21
2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction
Dynamic analysis is required for the following types of geomechanical problems:
(a) seismic (i.e., earthquake) loading;
(b) explosive or impulsive loading;
(c) mining problems involving seismic release of energy (i.e., rockbursts); and
(d) flow of particles (angular or rounded) under gravity.
The fundamental assumption in all cases is that time is relevant. In almost all cases, the time of
interest is less than one minute; in the case of explosive or impulsive loading, it is less than one
second.
22
Optional Features
2.2 Damping
2.2.1 General Comments
As described in Section 1 in Theory and Background, 3DEC uses a dynamic algorithm for
problem solution. Natural dynamic systems contain some degree of damping of the vibrational
energy within the system; otherwise, the system would oscillate indefinitely when subjected to
driving forces. Damping is due, in part, to energy loss as a result of slippage along contacts of
blocks within the system, internal friction loss in the intact material, and any resistance caused by
air or fluids surrounding the structure. 3DEC is used to solve two general classes of mechanical
problems: quasistatic and dynamic. Damping is used in the solution of both classes of problems,
but quasistatic problems require more damping. Two types of damping (massproportional and
stiffnessproportional) are available in 3DEC. Massproportional damping applies a force which is
proportional to absolute velocity and mass, but in the direction opposite to the velocity. Stiffnessproportional damping applies a force, which is proportional to the incremental stiffness matrix
multiplied by relative velocities or strain rates, to contacts or stresses in zones. In 3DEC, either
form of damping may be used separately or in combination. The use of both forms of damping
in combination is termed Rayleigh damping (Bathe and Wilson 1976). For solution of quasistatic
problems using finite difference schemes, massproportional damping is generally used (Otter et al.
1966). 3DEC allows use of an automatic adaptive viscous damping scheme developed by Cundall
(1982) for solution of quasistatic problems. These schemes are discussed in Section 1 in Theory
and Background. For dynamic analyses, either massproportional or stiffnessproportional, or
both (i.e., Rayleigh), forms of damping may be used, as described in the next section.
2.2.2 Rayleigh Damping
In performing dynamic analysis with any code, it is usually necessary to account for energy losses in
the physical system (e.g., heat, hysteresis) which are not accounted for in the numerical algorithm.
In general, very little damping is used for highly elastic systems, and more damping is used for
geomechanical materials, especially soils.
In the continuum analysis of structures, proportional Rayleigh damping is typically used to damp
the natural oscillation modes of the system. In dynamic finiteelement analysis, a damping matrix,
C, is formed with components proportional to the mass (M) and stiffness (K) matrices,
C = M + K
where: = the massproportional damping constant; and
= the stiffnessproportional damping constant.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
23
For a multiple degreesoffreedom system, the critical damping ratio, i , at any angular frequency
of the system, i , can be found from (Bathe and Wilson 1976)
+ i2 = 2 i i
(2.1)
1
+ i
2 i
(2.2)
or
i =
The critical damping ratio, i , is also known as the fraction of critical damping for mode i with
angular frequency, i .
Figure 2.1 shows the variation of the normalized critical damping ratio with angular frequency, i .
Three curves are given: mass or stiffness components only, and the sum of both components. As
shown, massproportional damping is dominant at lower angular frequency ranges, while stiffnessproportional damping dominates at higher angular frequencies. The curve representing the sum of
both components reaches a minimum at
min = ( )1/2
(2.3)
min = (/)1/2
or
= min min
(2.4)
= min / min
The fundamental frequency is then defined as
fmin = min / 2
(2.5)
24
Optional Features
=0
5
= 0
i / min
4
total
3
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
i
Figure 2.1
The required input parameters to specify Rayleigh damping in 3DEC are fmin (input parameter
freq) and min (input parameter fcrit).
For the case shown in Figure 2.1, min = 10 radians per second, and min = 1. Note that the
damping ratio is almost constant over at least a 3:1 frequency range (e.g., from 5 to 15). Since
damping in geologic media is known to be predominately hysteretic (Gemant and Jackson 1937;
Wegel and Walther 1935), and hence independent of frequency, min is usually chosen to lie in
the center of the range of frequencies present in the numerical simulation. In this way, hysteretic
damping is simulated approximately.
From the preceding equations and Figure 2.1, it can be seen that at frequency min (or fmin ), and
only at that frequency, mass damping and stiffness damping each supply half of the total damping.
2.2.3 Example of Different Damping Techniques
In order to demonstrate how Rayleigh damping works in 3DEC, the results of the following four
damping cases involving a block sitting on a fixed block with gravity suddenly applied can be
compared:
(a) undamped;
(b) Rayleigh damping (both mass and stiffness damping);
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
25
26
Optional Features
time &
1 16)
In the first case, with no damping, a natural frequency of oscillation of approximately 16 cycles/sec
can be observed (see Figure 2.2). The theoretical period of oscillation is given by
frequency =
1 ka 1/2
= 15.9 cycles/second
2 m
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
27
2.5 show, again, that the problem is critically damped using mass and stiffness damping with twice
the damping specified (see Example 2.1).
E
oo
o
oo
oc5,/5a
DUNAooS
o: pon
oDEU
D(N2(DUNAoN1DA1DUo
Do
noAo
m
mnplH
oS
o: pon
pooo,
Figure 2.2
mnpln
Plot of vertical displacement versus time, for a single block contacting on a rigid base with gravity suddenly applied (no damping)
E
oo
o
oo
ocCo
o8..,oGC,G6o
oAoANa
SMATo8og
o4 po8n
oITSA
S(AD(SMAToA1ST1SSo
Sooro
noTo
m
mnplo
8og
o4 po8n
poooC
Figure 2.3
mnpln
Plot of vertical displacement versus time, for a single block contacting on a rigid base with gravity suddenly applied (mass and
stiffness damping)
28
Optional Features
E
pGr,00N
0 u0i
0pSG
.gregpGr,0rr6r,6pG0v
p00U
i0,0
m
mnplo
0N
0 u0i
u000v
Figure 2.4
mnpln
Plot of vertical displacement versus time, for a single block contacting on a rigid base with gravity suddenly applied (mass damping only)
E
oo
o
oo
oc:..,oGC,G1o
oIoTDo
a
ISTFo:og
o8 po:n
oMDIF
I(TM(ISTFoT2IF2IAo
Io
oG
noFo
m
mnplH
:og
o8 po:n
poooC
Figure 2.5
mnpln
Plot of vertical displacement versus time, for a single block contacting on a rigid base with gravity suddenly applied (stiffness
damping only)
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
29
2.2.4 Guidelines for Selecting Rayleigh Damping Parameters for Dynamic Analysis
What is normally attempted in a dynamic analysis is the reproduction of the frequencyindependent damping of materials at the correct level (e.g., 25% for geological materials, and
210% for structural systems (Biggs 1964)). Rayleigh damping is frequencydependent, but has
a flat region that spans about a 3:1 frequency range, as shown in Figure 2.1. For any particular
problem, a Fourier analysis of typical velocity records might produce a response such as that shown
in Figure 2.6:
Range of Predominant
Frequencies
Velocity
Spectrum
Frequency
Figure 2.6
If the highest predominant frequency is three times greater than the lowest predominant frequency,
then there is a 3:1 span or range that contains most of the dynamic energy in the spectrum. The
idea in dynamic analysis is to adjust min of the Rayleigh damping so that its 3:1 range coincides
with the range of predominant frequencies in the problem. min is adjusted to coincide with the
correct physical damping ratio. The predominant frequencies are neither the input frequencies nor
the natural modes of the system, but a combination of both. The idea is to try to get the right
damping for the important frequencies in the problem.
For some problems involving large movements of blocks, it is improper to use any mass damping
because the block motion might be artificially restricted. Examples of such problems include any
problems involving free flow or fall of blocks under gravity, and impulsive loading of blocks due
to explosions. In such cases it may be appropriate to use only stiffnessproportional damping.
The stiffnessproportional component of Rayleigh damping does affect the critical timestep for the
explicit solution scheme in 3DEC. The controlling timestep, therefore, may need to be reduced
(using the FRACTION command) as the stiffness damping component is increased (see Belytschko
1983). For problems involving free fall and bounce of blocks from a fixed base, the coefficient of
restitution is required for accurate modeling. Onishi et al. (1985) provide a method for estimating
stiffness damping parameters based on the coefficient of restitution.
2  10
Optional Features
(2.6)
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  11
Figure 2.7
= 10.0
The case of confined compression is modeled by inhibiting lateral displacement along the vertical
boundaries, which prevents lateral deformation of the blocks. For unconfined compression, lateral
displacement is not inhibited. For the column in shear, vertical motion along all boundaries is
inhibited. Other properties are:
2  12
Optional Features
Material Properties
 for compression tests




bulk modulus
K = 1.5 104
shear modulus
G = 0.428562 104
Poissons ratio
0.4
bulk modulus
K = 1.0 104
shear modulus
G = 1.0 104
density
= 1.0
applied gravity
gy = 1.0
gx = 0.1
column height
L = 800
column width
W = 100
number of blocks
n=8
The moduli appropriate to the various modes of deformation are given in Table 2.1:
Table 2.1
Confined Compression
K + (4/3) G
Unconfined Compression
(1/3) G+K
4G K+(4/3) G
Shear
G
1.4286 104
1.0 104
Table 2.2 compares the theoretical periods and calculated (3DEC) natural periods of oscillation.
The theoretical values for natural period of oscillation are calculated as
natural period, T = 4L
( / E )
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  13
Unconfined
Compression
Shear
Theoretical
19.96
26.77
32.00
3DEC
20.47
27.83
32.24
2  14
Optional Features
z_d = gp_zdis(i_vert)
if z_d < v_min then
v_min = z_d
d_t = time
endif
z_dis = z_d
end
def period
ii = out(Period of oscillation = + string(d_t*2.0))
end
hist n 100 @z_dis @_time
mscale off
damp 0.1 1.0 stiff
hist label 1 Vertical Displacement
hist label 2 Time
solve time 11
@period
pl hist 1 vs 2 xaxis label Time yaxis label Displacement
ret
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  15
def z_dis
z_d = gp_zdis(i_vert)
if z_d < v_min then
v_min = z_d
d_t = time
endif
z_dis = z_d
end
def period
ii = out(Period of oscillation = + string(d_t*2.0))
end
hist n 100 @z_dis @_time
mscale off
damp 0.1 1.0 stiff
hist label 1 Vertical Displacement
hist label 2 Time
solve time 15
@period
pl hist 1 vs 2 xaxis label Time yaxis label Displacement
ret
2  16
Optional Features
@v_loc
def x_dis
x_d = gp_xdis(i_vert)
if x_d > v_max then
v_max = x_d
d_t = time
endif
x_dis = x_d
end
def period
ii = out(Period of oscillation = + string(d_t*2.0))
end
hist @x_dis
hist label 1 Shear Displacement
mscale off
damp 0.1 1.0 stiff
solve time 17
@period
pl hist 1 vs 2 xaxis label Cycles yaxis label Displacement
ret
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  17
(2.7)
where is the wavelength associated with the highest frequency component for peak velocities
through the medium. For discontinuum codes, this also applies to joint spacing (or block size).
In order to achieve an accurate representation of a stress wave through a distinct element model,
particularly when the joint spacing is variable, the blocks should be made deformable to accommodate the element size restriction imposed by frequency and wavelength. This is accomplished
in 3DEC, as discussed in Section 1 in Theory and Background, by subdividing each block into a
mesh of finitedifference elements. These elements are then subject to the Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer
restriction.
The effect of model conditions on numerical distortion of wave transmission is demonstrated by a
simple analysis of a column of blocks subjected to an impulse load applied at the base (Figures 2.8
and 2.10). The block sizes range from 1 m to 5 m (average size of 2 m), the contacts between
blocks have a linearly elastic behavior, and the pwave speed for the system is 4300 m/sec. A
triangularshaped impulse load, with a maximum frequency of approximately 200 Hz, is applied
at the base (the solid curve in Figures 2.9 and 2.11). The wavelength associated with the highest
frequency of this system is 21.5 m. Thus, according to Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer, in order to transmit
this wave without distortion, the element size must not exceed approximately 2 m.
A rigid block analysis is done with a constant contact normal stiffness used to produce an average
wave speed of 4300 m/sec (based on the average joint spacing). A highly distorted velocity history is
calculated at the top of the column, as seen by the dashed curve in Figure 2.9. This distortion can be
reduced for this problem by varying the normal stiffness locally to keep the wave speed constant at
contacts between blocks. However, in general, the calculation of effective (local) normal stiffnesses
becomes extremely complex for a multiply jointed system, making this approach impractical.
2  18
Optional Features
A deformable block analysis is performed with the maximum size of the finite difference elements
smaller than 2 m (see Figure 2.10). The elastic moduli for the blocks and the contact stiffness are
calculated to produce the given pwave speed. The distortion in the wave at the top of the column
is now essentially eliminated, as indicated in Figure 2.11. The elastic deformation parameters
represent the physical properties of the blocks and contacts separately in this case, and do not have
to be adjusted locally.
Physically measured values for normal and shear stiffnesses of a geologic structure, such as joints,
faults, bedding planes, etc., are not generally available. It is often necessary to backcalculate
properties based on measured values for the elasticdeformation properties of the intact material
and the wave speed through the jointed system. Formulae relating properties of an equivalent elastic
continuum to properties for intact material and joints are given, for example, by Singh (1973) and
Gerrard (1982). These relations can be used to provide reasonable estimates for joint stiffness
properties in 3DEC, to produce the measured shear and compressional wave speeds of the system.
Figure 2.8
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  19
E
Pa Ca
a
aaa
hfuaTa4
aW naTc
auh3
hsuIshfuauCh2Cfta
uaTa
ha4
a
ca2a
moHo
Ta4
aW naTc
naaa/
Figure 2.9
moHco
Figure 2.10 Column of variably sized blocks subdivided into finite difference
zones
2  20
Optional Features
E
Pa Ca
a
aaa
hfuaTa/
aW naTc
a3f20
hsuIshfuauCh0Cf3a
uaTa
ha/
a
ca2a
moHo
Ta/
aW naTc
naaa4
moHco
Figure 2.11 Input wave (solid) at base and calculated wave (dashed) at top of
column of deformable block model
Example 2.5 Column of variably sized rigid blocks subjected to impulse load at base
new
config dynamic
poly brick 0,10 0,1 0,100
plot create plot Blocks
plot block
plot reset
def varcut
ntot = 36
nc = 1
rat = 1.08
zcut = 5.0
zloc = zcut
loop while nc < ntot
if zloc < 99.0
command
jset dip 0 dd 180 origin 0,0,@zloc
endcommand
endif
if zloc < 50.0 then
zcut = zcut / rat
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  21
else
zcut = zcut * rat
endif
zloc = zloc + zcut
nc = nc + 1
endloop
end
@varcut
;
; properties for rigid block model
prop mat=1 dens 1000
prop jmat=1 jkn 10e9 jks 10e9 jcoh 1e10 jten 1e10
prop mat=1 k=10.0e9 g=7.5e9
; impulse load
def i_block
i_block = b_near(5.0,0.5,2.5)
end
@i_block
def pulse
whilestepping
dytime = time
zpulse = vmax / tpeak * dytime
if dytime > tpeak then
zpulse = vmax  (vmax / (tend  tpeak)) * (dytime  tpeak)
endif
if dytime > tend then
zpulse = 0.0
endif
b_zvel(i_block) = zpulse ; velocity assigned to rigid block no. 2
end
set @vmax = 11.0 @tpeak = 0.005 @tend = 0.06
; fix bottom block to apply impulse for rigid block model
fix range x 0,10 y 0,10 z 0,5
; quiet boundary at top for both deformable block model
bound mat 1 zvisc range z 100
bound mat 1
bound xvel 0.0 range x 0.0
bound xvel 0.0 range x 10.0
bound yvel 0.0 range y 0.0
bound yvel 0.0 range y 10.0
; monitor velocities at bottom and top
hist n 10
hist zvel 0,0,0
hist zvel 0,0,95
hist @pulse
2  22
Optional Features
hist @dytime
hist label 1 Input Wave
hist label 2 Calculated Wave
hist label 4 Time
; add 5\% stiffness damping
damp 0.05 200 stiff
title
Example problem: dynamic analysis of column shear
plot create plot Hist
plot set jobtitle on
plot hist 1 2 linestyle style dot vs 4 &
xaxis label Time yaxis Label Displacement
solve time 0.12
save ex2_05.3dsav
ret
Example 2.6 Column of variably sized deformable blocks subjected to impulse load at base
new
config dynamic
poly brick 0,10 0,1 0,100
plot create plot Blocks
plot block
plot reset
def varcut
ntot = 36
nc = 1
rat = 1.08
zcut = 5.0
zloc = zcut
loop while nc < ntot
if zloc < 99.0
command
jset dip 0 dd 180 origin 0,0,@zloc
endcommand
endif
if zloc < 50.0 then
zcut = zcut / rat
else
zcut = zcut * rat
endif
zloc = zloc + zcut
nc = nc + 1
endloop
end
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  23
@varcut
;
gen edge 2
; properties for zoned model
prop jmat = 1 dens 1000 jkn 200e9 jks 200e9 jcoh 1e10 jten 1e10
prop mat = 1 k=10.0e9 g=7.5e9
; impulse load
def pulse
whilestepping
dytime = time
zpulse = vmax / tpeak * dytime
if dytime > tpeak then
zpulse = vmax  (vmax / (tend  tpeak)) * (dytime  tpeak)
endif
if dytime > tend then
zpulse = 0.0
endif
pulse = zpulse ; velocity history for zoned model
end
set @vmax = 11.0 @tpeak = 0.005 @tend = 0.06
; velocity boundary for zoned model
bound zvel 1.0 hist @pulse range z .1 .1
; quiet boundary at top for both deformable block model
bound mat 1 zvisc range z 100
bound mat 1
bound xvel 0.0 range x 0.0
bound xvel 0.0 range x 10.0
bound yvel 0.0 range y 0.0
bound yvel 0.0 range y 10.0
; monitor velocities at bottom and top
hist n 100
hist zvel 0,0,0
hist zvel 0,0,95
hist @pulse
hist @dytime
hist label 1 Input Wave
hist label 2 Calculated Wave
hist label 4 Time
; add 5% stiffness damping
damp 0.05 200 stiff
solve time 0.12
title
Example problem: dynamic analysis of column shear
plot create plot Hist
plot set jobtitle on
2  24
Optional Features
For dynamic input with a high peak velocity and short risetime, the Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer
requirement may necessitate a very fine spatial mesh and a correspondingly small timestep. The
effect is compounded in discontinuum codes because the wave propagation across discontinuities
can produce higher frequency components than are provided in the input wave. The consequence is
that reasonable analyses may be prohibitively time and memoryconsuming, as well as extremely
expensive. In such cases, it may be possible to adjust the input by recognizing that most of the
power for the input history is contained in lower frequency components. By filtering the history and
removing high frequency components, a coarser mesh may be used without significantly affecting
the results.
The filtering procedure can be accomplished with a lowpass filter routine such as the fast Fourier
transform technique. For example, the unfiltered velocity record shown in Figure 2.12 represents
a typical waveform containing a very high frequency spike. The highest frequency of this input
exceeds 50 Hz, but, as shown by the power spectral density plot of Fourier amplitude versus
frequency (Figure 2.13), most of the power (approximately 99%) is made up of components of
frequency 15 Hz or lower. It can be inferred, therefore, that by filtering this velocity history with
a 15 Hz lowpass filter, less than 1% of the power is lost. The input filtered at 15 Hz is shown in
Figure 2.14, and the Fourier amplitudes are plotted in Figure 2.15. The difference in power between
unfiltered and filtered input is less than 1%, while the peak velocity is reduced 38%, and the rise
time is shifted from 0.035 sec to 0.09 sec. Analyses should be performed with input at different
levels of filtering, to evaluate the influence of the filter on model results.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  25
Velocity (cm/sec)
(Thousands)
1
0
0.4
0.2
Time (sec)
130
120
110
Fourier Amplitude
(Times 10E9)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency
2  26
Optional Features
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
Velocity (cm/sec)
(Thousands)
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
Time (sec)
130
120
110
Fourier Amplitude
(Times 10E9)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
Frequency
12
14
16
18
20
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  27
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
68
4.038E02
1.000E+00
0.000E+00
3.103E05
0.000E+00
1.938E04
8.202E04
1.920E02
4.272E02
2  28
Optional Features
E
pGr,00A
0 u0i
077SS
9gr5gpGr,0r/SG/G50
A /0
r
0A
0 u0i
u000N
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
E
2  29
B
n
ngggnn
n
301InUnV
n4 tnU
n,,uu
321p2301In1.3u.1In
3n!
nnM
In!
nn
nCn
m2taH
UnV
n4 tnU
tnnnP
m2tao
Figure 2.17 Velocities at the bottom and top of the model, for analysis without
any density scaling
E
T
n
nen
n
n
1203nAnB
nN dnAg
n1221
10G1203n0.1C.0Cn
1n!
nnV
3n!
nn
gnIn
mHtaH
AnB
nN dnAg
dnnnM
mHtao
Figure 2.18 Velocities at the bottom and top of the model, for analysis with
partial density scaling
2  30
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  31
2  32
Optional Features
tn = Cp vn
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  33
(2.8)
ts = Cs vs
where:vn and vs
are the normal and shear components of the velocity at the boundary;
is the mass density; and
2  34
Optional Features
applied to the maingrid boundary. Both conditions are expressed in Eqs. (2.9), (2.10) and (2.11),
which apply to the freefield boundary along one side boundary plane with its normal in the direction
of the xaxis. Similar expressions may be written for the other sides and corner boundaries:
where:
Cp
Cs
A
vxm
vym
vzm
vxff
vyff
vzff
Fxff
Fyff
Fzff
(2.9)
(2.10)
(2.11)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
In this way, plane waves propagating upward suffer no distortion at the boundary because the freefield grid supplies conditions that are identical to those in an infinite model. If the main grid is
uniform and there is no surface structure, the lateral dashpots are not exercised because the freefield
grid executes the same motion as the main grid. However, if the maingrid motion differs from that
of the free field (due, for example, to a surface structure that radiates secondary waves), then the
dashpots act to absorb energy in a manner similar to quiet boundaries.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  35
free field
free field
seismic wave
Figure 2.19 Model for seismic analysis of surface structures and freefield
mesh
In order to apply the freefield boundary in 3DEC, the model must be oriented such that the base is
horizontal and its normal is in the direction of the yaxis, and the sides are vertical and their normals
are in the direction of either the x or zaxis. If the direction of propagation of the incident seismic
waves is not vertical, then the coordinate axes can be rotated such that the yaxis coincides with
the direction of propagation. In this case, gravity will act at an angle to the yaxis, and a horizontal
free surface will be inclined with respect to the model boundaries.
The freefield model consists of four plane freefield grids, on the side boundaries of the model and
four column freefield grids at the corners. The plane grids are generated to match the maingrid
zones on the side boundaries, so that there is a onetoone correspondence between gridpoints in
the free field and the main grid. The four corner freefield columns act as freefield boundaries
for the plane freefield grids. The plane freefield grids are twodimensional calculations that
assume infinite extension in the direction normal to the plane. The column freefield grids are
onedimensional calculations that assume infinite extension in both horizontal directions. Both the
plane and column grids consist of standard 3DEC zones, which have gridpoints constrained in such
a way to achieve the infinite extension assumption.
The model should be in static equilibrium before the freefield boundary is applied. The static
equilibrium conditions prior to the dynamic analysis are transferred to the free field automatically
when the command FF apply is invoked. The freefield condition is applied to lateral boundary
gridpoints. All zone data (including model types and current state variables) in the model zones
adjacent to the free field are copied to the freefield region. Freefield stresses are assigned the
average stress of the neighboring grid zone. The dynamic boundary conditions at the base of the
model should be specified before applying the freefield. These base conditions are automatically
transferred to the free field when the free field is applied. Note that the free field is continuous; if
the main grid contains an interface that extends to a model boundary, the interface will not continue
into the free field.
After the FF apply command is issued, the freefield grid will plot automatically whenever blocks
are plotted. Freefield information can be printed with the LIST ff command.
2  36
Optional Features
E
pGr,00N
0 u0i
0..e9
4gr6gpGr,0r7S47re0
N 70
r
p
0N
0 u0i
u000b
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
E
2  37
pGr,00U
0 u0i
0,e,6
,gppgpGr,0rG:GG:SG0b
p0"0
00
,0"0
00
i0
crt
0U
0 u0i
u000b
cr
Figure 2.21 xvelocity histories at model base and dam crest using viscous
boundaries
Next, the model is rerun using the free field. The free field command creates new blocks at the
boundary of the model and automatically zones them. Again, the impulse shear stress is applied to
the base. The dynamic input consists of a sinusoidal shear stress wave applied at the model base.
Figure 2.22 shows the xvelocity histories for the base and dam crest. In this case, there is no
amplification of the base wave or distortion at the dam crest.
2  38
Optional Features
E
pGr,00U
0 u0i
0..e9
,gppgpGr,0rG/GG/pe0b
p0"0
00
,0"0
00
i0
crt
0U
0 u0i
u000b
cr
Figure 2.22 xvelocities of the base and dam crest using free field boundaries
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  39
2  40
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  41
(2.12)
s = 2( Cs ) Vs
(2.13)
or
2  42
Optional Features
velocity
time
(a) velocity history
displacement
time
(b) displacement history
velocity
time
(c) low frequency velocity wave
displacement
time
(d) resultant displacement history
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  43
a fixed velocity to the mesh to reduce the residual displacement to zero. This action will not affect
the mechanics of the deformation of the model. Computer codes to perform baseline corrections
are available from several Internet sites. For example, http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/processing.html
provides such a code.
2  44
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  45
listed in Example 2.10. The command DYNAMIC eigenmodes modes 6 is executed to calculate the
first six modes of vibration. The descriptions of these modes calculated in 3DEC are as follows:
mode 1 1st bending mode
mode 2 mode shape orthogonal to mode 1
mode 3 2nd bending mode
mode 4 mode shape orthogonal to mode 2
mode 5 1st torsional mode
mode 6 3rd bending mode
Note that in order to provide a more accurate representation of bending behavior, additional contacts
are added between rigid blocks in this model. This is achieved with the FACETRIANGLE rad8
command, which adds a center vertex and 4 midedge vertices between two rigid blocks for a total
of 9 point contacts. This improves the calculation for bending moments (see Lemos 2007).
=0
5
= 0
i / min
4
total
3
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
i
Figure 2.24 Square pillar model
The natural frequencies for the first three bending modes of the pillar are compared to values
calculated from Timoshenko beam theory (Chopra 1995, and Ferreira and Fasshauer 2006). The
natural frequencies for the first three bending modes are listed in Table 2.3. The values compare
reasonably closely to the values from Timoshenko beam theory.
2  46
Optional Features
Table 2.3
Bending mode
1st
1.13
1.02
2nd
6.78
6.09
3rd
15.0
16.1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  47
2  48
Optional Features
UI
UR
A
ER
EI
(2.14)
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  49
ET
EI
T =
A=
(2.15)
1 R2 T 2
(2.16)
where EI , ET and ER represent the energy flux per unit area per cycle of oscillation associated
with the incident, transmitted and reflected waves, respectively. The coefficient A is a measure of
the energy absorbed at the discontinuity. The energy flux EI is given by
EI =
t1 +T
s vs dt
(2.17)
t1
(2.18)
Hence,
EI = c
t1 +T
t1
vs2 dt
(2.19)
2  50
Optional Features
y
x
l = 30 m
h = 400 m
Planar
discontinuity
Harmonic
shear wave
applied
Figure 2.26 Geometry for the problem of slip induced by harmonic shear
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  51
Table 2.4
Medium properties
Table 2.5
2,650 kg/m3
10,000 MPa
16,667 MPa
Discontinuity properties
Normal stiffness kn
Shear stiffness ks
Friction angle fric
Cohesion coh
10,000 MPa/m
10,000 MPa/m
0
2.5, 0.5, 0.1 and 0.02 MPa
2  52
Optional Features
1.0 MPa
1 Hz
sinusoidal
Note that the magnitude of the incident wave must be doubled in the numerical model to account
for the simultaneous presence of the nonreflecting boundary.
2.9.1.6 Results
The analytical solution for wave propagation through a slipping discontinuity (Miller 1978) assumes
a MohrCoulomb discontinuity failure criterion with constant cohesion. In 3DEC, however, when
discontinuity shear and/or tensile strength is exceeded, the cohesion and tension are ignored in all
subsequent calculations. Because the analytical solution assumes a constant discontinuity cohesion
regardless of stress history, a FISH function which prevents setting cohesion and tension to zero when
discontinuity shear and/or tensile strength is exceeded was prepared (see the file MILR3D.FIS in
Example 2.12).
An initial run assumed that the discontinuity remains elastic by setting the discontinuity cohesion
to 2.5 MPa. A stress wave of amplitude 1 MPa and frequency 1 Hz was applied at the base of the
model. It should be noted that the displacements and velocities are determined at the nodal points
of the tetrahedron. The stresses, however, are determined at the centroid of the tetrahedron. The
time histories of shear stress, velocity and displacement are monitored at Points A (40, 200, 15)
and B (40, 200, 15). The linear history of stresses are monitored close to Points A and B. The shear
stresses at Points A and B are shown in Figure 2.28. From the amplitude of the stress history at
A and B, it is clear that there was perfect transmission of the wave through the discontinuity. It is
also clear from Figure 2.28 that the nonreflecting boundary condition provides perfect absorption
of normally incident waves.
In the next run, the cohesion was lowered to 0.5 MPa to permit slip along the discontinuity. The
recorded shear stresses at Points A and B are shown in Figure 2.29. The peak stress at Point A
is the superposition of the incident wave and the wave reflected from the slipping discontinuity.
Figures 2.30 and 2.31 show the shear stress at Points A and B for a discontinuity cohesion of 0.1
and 0.02 MPa. It can be seen in Figures 2.29 through 2.31 that the shear stress of Point B is limited
by the discontinuity strength at 0.5, 0.1 and 0.02 MPa, respectively.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
E
2  53
pGr,00N
0 u0i
0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p80
r0
0h
p0
0m
i0/0
0
0N
0 u0i
u000h
Figure 2.28 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 2.5 MPa)
E
pGr,00N
0 u0i
0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p80
r0
0h
p0
0m
i0/0
0
0N
0 u0i
u000h
Figure 2.29 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 0.5 MPa)
2  54
Optional Features
E
pGr,00m
0 u0i
0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p:0
r0
07
p0
0h
i0/0
0
0m
0 u0i
u0007
Figure 2.30 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 0.1 MPa)
E
pGr,00m
0 u0i
0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p:0
r0
07
p0
0h
i0/0
0
0m
0 u0i
u0007
Figure 2.31 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 0.02 MPa)
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  55
The energy flux, EI , is evaluated using Eq. (2.17) at Point A for nonslipping discontinuities (i.e.,
cohesion = 2.5 MPa). ET is evaluated at Point B for the slipping discontinuity (i.e., cohesion = 0.5,
0.1 and 0.02 MPa). ER is determined at Point B by taking the difference in velocity from the runs with
slipping and nonslipping discontinuities. The coefficients of reflection (R), transmission (T ) and
absorption (A) are computed using Eq. (2.15) (see FISH function energy in file MILR3D.FIS
in Example 2.12), and are plotted in Figure 2.31, along with the analytical solution (Miller 1978).
The 3DEC results agree very well with the analytical solution (Figure 2.31).
1.0
0.8
A
R
T
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
10
MC7
Js
50 100
1000
2  56
Optional Features
plot reset
;
jset dd=90 dip 0 origin 80,0,0
;
gen edge 31
;
prop mat=1 den=2650 k=16.667e9 g=10.0e9
;
; set boundary material property and viscous boundary along xy
;
plane at z=200 and z=200
bound mat=1
range z 200
bound xvisc zvisc range z 200
bound mat=1
range z 200
bound xvisc zvisc range z 200
;
; set roller boundary along xz plane at y=0 and y=30
bound yvel=0 range y 0
bound yvel=0 range y 30
;
; set zvel=0 along yz plane at x=0 and x=80
bound zvel=0 range x 0
bound zvel=0 range x 80
;
; shear stress along xz plane at z=200
; set sinusoidal wave function for the
; applied stress at the boundary
; freq = 1 Hz
bound hist sin(1.0,5.0) stress 0,0,0,0,2e6,0 range z 200
;
; set histories
hist n=25
; select zone address and shear stress offset
hist sxz 40,15,200 sxz 40,15,200
hist xvel(40,15,200) xvel(40,15,200)
hist xdis(40,15,200) xdis(40,15,200)
hist time
hist label 1 Point A
hist label 2 Point B
;
insitu stress 0,0,1e6,0,0,0
call milr3d.3dfis
save milr3d.3dsav
;
tab 1 0,0
tab 2 0,0
tab 3 0,0
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  57
2  58
cyc 3000
@energy
save milr3d_d.3dsav
ret
;
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  59
table(2,rtime_) = gp_xvel(agp_)
table(3,rtime_) = gp_xvel(bgp_)
end_if
end_if
end
;===================================================
;
; calculate coefficients of transmission, reflection
; and absorbtion
;
;===================================================
def energy
dt_ = tdel
items = table_size(1)
factor = dens_ * speed_
Ei
= 0.0
Et
= 0.0
Er
= 0.0
t_n_1 = 0.0
nac
= 0
AAA
= 0.0
TTT
= 0.0
RRR
= 0.0
loop i (1,items)
Vsa_e = ytable(1,i)
Vsa_s = ytable(2,i)
Vsb_s = ytable(3,i)
Ei = Ei + factor * Vsa_e * Vsa_e * dt_
Et = Et + factor * Vsb_s * Vsb_s * dt_
Er = Er + factor * (Vsa_sVsa_e) * (Vsa_sVsa_e) * dt_
end_loop
RRR = sqrt(Er/Ei)
TTT = sqrt(Et/Ei)
AAA = AAA + sqrt(1.0RRR*RRRTTT*TTT)
command
set log on
list RRR
list AAA
list TTT
set log off
end_command
end
2  60
Optional Features
Explosive
Line Source
Crack
Plane
Figure 2.33 Problem geometry for an explosive source near a slipprone discontinuity
2.9.2.2 Analytic Solution
The closedform solution for crack slip as a function of time was derived by Day (1985) and is
given by
u(x, t) =
where:r
p
2mo 2
2r 1/2 1/2
Re
H ( )
+
2
R(p)
(2.20)
= (x 2 + h2 )1/2 , distance from the point source to the point on the crack where the slip
is monitored;
H ( )
= step function;
= t (r/);
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  61
mo
= source strength;
= density;
= ( 2 p2 )
= ( 2 p2 )
R(p)
= (1 2 2 p2 ) + 4 4 p2 + 2 ; and
1
r
2r 1/2 1/2
h .
= r2 + x + i +
1/2
, Re 0;
1/2
, Re 0;
The slip response of the discontinuity for any source history, S(t), can be obtained by convolution
of Figure 2.33 and the source function, S(t):
S(t) =
0.5 [1 cos(t/0.6)]
1.0
t < 0.6
t 0.6
Figure 2.34 shows the dimensionless analytical results of slip history at a Point P for a smooth step
function, and for the following values of the variables: 2 = 3 2 , h = x and = 0. The analytic
solution is implemented in FISH function ana slp (listed in Example 2.16).
Dimensionless Slip
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
DIMENSIONLESS Time
Figure 2.34 Dimensionless analytical results of slip history at Point P (dimensionless slip = (4h 2 /mo )u, dimensionless time = t/ h) (Day
1985)
2  62
Optional Features
2h
A
Dynamic Input
h
P
Discontinuity
y
x
NonReflecting
Boundary
Figure 2.35 Problem geometry and boundary conditions for numerical model
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  63
Figure 2.36 3DEC model showing semicircular source and joined blocks
used to provide appropriate zoned discretization
2.9.2.4 Properties of Joints and Continuous Medium
The following properties were used for the elastic blocks:
Table 2.6
Material properties
Geometric scale
Mass density dens
Shear modulus g
Bulk modulus k
The MohrCoulomb joint constitutive relation was used in the analysis. The specific 3DEC parameters used for the joint relation are listed in Table 2.7:
2  64
Optional Features
Table 2.7
Discontinuity properties
Normal stiffness kn
Shear stiffness ks
Friction angle fric
Cohesion coh
10,000 Pa/m
0.1 Pa/m
0
0
1/2
t 2 2
1
r2
t > r/
(2.21)
t > r/
(2.22)
3/2
t 2 2
1
r2
The actual input velocity record at r = 0.05 h, as shown in Figure 2.37, was obtained by convoluting
Eqs. (2.22) and (2.20).
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
E
pGr,00N
0 u0i
0.GGr
pgr/gpGr,0r:p/:r80
p00!
i080
0
2  65
m
0N
0 u0i
u000h
Figure 2.37 Input radial velocity time history prescribed at r = 0.05 h (dimensionless velocity = (h2 /mo )v, dimensionless time = / h)
Velocity history at the boundary at r = 0.05 h is calculated in the FISH function vel inp (listed
in Example 2.15).
2.9.2.6 Results
The dimensionless slip at Point P is plotted against the dimensionless time, and is shown in Figure 2.38. The dimensionless slip is compared with the analytical solution given by Day (1985).
Velocity input was used on the semicircular region at r = 0.05 h for 3DEC. The error at the peak
slip for 3DEC is 1.7%.
The results shown in Figure 2.38 were obtained with a mesh of maximum zone length of 0.065 h.
The slip response on the discontinuity involves higher frequency components because of zero
friction along the discontinuity. This requires a finer mesh for accurate representation.
The dimensionless slip in Figure 2.38 for 3DEC analysis shows a good agreement with the analytical
solution until the dimensionless time of 1.49. The results show, after dimensionless time of 1.49, a
considerable deviation, which can be attributed to boundary reflections.
Nonreflecting boundaries are used along the top, bottom and righthand side boundaries. Such
viscous boundaries, designed to absorb normally incident p and swaves, cannot be fully effective
in this dynamic slip problem because the discontinuity crosses the boundary. Viscous boundaries,
however, are preferable to roller boundaries.
2  66
Optional Features
E
pGr,00v
0U u0i
0.GGr
pgr/gpGr,0r:p/:r80
,0E
0
.0,hmv0#
i080
0
m
myry
0v
0U u0i
u000E
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
jset
hide
jset
hide
jset
;
seek
2  67
2  68
Optional Features
;
call vel_inp.3dfis
call ana_slp.3dfis
cycle 1
call day3d.3dfis
@_load
;
insitu stress 1.0e9 1.0e9 1.0e9 0 0 0
;
; set histories
hist n=10
hist @dtime_ @bvel_ @aslip_ @nslip1_ @nslip2_
hist xvel 0.5 20 0.3 yvel 0 20.5 .03 yvel 0 19.5 0.03
hist time
hist label 2 Input Velocity
hist label 3 Analytic Solution
hist label 4 3DEC Results
;
plot create plot InputVelocity
plot hist 2 vs 9 xaxis label Time yaxis label Input Velocity
cycle 4000
save day3d.3dsav
plot create plot JointSlip
plot hist 3 4 linestyle style dot vs 9 &
xaxis label time yaxis label Joint Slip
ret
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  69
ny_ = (y_yc_)/d_
command
bo xvel nx_ yvel ny_ hist table _vtab range id igp_
end_command
end_if
igp_ = gp_next(igp_)
end_loop
ib_ = b_next(ib_)
end_loop
end
set @xc_ 0.0 @yc_ 20.0 @dist_ 0.5
;=====================================================
;
; finds contacts closest to the point of interest
;
;=====================================================
def _find
dfmax_ = 1.e30
dbmax_ = 1.e30
icon_ = contact_head
loop while icon_ # 0
icx_ = c_cx(icon_)
loop while icx_ # 0
x_ = cx_x(icx_)
y_ = cx_y(icx_)
z_ = cx_z(icx_)
dxf_= x_xf_
dyf_= y_yf_
dzf_= z_zf_
dxb_= x_xb_
dyb_= y_yb_
dzb_= z_zb_
df_ = sqrt(dxf_*dxf_+dyf_*dyf_+dzf_*dzf_)
db_ = sqrt(dxb_*dxb_+dyb_*dyb_+dzb_*dzb_)
if df_ < dfmax_ then
dfmax_ = df_
icf_
= icx_
end_if
if db_ < dbmax_ then
dbmax_ = db_
icb_
= icx_
end_if
icx_ = cx_next(icx_)
end_loop
2  70
Optional Features
icon_ = c_next(icon_)
end_loop
vscale_ = m0_/(h_n_*h_n_*rho_*v_s_)
dscale_ = 0.25*m0_/(h_n_*rho_*v_s_*v_s_)
end
set @xf_ 10. @yf_ 10. @zf_ 0.
set @xb_ 10. @yb_ 10. @zb_ 0.65
set @v_s_=10. @h_n_=10. @rho_=1. @m0_=1.
@_find
;=====================================================
;
; stores analytical solution in the histories, and
; converts numerical solution in the dimensionless
; form
;
;=====================================================
def _compare
while_stepping
dtime_ = time*v_s_/h_n_
bvel_ = table(_vtab,time)/vscale_
aslip_ = table(_utab,dtime_)
xslip1_ = cx_xsdis(icf_)
yslip1_ = cx_ysdis(icf_)
zslip1_ = cx_zsdis(icf_)
xslip2_ = cx_xsdis(icb_)
yslip2_ = cx_ysdis(icb_)
zslip2_ = cx_zsdis(icb_)
nslip1_ = sqrt(xslip1_*xslip1_+yslip1_*yslip1_+zslip1_*zslip1_)
nslip2_ = sqrt(xslip2_*xslip2_+yslip2_*yslip2_+zslip2_*zslip2_)
nslip1_ = nslip1_/dscale_
nslip2_ = nslip2_/dscale_
end
ret
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  71
2  72
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  73
2  74
; Input : Za, Zb
; Output: Z = Re(Z) + Im(Z)
Re_z = Re_a + Re_b
Im_z = Im_a + Im_b
end
;
def mult_complex
; multiplication of two complex variables
; Input : Za, Zb
; Output: Z = Re(Z) + Im(Z)
Re_z = Re_a*Re_b  Im_a*Im_b
Im_z = Re_a*Im_b + Im_a*Re_b
end
;
def divi_complex
; division of complex variables Za/Zb
_deno = Re_b * Re_b + Im_b * Im_b
if _deno = 0.0
divi_compex = 1
exit
endif
Re_z = (Re_a*Re_b + Im_a*Im_b)/_deno
Im_z = (Im_a*Re_b  Re_a*Im_b)/_deno
end
;
def sqrt_complex
; square root of a complex variable
; Input : Zx
; Output: Zr = Re(Zr) + Im(Zr)
; _theta = atan2(Im_x, Re_x) * 0.5
_arg
= float(Im_x/Re_x)
_theta = atan(_arg) * 0.5
_sqrtr = sqrt(sqrt(Re_x*Re_x + Im_x*Im_x))
Re_zr
= _sqrtr*cos(_theta)
Im_zr
= _sqrtr*sin(_theta)
end
;
def ana_slp
;
; Input _nt, _dt, _xd, _hd, gamma, per, rho
;
_dt = float(_dt)
_xd = float(_xd)
_hd = float(_hd)
gamma = float(gamma)
per
= float(per)
Optional Features
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
rho
2  75
= float(rho)
;
_vs2 = _vs*_vs
_vs4 = _vs2*_vs2
_2vs2 = 2.0 * _vs2
_4vs4 = 4.0 * _vs4
_r
= sqrt(_xd*_xd + _hd*_hd)
_r2
= _r * _r
loop _n (1, _nt)
_t = float(_n) * _dt
_tau = _t  _r/_vp
if _tau > 0.0
_t2r2 = sqrt(_t*_t  (_r/_vp)*(_r/_vp))
Re_cp =
_t*_xd / _r2
Im_cp = _t2r2*_hd / _r2
Re_a = Re_cp
Im_a = Im_cp
Re_b = Re_cp
Im_b = Im_cp
mult_complex
; Z 2 > Re(Z) + Im(Z)
Re_z2 = Re_z
Im_z2 = Im_z
;
Re_x = 1.0/(_vp*_vp)  Re_z2
Im_x = 1.0 * Im_z2
sqrt_complex
; sqrt(Zx)
Re_cetap = Re_zr
Im_cetap = Im_zr
;
Re_x = 1.0/(_vs*_vs)  Re_z2
Im_x = 1.0 * Im_z2
sqrt_complex
; sqrt(Zx)
Re_cetas = Re_zr
Im_cetas = Im_zr
;
Re_a = 1.0  _2vs2 * Re_z2
Im_a = 1.0 * _2vs2 * Im_z2
Re_b = Re_a
Im_b = Im_a
mult_complex
; (1.  2.*vs 2*cp 2) 2
Re_temp1 = Re_z
Im_temp1 = Im_z
;
Re_a = Re_cetap
Im_a = Im_cetap
Re_b = Re_cetas
2  76
Optional Features
Im_b = Im_cetas
mult_complex
; cetap * cetas
Re_a = Re_z
Im_a = Im_z
Re_b = Re_z2
Im_b = Im_z2
mult_complex
; cetap * cetas * cp 2
Re_temp2 = _4vs4 * Re_z
Im_temp2 = _4vs4 * Im_z
;
Re_cr = Re_temp1 + Re_temp2
Im_cr = Im_temp1 + Im_temp2
Re_cr = Re_cr + 2.0 * _vs * gamma * Re_cetas
Im_cr = Im_cr + 2.0 * _vs * gamma * Im_cetas
_dut = 2.0*m0*_vs*_vs/(pi*rho*_vp*_vp)
; note Re_a, Im_a store (cetap*cetas)
Re_b = Re_cp
Im_b = Im_cp
mult_complex
; cetap * cetas * cp
;
Re_a = Re_z
Im_a = Im_z
Re_b = Re_cr
Im_b = Im_cr
if divi_complex = 1
; cetap * cetas * cp / cr
oo = out( divided by zero)
exit
endif
_dut = _dut * Re_z / _t2r2
ytable(_utab, _n) = _dut
else
ytable(_utab, _n) = 0.0
endif
end_loop
;
_nf = int(per/_dt + 0.0001)
_sum = 0.0
loop _n (1, _nf)
_ph = float(_n) * _dt / per
if _ph < 1.0
ytable(_ftab, _n) = sin(pi * _ph)
else
ytable(_ftab, _n) = 0.0
endif
_sum = _sum + ytable(_ftab, _n)
end_loop
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
;
;
;
2  77
;
;
;
Dimensionless relation
loop _n (1, _nt)
ytable(_utab, _n) = (4.0*_hd*rho*_vs*_vs/m0)*ytable(_uftab, _n)
xtable(_utab, _n) = float(_n) * _dt * _vs / _hd
end_loop
;
end
set
set
set
set
;
tab
tab
tab
@ana_slp
ret
2  78
Optional Features
2.10 References
Bathe, K.J., and E. L. Wilson. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: PrenticeHall Inc. (1976).
Belytschko, T. An Overview of Semidiscretization and Time Integration Procedures, in Computational Methods for Transient Analysis, Ch. 1, pp. 165. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers,
B.V. (1983).
Biggs, J. M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. New York: McGrawHill (1964).
Chopra, A. K. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice Hall (1995).
Cundall, P. A. Adaptive DensityScaling for TimeExplicit Calculations, in Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics (Edmonton, Canada,
1982), pp. 2326 (1982).
Cundall, P. A., et al. Computer Modeling of Jointed Rock Masses, U.S. Army, Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report WESTRN784 (August 1978).
Cundall, P. A., et al. NESSI Soil Structure Interaction Program for Dynamic and Static Problems,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Report 515089 (December 1980).
Cundall, P. A., et al. Solution of Infinite Domain Dynamic Problems by Finite Modelling in
the Time Domain, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Numerical
Modelling (Madrid, Spain, September 1978), pp. 341351. London: Pentech Press (1979).
Day, S. M. Test Problem for Plane Strain Block Motion Codes, SCubed Memorandum (May 1
1985).
Ferreira, A. J. M., and G. E. Fasshauer. Computation of natural frequencies of shear deformable
beams and plates by an RBFpseudospectral method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 196,
134146 (2006).
Gemant, A., and W. Jackson. The Measurement of Internal Friction in Some Solid Dielectric
Materials, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine & Journal of Science,
XXII, 960983 (1937).
Gerrard, C. M. Elastic Models of Rock Masses Having One, Two and Three Sets of Joints, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 19, 1523 (1982).
Kuhlmeyer, R. L., and J. Lysmer. Finite Element Method Accuracy for Wave Propagation Problems, J. Soil Mech. & Foundations Div., ASCE, 99(SM5), 421427 (May, 1973).
Kunar, R. R., P. J. Beresford and P. A. Cundall. A Tested SoilStructure Model for Surface
Structures, in Proceedings of the Symposium on SoilStructure Interaction (Roorkee University,
India, January 1977), Vol. 1, pp. 137144. Meerut, India: Sarita Prakashan (1977).
Lemos, J. A Distinct Element Model for Dynamic Analysis of Jointed Rock with Application to
Dam Foundations and Fault Motion. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota (June 1987).
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
2  79
Lemos, J. Numerical Issues in the Representation of Masonry Structural Dynamics with Discrete
Elements, in Proceedings of the ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods
in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (Rethymno, Crete, Greece, 1316 June
2007). M. Papadrakakis et al., eds. (2007).
Lysmer, J., and R. Kuhlemeyer. Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media, J. Eng. Mech., Div.
ASCE, 95:EM4, 859877 (1969).
Lysmer, J., and G. Waas. Shear Waves in Plane Infinite Structures, J. Eng. Mech., Div. ASCE,
98, 85105 (1972).
Miller, R. K. The Effects of Boundary Friction on the Propagation of Elastic Waves, Bull. Seis.
Soc. America, 68, 987998 (1978).
Myer, L. R., L. J. PyrakNolte and N. G. W. Cook. Effects of Single Fractures on Seismic Wave
Propagation, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints, pp. 413422.
Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema (1990).
Ohnishi, Y., et al. Verification of Input Parameters for Distinct Element Analysis of Jointed
Rock Mass, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints
(Bjrkliden, Sweden, September 1985), pp. 205214. O. Stephansson, ed. Lule: CENTEK
Publishers (1985).
Otter, J. R. H., A. C. Cassell and R. E. Hobbs. Dynamic Relaxation, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., 35,
633665 (1966).
Roesset, J. M., and M. M. Ettouney. Transmitting Boundaries: A Comparison, Int. J. Num. &
Analy. Methods Geomech., 1, 151176 (1977).
Seed, H. B., P. P. Martin and J. Lysmer. The Generation and Dissipation of Pore Water Pressures
during Soil Liquefaction, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, NSF Report PB252 648 (August 1975).
Singh, B. Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses: Part I The Constitutive Equations, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 10, 311335 (1973).
Wegel, R. L., and H. Walther. Internal Dissipation in Solids for Small Cyclic Strains, Physics, 6,
141157 (1935).
White, W., S. Valliappan and I. K. Lee. Unified Boundary for Finite Dynamic Models, J. Eng.
Mech., Div. ASCE, 103, 949964 (1977).
Wolf, J. P. Dynamic SoilStructure Interaction. New Jersey: PrenticeHall (1985).
2  80
Optional Features
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.