Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Computers & Structures Vol. 48, No. 5. pp. 80~810, 1993 Printed in Great Britain.

0045-7949/93 $6.00 + 0.00 ,~ 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

DESIGN

OF

REINFORCED

CONCRETE

CYLINDRICAL

WATER

TANKS

FOR

MINIMUM

MATERIAL

COST

G. H. TAN,~"V. THEVENDRAN,~"N. C. DAS GUPTA~"and D. P. THAMBIRATNAM~ tDepartment of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, l0 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 0511 :l:Schoolof Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia

(Received 10 August 1992)

Abstract--The minimum material cost design of reinforced concrete cylindrical water tanks according to BS8007 is considered. The material cost takes into account the amount of reinforcement and concrete required. The analysis is simplified by using the beam on elastic foundation (BEF) analogy. The tank wall is modelled as consisting of linear pieeewise slopes. The non-linear constrained minimization problems have been solved numerically by direct search methods using a microcomputer. The results are presented and discussed.

!.

INTRODUCTION

Structural optimization has received considerable at- tention in the literature with tremendous advances in recent years [1, 2]. The idea of optimization to enable more economical structures in design is becoming more important and attractive as construction and material costs increase; shell structures are widely used. However, optimization studies in this area are limited, especially when they involve microcomputer applications. This is probably due to the nature of shell structures whose behaviour is governed by complex differential equations. Problems pertaining to shell structures are usually solved by large finite element packages and therefore iterative computation may be too time consuming. Thevendran and Tham- biratnam have made preliminary studies on optimal design of cylindrical tanks using commercial finite element packages and an optimization subroutine [3]. They later modified the analysis by using a numerical approach based on the Runge-Kutta method [4]. However, these approaches have limitations as only bending and hoop stresses are considered as con- straints and the problems have been solved using a mainframe computer. In this study, the minimum material cost design of reinforced concrete cylindrical water tanks is considered. The objective of this study is to develop an optimal design procedure that is simple and effective, and can be easily utilized by design engin- eers having access to microcomputers. The minimum material cost design is sought considering only con- crete and steel costs. Such a design may not be the most economical design if other aspects such as construction cost are considered. Nevertheless, it gives a good initial start for a feasible and economical design.

803

The problem basically consists of three parts:

namely analysis, design, and optimization. The pre- sent shell problem is axisymmetric. Therefore, a simplified finite element method based on beam on elastic foundation (BEF) analogy[6, 7] has been adopted. Earlier studies have shown that the BEF method is efficient, fast, and can be easily im- plemented on a microcomputer. These features are highly suitable for the present optimization problem. The analysis is divided into two parts: static and free vibration of the tank. The vibration analysis is not the main consideration in this study. However, it is recognized that knowledge of natural frequencies in order to avoid resonance which may cause failure of structures by excessive deflection is important. There- fore, the effect of optimization on natural frequencies of the structure is investigated. The BEF analogy predicts only axisymmetric frequencies. However, earlier studies have shown that when axisymmetric frequencies are elevated, the frequencies in non- axisymmetric modes also get elevated [8]. In order to achieve feasibility, design is done in accordance with the British code of practice for aqueous retaining structures, BS8007 [5]. The design requirements form the constraints of the optimization problem, resulting in constrained non-linear pro- gramming problems. The constrained problems are at first transformed into equivalent unconstrained prob- lems using the exterior point method of the sequential unconstrained minimization techniques (SUMT) developed by Fiacco and McCormick [9] and then solved numerically using a suitable direct search method [10, 11]. The problems in this study are finite optimization problems as they can be defined in terms of a finite number of variables. This differs from classical problems which employ mathematical theory of calculus, variational methods, etc.

804

G.H. TAN et al.

2. ANALYSISUSING BEF ANALOGY

The cylindrical water tank is analysed using a finite clement method based on BEF analogy. This section illustrates the theoretical considerations behind the analysis and the methodology implemented. Consider a thin-walled elastic circular cylinder subjected to axisymmetric radial loading as shown in Fig. l(a). In view of symmetry, every section of the cylinder perpendicular to the axis will remain circu- lar, whilst the radius, R, will undergo a change AR = u. The radial displacement, u, can be regarded as the lateral deflection for a longitudinal strip AB (Fig. la). Also, on account of symmetry, it would suffice to consider the deformation of only one longitudinal strip, AB in this case, whose width is taken equal to unity. The thickness of this strip may vary arbitrarily in the longitudinal direction. The corresponding strain component in the circumferen- tial direction, u/R, due to the radial displacement u, will give rise to circumferential (or hoop) forces, N (Fig. 1b), per unit length along the longitudinal edges of the strip AB, and are given by

N = Eh(u/R)

(1)

in which h is the shell wall thickness, R the radius of

the middle surface of the cylinder, and E the modulus

of

elasticity. The hoop forces are considered positive

in

tension, whilst the radial deflection and loading are

positive in the outward direction. The resultant force

P (Fig. Ib), of the hoop forces N, on the longitudinal

edges of the strip, is in the radial direction, and its

value per unit length of the strip is given by

 

N

Ehu

P

R

Rz

.

(2)

This resultant force, P, which opposes the deflection,

is proportional to the deflection with (Eh/R 2) as the

proportionality factor. Hence, a longitudinal strip of an axisymmetrically loaded cylindrical shell can be

regarded as a beam on an elastic foundation having

a modulus

Eh ks = ~-7

(3)

which depends on the material and on the cross-sec- tional dimensions of the shell. This analogy can also be established by examining the differential equations governing a beam on elastic foundation and an axisymmetrically loaded cylindri- cal shell. These are respectively given as follows:

dz

[

d2u"~

~x2~EI-~x2)+kfu=p

d2 -fD d2u~

dx (

ghu

(4)

(5)

where D = Eh3/12(l- vz) is defined as the flexural rigidity of the shell and p is the intensity of load per unit length. The equivalent stiffness matrices are obtained by the finite element method on the basis of minimum potential energy. Derivation of the complete stiffness matrices are presented in the Appendix. The stiffness method [12] is used to solve for the required displace- ments. In this method, the structure stiffness matrix is obtained by superposing the individual element stiffness matrices. The fundamental equation of the stiffness method is

{Q} = [K]{q},

(6)

where {Q} is the vector of nodal loads, [K] the structure stiffness matrix, and {q} a vector of nodal displacements. For free vibration analysis of shells, neglecting damping effects, the equation of motion can be given as [12]

[M]{4} + [K]{q} = 0.

(7)

Substituting {q} = [Q] e~'°tinto eqn (7) yields

(2 [I1 -- [K]-'[Ml){q } = 0,

(8)

where 2 = 1/(.o2, [M] is the consistent mass matrix for the structure, and [I] is the identity matrix. The frequencies of the structure are obtained by solving the above equations. Derivation of the com- plete consistent mass matrix are presented in the Appendix.

Fig.

1.

I

I

I

I

L

axisymmetric

x

fl

t _

radial

loading

/U

\,

"~

,/./~width

Ib)

Thin-walled cylinder subjected to axisymmetric loading.

(a)

/

Cost-effective concrete water

tank design

805

3. OPTIMIZATION

The variables considered in this study are the thicknesses at various cross-sections of the shell. For example, in Fig. 2, there are four optimization vari- ables, h0, h~, h2, and h3. Generally for water-retaining structures, it is found that serviceability consider- ations control the design. The maximum crack width allowable is taken as 0.1 mm, for critical aesthetic appearance (BS8007: Clause 2.2.3.3). The structure is also checked for strength at ultimate limit state. To obtain a feasible design, the design requirements are incorporated as constraints.

3.1. Objective function

The objective function is the total cost of concrete and steel required for the structure. The cost of concrete is taken as S$110/m3 and the cost of steel as S$850/tonne. (S$ = Singapore dollars.)

3.2. Constraints

The design of the water tank is in accordance with BS8007:1987 'Design of concrete structures for re- taining aqueous liquids' [5]. The various constraints considered in this study are as follows:

(i) The ultimate strength of concrete is obtained by using BS8110[13] simplified equivalent stress block. A value of 0.45f~, is used for the width of the stress block. The allowable moment, M, is governed by

M~<M~,

where f,,, is concrete cube strength, M is applied moment, and M~ is the ultimate moment of resistance as defined in BS8110:Clause 3.4.4 (Part 1)[12]. (ii) The concrete section is designed such that the wall thickness is able to resist ultimate shear forces. The allowable shear, v, is governed by

v <~v<,

(9)

where

in Table 3,9 in BSSll0:Part 1)[12] and v is the

maximum applied shear stress

(iii) Allowable hoop tension, T, in the reinforce-

v~ is the design concrete shear stress (as defined

ment is governed by

r ~<A~f,/~,

(lO)

where T is the hoop force, Ah is the steel reinforce- ment, fy is the steel yield strength taken as 460N/mm 2, and 7, the partial safety factor taken as 1.15.

(iv) To be effective in distributing cracking the

minimum reinforcement Aa required is governed by

A

d >1A<pc~it,

( 11 )

where Petit, the critical steel ratio is taken as 0.0035 for grade 460 steel as defined in Appendix A.2, BS8007:198715] and Ac is the area of the concrete section. (v) Allowable crack width, w (in flexure or ten- sion), is governed by

w ~< 0.1 mm,

(12)

where w is the crack width due to flexural tension or direct tension (hoop forces) as defined in Appendix B, BS8007:1987 [5].

(vi) Minimum thickness of section, h, is governed

by

h >/200 mm,

(13)

where h is defined as the thickness of the shell section.

(vii) s, the bar spacings of the section, is governed

by (BS8007:Clause 2.6.2.3)[5]

s ~< 300 mm.

(14)

(viii) c, the allowable concrete cover, is governed by (BS8007:Clause 2.7.6)[5]

L

_

,

h 3

-h2

h~

c/> 40 mm.

(15)

3.3. Methodology

The resulting optimization problems become con- strained non-linear minimization problems. A con- strained minimization problem may be converted into an equivalent unconstrained one using the 'exterior point' method of the SUMT developed by Fiacco and

McCormick [9]. Accordingly, a problem of minimiz- ing a function f(x) subject to m constraints gj(x)/> 0

(j

lem of minimizing

=

1, 2

m) is solved by considering the prob-

Fig. 2. Tank wall modelled as consisting of linear piecewise slopes.

f(x, rj) =f(x) +

~

j=l

rj[gj(x) -

[gj(x)I]2

(16)

806

G.H. TAN et al.

over monotonically increasing sequences of rj. The resulting unconstrained minimization problems can be solved using direct search methods. The direct search methods have been chosen against gradient techniques as these methods can be easily and quickly programmed, are computationally compact and re- quire minimal storage which is important in micro- computer applications. Furthermore it does not require explicit evaluation of any partial derivatives but relies solely on evaluation of the objective func- tion. All these characteristics are highly favourable for utilization by practising engineers. Direct search methods [10, 11] considered in this study include al- ternate variable search (AVR), Hooke-Jeeves and Powelrs conjugate directions. Included as compari- son is the complex method [11] which can solve the problem automatically without SUMT. The optimiz- ation methods adopted may not always lead to global optimum values. This shortcoming may be overcome by using different initial starting points and choosing the best optimum values.

3.4. Solution procedure

The solution procedure consists of the following steps:

(i) An initial starting value for shell thicknesses as shown in Fig. 2.

(ii) Analyse and design in accordance to BS8007.

Search for the optimum steel section and the spacing

required from the database created.

(iii) Check the constraint for violations and calcu-

late the total material costs.

(iv) Check if the optimization convergence criteria

are satisfied.

(v) If step (iv) is not satisfied, the optimization

variables are adjusted accordingly and steps (ii)-(iv)

are repeated.

4.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The minimum cost design of cylindrical water tanks has been considered. To calculate the ultimate Ioadings, the dead load factor is taken as 1.4 and the live load factor as 1.6. For service loads, both the live

and the dead load factors are taken as 1.0. In the analysis, a longitudinal strip of the water tank is discretized into five elements of equal lengths. The tank is assumed to be fixed at the bottom and free at the top. Two examples have been considered. The second example includes comparison of direct search methods mentioned in Sec. 3.3.

Example 1

tank of height 10 m and radius 20 m, is

considered in this example. The Young's modulus and the Poisson's ratio of concrete are taken as 28kN/mm 2 and 0.167, respectively. The specific weight of water is 9.81 kN/m 3 and that of concrete is 24 kN/m 3, while the grade of concrete is 35. The steel reinforcement design is based on maximum bending and hoop stresses. This reinforcement is then applied throughout the tank. Four cases with differ- ent types of variation in wall thickness have been considered:

A water

Case 1. A uniform thickness tank: There is only one

design variable.

Case 2. Linear variation from

top to bottom (one

slope): There are two design variables.

Case 3:

Two linear variations in wall thickness (two

slopes): There are three design variables.

Case 4:

Three linear variations

in wall thickness

(three slopes): There are four optimization variables.

The detailed results of optimization using AVR are summarized irr Table 1 and variation of lowest axisymmetric frequency is shown in Fig. 3.

Example 2

The four cases considered are the same as those in Example 1 except that the steel reinforcement design is based on maximum stress in each element. The reinforcement required is then applied accordingly to each element. A comparison of a few direct search methods are made and the results are summarized in Table 2. The detailed results of optimization using AVR are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Variation of lowest axisymmetric frequency is also shown in Fig. 3.

Table I. Summary of results for Example l

Distance

Wall

Volumeof

Hoop

Flexural

from base

thickness

concrete

reinforcement

reinforcement

Cost

Case

(m)

(m)

(ma)

(mm2)

(mm2)

(S$)

l

0.58

742.9

4188

3590

155,000

2

0

0.78

664.5

3141

3216

134,000

10

0.26

0

0.78

3

4

0.44

553.6

3141

4020

128,000

10

0.20

0

0.78

4

2

0.25

347.2

2010

5360

105,000

6

0.20

10

0.20

Cost-effective concrete water tank design

807

"~

800

7S0

700

No.

of

slopes

Fig. 3. Variation of frequency with number of slopes.

5.

DISCUSSION

Optimization of cylindrical water tanks has been studied using a simple finite element method based on BEF analogy and utilizing direct search methods of optimization. The entire procedure has been pro- grammed using a 80486 microcomputer. The average computation time for case 1 is 4 sec, case 2 is 7.5 sec, case 3 is 12 sec, and case 4 is 19 sec. In the analysis of all the cases in the two examples, five elements were used to discretize a strip of the tank as earlier studies[7] have shown that the results obtained provided sufficient accuracy and convergence. How- ever, for free vibration analysis, 20-30 elements are required. The optimization is illustrated in the two examples presented with different cases to show the flexibility of the method. There are two ap- proaches possible to achieve an optimal design. One approach is to consider the wall thickness of the tank and the steel reinforcements as optimization variables; the other is to consider only the wall thickness of the tank. The results from both ap- proaches are relatively the same as the latter ap- proach still considers cost of steel as a component of the objective function, thereby indirectly influencing the results. However, the first approach has been found to be more time consuming and more prone to errors as the number of the optimization vari- ables are higher. Therefore the second approach is recommended. The results in Tables 1, 3, and 4 show the effects of varying the number of design variables. Material cost decreases as degree of variation increases or in other words as the number of slopes in the wall increases. However, volume of concrete does not

follow this pattern as shown in Table 3. This is as expected as the optimization is based on minimum material cost and not minimum weight. The best section of tank may be curved in shape, with the thickness of the wall maximum at the bottom of the shell. This is due to the maximum bending stresses at the base of the tank. However, in terms of practical- ity, it would be difficult to construct a tank with curved wall. Therefore in this study, the wall was modelled as consisting of single or multiple linear piecewise slopes. The final geometrical configurations of tank are given in Tables 1 and 3. For comparison, case 1 of Example 1 is taken as the benchmark and the amount of savings that can be achieved in the different cases is illustrated in Table 4. Case 1 of Example 1 represents the simplest case of optimiz- ation with the least number of design variables. The shell is of uniform thickness and steel reinforcements based on maximum stresses are used for the entire tank. At the other extreme is case 4 of Example 2 which corresponds to the highest degree of optimiz- ation. The wall of the tank consists of three linearly varying slopes. The reinforcement designs are based on maximum stresses at each element. When the two cases are compared there is a distinct savings of $66,000 or 42.6% reduction in cost (Table 5) if the latter is favoured. However, the degree of difficulty in construction increases as the number of slopes in- creases. A possible compromise would be to design the tank with a single linear varying slope. As shown in Table 5, possible savings of 13.5% and 31.0% can be achieved respectively in case 2 of Examples 1 and 2. The examples above illustrated different feasible designs which satisfy constraints listed in Sec. 3.2. Other constraints may be added according to the requirement of the design engineer. The reinforce- ments required are obtained from a created database which stores commonly used bar sizes and spacings to ensure practicality. Table 2 shows the results of the comparison made between the different search methods. The methods include simple method like the alternate variable search to more sophisticated methods such as, Pow- ell's method which is based on setting up mutually conjugate directions. The optimized costs are ob- tained by taking the best value of three different starting values. It can be observed that the final optimized cost obtained from various techniques do

Table 2. Comparison of various direct search methods for Example 2

Case

 

1

2

3

Method

Cost (S$)

Iters.

Cost (S$)

Iters.

Cost (S$)

Iters.

AVR

105,076

59

91,968

126

89,051

170

Hooke and Jeeves

102,942

63

93,509

101

86,420

172

Powell

105,960

94

93,528

105

88,984

156

Complex

102,712

43

93,541

87

--t

--f

Iters. denotes the number of objective function evaluations. tFail to converge to a reasonable value.

808

G.H.

Table 3. Summary of results for Example 2

 

Distance

Wall

Volume of

from base

thickness

concrete

Cost

Case

(m)

(m)

(m3)

(S$)

1

0.39

494.5

115,000

2

0

0.59

504.5

105,000

10

0.21

0

0.74

3

4

0.21

390.0

92,000

10

0.20

0

0.65

4

2

0.29

350.0

89,000

6

0.20

10

0.20

not differ more than 3% in all the cases considered with the exception of the complex method which failed to converge to a optimum value in case 3. Therefore, for the present problem under study a simple optimization routine like the AVR can be adopted to get reasonable results. The variation of the lowest axisymmetric frequen- cies are shown in Fig. 3. Generally tanks comprising of linear slopes have higher frequencies as compared to uniform tanks. For example, a comparison be- tween a tank of a single slope and a tank with uniform thickness shows an average elevation of 21%. Therefore, if a single slope tank is chosen for design, material cost savings (31%) and elevation of frequency (21%) can be achieved simultaneously. Frequency analysis is important especially if, in the design it is required to isolate the structure from possible dynamic excitation. The results obtained are relevant as it was noted earlier during optimization [8] that both the lowest axisymmetric frequency and natural frequency increase simultaneously by the same order.

6. CONCLUSION

The BEF method coupled with direct search optim- ization routines has been found to be effective and fast in this study. Simple methods like alternate variable search can be incorporated to give reason- able results. Therefore, practising engineers who wish to obtain an initial feasible and economic design can easily implement the procedure in a microcomputer without resorting to large finite element packages and complicated optimization routines.

Table

4. Detail

of

reinforcements

in

each

element

in

 

Example 2

 

Case

Element

1

2

3

4

5

1

Hoop(mm 2)

3216

5360

5360

5360

2010

Flex. (mm2)

8042

731

731

731

731

2

Hoop (mm2)

2010

4020

4020

5360

2296

Flex. (ram2)

4908

893

804

731

670

3

Hoop (mm2)

2010

3216

5360

5360

3216

Flex. (mm2)

4188

893

670

670

670

4

Hoop(ram 2)

1786 2680

4020

4020

3216

Flex. (mm2)

893

2680

670

670

670

TAWet al.

Table 5. Cost comparison

Example/case

Percentage savings

2/1

13.5 17.4 32.2 25.8 32.3 40.6 42.6

1/2

1/3

1/4

2/2

2/3

2/4

Acknowledgement--The authors wish to acknowledge that this study has been facilitated by a research grant (No. RP 890649) from the National University of Singapore.

REFERENCES

1.

G. I. N. Rozvany and B. L. Karihaloo, Structural Optimization. Kluwer, Norwell (1988).

2.

C.

A. Brebbia and S. Hernandez, Computer Aided

Optimum Design of Structures: Recent Advances. Com-

putational Mechanics Publications, Southampton

(1989).

 

3.

V.

Thevendran and D. P. Thambiratnam, Minimum

weight design of cylindrical water tanks. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 23, 1679-1691 (1986).

4.

V.

Thevendran

and

D.

P.

Thambiratnam,

Optimal

shape of cylindrical concrete water tanks. Comput. Struct. 26, 805-810 (1987).

5.

British Standards Institution, Code of Practice for De- sign of Concrete Structures for Retaining Aqueous Liquids. BS8007 (1987).

6.

M.

Hetenyi, Beam on Elastic Foundation. University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI (1961).

 

7.

D.

P. Thambiratnam, Application of a simple finite

element method using the 'BEF' analogy for the analysis

of axisymmetric shell structures. National University of Singapore Symposium on the Finite Element Method,. 36-40 (1989).

8.

D.

P. Thambiratnam, V. Thevendran, S. L. Chang and

S.

L. Lee, Maximization of natural frequencies of

cylindrical shells. Engng Optimiz. 13, 85-97 (1988). 9. A. V. Fiacco and G. P. McCormick, Nonlinear Pro-

gramming: Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Techniques. John Wiley, New York (1968).

10. S. L. S. Jacoby, J. S. Kowalik and J. T. Pizzo, Iterative Methods for Non-linear Optimization Problems. Pren- tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1972).

11. P. E. Gill and W. Murray, Numerical Methods for Constrained Optimization. Academic Press, London

(1978).

12. A. Ghali and A. M. Neville, Structural

Edn. Chapman & Hall, London (1978).

13. British Standards Institution, Code of Practice for De- sign and Construction. BS8110:Part I (1985).

Analysis', 2nd

APPENDIX

In order to derive the stiffness matrix, a typical element with two degrees of freedom per node is considered as shown in Fig. A.l and a complete cubic displacement function, v, is assumed, and is given by

{v} = [Ixx2x3l{a } = [A (x )l{a }

(17)

in which {a} is a vector of undetermined coefficients. In terms of the nodal displacement {q}, the displacement function Iv], is given by

in which

{v} = [A][CI-'{q}

{q}=[v I

01

v2

02].

(18)

(19)

Cost-effective concrete water tank

design

809

Y

Pi ~

(T"

t

Pj

,2

Fig. A. 1. Sign convention for a typical element.

The connectivity matrix [C], which involves the nodal coordinates. The bending moment, M~, is given by

d2v

M, = ~

I

= OISlIC]- {q}

with matrix B given by

[B]--

d2[A(X)]

dx 2

=[0

0

2

6x].

(20)

(21)

Potential energy, UB, due to bending is given by

1 ('L (d2v)

Us= ~ J~ ~x2~M~dx

(22)

which upon using eqns (18) and (20) becomes

Ue=~{q}r([C] ')r{foL[B]rO[B]dx}[C]-'{q }.

(23)

The same concept is used here for free vibration analysis. The stiffness matrix derived above will be used in the computation of fundamental frequency with a slight modifi- cation made to include axial effects. This is required to obtain the lower modes of vibration which are predomi- nantly axial in nature. Define the axial displacement, w, as

{w} = [lxl{f} = [F(x)]{f}

(31)

in which {f} is a vector of undetermined coefficients. In

terms of nodal displacement {u} in the axial direction, the

displacement function is given by,

{w}=[FlIC]

'{u}.

(32)

The connectivity matrix [(~] involves the

axial nodal coordi-

nates. The strain energy due to axial deformation for a typical

element is given by

U =2

Efo

E2dV"

(33)

where strain vector, {e } = d{w}/dx = d[FJ/dx [6"] I{u}. [F]

is as defined in eqn (35). Simplification of the above

equation and substitution of the necessary parameters yield

U=~{u}r([c] -

[Hlrh[Hldx [(']

'{u},

(34)

where [H] =d[F(x)l/dx and

E

is

the

Young's

modulus.

Hence the stiffness matrix [k,,] (due to axial effect) is defined

as

[km]= ([d]-')'It?m] [d]-',

(35)

The stiffness matrix [ks] for the beam element is thus given by

[ks] = ([C]-l)r[kn] [C]-~,

where

[kBl =

[BlrD[BI dx.

(24)

(25)

Potential energy,

UF, due to the 'foundation modulus' is

given by

if0:

Ur = ~

{v}rki{v} dx,

where k: is given by eqn yield

(3). Using eqn (18)

(26)

in (26) will

where

[I?,,1= E

[Hlrh[H]dx.

(36)

This (2 x 2) matrix is added to the earlier derived (4 × 4)

matrix

In addition to the stiffness matrix, it is also necessary to derive the element mass matrix. The element mass matrix is

a matrix of equivalent nodal masses that dynamically

represent the actual distributed mass of the element. The

derivation of mass matrix can be separated into two parts. The first part of the mass matrix considers the contribution

of kinetic energy due to lateral velocity [ml] and the second

part considers the contribution from axial velocity [m,,]. Both are then combined to obtain the element mass matrix.

For the first part there are four degrees of freedom to an element. The kinetic energy of an element is given by

to

give a

(6 x 6) matrix.

Us=~{q}r([c]-')r{ff [A]rk:[A]dx}[C]-'{q}.

(27)

T= ~

{~)}rp,dV{li},

(37)

The stiffness matrix pertaining to the equivalent foundation modulus is thus given by

where {f~}=d{v}/dt and Pc is the density of concrete. Substitution of eqn (18) into (31) and further simplification yields

[kr]= ([C]-')r[kr] [C]-',

where

[kvl = f] In ]rk:[Aldx.

(28)

r

=~{OIT([c] -' )

[Cl-'{q}.

(38)

The mass matrix, [rail, is therefore given by

(29)

[ml] = ([C]

')r[th,][C]

',

(39)

Finally the complete stiffness matrix for the element is given by

[k] = [kB] +

[kr].

(30)

where

[n~l = p, IL[.41rh[4] dx.

J0

(4O)

810

G. H. TAN et al.

Kinetic energy of an element due to axial velocity is defined as

Hence the mass matrix is given by

T=~

{~i,}rpcdV{~b}

(41)

which upon using eqn (32) becomes

T=2{ft}r([~]-t)r+{~[A]rh[A]dx}[~]-'{f~ }.

(42)

where

[too] = ([¢]-~)~[,~o](¢)-',

[,~o] = pc I L[Fr]h[r]dx.

jo

(43)

(44)