Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JIREt~1
ii
835
_N-1
October 199 1
By T.A. Shugar, T.J., Holland, and
EL
NO
L.J. Malvar
Ea
041!
~(.0
~
I
___
Ssional
~0)
ISO
2!50
ABSTRACT
Vanous models of Navy watefront structures are presented and
employed to assess their effectiveness inpredicting the vulnerability of these systems to
operational and earthquake loads. The emphasis is on application of three-dimensional
finite element models to reinforced concrete structural analysis. Results indicate that
dynamic analysis is important in the calculation at the structural response of both a
drydock and a blocked vessel in dr)dock. The primary natural fr:-quenci,es and natural
mode hI~pes for a drydock are longitudinal deformation modes which Cannot be predicted by current methodology based upon statically equivalent analysis of two-dimenmodels. Further results%from nonlinear analysis pro vide new insight into the
behavior of the drydockicaisson seal for hydrostatic loads, which is dramatically different from that which underlies current design and maintenance procedures. Similarly,
results from a three -dimen sional nonlinear static analysis of a scale model of a reinrorred conxcrte picr deck. mubjecded to punching shear failure loads, are shown to
cormp.e well w~ith expe'-imcnta! data. Moderui three-dimensional finite element techinology is appropriate foi analysis of waterfront structures.
Cal=~~
60 Z
5'
JIU.
''I -,'' i
u o f1:e u iU
l l l
I-
hHi
UIIt
e 'liNul
u
I I
I I
'rII
NN
IfI I II
rI'III rl
.E
j~111
IA
wo--
V%
h.0w
NtuV
.
4o0
* 641UM
A,
"
a"
-0*
ftfW.
81
014 -*W ""~
WA -W
ft egon0b.*a
0-d .
in
04
V&
ra"04k4J
sO WoM&AAPV
. V"b
., Pe
*AdsW
Weo^"
I""WW
t
4d
'1
WL 40 big-*
"0
"'
0wo."""&A
o-
~Pwo*
.e("
W4WA AMAot
W
brd
"N~U
"
P..qs.
*s.'w.o.
W
t% ?A0t3
Iv
(esprooe1
. (0)44)'Up
ylpfsq
"e Aflo~oftt1$
A.j 110"DA
mRP0
OLctoher 1991
~'
fO
".0w
of~W'.6
ei
Type AMCo
"meScove me*
AI)VAN
i) VINIT F I.MI.'NT ANAl.VS i OF DRYIV)CKS
AND WATERFRONT FACIiITIFS - A TECIINOLO(;Y
ASSF.SMFNr
PR - RM33F60-(X1-02-06-0lO
WU - DN664013
6UWNofI
I pawwme GAGAZAM
am*("aAMe( ADsO"0S"04
a PtWOsOiNOW OAGlAN110
WPOoI WAUUMN
TN. 1935
1AMMii
AIO A0lMl11116i
it
U'oaO00G,4W01iToAUG
ANENCY66PORT IdWOER
I' 11SITNIUOlIOWSAVAMNK
JY STATISNT
120. [NOTMOUMION
cOca
I.A
Various models of Navy waterfront structures are presented and employed to assess their effectiveness in predicting the vt'ncrability of these systems to operaticnal and earthquake loads. The emnhasis is on applicatio:, of threedimensional fihite element models to reinforced concrete structural analysis. Results indicate that dynw.nic analysis
is important in the calculation of the structural response of both a drydock and a blocked vessel in drydock. The
primary natural frequencies and natural mode shapes for a drydock are longitudinal deformation modes which cannot
be predicted b) current methodology based upon statically equivalent analysis of two-dimensional models. Further
results from nonlinear analysis provide new insight into the behavior of the drydock/caisson seal for hydrostatic
loads, which is dramatically differeni from that which underlies current design and maintenance procedures. Smittarly, results from a three-dimensiornal nonlinear static analysis of a scale model of a reinforced concrete pi-vr deck,
subjected to punching shear failure loads, are shown to compare well with experimental data. Modem threedimensional tinite element technology is appropriate for analysis of waterfront structures.
1.
MIJ:) G PAGES
IS
150
raCE CODE
Finite element models, structural dynamics, structural analysis, drydocks. steel caisils,
WECUF
Y CLAJSI
M
NO.A
Unclasiifl.d
NSM?4"I041-02940
SW'I
A
I CLASSmCATIMOU
fe l-,
Unclassified
. SECURITY CLAISIRCAnON
Unclassified
UL
Sia
Form 290 (Rev. 249S1
P sowld by ANSI SUL239-18
298-102
aXWTV Wm
INTROW'CTION
..
................
..
........
...........
.............
BACKGROU ND ...............
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM MODfI.S STI)EI) ............
..................
...........
Free-Ended
BOAm
6
7
9
..
d ..............
II
16
17
18
21
25
33
34
36
37
38
40
46
46
47.
48
58
72
Drydock
Model
Study
.............
79
Page
SUMMNARY AND) C(O)N(CIPJSIONS ..........................................
ACKNO I.E I.NT ,s ......................................
REF' EREN(CE
.................
119
...........
......................................
122
123
APPENDIXES
A - StruwtorR
Dlynnm|ic
Pibl fogrnphy (by r)htp) ..............
D - A Brief Review of Sol iml Modellfilg ReInted to
3-1) Finito Element Mode1 Comirt riict ion ...
.................C - Suhstri(ctuIrp Theory .......................................
D - Eqluvnl .nt. Plntr Thic-knh-;
for A Steol Crniqson ...........
vi
A-1
BC-1
D-1
Oi.a
l.i.iitLfetai
...............
sysem
systems gerlly
represent a
facilities.
Correspondingly,
AM essential
resource for
and/or high-rixk
structural mechanics.
Unfortunatply,
in
in computational
facilities.
and
technology
is
and
Experience in
its
O3JEMrlV
facilities.
BACKGROUJND
During war,
Global Wargame
/I
--
.......
I ON
mRODUCT
Large structural/geotechnlcal
interrupted by
(17
Richtor
llunters Point,
Station.
NAvAI
The minimum
been estimated to he
And the
$140 million.
Sound,
cycles
subject
report
entit.lod,
Technology Assessment"
et. al.,
(Shingar,
drydock has
is
lncalculable.
Facilities
Pearl
for a small
:osl
Island,
this
Sl-ro
Mare
Shipyards,
c.Ale)
to blast
for the
loads.
"Three-Dimonsional
Safety Facilities
1992).
Ono-dimensional
frequencies.and
this
report.
finite
initially
in
provide orientation
element models.
An assessment
is
made of two-dimensionaI
models of drydocks.
These
the, assumptions
upon which
element
pro-
technology.
fied.
is
process.
It
follows
that,
technology per-.
simplified two-dimensional
drydock is
presented
and its
response
concept.
in
to a
modeling
three-dimonsitonal
A de
itled three-dilmeionaI
f IniteP
PI
MP
mode
0f'
o
drydock
Also, natural
And disciissed.
concrete drydock suabsystem WAS conmtrncted based upon plate bonding finite
elements.
caisson as part of
characteristic-%, the first ten natiirrl frequeincieS And natural mode. shapes
were calculated to demonstrate that. tho basic. frequencies of response
And modes of deformation likely to pairt~icipnte itIIAny dynamic resronse
to earthquake excitation are different from those, predicted by twodimensional moadels.
Other waterfront facilities that. impact fleet readiness Are piers
and wharfs.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SOFVNARE
in naval facilities.
in
desirable goal, ,and the proposed special purpose softwarn system will
facilitate achievement of that: goal.
While commorcially-avatlable
is potent,
technology
very often
it
As a result,
the
They provide a
hlence,
It
is
All this
Some of the
following paragraphs.
1990).
I
Structural engineers
science with
should explelft
regard to hardware
And
tecant advances In
oftware.
which negate
cult,
of now concepts
coMilo-debug"
text editors,
the
And
Vorther,
(on~pster rinis.
development
computer
it.orations
of the "edit-
cycle.,
And
inexpensfve networking
facilities
are appearing rapidly while the cost or riw proc'ossing power Is dropping
and significant.ly,
Further,
rapidly.
consensus on standAri.
advanc(.,:;
Unfortunately,
place.
element
responsive
eugineering
loaded"
software is'
to changes
in
to workstation
Available
impl('-wnted,
A description of a software
is
primarily
to production
in
finite
run on
environments.
in
large
However,
that
is
computatIonal mechanics
a systom'that
is
environmont
In thn lannders
well-respected,
provided
software develop-
A computationAl environment
Since new
is
-.
tural enginpering
Intermachine
commaunty.
stri'ctur-,l
Some
iono!ithic finite'
little
in
for
to come to a
griphicm,
comunication,
and
enlemnt
situations as well.
provides a
rnquired.
for application to struc(1990)
rpport.
The system
nnalysis,
but it
can be extended
it
is tempting to treat
study.
however,
Engineers,
cantilever ileams.
It
is
surprising
In this section,
these data
First,
Second,
of'drydocks.
Three separate continuous beam models are presented and .!iscussed,
each increasing in complexity and scope.
of the other models to account for the. translational inertia of the drydock
endwall and drydock caisson.
Properties for the one-dimensionnl
is a relatively new drydock with a thin wall and a thin' floor structural
design.
well documented in
In
bO.4
-2.251 x l
2p
E 0 .- 4x108 psi
II
h 650 In.
w a 2,250 In.
pcA
64.6
8
t2 .70 In.
t3 - 120 In.
Ec I
5.68x10 1 6
Ib - s2fin.2
Ib-In. 2
t 4 w 110 In.
Ec,
The product of p
sectional area'A represents the mass per unit length of the drydock,
and
the product of E c And the second momnnt of area about the neutral axis
I
Free-Enled Beea
Nodel
This is
frequencris
drydock due to the surroundIr;g soil, nnd foundit Ion are ignored in this
model.
A tabulation of natural frequrencies and mode shapes for this model
and other continuous beams can be foiind in the aompre~iensive reference
by Blevins (1979).
presented in Figure 2.
the natural
the figure.
The first
five
3L
Cq
pa.
h endieg
The dynamic
in
be..dinrg
'the oYlA
of wn4e
In
mad
m
the magnitude of the
addition
centorline.
Ing modes
in
the
he considered.
i
To retain
However,
easily
the
sotl
and foundation,
the c'erterline)
sLrong axls)
Fre-Knded
to he continuorsoly
As shovn in
nistmed'elastic
foundation for
continuous beam
Rnam Model
Figure 3.
the drydock is
Ilngth by an elastic
kf,
Ef,
has
has units
Slevins (1979).
The natural
freqieincf-s
are
thI
dynamic, load.
(about
However,
investigated by one-dimensional
In
of
Ion that
the-se modes,
tioni
the elastically-sitpported
foiindation
theory an d'escribed
lastical1e'-Seqaorted
aftttined
the dry-
horizontal plane
In
pl on,
(lorgititdientl
the drydock
AsIuMep
About a vorticia1
deformatio nmodels
dynamicS
esponse
Consequently.
nnd st cesses In
of the piescribed
in'st-rilrteeral
distribution
of
hi the wal li
terspiues
siperporsition method
for example,
linear
is
irte.d.
dnCk
by,
are also
014
this
F,
formula
in
Figitre 2,when Ef is
zero).
C6
CL
Li.
co
in2
Cii
vcoo
C4 r
4N
,4
IC
C4C
100
Simply stated,
longitudinal bending mod!s of the drydock are independent of the foundation modulus,
it
1967)
given byNEf/(PcA),
w.
The relation
Thus,
w2n + Ef/(P
f
, A),
1,2 ....
the characteristic.
Therefore,
for example.
'equation is:
tanh XL)
+ cosh XL cos XL
11
y.v(x, t)
Ecly=const
PCA"znst.
where:
K1
X4
and
pnAM
PcAw2
E I
c y
The tip mass ratios, N1 and K2 , are ,tip masses normalized on the
mass per unit length of the beam.
It
for
example) :
cosh XL cos XL
andM
in Figure 2)
are
circular frequencies
and
for
=XL.
Then,
It
thIi
is
no
assmadm
12
becomes:
asrto
(2
-) n (tan a -tanh
--1
a2
a tanh (a) tan (n)
K2 )
a)
cos (a)
cosh (a)
For the case of drydock No.. 6 at Puget Sound NSY,
21
2)
5.1176 x 10.12,
L2
(MI
+ M2)=
4.1270
I6
1
a1
iteration,
root gives:
4.57565
1, =
4.57565
L
or
Therefore,
the first
_
-
(nonzero)
circular natural
frequency is:,,
2
Al
1,
6.5524 rad/s
(from
Figure 2):
(3/2
)2F6.1
which is higher than the value when tip masses are included.
sion of the tip masses in the continuious beam model causes
decrease in
frequen(cy.
13
Thus, inclu-
a 6 percent
cosh(a) cos(a)
y 2 (a) u 1
30
20
Yl(a)*
10
y2 (a)
y(a)
-10
,10
aa
is
Figure 5. Graph of Iterative Solution of Characteristic Equation for 1-D Drydock Model.
continuous beam
6 at Puget
w /(2ir)
This frequency is
1.04 117.
The increase
foundation.
Ef, were compiled from Wu (1967.)
However,
14
Ef.
rU
6in
- -I- V
C
!C
<o
I._c
-4
C3(
-----------
----
LL
._i
M.
ci5
15
the second and third natural circular frequencies are merely sketched in
the figure to emphasize the diminishing effect of the soil stiffness on
frequency for higher modes.'
From these results,
the value f,
therefore,
appear to underestimate the value corrected for the presence of the soil
foundation.
That is,
first natural
the actual
perhaps closer
The
However,
more powerful
essential.
1987),
need to be considered
to describe two-dimensional
finite
'These
16
'.o
Two-dimensional
ship during docking and while the ship is being built or repaired.
There
are two points in this definition that the present discussion emphasizes:
(1)
the procedure is
and (2)
the pro-
(NAVFAC)
drydock facilities,
Thus,
NAVFAC is
a consultant to NAVSEA in
Further,
certification is
"Drydocking Facilities
liquefaction.
(Naval Sea
1984).
According to Wu (1985),
hydraulic fills
to
conditions.
Various load, cases have been defined for structural analysis ofdrydocks.*
However,
the earthquake
of primary concern,
includes the effects of dead load; ship blocking loads; soil and foundation loads; and earthquake-indtced,
*It
17
and Wu (1985)
shifts, or,
failure
For example,
buried pipelines,
water tunnels,
However,
there is
1983).
provided
they have been designed for seismic "loads, will perform very well (ASCE
Committeeon Dynamic Analysis,
1987).
analyses conducted in support of drydock certification were quite simplified and based upon strength of materials theory (URS/John A. B1ume. &
Associates,
Engineers,
and the
many assumptions made most likely lead to results that are too conservative.
It
linear two-dimensional
finite
element model is a more accura'te basis for structural, analysis than elementary beam formulas from the theory of strength of materials.
Drydock certification has since been supported by structural analysis
methods which are based on two-dimensional
nology (Holland and Takahashi,
et al.,
1984).
This method-
18
load is
A typical
included in the
*00A
.00
.0.
Cr
060
190
figure.
These geotechnical
For example,
tions of soil pressure loads shown represent the inertia effect of'
adjacent soil and wall mass.
Active,
to
or submerged (Bowles,
1977).
'Further,
is dry,
a factor accounting
surcharge,
and is repres.:nted
termed the
It
is
assumed to decrease
linearly with
is multiplied by 3/4 of
This product is
It
is
The total
the increase in
An additional
1984).
Thus,
pressure is im-
which Is
generally
is
Additionally,
included to
loading.
imposed.
as shown.
20
'
IAI
bonoatt the drydock floor,' the hrtnrhig stress of the soil Ir replace:d
by a Winkler foundation model which
spaced vertical
An elantic
subgrade modulus Is
capacity
to the springs
assigned
is
simplified or decoupledin
struictuure
is
the present
to
problem of s'oil-str1ucture
the bhas!(
that is,
thus,
lowever,
somewhat..
drydock model;
In
indeterminant.
cannot be calculated
friction
Interaction
structural
two-dimen.siona]
procedure.
enalysis
includes
procedure. sup-
fundamental
several
assumptions
as follows:
ronditions
1.
P*ane strain
2.
Soil-structure
3,
Soil constitutive
4.
The structural
theory apply.
from elanticity,
proport,.'s
response
is
are
linear.
indepondent
of time.
in
the order
Iisted.
plane strain
Two-dimensional
structural/geotechnical
A typical
systems such
length-to-width
ratio
as lined
of drydocks
21
is
uniform,
finite
or prismatic
which
trrAin cond It
ioris c (t
lon
Pder Am to certa InlIy
I y I nngnat,I
Idi be'
~ro~
ppropr f ate,
Iliwover,
It
clomrply.
P~lasticity wotail
help of Figuire 8:
A.
b.
These condition-.,
Clearly, re'quits
from the two-dimensional plane strain finite, el'.ment. Analysis will not
be Applicable near the endwnll.
soil pressiires do
22
Zo
hto
21C13
BCaa
'.
mc
23I
a.m
05
\xi
I\III
Moreover, two-dimensional
finitt
the dynamic torsional response of structures and for the response for
nonvertically incident seismic waves.
configurations
in general,
therefore,
Soil-Structure Interaction.
For example,
this assumption
liquefaction.
and the
A~more accurate
approach would be to model both the drydock and soil together employing
coupled soil-structure interaction analysis.
"nate
(1985)
Dhatta, et
soil stiffness next to the structure under earthquake loads are a function of excitation frequency.
clearly not
elastic foundation are assumed constant and are bssed on static soil
propertics.
Alternatively,
1985),
Soil
Constitutive Properties.
or permanent plastic
instability cannot
Foundation
To retain the
24
stitutive models must be used for thp backfill and foundation structures.
The importance of a properly operating backfill relief system is emphasized by Zola and Boothe (1960)
Structural Response.
is
The assumption
drydock itself.
Other Considerations.
Amplification of ship
It
which is cur-
interaction models.
The technical problems associated with current two-dimensional
finite element models of drydocks are summarized in Table 1.
A correct
This
The two-dimensional
25
2.
three-dimensional, model of this drydock will also be presented and discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Condition (a)
Thus,
here and used for calculating frequencies and mode shapes would be
equivalent to a natural vibration analysis of drydock No. 6 based on the
current two-dimensional plane strain modeling practice.
In this case, the two-dimensional finite element model exploits
symmetry about the centerline of the drydock; as shown in Figure 9.
consequence of this is
drydock (
wtr tunnelI
27
shapes that are symmetrical with respect to the drydock centerline will
result from this analysis.
symmetrical,
would be straightforward,
symmetrical'and anti-
Nonetheless,
in Figure 9(b).
A single
row of soil elements represent the effect of the surrounding soil foundation.
The drydock material model and foundation material model are assumed
and Poisson ratio of the' foundation were calculated from a typical value
for soil bearing modulus.
The first
mode and the second mode shape is a cantilevered wall bending mode.
Subsequent modes are higher order combinations of these two deformation
mode shapes.
Thus,
it
may
2 hertz.
However,
28
ZLX/
Fiue1.Smerc
a29
(C1OE3,304H
aua oeSae adFeunisM-
DydokMdl
y/
-/
30
Ks
However,
Thus,
depending on which model was being used, dramatically different conclusions on the importance of basic dynamic behavior could be drawn from
their results.
bending modes and the two-dimensional model considers only wall and
t
This is a
result of the very large bending stiffness of the wall and floor sections,
particularly where they meet at the base of the vertical cantilever.
As
The mode
The natuiral
The natural
frequencies for the first ten modes calcul|ated with both foundation
models are graphed in Figure II.
(cE
0)
.00
CM
ul)L
(zH)Aouebej0
320
"TWO-DIMENSIONAL
the
In
for example,
this sense,
a pumphouse subsystem
Further,
included,
analysis technology.
There are
some
is
However,
it
blocking system,
two-
possible.
However,
This publication
To
rather than as a rigid body, it will modify the ground motion to which
the blocked vessel Is otherwise exposed.
The
For
It has radius, r,
cg
side blocks,
posed wale shoring system consisting of rubber-tipped steel heams cantilevered out from the drydock sidewalls.
These support elements are
represented by linear elastic springs having moduli k
through k4, as
shown.
In this case, the lumped parameter model has three dngrees of
freedom.
and v, the displacements of the center of gravity relative to the drydock may be used.
Figure 12).
Therefore,
y, ar
34
respective';
the
disp,-'.mr
TA
p7,i
lre
o, bp
rio
and
IIt
YY
Fourteen iden.-
length.
Tliius,
repre-
sr-,it phy-OrA1 prnoperties "per blockiing station," and are suitable for
uspein tho.,proposed two-dimons'onnl or planar model
The Plastic properties
(Fi~gure 12).
At a). (1998).
rubber.
and o0k
K-Alcu!Rting equ1ivalent
AryinT,
elAsqtic: springi
mOd11li,
especially
methods for
for the lateral
-odin1i of the side. and tLr'el blocks, cAn he- complex when accounting
'--Jiarhr
r-o-d.
Yet,
%~tecano
Si'&oatcr
-iethf5
blocking systern"
uinrertairntv,
htothorw.-
The use of
program
I,
is
needed to obtain
accurate
Table 2..
for this
4,
5.30 x 1
k2
5.10 x 10
k3
3.0 x 10 3
k4
properties
in Table 2,
and are
demonstration.
Parameters
k,
b/in.
180 in.
Ib/in.
1.480 x 10
1
b/in.
I/ g
a
2
in-s /in.
2.397 x 107
b-s 2-in.
300
Equations of Motion
con-
veniently derived by applying either Npwtor's Laws or Lagrange's equations of motion to the model of Figure 12.
three, second order differential
equations in time.
In matrix'form,
the
0om 0
0 0
2(k4+ k 3
[x0
-2k
0-2k3
(kI + 2k)
01
1
2k 3C2
4k2
]
f
S'2
Xb
[::
-mfb
or,-
The right-hand side term g is tho forcp vector nnd it includes the terms
-fIb and -m~b, which are referred to as effective forces.
They represent
the system's excitation for any prescribhd ground acceleration'components,
Xb andb
36
In this demonstration,
Xb
0.25g sin(2w/T)t
earthquake is simulated by
a strong-motolen
and T is
simulates a substantial
This excitation
frequency of 1 hertz.
In the equations of motion,
it
elementary,
Further, because
and
the remaining
integration
for example.
natural
it is'useful to determine
37
These
for the natural circular frequencies w and the natural mode shapes .
Since there are three degrees of freedom (three
correspondingly has three frequencies
displacements),
the system
It's
worth
1988),
which has
In this'case,
both methods were used to verify accuracy of the computer solution and
both methods yielded virtually identical solutions.
The results of the calculated natural frequencies and natural mode
shapes are presented in Figure 13.
in
mode
this demonstra-
coupled,
The
the submarine..
whereas mode 3 is
Thuis,
it
the blocked
However,
virtually identical.
38
S0
If
q~in
cS!
Cl
x0
If
4,
0
*-
CD
0
C.)
"oC
cm
cl-
In,
0~
02
W-
39
iti
This is
For example,
and it
respectively,
vertical directions.
Though an effort was made to make the model parameters
demonstration as realistic
as possible,
in this
displacement effects for the vessel as well 'as the dynamic forces acting
on the drydock floor;
bh
On 1 October 1987,
The
Strong-motion accelerograph
40
4
2
x(t)
(in.)
0
-2
_i-
(In.)
0
-2
0.02
0.01
O(t)
0.00
(tad) _0.01
CAL 80 Solution
Analytical Solution
-0.02- -
-0.03 -
2
t (sec)
.25g
0
"xb&"b
-. 259F
t (sec)
(b) Excitation
41
/
/
0.
130
0
CL
0.3.
GRAPHIC SCALE
42
et al.
(1988).
Hepburn,
which post-predictions
et al.
(1988)
by Lew (1988),
et al.
(1988).
Accelerographs
The time histories of the transverse component of the motion at the two
locations are presented inFigtires 16(a) and 16(b).
the motion are indicated in these figures.
motion at the two locations'are not equal,
time.
Further,
similar.
Some deterioration
The similarity is
strongest
it
is
responded as a
43
UC!
H
z<
w
w
L
< >
in
-J
4ci
ICIA
8 33SW
3ADN
NOLLVU31333V~~U
0I31AI~n3lS
44~
ILl
c%
NE
Lu
CL
co
44
(0)
Again,
correlation diminishes
The result is
an estimated
this natural
frequency must also exist for the soil system in which'the drydock is
founded.
the soil is
s.il
however,
tion..
d~yd~ck 1 is
remarkably sma'3l,
Thus,
sited.
believed
influenced by the
tend to
and
however small
supporting a ship.
Solids Modeling
Construction of three-dimensional
simple commands
like inserting a single nodal point during model generation may take
minutes, much to the chagrin of the user who is
The ease of constructing three-dimensional
solids.
Three-dimensional geo-
(1) wireframes,
(2)
surfaces,
Substructure Modeling
finite element
for example,
In substructure modeling,
the selection of
system
is
reviewed in Appendix C.
Substructure modeling,
included
47
1985),
ABAQUS (Hlibbitt,
GIFTS (CASA/GTFTS,
Inc.,
employed:
are identical,
2.
and
1.
1988),
1988).
In practical application,
structure modeling is
Inc.,
3.
caisson.
drydock 6 located at the Puget Sound NSY was attempted based upon the
idea of substructure modeling.
node solid brick elements for the walls and floor of the drydock,
node plate elements
four-
and
The material properties of the concrete and the steel rebar would be
"smeared"
dock.
This is
No
etc.)
the pumphouse,
the
The
flgfthst
the
The computational
t reses,
li
model by keeping the dof anid bnndwidt ih of Ihe
the dof and bandwidth of any siibstructnre.
of the mR ,1 ystem
size
complit.,t Ional
Inc.,
1986)
model
Predictably,
How-
in the drydock
analysis program to be
and it
very slow.
ease of
in a sidoawall substructure,
Second,
the
capability of making parametric changes during construction of the subData for the nodes
Table 3.
Substructure
Time to Complete
(weeks)
5
12
Caisson
--
49
50
*ell)
9r
- -
- -
- -
- -
C
C
-0
-- e
--
I-
fl,
I
/
I,,
II(
/,/l%(4l
0
=C
-
,l-ii
I /
liUJijiig
*.
52
---
- -
5Z,,
.-
'-
i
w
.-
h..
.c
*
54
0
C.)
S
--
ii:
\/AN
Vk
17M 1
V-V
0
LL
CS
558
It
was lrater decided to switch the analysis package used from ADINA
to GIFTS.
This was done because ADINA did not have a usable substructur-
To use GIFTS,
It
A FORTRAN
and
Another
6 weeks was devoted to using the GIFTS equation solver on each set of
substructure equations to verify that the substructure model was valid.
An attempt was made to eliminate the internal nodes of the right
main sidewall substructure using GIFTS.
effort, it
However,
after a significant
in the main model without assigning the main model all the dof of the
substructures combined.
modeling.
(i.e.,
Then it
idea of substructure
However,
problems
was
performed for a' single one-element slice of the right main sidewall substructure model.
9); one used solid elements to represent the soil and the other used
spring elements to represent the soil.
pleted on these two models using GIFTS.
quencies and mode shapes were presented in the previous section of this
report where two-dimensional models were discussed,
56
instead,
and natural mode shapes for this three-dimensional drydock model was
easily completed.
Substructure'combinations
It
is
cannot be processed.
for example,
will over-
come the above problems.and provide the necessary software capability to.
develop fully three-dimensional,, substriictured,,odels of Navy drydocks.
Had the three-dimensional drydock system model envisioned here been
"successfully developed.,
it
degrees of freedom.
is
It
57
!m
Puget Sound,
rigid.
To develop
or via numerica]
In
easily be defined.
however,
Is generally limited
Alternatively,
the
finite element model allows for other than rectangular shapes (most
caissons are trapezoidal)
Either method,
The
calculations for the equivalent plate thickness of the caisson are given
in Appendix D.
inches.
The symmetric half of the (176-foot 4.5-inch by 62-foot 10.5-inch,
width versus depth) caisson was modeled as a rectangular plate.
Numerical
(The analytical
Initial numeri-
The boundary
58
The first
series of tests,
and (3)
(2)
Key
results are shown in Table 4 and the seal responses are shown in Figures
18 through 20,
respectively.
Table 4.
Seal Loads.
Caisson
Model
No.
Mesh
Centerline
Deflection
(in.)
Top
Corner
(lb/in.)
Bottom,
Corner
(lb/in.)
Centerline
Bottom
(lb/in.)
10 x 4
1.633
-41,066
20,593
-9,678
28 x 20
1.633
-62,277
30,837
-9,736
42 x 30
1.633
-77,203
36,486
-9,750
It
is
but is
relatively constant.
The
supported edges.
show little
The 28 by
20 mesh was chosen for further analysis based upon these results.
Caisson model 4 is
The total
Results are
The seal
59
//
41,066 #/in.
/,
4117 O/n./
9,678 #/In.
20,593 #/In.
60
centerline deflection
=1.633m
*30,837 #/In.
Figure 19. Rectangular Plate 28 x 20, Seal Reactions.
61
36,486 #/In.
62
centerllne deflection
J| .701"
40,159 O/n.
6,430 #/in.
9,910 #/In.
50,019 #11n.
631
A slight increAso Itn centerlino deflection In noted for the trapezoidAl shape.'
top corner and Increase slightly at t~he bottom neatr the centerline.
Also, the tension at the bottom corner Iincrenseq significantly.
Figure,
21 Indicates that although the magnituide of the pe.aks change, the basic
behavior is the same.
Table 5.
SeatI
Caisson
Model
No.
Mesh
oads
Centerline
Deflect ion
(in.)
Iop
Corner
(lb/in.)
Bottom
Corner
(lb/in.)
Conterline
Bottom
(lb/in.)
28 x 20
Rectangular
1.631
-62,277
30,837
-9,736
28 x 20
Trapez.oidal
1.701
-40,159
50,019
-9,910
They
Illustrate how gaps may tend to form betweeni the caisson and seal near
the bottom corner (this area was in tension in previous models).
the compressive load acting on the seal
is more concentrated.
Further,
The length
Additional results
The maxi-
In
the linear model, the maximum compression along the bottom occurs at the
centerl~ine.
64
1/In.
8,153 #An.
10,877 #An.
10,636 1/In.
16,398 On.,
65
Table 6.
Seal Loads
Caisson
Model
No.
Analysis
Centerline
Deflection
(in.)
Top
Corner
(lb/in.)
Maximum
Bottoma
(lb/in.)
Trapezoidal
linear
1.701
-40,159
-9,910
Trapezoidal
nonlinear
2'.143
-49,603
-16,397,
6,
Puget Sound,
The sym-
was modeled
The internal
ture consists of the external plates that are stiffened with small angle
members and internal plates (bulkheads)
caisson and, separating compartments,
Figure 24.
equivalent thickness.
spike near the bottom corner, but Increases the tension carried at the
corner.
unchanged, but the location predicted by the equivalent plate model was
at the centerline whereas model 6 predicted a location between the
bottom corner and the centerline.
66
VINN
CUl
.0
2L
I
/I
/I
f I
N,
i/
C
0
68.
cetelntdelcton=O.4
16,080 #/in.,
69
Table 7.
Caisson
Model
No.
Model
Type
Centerline
Deflection
(in.)
Top
Corner
(lb/in..)
Bottom
Ccrner
(lb/in.)
Maximum
Bottoma
(lb/in.)
Equivalent
Plate
1.701
-40,159
50,019
-9,910
3-D
0.643
-25,956
16,080
-9,870
Analysis
Equivalent
Centerline
Deflection
(in.),
2.143
Maximum
Gap
(in.)
-0.276
Top
Corner
(lb/in.)
-49,603
Maximum
Bottoma
(lb/in.)
-16,397
-0.102
-31,381
-10,713
Plate
7
3-D
0.763
70
maximum gaP
71
0 .20"
Further,
there is no gapping.
The center-
These results
and periods for the first five symmetric modes are given in Table 9.
The corresponding natural mode shapes are shown in Figures 28(a) through
,28(e).
Table 9.
Frequency
Period
No.
(Hz)
(sec)
9.041
0.1106
20.579
0.0486
24.904
0.0402
24.911
0'0401
24.918
0.0401
is similar to the
It
(Figures, 28b and 28c) are similar in shape in the vertical direction to
higher modes of a vertical cantilever wall.
977
On.
73
00
C.,
0L
740
NY
C6
75
IN
0
76.,
Nc
CY
77
~cm
Ilo
78
A simplified three-dimensional
One-
nature of
as discussed in previous
thin-walled
drydock.
The three-
ideal-
the drydock.
therefore,
be comparable
The model
is
shown in Figure 29
is present.ed
in Table 10.
These data
have been described and used in defining models previously discussed for
the concrete drydock and for the steel caisson. ' The three-dimensional
model
tip masses that represent the inertin of the endwall and caisson.
caisson section of the model
The
londs.
79
6 is
reasonably well
sqtructural
idealization.
pig-i
A similar, simple idenlizntion of the. siirrounding soil end foundation of the drydock is omitted from the three-dimens io~nal model for the
sake of expediency.
it was
situlation
It may be expected
Table 10..
Size:
650 in.
long
Wall:
of Wall:
of Floor:
of Floor:
70
120
120
110
in.
in.
in.
in.
56.5 in.
Material Properties:
Concrete Dock
Modulus of Elasticity:
4 x 106 psi
Mass- Density:
2.25 x 10
-4
lb-s /in.
per in.
Steel Caisson
Modulus of Elasticity:
Mass Density:
The first
per in.
10 nonzero
natural frequencies and natural mode shapes are shown in Figures 30(a)
through 30(j).
frequency.
These different
to magnitude of
Thus,
the
continuous beam
but they are entirely different from those obtained from the. two-
dimensional,
uii
820
aniu
Ilk
ILLUI
T-~lu17
~~
-T-
E~illll
83
.1I~u
-0
A44~ i
fN
it
FII
J,L. J L
84
In
-inU
cum
85
111
mugt
aum
BlE,
Ang
MEg
an
WELLifj
faIILL
miiliL
flLAI- [!I
L ItLILJLI
86
[fflima
1111111111
11RII117
atinff
tHtU~r
/*
BUY
i4A
~M
MIA
ILL
87
lu/
AtftKN
ttZ
Wi
iz
A
.AR
\M
WI
,k
\88
~-
EKXX33M~
anl"Ai
IIIfflhim
MIilo~II
DRY1
rml'I~
MIAb
Ait,
AffLo
.1.M
r/I
89
CY
vmi
Nfl
MIN
BL
90u
91~~
the generators
very little
mode is
in
or no bending occurs
a
longitudinal
is
lines
indicating that
natural
is
-t
incapable of
modes of vibration.
longitudinal
beam,model!.
This
ionttnuous
U.04 hertz.
mode
torsional
In
longitudinal 'torsional
predicting
is very low.
is
of
corresponding natiurai
very
interest,
therefore,
frequencies,
to
more aeccurate.'
natural
Thus,
frequency
is
the one-dimensional
prediction of this
model
inc'rensingly more
localized combinations
of
SCAIE HODEL
Finite element
waterfront
wharfs.
that
the response,
extent of cracking,
pier deck model.
required
loading,
impact fliet,
to predict
is
facilities
including
re.prssnt
recently built
structural
and tested
assessment
nonlinear
data
is
used'
distribution,
degradation.
essential
to the assessment of
extensive data are
In
in
the
is
Fortunately,
to failure
at NCEL.
stress
1987)
predictions.,
1'/3-scale model
Tnc:,
Enginneri-g,
of a
assessment of other
load-deflection,
A three-dimensional
to accurately
for a
(ADINA
and to reflect
available
readiness,
structures.
92
in
elemeht
tech-
Description.
representing a 16-inch
prototype depth.
D5 deformed wire,
bottom.
Material Properties.
A higher
relative content of lime aggregate and the ulse of a high-range waterreducing admixture (superplasticizer)
The maximum
Test Setup.
span.
value of 57,000 tF
c for normal
ASCE,
1982).
up to 30,
three steps,
60,,and 90 kips,
simulating a 24-
by 24-inch
then to failure.
At each of the
The
transformrrs (T.VDTs).
93
-77.
LL.
94
1~
;.
ccJ
itf
,,
J-J
-w
.00
0
0i
oc
-
A5C4
U-
Ci
00
.0
95
Table 11.
Concrete Mixa
Weight Per
Cubic Yard
Material
Type I Cement
658
b/y
100 lb/y
Fly Ash
Water
350 lb/y
3/8" Gravel
1,080 lb/y
1,740 lb/y
Sand
(Sikament
Table 12.
Concrete Properties
f' c = 7,700 psi
Compressive strength
ft =
Tensile strength
600 psi
Modulus of elasticity
E = 4,020 ksi
Poisson's ratio
p = 0.15
Steel Properties
D5 wire
#3 rebar
SR-4 paper-backed
y = 81 ksi
= 69
y ksi.
'u
85 ksi
f u = 109 ksi
pression face of the .deck slab near the load point (1 inch away from the
.bearing plate).
96
Numerical Model
Due to the existing symmetry, only one quarter of the 'physical pier
deck'model is modeled numerically.'
in Figures 33 and 34.
The mesh
Top and
A nonlinear
In this way the confinement of the adjacent spans on the center span
could be adequately represented without excessively increasing the
computational effort.
Thus it
is
97
I,
AN
w
a
a.,
98
xc
a:i
zS
0..
ru
w9
100
on a single four-node
because it
is provided,
it
demonstrates.
Incorrect
element.
The tensile test was repeated,
No solution was obtained when the usual energy conThis problem was circumvented by
Constitutive Laws.
For concrete
Tn this figure,
limit strain is
1990).
and Warren,
the strain
assumed.
Accepted behavior after concrete cracking provides for shear
stresses to be transferred across the crack.
quickly- with increasing crack opening.
the shear modulus is decreased
dicular to the crack,
However,
they decay
101
2D CUBE IN TENSION
(a)ozs5nitemn CONTROL.
-
iRmISNFL VERSION
0.06
0.04
0.02
VERTICFIL OISPIL9CEMENT
(MM)
z
- -
0.00
0.08
0.10
2D CUBE IN TENSION
(b) o6SPLu.:NorT CONTROL
COC1EED VERSION
102
w 0.8
--
w o~
--
-.
-_
____
S0.4
w
I-
w
Co
0.2
--
z
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Co0.9
-_
0.8
0 0.7
cc 0.6
0.5
0 0.4N
-0.3
C.2
zO'
c ,I
0
'.
,,I
II
. .
10
Slip Model
-"
Input to ADINA
Figure 37. Tensile Strain Softening and Post Cracking Shear Modulus.
103
For small
slip
values
)nrrticular,
in
the decrease in
shear
%t
n
- shear stress
where:
trAnsfprr,'d
across crack
crack slip
at
6n = crack opening
AA22
a33T Tu
2.45/T'
3o
= 0.245
2
(N/mm )
f'
c
2
0 /(a +6)
2
a. = 0.01 D
o
a
DAa
For small
crack openings,
2.45
(N/mm2)
Further.
where s
if
is
it
is assumed
that
6n/S
nt
G = -
Is
2.45
104
E t.
t/s,,
governed by:
and
This is
The
Experimental Results
Neasured 'ead-Deflection
at each load step,
in Figure 38.
Behavior.
at around 30 kips,
load-unload cycle
If
shown
Each
exceeded,
and at failure.
respectively.
Top cracks
Bottom cracks
121 kips.
'
On the deck
105
S7
'-4
(0
Do
I4
--12
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
DEFLECTION
SLOAD-DEFLECTION
0.20
0.25
(IN)
FIT CENTER
106
0.30
0.35
A-
SUPPORT EDGE
SPAN 3
TOP
CYCLE 1, 90 KIPS
FAILURE
107
SUPPORT EDGE
1 -90 KIPS
-CYCLE
20, 90 KIPS
-FAILURE
108
cycles to .30,
the strain in the
extreme concrete compression fiber (deck. top) and the strain in the
tension steel next to the load point were recorded (Figures 41 and 42,
respectively).
testing,
approximately equidistant from the deck top and the tension steel.
Numerical Results
After load
factor (i.e.,
G).
When
which is
maps at the deck top and bottom are shown in Fi.gures 43 through 45.
Crack surfaces and their orientation at integration points are represented by two parallel, circles.
horizontal in-plane cracks
On the bottom,
as -hown
in Figure 45.
Figure 46).
109
".
LOAD (KIPS)
140
1200
800
60
40
20
0
250
500
1000
750
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
MICROSTRAIN
First Cycle 30 kips
--
Cycle to Failure
-E
110
/i
LOAD (KIPS)
140
120 100
---.------
80
60
20
--
00
250
-
500
750
1000
1250
MICROSTRAIN
First Cycle 30 k
Cycle to Failure
First Cycle 60 k
---
1500
1750
2000
First Cycle 90 k
FEM strain
-1
II
F-
x
#
*~~
**
#
##
1CRACKS
o3
Pr0ce rakPte
Figure~~~~
1 2
.1 14
#
oDec Tpa90
Kis
CRACK STRESS
TIME 9.000
FACE 3
CRACKS
Figure 44. Predicted Crack Patterns on Deck Top at Failure.
113
CRACK STRESS
TIME 9.000
FACE 3
+4-
.3.710
CRACKS
114
punching shear
.*
cradcs
~X
CRACK STRESS
TIME 6.000
+ _fleural
acks
4.304
CRACKS,
Figure 48. Punching Shear Cracks.
on the deck top, near the load point, And for monotonic loading, is compared with measured strain (Figure 41,
At step 6,
Figure 42
Prior to concrete
The
115
TIME 8.000
CONCRETE
-_D0
(KSI)
U -4
C&2
C.9
-6.
-4.
"I
0.
-2.
STRESS-XX
(KSI,
2.
10 KSI)
116
I'
4.
6.
Discuss ion
Load-Deflection Behavior.
Beyond cracking,
the finite element model -is consistently stiffer (see Figure 38).
causes may account for this discrepaucy.
First,
Three
Second,
the low-order
isoparametric elements
Third,
if
the assumed
however,
mation in the finite element model simulat"s very closely the actual
patterns (c.umpare Figures 43 and 44 with Figure 39).
cal crack density is due to. the assumption of perfect bond between concrete and steel reinforcement.,
If
1985; RTIlE
Technical Committee,
1987).
crete cover.
The finite element model was able to successfully predict the type
of failure, and to show the effects of shear retention on the pier deck
response.
117
/U
wi
Experimental
parametric elements,
around cracking.
This is nol
representative of delamination
appnrent
It
may
tie an artifice dun, in part to the conrse discretizntion around the load
patch, where the entire load is distributed over the surface of only one
element.
'The finite element tension steel strain prediction forms a reasonably
accurate envelope to the maximtim experimental readings (Figure 42).
The
This may be
attrlbuited to phenomenn which were tiot modeled such as the prior existence
of tension cracks in the, concrete due to shrinkage,
tests (up to 8 kips) carried out initially.
118
en,
gineering problems involving
of advanced three-dimensional
structural
A drydock is
a pri-
systems.
i.sin drydock.
Thus,
a drydock'system
this report.
because it
In particular,
drydock No.
is a relatively modern,
It is
are fundamental to
therefore, predict
Therefore,
a fully three-
The results
and are
two-dimensionnl
frequency modes.
The two-dimensional
model
threei-dimensional dynamic
certification
program,
as a snbstructure model
/11
119
frequencies as
and therefore it
Nonetheless,
In general,
Further,
a natural
concrete pier deck was developed and omployed to demonstrate the accuracy
of the technology in predicting the response of the structure to static
load.
respectively.
monotonic
120
vulnerability,
121
and
and
systems
ACKNOWIE.)GKENTS
Mr.
Point Mugu,
California,
Dr.
participated
122
REFERENCES
Watertown,
(1987).
Watertown,
State-of-the-art report:
on Dynamic Analysis.
E.
(1983).
Berkeley,
Bayo; E.
(1987).
Bayo,
E.
NY,
1983.
1987.
CA,
Ph.D.
1983.
New York,
1982.
(1987).
Bayo,
NY,
.J(1983).
components,
New York,
CR 88.002.
and Stubbe,
J.
Mechanical Engineering,
Port ffiieneme,
(1988).
CA,
Dec 1987.
University of California.
Department of
Santa Barbara,
CA,
Sep 1988.
Bazant,
Z.P.
and Gambarova,
P.
(1987).
ST4,
Jan 1987,
123
pp 1-19.
Blevins,
R.D.
(1979).,
Bowles,
J.E,. (1977).
CASA/GIFTS,Inc.
Tucson, AZ,
1979.
New York,
NY,
1977.
(1988).
Release 6.2.8,
DOS Version.
1988.
Chelapati,
C.V.
and Takahashi,
S.K.
(1982).
Evaluation of structural
Mare Island
memorandum to files.
May 1982.
Clough,
NY,
R.W.
Port Hueneme,
and Penzien,
McGraw-Hill,
Inc.,
Craig, R.
(1981).
methods.
Dhatta, S.K.,
J.
CA,
(1975).
Dynamics of Structures.
New York,
1975.
O'Leary,
P.M.
and Shah,
A.H.
1981.
(.985).
"Three-dimensional
Paper No.
(ASME),
WAM,
Furuike,
T.
85-WA/APM-13,
Miami,
(1972).
R.H.
1985.
Gallagher,
(1975).
Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice-Hall,
Hepburn, D.,
Luchs, J.K.,
vol 2,
1972,
pp 1063-1073.
fundamentals.
Eaglewood
1975.
Karr, D.G.
"Potential
6,
NY,
improvements,"
Nov 2-9,
.124
1988.
in SNAME,
Paper
Inc. (1988).
1988.
Port Hueneme,
Jennings,
7,
July 1984.
Landers,
J.A. (1990).
Personal communication,
(1989).
Malvar,
Apr 1989.
(1990).
Engineers (1981).
California'.
3, Volume I, Mare
MIL-STD 1625(S11):
Aug 1981.
Drydocking facilities
PATRAN,
Costa Mesa,
CA,
1988.
Prime Computer,
Inc.
(1986).
Przemieniecki,
York, NY,
J.S.
(1968).
Revision 5.0.
Sweden,
May 1987.
Rogers,
G.L. (1959).
J.
(1985).
Inc.,
H.B.
S-951 87.
New York,
Lulea,
NY, John
1959.
Send.
Division of
interface elements,
Netherlands,
New
Structural Engineering,
MD, 1986.
1968.
Rots,
Rockville,
CADDS AX
McGraw-Hill Book'Company,
applications,
Structural Mechanics,
Delft, The
Nov 1985.
and Whitman,
R.V.
(1970).
Earth.Retaining Structures,
Cornell University.
Shugar,
T.A.,
Holland,
dimensional structurna
facilities --
J.W.
Malvar,
J. and Cox,
auualysis methodology
J.V. (1992).
1970.
Three-
(i.n
(1967).
preparntiont).
"Natural
Port lhueneme,
284,
1967,
CA (1992).
Ithaca, NY,
Stafford,
T.J.,
ASCE,
pp 262-264.
126
of the Franklin
Timoshenko,
shtlls.
New York,
NY,
S.
(1959).
1.959.
Engineers (1978).
California.
Wolf,
J.P.
San Francisco,
CA,
NJ, Prentice-Hall,
Inc.,
Vallejo,
1978.
Dynamic soil-structure
(1985).
Facility certifica-
Eaglewood Cliffs,
Interaction.
1985.
Los Angeles,
Wu,
A.H.,
CA,
Yachnis,
drydock no.
Apr 1979.
M. and Brooks,
E.W.
(1984).
"Structural analysis of
Fouirth International
Wu,
A.H.
(1985).
element method,"
1984,
NBS,
May 1985.
Wu,
T.N.
(1967).
Soil mechanics,
Ch.
Inc.
Boston,
MA, 1967.,
Yachnis,
M. (1985).
marine railways,
and vertical
Workshop,
NBS,
P.M.
(1960).
ASCE,
Mar 1960.
127
Appendix A
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS BIBLTIOGRAPPHY (BY DATE)
Theory of Sound.
McGraw-Hill,
Dynamics of Structures.
L. Meirovitch (1967).
Analytical Methods in Vibration.
Co., New York, NY, 555 p.
Hall,
Prentice-
The MacMillan
C. Lanczos (1970).
The Variational Principles of Mechanics.
of Toronto Press, Toronto, 418 p.
Julius
University
Prentice-
467 p.
W. Clough and J.
Penzein (1975).
Dynamics of Structures'.
McGraw-
Van Nostrand
A-]
Prentice-Hall,
Prentice-Hall,
Inc.,
A-2
Appendix B
A BRIEF REVIEW OF SOLIDS MODELING RELATED TO
3-D'FINITE ELEMENT MODEL CONSTRUCTION
B-i
the wireframes, are scaled and given some spacial orientation which do
not necessarily have any connectivity among them.
With this scheme, the
time needed for assembly of a geometric model is significantly decreased
and shading for visual effect is straightforward, since surfaces exist
naturally with this method.
The finite element mesh generation initially doesn't appear to be
any easier than with the wireframe geometric model scheme.
The mesh
generadlon is restLicted to the primitive volumes.
There is some
knowledge of the nodes and elements on the surface when working on the
adjacent volume so generation of interface transitions is easier.
The
difficulty lies in the fact that transition meshes have to be'created.
The mesh generation is constrained at the common surfaces by the fact
that the generation'is only in the primitive volumes (i.e., nodes must
B-2
Append ix -C
SUBSTRLURF THEORY
It
For example,
substructures,
Rb
External
-External
forces on boundary
intorfane nodes.
c-I
a.
l~.*
IL
ca
8,10
C-2
t-bb1bijl
Rib
-
Pb
or, K D =R
Substructure analysis is separated into two distinct cases as
follows:
I.
constrained to zero.
R1 "
If.
relaxed.
I )br,'
where R
Boundary
Total
L Fixed
Correction
Boundary
C-3
is
considering con-
we get:
(n
-bb ...Ib
1
K~ni) 1 _[Dbn)
-
.KlDb
.
[(n)
b'
R
K(n)
*b
(n)
b
constrained coordinates),
(n)
Rb
K(n)
-ib
(n)()W
R-(n)
_(n)
forces RI. to the retained boundary interface nodes, and the substructure
stiffness matrix may be considered a super element stiffness matrix.
Now,
is,
in
turn.
That
((n)
n)
(K(n))-
R.(n)
C-4
is:
The
= K(n)
= bi
K (n))-I k(n)
-i
,
ii I,
Wn)0.
b
The structure stiffness relations expressed in the boundary interface coordinates are obtained by the direct stiffness procedure using
the substructure super elements as the basic building blocks.
In effect,
N
Eb
Eb
K(n)
n=l
and
N
Rb
R(n)
b -
n=1
where Rb is
the structure.
to external forces.
C-5
K b would
Kb
Now,
"(1,1)
(1,2)
(1,4)
(2,1)
(2,2)
(2,3)
(2,4)
(2,5)
(3,2)
(3,3)
(4,1)
(4,2)
(4,4)
(5,2)
(5,5)
dof as follows:
a.
b.
i.e.,
becomes unknown.
c.
Note that R.
not accessible.
Eb-bb
C-6
(n) (n
-lb -b
g(n)
(n
(n D (n)
-ii
(n
Rii~
-l
=
'-i
Kn
-ib
(n)
Zb
(n (K(n))-1 (,(n)
j k-ii
C-7
-K
n
)(n))
-lib -b
Appendix D
EQUIVALENT PLATE TJITCKNESS FOR A STEEL CAISSON
Table D-1.
Description
I (in.
Shell
652,051
Small Angles
90,476
Large, Angle
104,044
Total
846,571
= 58.1
inches
D-1
DISTRIBUTION LIST
1/#
<<Y
DISTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory is revising its primary distribution lists.
SUBJECT CATEGORIES
1 SHORE FACILITIES
1A Construction methods and materials (including corrosion
control, coatings)
'
1B Waterfront structures (maintenance/deterioralion control)
1C Utilities (including'power conditioning)
1D Explosives safety
1E Aviation Engineering Test Facilities
1F Fire prevention and control
1G Antenna, technoiogy
1H Structural analysis and design (including numerical and
computer techniques)
1J Protective construction (including hardened shelters, shock
and vibration studies)
1K SoiVrock mechanics
1L Airfields and pavements
1M Physical security
2 ADVANCED BASE AND AMPHIBIOUS FACILITIES
2A Base facilities (including shelters, power generation, water
supplies)
2B Expedient roadslairfields/bridges
2C Over-the-beach operations (including breakwaters, wave
forces)
2D POL storage, transfer, and distribution
2E Polar engineering
3 ENERGY/POWER GENERATION
3A Thermal conservation (thermal engineering of buildings,
HVAC systems, energy loss measurement, power
generation)
3B Controls and electrical conservation (electrical systems,
energy monitoring and control systems)
3C Fuel flexibility (liquid fuels, coal utilization, energy from solid
waste)
TYPES OF DOCUMENTS
D - Techdata Sheets; R - Technical Repoits and Technical Notes; G - NCEL Guides and Abstracts; I - Index to TDS; U - User
Guides;
fl
Old Address:
New Address:
Telephone No.:
Telephone No.:
INSTRUCTIONS
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has revised its primary distribution lists. To help us verify
our records and update our data base, please do the following:
*
Number of copies should be entered after the title of the subject categories
you select.
Are we sending you the correct type of document? If not, circle the type(s) of
document(s) you want to receive listed on the back of this card.
M, lii"t
111
Official Busirsss
Penalty for Private UIse, S30
u4 THE
"7w
Date:
Name:
Phone:
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
Respondent Organization :
Activity Code:
Grade/Rank."
__
User__
Proponent
Other (Specify)
Please answer on your behalf only; not on your organization's. Please check (use an X) only the block that most closely
describes your attitude or feeling toward that statement:
SA
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
D Disagree
SD Strongly Disagree
SA A N D SD
SA A N D SD
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 6.
2.
() () () () ()
7.
0
0 0 ) 0(ErosE
() (
()
()
I
()
The conclusions and recommendations are clear and directly supported by the contents of the
report.
( ) ( ) () ( )
() () () (
[-"1
I
N
-/