Professional Documents
Culture Documents
786 Ce014
786 Ce014
786 Ce014
net/publication/271300048
CITATIONS READS
12 6,073
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Flores Leonardo on 21 November 2019.
describes the real behavior of the cable. In this context, the ⎛ x⎞ ⎛x⎞ (3a)
u = u i ⎜1 − ⎟ + u j ⎜ ⎟
parabolic elastic element is generally used in the cable ⎝ L⎠ ⎝L⎠
structure analysis, due to its simple shape compared to the
⎛ x⎞ ⎛x⎞ (3b)
catenary [5]. Another model is the elastic associated catenary, v = v i ⎜1 − ⎟ + v j ⎜ ⎟
⎝ L ⎠ ⎝L⎠
which is an extension of Irvine model developed by
Ahmadi-Kashani and Bell [2]. In this model, a constant load ⎛ x⎞ ⎛x⎞ (3c)
w = wi ⎜1 − ⎟ + w j ⎜ ⎟
per unit length applied is considered although the cable ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝L⎠
elongation. The positive elongation is produced by an
increase of the total load carried and this usable model for
cables subjected to external pressures such as wind, snow or
other external forces [6]. In this paper it is considered an
elastic catenary element, which is accurate because the
equilibrium configuration of a hanging catenary cable is
nature [7] and this model is appropriate for a perfectly
flexible cable that is subject to self-weight loads [5]. The
elastic element catenary formulation is based on the exact Fig. 1. Degrees freedom for a space truss element.
analytic solution to the elastic catenary developed by O’Brien
[7]. In this method, only two nodes catenary element without The balance equation is expressed as:
internal joints are necessary to model a single cable, this
element can be used for modeling small and large vertical and (k e + k g + s 1 + s 2 + s 3 ) u + 1f = 2 f
horizontal deflections. In this way the cable can be
represented by a single element, which has certain where:
advantages, such as reduced number of degrees of freedom
and considering the elastic cable nonlinear effect in all cases k e is the elastic stiffness matrix:
[8]. Because of the analytical expressions is continuity
preserved through the element boundaries. ⎡1 0 0 −1 0 0⎤
Another model used is the inextensible catenary element, ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
which is infinitely axially rigid element ( AE → ∞ ) which ⎢
EA ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0⎥ (4)
prevents increase in length, perfectly flexible ( EI n = 0 ), free ke = ⎢ ⎥
L ⎢− 1 0 0 0 0 0⎥
of torsional rigidity and capable of supporting only tensional
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0⎥
forces [5]. The applications based in this type of elements ⎢ ⎥
find some difficulties because the curve that relates force and ⎢⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎦
displacement is asymptotic, so they tend to experience high
k g is the geometric stiffness matrix: and the matrices s1 ,
numerical instability, accusing very difficult or even
impossible convergence [6]. s 2 and s 3 of higher order are:
⎡1 0 0 −1 0 0⎤
II. THEORETICAL BASIS
⎢0
⎢ 1 0 0 −1 0 ⎥⎥
(5)
F ⎢0 0 1 0 0 − 1⎥
kg = ⎢ ⎥
A. Element Type Truss L ⎢− 1 0 0 1 0 0⎥
1) Variational formulation of the element type truss ⎢0 −1 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
The equilibrium equations according to the principle of ⎣⎢ 0 0 −1 0 0 1 ⎦⎥
virtual work can be written to the body in nonlinear
incremental way [9]: ⎡ Δu Δv Δw − Δu − Δv − Δw ⎤
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ (6)
∫ V
δε T E ε dV + ∫ δη T τ dV + 1R = 2 R .
V
(1)
s1 =
EA ⎢ 0
⎢
0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎥
2 L2 ⎢ − Δ u − Δv − Δw Δu Δv Δw ⎥
Decomposing increasing deformation ε in its linear ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
portion ( e ) and nonlinear part ( η ), the equation can be ⎣⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦⎥
161
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
where: x = 0 , y = 0 , z = 0 , p = 0 in s = 0 (11a)
F1 L o F ⎧
lx = − − 1 ⎨ ln ⎛⎜ F12 + F22 + (wL o − F3 )2 + wL o − F3 ⎞⎟
EA w ⎩ ⎝ ⎠ (16a)
⎫
− ln ⎛⎜ F12 + F 22 + F3 2 − F3 ⎞⎟ ⎬
⎝ ⎠⎭
Fig. 2. Coordinates for the elastic catenary.
F2 L o F ⎧
ly = − − 2 ⎨ ln ⎛⎜ F12 + F 22 + (wL o − F3 )2 + wL o − F3 ⎞⎟
The geometric constraint that must be met by force EA w ⎩ ⎝ ⎠ (16b)
balanced is: ⎫
− ln ⎛⎜ F12 + F22 + F3 2 − F3 ⎞⎟ ⎬
⎝ ⎠⎭
⎛ dx
⎜⎜
⎞
2
⎛ dy
⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜
⎞
2
⎛ dz
⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜
⎞
2
⎟⎟ = 1 (9) lz = −
F3 L o
EA
+
wL 2o
2 EA w
+
1
{F 1
2
+ F22 + (wL o − F3 )2 (16c)
⎝ dp ⎠ ⎝ dp ⎠ ⎝ dp ⎠
− F12 + F22 + F3 2
}
Prestressed cable T , is related to the strain ε and Hooke's Since l x , l y and l z are written in terms of end forces
law: I (F1 , F2 , F3 ) , these can be expressed in small variations
thereof by a first order linearization to approximate [11]:
⎛ dp − ds ⎞ ⎛ dp ⎞ (10)
T = EA ε = EA ⎜ ⎟ = EA ⎜ − 1⎟
⎝ ds ⎠ ⎝ ds ⎠ ∂l x ∂l ∂l
dl x = dF1 + x dF 2 + x dF 3 (17a)
∂ F1 ∂F2 ∂ F3
where E is the elastic modulus, A is the constant
∂l y ∂l y ∂l y (17b)
cross-sectional area in the undeformed profile. dl y = dF1 + dF 2 + dF 3
The conditions at the ends of the nodes are: ∂ F1 ∂ F2 ∂ F3
162
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
∂l z ∂l ∂l (17c) ⎡− K c Kc ⎤
dl z = dF1 + z dF 2 + z dF 3 K ct = ⎢ (23)
∂ F1 ∂ F2 ∂ F3 ⎣ Kc − K c ⎥⎦
f int = {F1 F6 } (24)
T
F2 F3 F4 F5
Or expressed in matrix form:
C. Cable Element Algorithm
⎧ dl x ⎫ ⎡ f 11 f 12 f 13 ⎤ ⎧ dF1 ⎫ ⎧ dF1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ (18) To determine the tangent stiffness matri x K ct , must first
⎨ dl y ⎬ = ⎢ f 21 f 22 f 23 ⎥ ⎨ dF 2 ⎬ = F ⎨ dF 2 ⎬
⎪ dl ⎪ ⎢ f f 32 f 33 ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩ dF 3 ⎪⎭ ⎪ dF ⎪ determine the F1 , F1 and F3 forces I node [12]. To do this,
⎩ z ⎭ ⎣ 31 ⎩ 3⎭
we start with an initial estimate of these nodal forces, through
where F is the incremental flexibility matrix, whose [8]:
elements f ij are given as follows: wl x
F1 = − (25a)
2λ
⎛L T j + F6 ⎞ F12 ⎡ ⎤
1
f 11 = − ⎜ o + ln ⎟+ ⎢
1 1 (19a)
⎜ EA w
⎝ T i − F3 ⎟
⎠ w
+
(
⎢⎣ T i (T i − F3 ) T j T j − F 6 )⎥⎥⎦ F2 = −
wl y
(25b)
2λ
F1 F 2 ⎡ 1 1 ⎤
(19b)
f 12 = f 21 = ⎢ + ⎥
(
w ⎣⎢ T i (T i − F3 ) T j T j − F6 ⎦⎥ ) F3 =
w⎛
⎜ − lz
cosh λ ⎞
+ Lo ⎟ (25c)
2⎝ senh λ ⎠
F1 ⎡ 1 1 ⎤ where:
f 13 = f 31 = ⎢ − ⎥ (19c)
w T
⎣⎢ j T i ⎥⎦
⎧
⎪
⎛L 1
f 22 = − ⎜ o + ln
T j + F6 ⎞ F 22 ⎡
⎟+ ⎢
1
+
1 ⎤
⎥ (19d) ⎪
⎪
10 6 (l 2
x + l y2 = 0) (26)
⎜ EA w
⎝ T i − F ⎟
3 ⎠ w T (T
⎢⎣ i i − F 3 ) T j T j − F 6 ⎦⎥ ( ) λ=⎨ 0 .2 L2o ≤ ( l x2 + l y2 + l z2 )
⎪
⎪ 3⎛⎜ L o − l z − 1 ⎞⎟
2 2
⎡ 1 1 ⎤ ⎪ ⎜l +l L2o > (l 2
+ l y2 + l z2 )
f 23 = f 32 =
F2
⎢ − ⎥ (19e) 2 2 ⎟ x
w ⎢⎣ T j T i ⎥⎦ ⎩ ⎝ x y ⎠
where Ti and T j are the cable tension at nodes I and J vector is determined Δ L = {(l xo − l x ) (l yo − l y ) (l zo − l z )}T ,
respectively. The nodal forces F1 , F2 , F3 , F4 , F5 , F6 , Ti which should be less than the requested tolerance.
If the tolerance is not met, the approach forces from I
and T j are related as:
node is corrected using the difference vector as:
F4 = − F1 (20a) ⎧ Δ F1 ⎫ ⎧ Δl x ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ (27)
⎨ Δ F2 ⎬ = K c ⎨ Δ l y ⎬
F5 = − F2 (20b) ⎪ ΔF ⎪ ⎪ Δl ⎪
⎩ 3⎭ ⎩ z⎭
F6 = − F3 + wL o (20c)
Forces are then updated:
(21a) ⎧ F1 ⎫ ⎧ F1 ⎫ ⎧ Δ F1 ⎫
Ti = F12 + F22 + F32 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ (28)
⎨ F2 ⎬ = ⎨ F2 ⎬ + ⎨ Δ F2 ⎬
⎪ F ⎪ ⎪ F ⎪ ⎪ΔF ⎪
Tj = F42 + F52 + F62 (21b) ⎩ 3⎭ ⎩ 3⎭ ⎩ 3⎭
where K c is the stiffness matrix of equation (22).
The cable stiffness matrix is obtained by inverting the Below the algorithm used is supposed to meet the stiffness
flexibility matrix F as: matrix of a cable element.
Step 1: Initial data are the coordinates of the nodes
⎡ f 11 f 12 f 13 ⎤
−1
( )
I (xi , yi , z i ) and J x j , y j , z j , physical properties ( E , A ,
K c = F −1 = ⎢⎢ f 21 f 22 f 23 ⎥⎥ (22)
w , Lo ) and tolerance tol .
⎢⎣ f 31 f 32 f 33 ⎥⎦
Step 2: Calculate the relative coordinates between nodes
The tangent stiffness matrix and the corresponding vector I and J : l x 0 = x j − xi , l y 0 = y j − yi and
element internal forces of the cable, expressed in terms of six l z 0 = z j − zi .
degrees of freedom [8]:
163
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
Step 3: Give an initial approximation of the forces F1 , expressions (16) and (21a) with respect to F1 , F2 , F3 and
F2 , F3 node I , using equation (25). Lo as:
Step 6: If Δ L
∞
< tol , calculate K ct and Fint with (23) Step 8: Calculate the correction vector:
and (24) respectively. Otherwise continue the following
steps. ⎧ Δ F1 ⎫ ⎧ Δl x ⎫
Step 7: Calculate the correction vector node forces I : ⎪ΔF ⎪ ⎪ Δl ⎪
⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ y⎪ (31)
Δ F = K c Δ L (27). ⎨ ⎬ = Cc ⎨ ⎬
Δ
⎪ 3⎪ F ⎪ Δl z ⎪
Step 8: Refresh forces the next iteration using (28) and ⎪⎩ Δ L o ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ Δ Ti ⎪⎭
return to the Step 4.
When the initial tension To cable in the first node is Step 9: Update forces: F1 = F1 + ΔF1 , F2 = F2 + ΔF2 ,
known, the next iteration process is used to determine the
F3 = F3 + ΔF3 , length: Lo = Lo + ΔLo and return to Step 4.
length of cable not worked.
Step 1: For initial physical properties w , E , A , the stress D. Description of the Algorithm
at node I ( To ) and the coordinates of the nodes With the algorithms described in the previous section, it is
( )
I (xi , yi , z i ) and J x j , y j , z j is required. possible to determine the configuration of the cable
supported at nodes I and J , and whose relative distance is
Step 2: Calculate the relative coordinates between nodes
I and J : l x 0 = x j − xi , l y 0 = y j − yi and
( )
l xo , l yo , l zo , for it must iterate convergence node J as
illustrated in Fig. 3.
l z 0 = z j − zi .
Step 3: Initialize the unstressed length Lo and forces of
node I ( F1 , F2 , F3 ) as follows:
Lo = 2
l xo 2
+ l yo + l zo2 (29a)
l xo (29b)
F1 = − To
Lo
l yo
F2 = − To (29c)
Lo
Fig. 3. Configuration in a Step of the iteration.
l zo (29d)
F3 = − To
Lo
164
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
C = αM M +αK K
165
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
III. APPLICATIONS
166
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
TABLE II: COMPARISON OF DISPLACEMENT NODE 2. C. Tridimensional Truss with Stayed Cables
Displacements (m)
Researcher Element type The following application aims to engage a space truss
Vertical Horizontal with stay cables into a single structure, which then determine
Michalos and Birnstiel [8] Elastic straight -5.472 -0.845
O'Brien [8] Elastic catenary -5.627 -0.860
their displacement under self-weight and when the cable is
Jayaraman and Knudson [11] Elastic catenary -5.626 -0.859
prestressed at the bottom with 30 kg, we apply a lateral load
Tibert [5] Elastic parabola -5.601 -0.866 of 1000 kg. This structure is also analyzed with [15] program
Tibert [5] Elastic catenary -5.626 -0.859 to verify the nodal displacements.
Andreu [6] Elastic catenary -5.626 -0.860 Another aim is to verify the amount necessary to obtain
Huu and Seung [8] Elastic catenary -5.626 -0.859 more accurate results in solving cable elements.
Present work Elastic catenary -5.627 -0.860 The physical properties of the reinforcement element are
similar to those of the application B, while the properties of
the cable element are found in Table IV. The model used is
shown in Fig. 13.
This model is also used in [15] to verify the difference Fig. 13. Tridimensional truss with stayed cables.
between the two programs. The geometric configuration and
physical properties are presented in Fig. 11 and Table III Nonlinear analysis by self-weight and the prestressed
respectively. cable, is made in increments of one-hundredth of the load
(self-weight/100), whereby the deformation shown in Fig. 14.
TABLE III: PROPERTIES. It is noted that these displacements are similar when the cable
Area E Density edge is subdivided into several elements before applying the
Section Type
(cm2) (kg/cm2) (kg/cm3) load side.
S1 L2”x2”x3/16” 4.62 2038902 0.00785
S2 L1.5”x1.5”x3/16” 3.40 2038902 0.00785
S3 PX1.5” 6.90 2038902 0.00785
S4 Ø5/8” 1.98 2038902 0.00785
167
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
168
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3, June 2015
matrices including elastic, geometric and higher order effects [9] B. Yang, Theory and Analysis of Nonlinear Framed Structures,
Prentice Hall, Singapore, 1994.
of a truss element, while for the cable element, duly verified [10] M. Pallares and C. Rodriguez, “Validación de la formulación numérica
from analytical equations, allows to deduce nonlinear de la catenaria elástica con Ansys,” Escuela Regional de Matemáticas,
matrices. Universidad del Valle, Cali, XVI, 1, pp. 63-85, 2008.
Also in structures composed of cable elements, the secant [11] H. Jayaraman and W. Knudson, “A curved element for the analysis of
cable structure,” Computer and Structures, vol. 14, pp. 325-333, 1981.
method is best approximates the solution when having less [12] R. Karoumi, “Some modeling aspects in the nonlinear finite element
load increases (see Fig. 10) while in structures formed by analysis of cable supported bridges,” Computer and Structures, vol. 71,
truss elements, the secant method is closer to the solution pp. 397-412, 1999.
[13] A. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, Second edition, Prentice Hall, N.
when load increases are becoming smaller. Y., 1995.
The results obtained from the elements and the proposed [14] IDARC 2D Version 4.0: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis
methodology, show agreement with the results obtained with of Buildings - Technical Report NCEER-96-0010, University at
Buffalo, N. Y., 1996.
commercial programs and those results reported by other [15] SAP2000, CSI Analysis Reference Manual, Computer and Structures,
researchers, as noted in Section III. Berkeley, 2010.
[16] T. Huu and K. Seung, “Practical advanced analysis software for
nonlinear dynamic analysis of steel structures,” Journal of
REFERENCES
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 67, pp. 453-461, 2011.
[1] A. Pintea, “Comparison between the linear and nonlinear responses of
cable structures I - static loading,” Civil Engineering and Architecture, Ever Coarita was born in Puno, 1988. He was a
vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 182-188, 2012. professional engineer from the National University of
[2] M. Cuomo and L. Greco, A Finite Element Cable for the Analysis of Engineering, Lima, Peru. At present, he is a professor of
Cable Nets, Faculty of Engineering, University of Catania, Ancona, mathematics courses in the Faculty of Civil Engineering
2009. at National University of Engineering.
[3] A. Kwan “A new approach to geometric nonlinearity of cable
structures,” Computer and Structures, vol. 67, pp. 243-352, 1998.
[4] M. Irvine, Cable Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[5] G. Tibert, Numerical analyses of cable roofs structures, Licentiate
Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of
Technology, Estocolmo, 1998. Leonardo Flores was born in Cuzco, 1968. He was a
[6] A. Andreu, L. Gil and P. Roca, “A new deformable catenary element professional engineer from the National University of
for the analysis of cable net structures,” Computer and Structures, vol. Engineering, Lima, Peru. He received the grade of
84, pp. 1882-1890, 2006. master of science in structures and transport engineering
[7] W. Ren, M. Huang, and W. Hu, “A parabolic cable element for static at University National of Engineering, Lima, Peru. At
analysis of cable structures,” International Journal for Computer - present, He is a professor of mathematics courses in the
Aided Engineering and Software, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 366-384, 2008. Faculty of Civil Engineering at National University of
[8] T. Huu and K. Seung, “Nonlinear static and dynamic of cable Engineering.
structures,” F inite Elements in Analysis and Design, vol. 47, pp.
237-246, 2011.
169