Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 80

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2-1

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.

3DEC Version 5.0

2-2

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: quasi-static and dynamic. Damping is used in the solution of both classes of problems,
but quasi-static problems require more damping. Two types of damping (mass-proportional and
stiffness-proportional) are available in 3DEC. Mass-proportional 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 quasi-static
problems using finite difference schemes, mass-proportional 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 quasi-static problems. These schemes are discussed in Section 1 in Theory
and Background. For dynamic analyses, either mass-proportional or stiffness-proportional, 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 finite-element analysis, a damping matrix,
C, is formed with components proportional to the mass (M) and stiffness (K) matrices,
C = M + K
where: = the mass-proportional damping constant; and
= the stiffness-proportional damping constant.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2-3

For a multiple degrees-of-freedom 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, mass-proportional 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)

3DEC Version 5.0

2-4

Optional Features

=0
5

= 0

i / min

4
total
3

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

i
Figure 2.1

Variation of normalized critical damping ratio with angular frequency

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);

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2-5

(c) mass damping only; and


(d) stiffness damping only.
The data file for each of these cases follows.
Example 2.1 Data file for Rayleigh damping example
new
config dynamic
poly brick 0,10 0,1 0,10
plot create plot Blocks
plot block
plot reset
jset dip 0 dd 180 ori 0,0,5
;
def _time
_time = time
end
fix range x 0,10 y 0,10 z 0,5
gravity 0,0,-10
prop mat=1 dens=1000 k=1e9 g=.7e9
prop jmat=1 jkn=5e7 jks=5e7 jfric=0
hist n 1
hist zvel 0,0,10
hist zdisp 0,0,10
hist @_time
mscale off
damp 0 0
save damp.3dsav
;no damping
title
Plot of vertical displacement vs time (UNDAMPED)
hist label 2 Undamped
hist label 3 Time
plot create plot Hist
plot his 2 vs 3 xaxis label Time yaxis label Vertical displacement
cy 250
;
;mass and stiffness
rest damp.3dsav
hist n 20
damp 1 16
title

3DEC Version 5.0

2-6

Optional Features

Plot of vertical displacement vs


(MASS and STIFFNESS DAMPED; damp
hist label 2 Mass & Stiffness
hist label 3 Time
cy 4321
;
;mass only
rest damp.3dsav
damp 2 16 mass
title
Plot of vertical displacement vs
hist label 2 Mass Damped
hist label 3 Time
cy 250
;
;stiffness only
rest damp.3dsav
hist n 50
damp 2 16 stiff
title
Plot of vertical displacement vs
hist label 2 Stiffness Damped
hist label 3 Time
cy 8623
;
return

time &
1 16)

time (MASS DAMPED; damp 2 16 mass)

time (STIFFNESS DAMPED; damp 2 16 stiff)

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

where:a = joint area (10 m2 , in this case);


k = joint stiffness (5e7 Pa/m); and
m = mass of upper block (5e4 kg).
The problem is critically damped if: a fraction of critical damping = 1 is specified; the natural
frequency of oscillation = 16 is specified; and both mass and stiffness damping are used.
The results in Figure 2.3 show that the problem is critically damped using these parameters. If
only mass (Figure 2.4) or stiffness (Figure 2.5) damping is used, then the damping must be doubled
(since each contributes 1/2 to the Rayleigh damping) to obtain critical damping. Figures 2.4 and

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2-7

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



DUNAo  oS
o: po n

oDEU
D(N2(DUNAoN1DA1DUo


 
Do 
noAo






 m 
mnplH










  oS
o: po n

 
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

SMATo8  og
o4 po8 n

oITSA
S(AD(SMAToA1ST1SSo




 
So oro

noTo





 m 
mnplo









8  og
o4 po8 n

 
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)

3DEC Version 5.0

2-8

Optional Features

E

pGr,0  0N
0 u0 i

0pSG
.gregpGr,0rr6r,6pG0v


 
p0 0U 
i0,0






 m 
mnplo









             

  0N
0 u0 i

 
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

3DEC Version 5.0

            

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

2-9

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., 2-5% for geological materials, and
2-10% for structural systems (Biggs 1964)). Rayleigh damping is frequency-dependent, 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

Plot of velocity spectrum versus frequency

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 stiffness-proportional damping.
The stiffness-proportional 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 10

Optional Features

2.3 Natural Modes of Oscillation


For many problems, the important frequencies are related to the natural mode of oscillation of the
system. Examples of this type of problem include seismic analysis of surface structures such as
dams or dynamic analysis of underground excavations.
For these problems, the fundamental frequency, f , associated with the natural mode of oscillation
is
f =

(2.6)

where:C = speed of propagation associated with the mode of oscillation; and


= longest wavelength.
For an elastic continuous system, the speed of propagation, Cp , is given by Cp = [(K+4/3 G)/]1/2
for p-waves, and Cs = (G/)1/2 for s-waves, where K = bulk modulus, G = shear modulus and
= density.
The longest wavelength, characteristic length or fundamental wavelength depends on boundary
conditions. Consider a solid bar of length 1 with boundary conditions, as shown in Figure 2.7(a).
The fundamental mode shapes for cases (1), (2) and (3) are as shown in Figure 2.7(b).
If shear motion of the bar gives rise to the lowest natural mode, then Cs is used in the preceding
equation; otherwise, Cp is used if motion parallel to the axis of the bar gives rise to the lowest
natural mode.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 11

(1) one end fixed

(2) both ends fixed

(3) both ends free

(a) boundary (end) conditions

(1) characteristic length = 41

(2) characteristic length = 21

(3) characteristic length = 21

(b) characteristic lengths or fundamental wavelengths

Figure 2.7

Comparison of fundamental wavelengths for bars with varying


end conditions

2.3.1 Example Problems (from Cundall et al. (1979), pp. 71-73)


In the limit of very high joint stiffness, an assemblage of blocks should resemble a continuum,
both statically and dynamically. Consider the problem of eight square deformable blocks resting
on a rigid base. Three problems can be treated: an unconfined column; a confined column in
compression; and a column in shear.
The column is loaded by applying gravity in either the x- or z-direction. For the dynamic case, the
mass damping is zero, with stiffness-proportional damping as follows:
fraction of critical = 0.1
frequency

= 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:

3DEC Version 5.0

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

| for compression tests

gx = 0.1

| for shear tests

column height

L = 800

column width

W = 100

number of blocks

n=8

| for shear tests


|
|

The moduli appropriate to the various modes of deformation are given in Table 2.1:

Table 2.1

Moduli appropriate to various deformation modes

Confined Compression
K + (4/3) G

Unconfined Compression


(1/3) G+K
4G K+(4/3) G

Shear
G

(plane strain, Youngs modulus)


2.5714 104

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 )

where E is the appropriate modulus selected from Table 2.1.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 13

Table 2.2 Comparison of theoretical and calculated (3DEC)


dynamic period T of oscillation for three modes
Confined
Compression

Unconfined
Compression

Shear

Theoretical

19.96

26.77

32.00

3DEC

20.47

27.83

32.24

The data file for each of these problems is listed:

Example 2.2 Data file for confined compression


new
config dynamic
title
Example problem: dynamic analysis of column (confined compression)
poly brick -50,50 -50,50 -400,400
plot block
plot reset
jset dip 0 dd 180 org 0,0,0 spac 100 num = 7
gen edge 200
prop m 1 jkn 4e5 jks 4e5 coh 1e10 k 2e4 g 0.428562e4 dens 1 ten 1e10
bound xvel 0 range x -50
bound xvel 0 range x 50
bound yvel 0 range y -50
bound yvel 0 range y 50
bound zvel 0 range z -400
gravity 0,0,-1.0
def v_loc
i_vert = gp_near(50,50,400)
v_min = 0
d_t = 0
end
@v_loc
def _time
_time = time
end
def z_dis

3DEC Version 5.0

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

Example 2.3 Data file for unconfined compression


new
config dynamic
title
Example problem: dynamic analysis of column (unconfined compression)
poly brick -50,50 -50,50 -400,400
plot block
plot reset
jset dip 0 dd 180 org 0,0,0 spac 100 num = 7
gen edge 200
prop m 1 jkn 4e5 jks 4e5 coh 1e10 k 2e4 g 0.428562e4 dens 1 ten 1e10
bound zvel 0 range z -400
gravity 0,0,-1.0
def v_loc
i_vert = gp_near(50,50,400)
v_min = 0
d_t = 0
end
@v_loc
def _time
_time = time
end

3DEC Version 5.0

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

Example 2.4 Data file for shear


new
config dynamic
title
Example problem: dynamic analysis of column shear
poly brick -50,50 -50,50 -400,400
plot block
plot reset
jset dip 0 dd 180 org 0,0,0 spac 100 num = 7
gen edge 200
prop m 1 jkn 4e5 jks 4e5 coh 1e10 k 1e4 g 1e4 dens 1 ten 1e10
bound zvel 0 range x -50
bound zvel 0 range x 50
bound zvel 0 range y -50
bound zvel 0 range y 50
bound xvel 0 range z -400
gravity 0.1,0,0
hist nc 100
def v_loc
i_vert = gp_near(50,0,400)
v_max = 0
d_t = 0
end

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 17

2.4 Wave Transmission


The physical stiffness of joints in-situ can have a substantial influence on seismic wave propagation.
Myer et al. (1990) present field and laboratory test results which demonstrate the effect of the
stiffness of dry natural fractures in rock on high frequency attenuation, and changes in travel time
of the seismic wave. It can be important to represent this effect in the discontinuum model if the wave
transmission is be to modeled accurately. However, care must be taken to not introduce a numerical
distortion of the wave which could mask the actual effect of the joints on wave propagation.
Numerical distortion of the propagating wave can occur in a dynamic analysis, whether it is based
on a continuum or discontinuum program, as a function of the modeling conditions. Both the
frequency content of the input wave and the wave speed characteristics of the system will affect the
numerical accuracy of wave transmission. Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973) show that for accurate
representation of wave transmission through a model, the spatial element size must be smaller than
approximately one-tenth to one-eighth of the wavelength associated with the highest frequency
component of the input wave i.e.,
l

(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 finite-difference 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 p-wave speed for the system is 4300 m/sec. A
triangular-shaped 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

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 p-wave 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 back-calculate
properties based on measured values for the elastic-deformation 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

3DEC Version 5.0

Column of variably sized blocks subjected to triangular-shaped


impulse load at base

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 19

E

P a Ca  
a  
aa a

hfuaT  a4
aW naT c



auh3
hsuIshfuauCh2Cfta




 
uaTa 
ha4    a 
ca2a




 
moHo










T  a4
aW naT c

 
naaa/

Figure 2.9















moHco









Input wave (solid) at base and calculated wave (dashed) at top of


column of rigid block model

Figure 2.10 Column of variably sized blocks subdivided into finite difference
zones

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 20

Optional Features

E

P a Ca  
a  
aa a

hfuaT  a/
aW naT c

a3f20
hsuIshfuauCh0Cf3a


 
uaTa 
ha/    a 
ca2a






 
moHo










T  a/
aW naT c

 
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

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 24

Optional Features

plot hist 1 2 linestyle style dot vs 4 &


xaxis label Time yaxis Label Displacement
save ex2_06.3dsav
ret

For dynamic input with a high peak velocity and short rise-time, 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 memory-consuming, 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 low-pass 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 low-pass 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 25

Velocity (cm/sec)
(Thousands)

-1
0

0.4

0.2

Time (sec)

Figure 2.12 Unfiltered velocity history

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

Figure 2.13 Unfiltered power spectral density plot

3DEC Version 5.0

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)

Figure 2.14 Filtered velocity history at 15 Hz

130
120
110

Fourier Amplitude
(Times 10E9)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

Frequency

Figure 2.15 Results of filtering at 15 Hz

3DEC Version 5.0

12

14

16

18

20

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 27

2.5 Partial Density Scaling for Dynamic Analysis


Density scaling is a technique used in 3DEC in quasi-static calculations that substantially improves
the efficiency in obtaining solutions to large problems. In quasi-static problems, inertial forces are
not important. The gridpoints masses can be scaled for optimal numerical convergence without
affecting the solution. In dynamic analyses, however, global scaling cannot be used. Complex
jointed systems often result in very small block zones being created during the automatic meshing
procedure. The small zones require very small timesteps for numerical stability of the explicit
algorithm. This makes some dynamic solutions extremely time-consuming. However, as these
zones may be very small, with very small masses, it is possible to introduce some density scaling
only for these zones in such a way that the change of the system inertia is negligible. This scheme
of partial density scaling is implemented in 3DEC in such a way that the user controls the amount
of scaling to be introduced. Given the timestep calculated by the code, the user specifies the desired
timestep with the command MSCALE part dt. This command specifies that only the amount of
density scaling required to achieve the timestep dt is to be applied to the system. When a CYCLE
command is given, a message indicating the number of gridpoint masses that were scaled, and the
amount of additional mass introduced, is printed.
2.5.1 Example of Partial Density Scaling
Figure 2.16 shows a simple block system with some low-thickness blocks. The timestep required
for dynamic analysis without any scaling is 1.005e-6 seconds. Using partial density scaling, the
timestep may be increased to 5e-6 seconds, while the total system mass is increased by only 5%.
This information is printed by 3DEC following the use of the MSCALE part command:
no. scaled g.p. masses
min. g.p. scaling factor
max. g.p. scaling factor
min. g.p. added mass
max. g.p. added mass
min. block added mass
max. block added mass
total added mass in model
total real mass in model
added mass / real mass

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

68
4.038E-02
1.000E+00
0.000E+00
3.103E-05
0.000E+00
1.938E-04
8.202E-04
1.920E-02
4.272E-02

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 28

Optional Features

E

pGr,0  0A
0 u0 i

077SS
9gr5gpGr,0r/SG/G50

  
A /0 

r

  0A
0 u0 i

 
u000N

Figure 2.16 View of model with small, thin blocks


The effect of this amount of partial density scaling was checked by comparing the system response
to a sinusoidal shear applied at the base of the model. A viscous boundary condition was applied
to the top of the model to simulate an extended medium. Figure 2.17 shows the x-velocity applied
at the base, and the velocity obtained at the top of the model, obtained in the run without scaling.
Figure 2.18 shows the same quantities for the run with partial density scaling, with a timestep
about 5 times larger. It can be seen that the wave propagation is not affected by the small amount
of scaling introduced.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

E

2 - 29

B 
n  
ngggnn 
n 


301InU  nV
n4 tnU

n,,uu
321p2301In1.3u.1In


 
3n!
n nM
In!
n n
nCn





 
m2taH










U  nV
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 




1203nA  nB
nN dnA g

n1221
10G1203n0.1C.0Cn


 
1n!
n nV
3n!
n n
gnIn





 
mHtaH









A  nB
nN dnA g

 
dnnnM













mHtao









Figure 2.18 Velocities at the bottom and top of the model, for analysis with
partial density scaling

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 30

Optional Features

Example 2.7 No density scaling


new
; model with small zones
; dynamic analysis --- no density scaling
;
title
Dynamic analysis --- no density scaling
config dynamic
poly brick -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
;plot block
;plot reset
jset dip 5 dd 45 origin 0 0 0
jset dip 10 dd 40 origin 0 0 0
jset dip 70 dd 95
jset dip 80 dd 10
gen edge 0.5
prop mat 1 dens 0.0024 bulk 33333 shear 20000
prop mat 1 jkn 500000 jks 500000 coh 1e9 tens 1e9
insitu stress -1e-6 -1e-6 -1e-6 0 0 0
mscale off
damp 0 0 mass
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range zr -1.0
bound xvel 0.1 hist sin 100 1.0 range zr -1.0
bound xvisc yvisc zvisc
range zr 1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range xr -1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range xr 1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range yr -1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range yr 1.0
bound mat 1
def _time
_time = time
end
hist unbal
hist xvel -1 -1 -1
hist xvel -1 -1 1
hist _time
hist label 2 Velocity at Bottom
hist label 3 Velocity at Top
hist label 4 Time
plot hist 2 3 vs 4 xaxis label Time yaxis Label Displacement
solve time 0.01
save zp2no.sav
ret

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 31

Example 2.8 Partial density scaling


new
; model with small zones
; dynamic analysis --- partial density scaling
title
Dynamic analysis - partial density scaling
config dynamic
poly brick -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
jset dip 5 dd 45 origin 0 0 0
jset dip 10 dd 40 origin 0 0 0
jset dip 70 dd 95
jset dip 80 dd 10
gen edge 0.5
prop mat 1 dens 0.0024 bulk 33333 shear 20000
prop mat 1 jkn 500000 jks 500000 coh 1e9 tens 1e9
insitu stress -1e-6 -1e-6 -1e-6 0 0 0
mscale off
damp 0 0 mass
bound xvel 0.1 hist sin 100 1.0 range zr -1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range zr -1.0
bound xvisc yvisc zvisc
range zr 1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range xr -1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range xr 1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range yr -1.0
bound yvel 0 zvel 0
range yr 1.0
bound mat 1
def _time
_time = time
end
hist nc 1
hist unbal
hist xvel -1 -1 -1
hist xvel -1 -1 1
hist _time
hist label 2 Velocity at Bottom
hist label 3 Velocity at Top
hist label 4 Time
mscale part 5e-6
solve time 0.01
save zp2part.sav
plot hist 2 3 vs 4 xaxis label Time yaxis Label Displacement
ret

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 32

Optional Features

2.6 Boundary Conditions


2.6.1 Nonreflecting Boundaries
The modeling of geomechanics problems involves media which, at the scale of the analysis, are
better represented as unbounded. Deep underground excavations are normally assumed to be
surrounded by an infinite medium, while surface and near-surface structures are assumed to lie on
a half-space. Numerical methods relying on the discretization of a finite region of space require
that appropriate conditions be enforced at the artificial numerical boundaries. In static analyses,
fixed or elastic boundaries (e.g., represented by boundary element techniques) can be realistically
placed at some distance from the region of interest. In dynamic problems, however, such boundary
conditions cause the reflection of outward propagating waves back into the model, and do not allow
the necessary energy radiation. The use of a larger model can minimize the problem, since material
damping will absorb most of the energy in the waves reflected from distant boundaries. However,
this solution leads to large computational costs. The alternative is to use nonreflecting (or absorbing)
boundaries. Several formulations have been proposed. The viscous boundary developed by Lysmer
and Kuhlemeyer (1969) is used in 3DEC. It is based on the use of independent dashpots, and is
nearly totally effective for body waves approaching the boundary at angles of incidence above 30 .
For lower angles of incidence, or for surface waves, the energy absorption is only approximate.
However, it has the advantage of being an effective technique which can be used in time-domain
analyses. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated in both finite-element and finite-difference models
(Kunar et al. 1977). A variation of this technique proposed by White et al. (1977) is also widely
used.
More efficient energy absorption (for example, in the case of Rayleigh waves) requires the use of
frequency-dependent dashpots, which can only be used in frequency-domain analyses (e.g., Lysmer
and Waas 1972). These are usually designated as consistent boundaries, and involve the calculation
of dynamic-stiffness matrices coupling all the boundary degrees-of-freedom. Boundary-element
methods may be used to derive these matrices (e.g., Wolf 1985). A comparative study of the
performance of different types of elementary, viscous and consistent boundaries was reported by
Roesset and Ettouney (1977).
A different procedure to obtain efficient absorbing boundaries for use in time-domain studies was
proposed by Cundall et al. (1978). It is based on the superposition of solutions with stress and
velocity boundaries in such a way that reflections are canceled. In practice, it requires adding the
results of two parallel, overlapping grids in a narrow region adjacent to the boundary. This method
has been shown to provide effective energy absorption, but is difficult to implement for a blocky
system with complex geometry, and thus, is not used in 3DEC.
The viscous boundaries proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) consist of independent dashpots attached to the boundary in the normal and shear directions. They provide viscous normal and
shear tractions given by

tn = Cp vn

3DEC Version 5.0

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

Cp and Cs are the p- and s-wave velocities.


These viscous terms can be introduced directly into the equations of motion of the gridpoints lying
on the boundary. A different approach, however, was implemented in 3DEC, in which the tractions
tn and ts are calculated and applied at every timestep in the same way as the boundary loads. This
alternative scheme allows the viscous boundaries to be used with rigid blocks as well. Tests have
shown that this implementation is equally effective. The only potential problem concerns numerical
stability, because the viscous forces are calculated from velocities lagging by half a timestep. In
practical analyses to date, no reduction of timestep has been required by the use of the nonreflecting
boundaries. Timestep restrictions demanded by high joint stiffnesses or small zones are usually
more important.
Dynamic analysis starts from some in-situ condition. If a velocity is used to provide the static stress
state, this boundary condition can be replaced by nonreflecting boundaries; the boundary reaction
forces should be maintained throughout the dynamic loading phase. If a stress boundary condition
is applied for the static in-situ solution, a stress boundary condition of opposite sign must also be
applied over the same boundary when the nonreflecting boundary is applied for the dynamic phase.
This will allow the correct reaction forces to be in place at the boundary for the dynamic calculation.
2.6.2 Free-Field Boundaries
Numerical analysis of the seismic response of surface structures such as dams requires the discretization of a region of the material adjacent to the foundation. The seismic input is normally
represented by plane waves propagating upward through the underlying material. The boundary
conditions at the sides of the model must account for the free-field motion that would exist in the absence of the structure. In some cases, elementary lateral boundaries may be sufficient. For example,
if only a shear wave were applied on the horizontal boundary AC, shown in Figure 2.19, it would
be possible to fix the boundary along AB and CD in the vertical direction only. These boundaries
should be placed at sufficient distances to minimize wave reflections and achieve free-field conditions. For soils with high material-damping, this condition can be obtained with a relatively small
distance (Seed et al. 1975). However, when the material damping is low, the required distance may
lead to an impractical model. An alternative procedure is to enforce the free-field motion in such
a way that boundaries retain their nonreflecting properties (i.e., outward waves originating from
the structure are properly absorbed). This approach was used in the continuum finite-difference
code NESSI (Cundall et al. 1980). A technique of this type, involving the execution of free-field
calculations in parallel with the main-grid analysis, was developed for 3DEC.
The lateral boundaries of the main grid are coupled to the free-field grid by viscous dashpots to
simulate a quiet boundary (see Figure 2.19); the unbalanced forces from the free-field grid are

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 34

Optional Features

applied to the main-grid boundary. Both conditions are expressed in Eqs. (2.9), (2.10) and (2.11),
which apply to the free-field boundary along one side boundary plane with its normal in the direction
of the x-axis. 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

Fx = Cp (vxm vxff )A + Fxff

(2.9)

Fy = Cs (vym vyff )A + Fyff

(2.10)

Fz = Cs (vzm vzff )A + Fzff

(2.11)

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

density of material along vertical model boundary;


p-wave speed at the side boundary;
s-wave speed at the side boundary;
area of influence of free-field gridpoint;
x-velocity of gridpoint in main grid at side boundary;
y-velocity of gridpoint in main grid at side boundary;
z-velocity of gridpoint in main grid at side boundary;
x-velocity of gridpoint in side free field;
y-velocity of gridpoint in side free field;
z-velocity of gridpoint in side free field;
ff stresses
free-field gridpoint force with contributions from the xx
of the free-field zones around the gridpoint;
ff stresses
= free-field gridpoint force with contributions from the xy
of the free-field zones around the gridpoint; and
ff stresses
= free-field gridpoint force with contributions from the xz
of the free-field zones around the gridpoint.

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 free-field
grid executes the same motion as the main grid. However, if the main-grid 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 35

free field

free field

seismic wave

Figure 2.19 Model for seismic analysis of surface structures and free-field
mesh
In order to apply the free-field boundary in 3DEC, the model must be oriented such that the base is
horizontal and its normal is in the direction of the y-axis, and the sides are vertical and their normals
are in the direction of either the x- or z-axis. If the direction of propagation of the incident seismic
waves is not vertical, then the coordinate axes can be rotated such that the y-axis coincides with
the direction of propagation. In this case, gravity will act at an angle to the y-axis, and a horizontal
free surface will be inclined with respect to the model boundaries.
The free-field model consists of four plane free-field grids, on the side boundaries of the model and
four column free-field grids at the corners. The plane grids are generated to match the main-grid
zones on the side boundaries, so that there is a one-to-one correspondence between gridpoints in
the free field and the main grid. The four corner free-field columns act as free-field boundaries
for the plane free-field grids. The plane free-field grids are two-dimensional calculations that
assume infinite extension in the direction normal to the plane. The column free-field grids are
one-dimensional 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 free-field 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 free-field 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 free-field region. Free-field 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 free-field. 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 free-field grid will plot automatically whenever blocks
are plotted. Free-field information can be printed with the LIST ff command.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 36

Optional Features

2.6.2.1 Example Using Dynamic Free Field


A simple model of a concrete gravity dam is created. The top boundary of the model is a free
boundary. The base of the model is a viscous (quiet) boundary. Figure 2.21 shows the geometry of
the model with the dam in the center on top. The model is initially run to static equilibrium under
gravity, to equilibrate the body forces and the boundary forces. This must be done prior to applying
the free field boundaries.

E

pGr,0  0N
0 u0 i

0..e9
4gr6gpGr,0r7S47re0

  
N 70 

r
p

  0N
0 u0 i

 
u000b

Figure 2.20 Model of dam with free field blocks visible


The next step is to run the model with only viscous boundaries. An impulse shear stress function
is applied to the base of the model. In this model, the boundaries are too close and it can be seen in
Figure 2.21 that there is amplification of the x-velocities at the base, and distortion of the motion
at the dam crest.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

E

2 - 37



pGr,0  0U
0 u0 i

0,e,6
,gppgpGr,0rG:GG:SG0b





 
p0"0
0 0 
,0"0
0 0 
i0




  
crt












  0U
0 u0 i

 
u000b











 cr







Figure 2.21 x-velocity 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 x-velocity histories for the base and dam crest. In this case, there is no
amplification of the base wave or distortion at the dam crest.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 38

Optional Features

E

pGr,0  0U
0 u0 i

0..e9
,gppgpGr,0rG/GG/pe0b


 
p0"0
0 0 
,0"0
0 0 
i0







  
crt











  0U
0 u0 i

 
u000b

           

 cr

Figure 2.22 x-velocities of the base and dam crest using free field boundaries

Example 2.9 Dynamic free field boundary example


new
; ------------------------------------------------------------------;
; example of dynamic free-field analysis of dam
; impulse stress wave applied at base, free top
;
; ------------------------------------------------------------------;
config dyn lh
;
title
Dynamic Analysis of a Dam
;
po reg -100 100 -100 0 -100 100
plot block
plot reset
plot set dip 50 dd 240
jset dip 0 dd 0 or 0 -30 0
hide yr -100 -30
jset dip 45 dd 0
or 0 0 -50

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 39

jset dip 45 dd 180 or 0 0 50


hide zr -100 -50
hide zr 50 100
jset dip 90 dd 90 or -12 0 0
del -100 -12 -30 0 -50 50
jset dip 51 dd 90 or -12 0 0
del 12 100 -30 0 -50 50
change mat 2
find
hide mat 2
join
jset dip 30 dd 270 or 30 -30 0 sp 50 n 5
find
gen ed 26
;
; E = 50000 MPa, v=0.25
; dens = 2500 kg/m3
; cp = 4899 m/s
; cs = 2828 m/s
prop mat 1 dens 0.0025 bulk 33333 shear 20000
prop jmat 1 jkn 10000 jks 4000 coh 1e10 tens 1e10
prop mat 2 dens 0.0025 bulk 20000 shear 12000
prop mat 2 jkn 10000 jks 4000 coh 1e10 tens 1e10
bou yr -101 -99 yvel 0
bou xr -101 -99 xvel 0
bou xr
99 101 xv 0
bou zr -101 -99 zv 0
bou zr
99 101 zv 0
insitu stress 0 0 0 0 0 0 ygrad 0.00125 0.0025 0.00125 0 0 0
grav 0 -10 0
damp auto
cycle 2000
;
damp 0 0 mass
reset time hist disp
hist unbal
hist xvel 0 0 0
hist xvel 0 -100 0
hist label 2 X velocity at crest
hist label 3 X velocity at base
save ff1.sav
res ff1.sav
;
; viscous boundaries only
;

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 40

boun xr -101 -99 xvisc


boun xr
99 101 xvisc
boun zr -101 -99 zvisc
boun zr
99 101 zvisc
bound yr -101 -99 str 0 0 0 2.0 0 0 hist imp 5 1000
bound yr -101 -99 xvisc yvisc zvisc
bound mat 1
cy ti 0.4
save ff2.sav
pl hist 2 3 xaxis label Cycles yaxis label Velocity
pause key
;
; run with Free Field Boundary
;
res ff1.sav
;
; --- create FF --;
ffield apply gap 10 thick 10
bound yr -101 -99 str 0 0 0 2.0 0 0 hist imp 5 1000
bound yr -101 -99 xvisc yvisc zvisc
bound mat 1
cy ti 0.4
save ff3.sav
pl hist 2 3 xaxis label Cycles yaxis label Velocity
ret

3DEC Version 5.0

Optional Features

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 41

2.7 Application of Dynamic Input


In 3DEC, the dynamic input can be applied in one of two ways: (a) as a prescribed velocity history;
or (b) as a stress history. Option (a) enforces an exact given velocity history. If only an acceleration
history is available, it must be integrated numerically to produce a velocity history for 3DEC.
The disadvantage of option (a) is that this boundary will not be an absorbing (or nonreflecting)
boundary (i.e., it will reflect back into the model any outgoing stress waves). To avoid this, option
(b) can be used: the velocity record is transformed into a stress record and applied to a nonreflecting
(viscous) boundary. A velocity history may be converted to a stress boundary condition for similar
purposes using the formula
n = 2 ( Cp ) Vn

(2.12)

s = 2( Cs ) Vs

(2.13)

or

where:n = applied normal stress;


s = applied shear stress;
= mass density;
Cp = speed of p-wave propagation through medium;
Cs = speed of s-wave propagation through medium;
Vn = input normal velocity; and
Vs = input shear velocity.
Recall that Cp is given by

1/2
Cp = (K + 4/3G) /
and Cs is given by
Cs = (G / )1/2
The factor of two in Eqs. (2.12) and (2.13) accounts for the fact that the applied stress must be
doubled to overcome the effect of the viscous boundary. Note that, in this case, a velocity history
obtained at the boundary may be different than that from the original velocity record because of the
one-dimensional approximations of Eqs. (2.12) and (2.13).

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 42

Optional Features

2.7.1 Baseline Correction of Input Histories


The process of baseline correction is performed on time histories so that the final velocity and/or
displacement is zero. For example, the velocity waveform in Figure 2.23(a) might integrate to give
the displacement waveform in Figure 2.23(b). However, it is possible to determine a low frequency
wave (Figure 2.23(c)) which, when added to the original history, produces a final displacement that
is zero (Figure 2.23(d)). The low frequency wave in Figure 2.23(c) can be a polynomial or a sine
function, with free parameters that are adjusted to give the desired results.
The preceding comments really only apply to complex waveforms derived, for example, from field
measurements. When using a synthetic, simple waveform, it is a simple matter to arrange the
synthetic waveform itself such that the final displacement is zero. Normally, in seismic analysis,
the input wave is an acceleration record. The baseline correction procedure can cause both the final
velocity and displacement to be zero. (For information on standard baseline correction procedures,
consult earthquake engineering texts.)

velocity

time
(a) velocity history

displacement

time
(b) displacement history

velocity

time
(c) low frequency velocity wave

displacement

time
(d) resultant displacement history

Figure 2.23 The baseline correction process


An alternative to baseline correction of the input record is to apply a displacement shift at the end of
the calculation if there is a residual displacement of the entire model. This can be done by applying

3DEC Version 5.0

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.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 44

Optional Features

2.8 Calculation of Natural Frequencies and Modes of Vibration


3DEC is primarily intended to simulate structural failure. However, for full practical application,
3DEC should also be able to simulate accurately the dynamic response of structures in the elastic
range. The performance of 3DEC block models subjected to dynamic excitation in the elastic
range can be demonstrated by calculating the natural frequencies and modes of vibration for small
amplitude vibrations.
3DEC contains the command DYNAMIC eigenmodes, which can be executed to calculate natural
frequencies for different modes of vibration in a block system. The command is only available
for rigid block models. The calculation of natural frequencies and modes of vibration assumes
that the structural system is elastic. The kinematic variables of the system of rigid blocks are the
6 degrees of freedom of each block, 3 translations and 3 rotations. In a rigid block model, the
deformability is given by the joint stiffness. A global stiffness matrix for the rigid block system
is assembled, which relates the forces and moments applied to the blocks by their neighbors with
the block displacements and rotations. The mass matrix is assumed to be diagonal, for each block
consisting of 3 entries equal to the block mass and the 3 moments of inertia in the 3 coordinate
directions. This assumption involves an approximation as the moments of inertia in the coordinate
directions are not, in general, the principal moments of inertia of the block.
The global stiffness matrix is formed by assembling the elementary stiffness matrix for each subcontact. Assuming small displacements, unit displacements and rotations are considered for each of
the 2 blocks in contact. For each of these 12 configurations, the sub-contact normal and shear forces
are calculated based on normal and shear stiffness and sub-contact area. The forces and moments
that result at the centroid of each of the 2 blocks provide the columns of the contact stiffness matrix
for each of the 12 configurations. Adding the elementary sub-contact matrices leads to the stiffness
matrix of the contact between the 2 blocks. The global stiffness matrix is obtained by assembling
all the contact matrices.
A simple vector iteration procedure is used to calculate the eigenvalues. The algorithm gives the first
N eigenvalues requested, although the ordering may not always be exact. For example, when there
are multiple eigenvalues (e.g., for symmetric structures). It is necessary that at least one block be
fixed and that the system have no completely separate blocks. The dynamic (unscaled) masses must
have been calculated. Therefore, the command SET dynamic on must have been given, followed
by a CYCLE 0 command to force the calculation of dynamic masses. The stiffness matrix requires
a large storage. Therefore, it is recommended that the run not be continued after the eigenvalue
calculation (i.e., save the state before it, and continue the dynamic analysis from that saved file).
The response of a 3DEC rigid block model subjected to low level vibration can be verified for the
analysis of bending of pillars and walls. Lemos (2007) presents two verification examples: elastic
vibration modes of a square pillar and of a wall with variable thickness. A version of the square
pillar example is presented here. The verification involves a pillar, 10 m high, with a square section
of 1 1 m, composed of 10 blocks, and assumed clamped at the base (Figure 2.24).
The mass density of the pillar material is 2500 kg/m3. The blocks are rigid, and the normal and
shear stiffnesses are 1.0 GPa/m and 0.4 GPa/m, respectively. The data file for the 3DEC model is

3DEC Version 5.0

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 mid-edge 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 46

Optional Features

Table 2.3

Natural frequencies (Hz) of bending modes for the square pillar

Bending mode

3DEC rigid block model

Timoshenko beam theory

1st

1.13

1.02

2nd

6.78

6.09

3rd

15.0

16.1

Example 2.10 Elastic vibration modes of a square pillar


new
title
Elastic vibration modes of a square pillar
;
config dyn
;
poly brick 0 1 0 1 0 10
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 1
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 2
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 3
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 4
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 5
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 6
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 7
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 8
jset dip 0 dd 0 origin 0 0 9
facetriangle rad8
poly brick -1 2 -1 2 -1 0 region 10
prop mat 1 dens 2500
prop jmat 1 jkn 1e9 jks .4e9 jcoh 1e20 jtens 1e20
grav 0 0 -10
fix reg 10
hist unbal
hist zdis 0 0 10
set dyn off
cyc 0
save sqp1
cyc 1000
save sqp2
;
; calculate eigenvalues for first 6 modes
set dyn on
cyc 0

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 47

dynamic eigen modes 6


save sqpmodes

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 48

Optional Features

2.9 Verification Examples


2.9.1 Slip on a Joint Induced by a Propagating Harmonic Shear Wave
2.9.1.1 Problem Statement
This problem concerns the effects of a planar discontinuity on the propagation of an incident
shear wave. Two homogeneous, isotropic, semi-infinite elastic regions, separated by a planar
discontinuity with a limited shear strength, are shown in Figure 2.25. A normally incident, planeharmonic shear wave will cause slip at the discontinuity, resulting in frictional energy dissipation.
Thus, the energy will be reflected, transmitted and absorbed at the discontinuity. The problem is
modeled with 3DEC, and the results are used to determine the coefficients of transmission, reflection
and absorption. These coefficients are compared with ones given by an analytical solution (Miller
1978).
B
UT

UI

UR
A

Figure 2.25 Transmission and reflection of incident harmonic wave at a discontinuity


2.9.1.2 Analytic Solution
The coefficients of reflection (R), transmission (T ) and absorption (A) given by Miller (1978) for
the case of uniform material are

R=

3DEC Version 5.0

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

where:T = (2) / = the period for the incident wave;


s = shear stress;
vs = particle velocity in the x-direction; and
= frequency of incident wave (radian/sec).
For elastic media,
s = c vs

(2.18)

Hence,

EI = c

t1 +T

t1

vs2 dt

(2.19)

in which c is the velocity of the propagating shear wave.


The energy flux of the incident wave, EI , is evaluated at Point A (see Figure 2.25) for no slip at the
discontinuity. The energy flux of the transmitted wave, ET , is evaluated at Point B for the case of
slip at the discontinuity. The energy flux of the reflected wave, ER , is calculated by determining
the difference of velocities in two cases: slip and no slip.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 50

Optional Features

2.9.1.3 Numerical Model


The numerical results are determined for four values of the dimensionless frequency U/s ,
where = (G)1/2 , s = discontinuity cohesion, U = displacement amplitude of incident wave,
= density of the media and G = shear modulus of the media.
The problem geometry modeled by 3DEC is shown in Figure 2.26. The media were modeled with
elastic, fully deformable blocks of height (h/2), width b and length l. The blocks are separated
by a planar discontinuity extending in the xz-plane. The blocks were internally discretized into
tetrahedral zones, as shown in Figure 2.27. Nonreflecting boundary conditions were used on the top
and bottom of the model. Displacements at boundaries along the yz-plane at x = 0 and x = b were
restrained in the y-direction to simulate plane shear wave conditions. Displacements at boundaries
were restrained in the z-direction along the xy-plane at z = 0 and z = l to simulate the plane-strain
condition.
b = 120 m
B

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

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 51

Figure 2.27 3DEC block model showing internal discretization


2.9.1.4 Material Properties
The material properties of the elastic media and planar discontinuity are given in Tables 2.4 and
2.5:

Table 2.4

Medium properties

Mass density dens


Shear modulus g
Bulk modulus k

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

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 52

Optional Features

2.9.1.5 Dynamic Loading


The harmonic shear stress applied at the bottom boundary has the following characteristics:

maximum stress of incident wave

1.0 MPa

frequency of incident wave

1 Hz

type of harmonic wave

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 Mohr-Coulomb 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.

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

E

2 - 53



pGr,0  0N
0 u0 i

0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p80


 
r0
0h
p0
0m
i0/0  
0





 m 


m^0











  0N
0 u0 i

 
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,0  0N
0 u0 i

0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p80


 
r0
0h
p0
0m
i0/0  
0





 m 


m^0










  0N
0 u0 i

 
u000h

















Figure 2.29 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 0.5 MPa)

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 54

Optional Features

E



pGr,0  0m
0 u0 i

0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p:0




 
r0
07
p0
0h
i0/0  
0




 m 


m^0











  0m
0 u0 i

 
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,0  0m
0 u0 i

0,GGG
pgr8gpGr,0r5pS5p:0


 
r0
07
p0
0h
i0/0  
0






 m 


m^0










  0m
0 u0 i

 
u0007

















Figure 2.31 Shear stress vs time at Points A and B for the case of an elastic
discontinuity (cohesion = 0.02 MPa)

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 55

The energy flux, EI , is evaluated using Eq. (2.17) at Point A for non-slipping 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 non-slipping 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

Figure 2.32 Comparison of transmission, reflection and absorption coefficients

Example 2.11 MILR3D.3DDAT


new
;=======================================================================
; verification test -- 3DEC modeling of slipping crack under cyclic load
;
Joint Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model
;
elastic blocks
;
dynamic analysis
;=======================================================================
config dynamic
poly brick 0,80 0,30 -200,200
plot create plot Blocks
plot block

3DEC Version 5.0

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,-1e-6,0,0,0
call milr3d.3dfis
save milr3d.3dsav
;
tab 1 0,0
tab 2 0,0
tab 3 0,0

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 57

prop jmat=1 jkn=10.0e9 jks=10.0e9 jcoh=2.5e6 jten=1e12


plot create plot Hist
plot hist 1 2 linestyle style dot vs 7 &
xaxis label Time yaxis label Shear displacement
cyc 3000
table 2 write table1
save milr3d_a.3dsav
;pause key
;
;=======================================================================
;
res milr3d.3dsav
tab 1 read table1
tab 1 0,0
tab 2 0,0
tab 3 0,0
set @time0_ 0.0
prop jmat=1 jkn=10.0e9 jks=10.0e9 jcoh=0.5e6 jten=1e12
cyc 3000
@energy
save milr3d_b.3dsav
;pause key
;
;=======================================================================
;
restore milr3d.3dsav
tab 1 read table1
tab 1 0,0
tab 2 0,0
tab 3 0,0
set @time0_ 0.0
prop jmat=1 jkn=10.0e9 jks=10.0e9 jcoh=0.1e6 jten=1e12
cyc 3000
@energy
save milr3d_c.3dsav
;pause key
;
;=======================================================================
;
restore milr3d.3dsav
tab 1 read table1
tab 1 0,0
tab 2 0,0
tab 3 0,0
set @time0_ 0.0
prop jmat=1 jkn=10.0e9 jks=10.0e9 jcoh=0.02e6 jten=1e12

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 58

cyc 3000
@energy
save milr3d_d.3dsav
ret
;

Example 2.12 MILR3D.3DFIS


;==================================================
;
; implements perfectly plastic joint response
; joint does not soften after yielding
;
;==================================================
def _correction
while_stepping
icon_ = contact_head
loop while icon_ # 0
icx_ = c_cx(icon_)
loop while icx_ # 0
cx_state(icx_) = 0
icx_ = cx_next(icx_)
end_loop
icon_ = c_next(icon_)
end_loop
end
def _speed
speed_ = sqrt(shear_/dens_)
time1_ = height_/speed_
time2_ = time1_ + 1./freq_
agp_ = gp_near(60,-200,30)
bgp_ = gp_near(60, 200,30)
end
set @shear_ 1.e10 @dens_ 2650. @height_ 400. @freq_ 1.
@_speed
def _store1
while_stepping
if time > time1_ then
if time0_ = 0.0 then
time0_ = time
end_if
if time < time2_ then
rtime_ = time-time0_

3DEC Version 5.0

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_s-Vsa_e) * (Vsa_s-Vsa_e) * dt_
end_loop
RRR = sqrt(Er/Ei)
TTT = sqrt(Et/Ei)
AAA = AAA + sqrt(1.0-RRR*RRR-TTT*TTT)
command
set log on
list RRR
list AAA
list TTT
set log off
end_command
end

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 60

Optional Features

2.9.2 Line Source in an Infinite Elastic Medium with a Discontinuity


2.9.2.1 Problem Statement
This problem concerns the dynamic behavior of a single discontinuity under explosive loading.
The problem, shown in Figure 2.33, consists of a planar crack of infinite lateral extent in an elastic
medium, and a dynamic load at some distance, h, from the discontinuity. This problem was
modeled using 3DEC to determine the dynamic response of the discontinuity for a line source (in
the z-direction). The slip of the interface at a Point P , obtained by numerical analysis using 3DEC,
is compared with the closed-form solution derived by Day (1985).

Explosive
Line Source

Crack
Plane

Figure 2.33 Problem geometry for an explosive source near a slip-prone discontinuity
2.9.2.2 Analytic Solution
The closed-form 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/);

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 61

mo

= source strength;

= velocity of pressure wave;

= velocity of shear wave;

= 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)

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 62

Optional Features

2.9.2.3 Model Setup


Figure 2.35 shows the problem geometry modeled by 3DEC. The source is located at A
(x = 0 and z = 2 h), and the discontinuity is located at z = h. The dynamic input was applied at the semicircular boundary of radius 0.05 h. The slip movement was monitored at Point P
on the discontinuity.
The continuous medium was modeled with elastic, fully deformable blocks, as shown in Figure 2.36,
and each block was further discretized into tetrahedral zones. In order to generate only one zone
in the y-direction, the thickness of the block in the y-direction and the average edge length of
the tetrahedron were assumed to be the same. The average edge length was 0.065 h. All of the
joints except the discontinuity were joined in order to model a continuous elastic medium. The
discontinuity was assigned a high normal stiffness and high tensile strength in order to meet the
assumption implied in the analytical solution.
Nonreflecting boundary conditions were applied along the horizontal boundaries at the top and
bottom of the model and along the vertical boundary at x = 4 h. A symmetric boundary condition
was applied along the vertical boundary at x = 0. In order to simulate plane-strain conditions,
displacement in the y-direction is restrained along xz-planes at y = 0 and y = 0.065 h.
4h

2h

A
Dynamic Input
h

P
Discontinuity

y
x

Non-Reflecting
Boundary

Figure 2.35 Problem geometry and boundary conditions for numerical model

3DEC Version 5.0

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

h = 10, 000 MPa/m


10,000 MPa/m
100 Pa
166.67 Pa

The Mohr-Coulomb joint constitutive relation was used in the analysis. The specific 3DEC parameters used for the joint relation are listed in Table 2.7:

3DEC Version 5.0

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

2.9.2.5 Dynamic Loading


Radial velocities corresponding to the dynamic solution for a line source in an infinite medium
were enforced at the semicircular boundary. To avoid problems with the singularity at the source,
dynamic input was applied over a surface 0.05 h from the nominal point source.
UDEC analysis with both velocity and pressure input showed that velocity input gives a better
match with the analytical solution than pressure input. The velocity boundary provides a more
accurate representation of the dynamic stress than the pressure boundary, because in pressure input,
the source function is simply scaled by static stress magnitude and neglects the inertial effects of
dynamic stress at the input boundary.
The radial displacement for a line source given by Lemos (1987) is
1
t
u=
2 r2

1/2

t 2 2
1
r2

t > r/

(2.21)

t > r/

(2.22)

where r is the radial distance.


The corresponding velocity is
1
1
v=
2 r2

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).

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

E

pGr,0  0N
0 u0 i

0.GGr
pgr/gpGr,0r:p/:r80


 
p00!

i080  
0


2 - 65









m  













  0N
0 u0 i

 
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 right-hand side boundaries. Such
viscous boundaries, designed to absorb normally incident p- and s-waves, cannot be fully effective
in this dynamic slip problem because the discontinuity crosses the boundary. Viscous boundaries,
however, are preferable to roller boundaries.

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 66

Optional Features

E



pGr,0  0v
0U u0 i

0.GGr
pgr/gpGr,0r:p/:r80


 
,0E 
0

.0,hmv0#
i080  
0






m myr-y









  0v
0U u0 i

 
u000E



















Figure 2.38 Comparison of dimensionless slip at Point P with Coulomb joint


model (dimensionless slip = (4h 2 /mo )u, dimensionless time
= / h)

Example 2.13 DAY3D.3DDAT


new
;==========================================================================
; verification test -- 3dec modeling of slipping crack under dynamic load
; Joint Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model
; elastic blocks
;
; dynamic analysis
;==========================================================================
;
;
geometry of the model
;
;
config dynamic lh
poly brick 0,40 0,40 0,0.65
plot create plot Blocks
plot block
plot reset
;
;

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

jset
hide
jset
hide
jset
;
seek

2 - 67

dip 0 dd 0 ori 0,10.0,0


0,40 0,10 0,10
dip 45 dd 90 ori 0,25,0 join
range plane dip 45 dd 90 ori 0,25,0 above
dip 45 dd 270 ori 0,15,0 join

tunnel reg 1 &


a 0,20.5,0 0.19,20.46,0 .35,20.35,0 0.46,20.2,0 .5,20.0,0 &
.46,19.8,0 0.35,19.64,0 .19,19.53,0 0.0,19.5,0 &
b 0,20.5,.65 0.19,20.46,.65 .35,20.35,.65 0.46,20.2,.65 .5,20.0,.65 &
.46,19.8,.65 0.35,19.64,.65 .19,19.53,.65 0.0,19.5,.65 &
;
delete range region 1
gen edge 0.650
save day3d.zon
;
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------;set material and joint properties
;
prop mat=1 dens=1.0 k=166.67 g=100.0
prop jmat=1 jkn=10000.0 jks=0.1 jten=1.0e6
;
prop jmat=2 jkn=10000.0 jks=10000.0 jten=1.0e6 jcoh=1.0e6
;
change jmat=2
change jmat=1 range y 9.9 10.1
;
;set boundary material property and viscous boundary
bound mat=1
range y 0
bound xvisc yvisc range y 0 ; xy plane at y=0
;
bound mat=1
range y 40
bound xvisc,yvisc range y 40 ; xy plane at y=40
;
bound mat=1
range x 40
bound xvisc yvisc range x 40 ; xz plane at x=40
;
; set roller boundary along xy plane at z=0 and z=0.65
bound zvel=0 range z 0.0
bound zvel=0 range z 0.65
; set symm boundary along yz plane at x=0
bound xvel=0 range x -1 .5
;
; set velocity boundary condition along cylindrical notch

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 68

Optional Features

;
call vel_inp.3dfis
call ana_slp.3dfis
cycle 1
call day3d.3dfis
@_load
;
insitu stress -1.0e-9 -1.0e-9 -1.0e-9 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

Example 2.14 DAY3D.3DFIS


;=====================================================
;
; calculates unit forces on the contour of the opening
;
;=====================================================
;
def _load
ib_ = block_head
loop while ib_ # 0
igp_ = b_gp(ib_)
loop while igp_ # 0
x_ = gp_x(igp_)
y_ = gp_y(igp_)
d_ = sqrt((x_-xc_)*(x_-xc_)+(y_-yc_)*(y_-yc_))
if abs(d_-dist_) < 0.05*dist_
nx_ = (x_-xc_)/d_

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 71

Example 2.15 VEL INP.3DFIS


;=====================================================
;
; Fish function for generating the radial velocity
; input profile at r=0.05h
;
; Input:
;
vl
--- P-wave velocity
;
per --- period of wave
;
tt
--- total time
;
xd
--- horizontal distance
;
nt
--- total number of dat points
;
; Output:
;
velocity profile stored in table 1
;=====================================================
;
def ini_par
vl = 0.0
per = 0.0
tt = 0.0
xd = 0.0
nt = 1000
_vtab = 1 ; table storing velocity profile
_fptab = 2
_vhtab = 3
end
@ini_par
;
def vel_inp
if xd <= 0.0
exit
endif
if per <= 0.0
exit
endif
_w = 2.0*pi/per
_dt = tt/float(nt)
_ca = -1./(2.0*pi*vl)
_cb = _ca/(xd * xd)
_cc = _cb * _dt
;
; Obtain velocity record by performing convolution
; using the radial displacement for a step function

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 72

Optional Features

; and second derivative of the pressure history


;
loop _n (1, nt)
_t = float(_n-1) * _dt
xtable(_fptab, _n) = _t
if _t < 0.5*per
ytable(_fptab, _n) = 0.5*_w*_w*cos(_w*_t)
_nfp = _n
else
ytable(_fptab, _n) = 0.0
endif
end_loop
;
;
--- displacement ----;
_t0 = xd/vl
_j0 = int(_t0/_dt)
_j0 = _j0 + 1
loop _n (1, nt)
_t = float(_n-1) * _dt
if _n < _j0
ytable(_vhtab, _n) = 0.0
else
_t
= _t0 + 0.5*_dt + float(_n-_j0)*_dt
_cf
= _t*vl/xd
_cf2
= _cf * _cf
_cs
= sqrt(_cf2 - 1.0)
_cg
= _cs / _t
ytable(_vhtab, _n) = _cc / _cg
endif
xtable(_vhtab, _n) = _t
end_loop
;
;
---- velocity --------;
ytable(_vtab, 1) = 0.0
xtable(_vtab, 1) = 0.0
loop _n (2, nt)
_vn = 0.0
_j1 = min(_nfp, _n-1)
loop _n1 (1, _j1)
_vn = _vn + ytable(_fptab, _n1) * ytable(_vhtab, (_n - _n1))
end_loop
ytable(_vtab, _n) = _vn
end_loop
;

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2 - 73

; Change sign for pressures source


;
_vmax = -1e20
_vmin = 1e20
loop _n (1, nt)
ytable(_vtab, _n) = -1.0*ytable(_vtab, _n)
_vi
= ytable(_vtab, _n)
vmin = min(_vmin, _vi)
vmax = max(_vmax, _vi)
xtable(_vtab, _n) = float(_n-1)*_dt
end_loop
; oo = out( vmin, vmax = , string(vmin), ,, string(vmax))
end
set @vl=17.32 @per=1.2 @tt=1.4 @xd=0.5 @nt=1000
tab @_vtab 0,0
tab @_fptab 0,0
tab @_vhtab 0,0
@vel_inp
ret

Example 2.16 ANA SLP.3DFIS


;=====================================================================
;
This function evaluates the dynamic response of the slip of a
;
single discontinuity of infinite extent caused by an explosive
;
loading. Analytical solution of a line source in an elastic medium
;
with a discontinuity is given by S. M. Day (1985).
;
;
Input: _nt --- total number of data points to be created
;
_dt --- time increment
;
_xd --- horizontal distance, x
;
_hd --- vertical distance, _hd
;
per
--- period of input function
;
rho
--- density
;
m0
--- source strength
;
gamma --- dimensionless bonding parameter
;
_vp --- velocity of pressure wave
;
_vs --- velocity of shear wave
;
;
Output: Dimensionless relation stored in table 4.
;
Non-normalized values are stored in table 6.
;=====================================================================
;
def add_complex
; Summation of two complex variables

3DEC Version 5.0

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)

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

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

3DEC Version 5.0

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

;
;
;

2 - 77

du vs. time relation


loop _i (1, _nt)
_uf = 0.0
_n = min(_nf, _i)
loop _j (1, _n)
_uf = _uf + ytable(_utab,_i-_j+1)*ytable(_ftab,_j)
end_loop
ytable(_uftab, _i) = _uf / _sum
xtable(_uftab, _i) = float(_i) * _dt
end_loop

;
;
;

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

@_nt=1000 @_dt 0.005


@_xd=10. @_hd=10. @_vs=10. @_vp=17.320508
@gamma=0.0 @per=0.6 @rho=1.0 @m0=1.0
@_utab=4 @_ftab=5 @_uftab=6
@_utab 0,0
@_ftab 0,0
@_uftab 0,0

@ana_slp
ret

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 78

Optional Features

2.10 References
Bathe, K.-J., and E. L. Wilson. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. (1976).
Belytschko, T. An Overview of Semidiscretization and Time Integration Procedures, in Computational Methods for Transient Analysis, Ch. 1, pp. 1-65. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers,
B.V. (1983).
Biggs, J. M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill (1964).
Chopra, A. K. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice Hall (1995).
Cundall, P. A. Adaptive Density-Scaling for Time-Explicit Calculations, in Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics (Edmonton, Canada,
1982), pp. 23-26 (1982).
Cundall, P. A., et al. Computer Modeling of Jointed Rock Masses, U.S. Army, Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report WES-TR-N-78-4 (August 1978).
Cundall, P. A., et al. NESSI Soil Structure Interaction Program for Dynamic and Static Problems,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Report 51508-9 (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. 341-351. London: Pentech Press (1979).
Day, S. M. Test Problem for Plane Strain Block Motion Codes, S-Cubed Memorandum (May 1
1985).
Ferreira, A. J. M., and G. E. Fasshauer. Computation of natural frequencies of shear deformable
beams and plates by an RBF-pseudospectral method, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 196,
134-146 (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, 960-983 (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, 15-23 (1982).
Kuhlmeyer, R. L., and J. Lysmer. Finite Element Method Accuracy for Wave Propagation Problems, J. Soil Mech. & Foundations Div., ASCE, 99(SM5), 421-427 (May, 1973).
Kunar, R. R., P. J. Beresford and P. A. Cundall. A Tested Soil-Structure Model for Surface
Structures, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction (Roorkee University,
India, January 1977), Vol. 1, pp. 137-144. 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).

3DEC Version 5.0

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, 13-16 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, 859-877 (1969).
Lysmer, J., and G. Waas. Shear Waves in Plane Infinite Structures, J. Eng. Mech., Div. ASCE,
98, 85-105 (1972).
Miller, R. K. The Effects of Boundary Friction on the Propagation of Elastic Waves, Bull. Seis.
Soc. America, 68, 987-998 (1978).
Myer, L. R., L. J. Pyrak-Nolte and N. G. W. Cook. Effects of Single Fractures on Seismic Wave
Propagation, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints, pp. 413-422.
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. 205-214. 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,
633-665 (1966).
Roesset, J. M., and M. M. Ettouney. Transmitting Boundaries: A Comparison, Int. J. Num. &
Analy. Methods Geomech., 1, 151-176 (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 PB-252 648 (August 1975).
Singh, B. Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses: Part I The Constitutive Equations, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 10, 311-335 (1973).
Wegel, R. L., and H. Walther. Internal Dissipation in Solids for Small Cyclic Strains, Physics, 6,
141-157 (1935).
White, W., S. Valliappan and I. K. Lee. Unified Boundary for Finite Dynamic Models, J. Eng.
Mech., Div. ASCE, 103, 949-964 (1977).
Wolf, J. P. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (1985).

3DEC Version 5.0

2 - 80

3DEC Version 5.0

Optional Features