
S D Q
in which members are:
S Se Sw
Sg
= stiffness matrix
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
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)
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
S rr I )
ks
( Q r S rn D n )
(33)
[ 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
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
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
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
DOI: 10.9790/1684-12546068
www.iosrjournals.org
68 | Page