Calculation of C With Rayleighs Model

Dynamic Analysis with Damping for Free Standing Structures using Mechanical Event Simulation
I Giosan* Key Words: Dynamic Analysis, Damping, Numerical Simulation, Free Standing Structures
This Paper presents a modern, new approach, which accounts for damping, in designing free standing structures that are subject to dynamic induced loads. The procedures outlined in this paper involve the most advanced engineering simulation concept Mechanical Event Simulation to investigate, analyze, and optimize very complex geometries that are usually the most critical areas for free standing structures. The new design approach proposed in this paper places the system in direct contact with the surrounding environment and calculates the loads based on this interaction. Using this method the engineer no longer has to approximate the loads and to apply them statically. The simulated interaction will be a realistic one triggering the fatigue sources which are the cyclic loads.
Introduction. One of the most amazing achievements in engineering is the practical application of Numerical Simulation. Leibnitzs dream [1], almost three centuries ago, of developing a generally applicable method that could arrive at a solution to a differential equation of any type became possible in our time with revolutionary discoveries in the computer and computing domains. Practically, numerical simulation has been applied successfully for more than 50 years in the main engineering disciplines. Today, the market offers a large variety of general purpose numerical simulation software, which in the hands of a well trained engineer can become an extremely powerful engineering tool. The latest developments in computing technology have made it possible to simulate the world around us, as it really is in a nonlinear fashion. The Mechanical Event Simulation (MES) [2] concept introduced and developed by ALGOR Inc.1 represents a paradigm shift in engineering design. It allows engineers and designers to simulate the actual conditions that a mechanical component will experience; that is, the event associated with its application. This is possible because MES accounts for both the interaction of the component with its surroundings, and the inertial forces generated by the motion of the component itself. To simulate the nonlinear behavior of the (surrounding) real world one of the most critical parameters the analyst must account for is the damping coefficient.
* Senior Design Engineer, West Coast Engineering Group Ltd., Vancouver, Canada. 1 Algor Inc. Pittsburg located, advanced Finite Element Method software developer.
Characterization of damping forces in a vibrating structure has long been an active area of research in structural dynamics. In spite of significant research, thorough understanding of damping mechanism is not well developed. A major reason for this is the state variables that govern damping forces are generally not clear, unlike the case for inertia and stiffness forces. There is advanced research results to identify a general model of damping [3] or the estimation of damping in a random vibrating system [4]. The most common approach is to use viscous damping or Rayleigh damping where it is assumed that the damping matrix is proportional to the mass [M] and stiffness matrices [K], or:
[C ] = [M ] + [K ]
For large systems, identification of valid damping coefficients and , for all significant modes is a very complicated task. This paper presents the theoretical basis of event simulation together with a methodology to incorporate damping for free standing systems with a large degrees of freedom, including transmission line towers, wind mill, and antenna or high Mast towers.
1. General Derivation of Mechanical Event Simulation Equilibrium Equations. Event simulation as an engineering methodology is vastly different from the techniques that have been taught to engineers since the onset of formal engineering training, beginning with the Greek Mathematician Archimedes, around 200 BC. Event simulation is the process of engineering, by simulating a physical event in a virtual laboratory. To perform an engineering analysis using event simulation, a different viewpoint from that of classical stress analysis is required. Hooke's law which states that force is a linear function of displacement forms the basis of classical stress analysis and thus, of modern finite element stress analysis. In finite element analysis, the matrix equation {F} = [K]{U} is solved for the displacement vector, {U}, from the force vector, {F}, and the stiffness matrix, [K]. Subsequently, the stresses are calculated from the equation {}= E{}, where {} is the strain vector, which is a normalized displacement vector. E is Young's modulus that corresponds to Hooke's constant, k. This method works well if the analyzed system is always at rest. However, in practical mechanical or structural engineering the static case would never dictate the design. The design must consider the "worst case scenario" which generally occurs when the system is in motion, when the forces and thus the stresses are greater than those under static conditions. This is where virtual engineering enters the design process: it allows us to simulate the entire event, not simply obtain a static solution. A useful by-product of simulating the event is the forces generated by motion. The theory behind Mechanical Event Simulation is based on the general finite element equilibrium equations clearly presented in 1982 by Bathe [5].
Later on, Weaver and Timoshenko [6], Inman [7] and Hutton [8] had major contributions in modeling, and incorporating the damping into the free vibration mathematical models. The derivation of MES equations will be presented further on. In fig. 1.1 a general three-dimensional body is shown in equilibrium, under external surface forces fS, body forces fB and concentrated forces Fi. These forces include all externally applied forces and reactions and have three components corresponding to the three coordinate axes:
f xB f xS Fxi f B = f yB ; f S = f yS ; F i = Fyi ; f zB f zS Fzi
(1.1)
Figure 1.1 General three -dimensional body.
The displacements of the body from the unloaded configuration are denoted by U, where U T = [U V W ] (1.2)
The strains corresponding to U are,
T = [ xx yy zz xx yy zz ]
And the stresses corresponding to are,
(1.3)
T = [ xx yy zz xy yz zx ]
(1.4)
To express the equilibrium of a body the principle of virtual displacement will be used. This principle states that equilibrium of a body requires that for any compatible, small virtual displacements imposed onto the body, the total internal virtual work is equal to the total external virtual work:
dV = U T f B dV + U S f S dS + U i F i
V V i
(1.5)
The left term is the internal virtual work and is equal to the actual stresses going through the virtual strains (that correspond to the imposed virtual displacements), (1.6) yz The external work is equal to the actual forces fS, fB and Fi going through the virtual displacement U, where
U T = U V W (1.7) The superscript S denotes that surface displacements are considered and superscript i denotes displacements at the point where concentrated forces Fi are applied. It should be emphasized that the virtual strains used in (1.5) are those corresponding to the imposed body and surface virtual displacements, and that these displacements can be any compatible set of displacements that satisfy the geometric boundary conditions. The equation (1.5) is an expression of equilibrium, and for different virtual displacements, correspondingly different equations of equilibrium are obtained. However, equation (1.5) also contains the compatibility and constitutive requirements if the principle is used in the appropriate manner; namely, the considered displacements should be continuous and compatible and should satisfy the displacement boundary conditions, and the stresses should be evaluated from the strains using the appropriate constitutive relations. Thus, the principle of virtual displacements embodies all requirements that need be fulfilled in the analysis of a problem in solid and structural mechanics. Finally, it can be noted that although the virtual work equation has been written in (1.5) in the global coordinate system X, Y, Z of the body, it is equally valid in any other system of coordinates.
T = xx yy zz xx
zz
Now, it will be detailed how the principle of virtual displacements is used effectively, as a mechanism to generate finite element equations that govern the response of a structure or continuum. Response of the general three-dimensional body shown in Fig.1.1 will be considered. In the finite element analysis we approximate the body in Fig.1.1 as an assemblage of discreet finite elements, with the elements being interconnected at nodal points on the element boundaries. The displacements measured in a local coordinate system x, y, z within each finite element are assumed to be a function of the displacements at the N finite element nodal points. Therefore, for element m we have
) u (m ) ( x, y, z ) = H (m ) ( x, y, z )U
(1.8)
where H(m) is the displacement interpolation matrix, the superscript m denotes element m and is a vector of the three global displacement components Ui, Vi, and Wi at all nodal points, including those at the supports of the element assemblage.
) U T = [U1,V1,W1 U 2 ,V2 ,W2 ... U N ,VN ,WN ]
(1.9a)
More generally, relation (1.9a) can be written as

) U T = [U1 U 2 ... U N ] (1.9b) It is understood that Ui may correspond to a displacement in any direction which may not be aligned with a global coordinate axis, and Ui may also signify a rotation when beams, plates or shell finite elements are considered. Although all nodal point displacements are listed in , it should be realized that for a given element, only the displacements at the nodes of the element affect the displacement and strain distribution within the element. With the assumption on the displacements in (1.8) the corresponding element strains can be evaluated, ) (m ) ( x, y, z ) = B (m ) (x, y, z )U (1.10) where B(m) is the strain-displacement matrix and the rows of B(m) are obtained by appropriately differentiating and combining rows of the matrix H(m). The purpose of defining the element displacements and strains in terms of the complete array of finite element assemblage nodal point displacements is to automate the assemblage process of the element matrices to the structure matrices, using (1.8) and (1.10). The stresses in a finite element are related to the element strains and the initial stresses, using
(m ) = C (m ) (m ) + I (m )
(1.11)
where C(m) is the elasticity matrix of element m and I(m) are the element initial stresses. The material law specified in C(m) for each element can be that of an isotropic or anisotropic material and can vary from element to element. Using the assumption on the displacements within each finite element as expressed in (1.8), equilibrium equations that correspond to the nodal point displacements of the assemblage of the finite elements can be derived. First, (1.5) will be rewritten as a sum of integrations over the volume and areas of all finite elements,
(
m V (m )
m )T
(m )dV (m ) = U B (m ) f B (m )dV (m )
T m V (m )
+ U
m S (m )
S ( m )T
f S (m )dS (m ) + U i F i
T i
(1.12)
where m=1,2,,k and k=number of elements. It is important to note the integrations in (1.12) are performed over the element volumes and surfaces. If substituted in (1.12) for the element displacements (1.8), strain (1.10), and stresses (1.11), the following will be obtained. T H B (m ) f B (m )dV (m ) m m ) ( V (1.13) ) ) T T )T U B (m ) C (m )B (m )dV (m ) U = U T + H S (m ) f S (m )dS (m ) m (m ) m S (m ) V T (m ) I (m )dV (m ) + F + B m V (m ) Surface displacement interpolation matrices HS(m) are obtained from the volume displacement interpolation matrices H(m) in (1.8) by substituting the element surface coordinates, and F is a vector of the externally applied forces to the nodes of the element assemblage. To obtain from (1.13) the equations for the unknown nodal point displacements, the virtual displacement theorem will be invoked by imposing unit virtual displacements in turn at all displacement components. In this way we have ) UT =I (I=identity matrix), and denoting the nodal point displacements by U, i.e. letting U, from this point on, the equilibrium equations of the element assemblage corresponding to the nodal point displacements are
KU = R
(1.14)
where
R = R B + RS R I + RC The matrix K is the stiffness matrix of the element assemblage,

K =
(1.15)
m V (m )
(m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) B C B dV = K
T
(1.16)
The load vector R includes the effect of the element body forces,
RB =
mV
H ( )
m
(m )T f B (m )dV (m ) = R (m ) B
m
(1.17)
the effect of the element surface forces, (1.18)

RS =
m S
H ( )
m
S (m )
( f S (m )dS (m ) = RSm )
m
the effect of the element initial stresses,

RI =
m V (m )
(m ) (m ) I (m ) (m ) B dV = RI
T
(1.19)
and the concentrated load, (1.20) RC = F It can be noted that the summation of the element volume integrals in (1.16) expresses the direct addition of the element stiffness matrices K(m) to obtain the stiffness matrix of the total element assemblage. In the same way, the assemblage body forces vector RB is calculated by directly adding the element body force vectors RB(m); and similarly RS, RI, and RC are obtained. Therefore, the formulation of the equilibrium equations in (1.14) carried out above includes the assemblage process to obtain the structure matrices from the element matrices, usually referred to as the direct stiffness method. Equation (1.14) is a statement of the static equilibrium of the element assemblage. In these equilibrium considerations, the applied forces may vary with time, in which case the displacements also vary with time and (1.14) is a statement of equilibrium for any specific point in time. However, if the loads are applied rapidly, inertia forces must be considered. Using dAlamberts principle, the element inertia forces can be simply included as part of the body forces. Assuming the element accelerations are approximated in the same way as the element displacements in (1.8), the contribution from the total body forces to the load vector R is (1.21) T ( && H (m ) f B (m ) (m )H (m ) U dV (m ) = RBm ) m V (m ) m B(m) where f no longer includes inertia forces, lists the nodal point accelerations and (m) is the mass density of element m. The equilibrium equations are, in this case,
RB =
(1.22) && M U + KU = R where R and U are time dependent. The matrix M is the mass matrix of the structure,
M =
m V (m )
(m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) H H dV = M
T
(1.23)
In actual measured dynamic response of structures it is observed that energy is dissipated through vibration, which in vibration analysis is usually taken into account by introducing velocity-dependent damping forces. Introducing the damping forces as additional contributions to the body forces is obtained in (1.21),
RB =
m T ( && & H (m ) f B (m ) (m ) H (m ) U k (m ) H (m ) U dV (m ) = RBm ) m ) m V(
(1.24)
Where is a vector of the nodal point velocities, and k(m) is the damping property parameter of element m. The equilibrium equations are, in this case,
&& & M U + C U + KU = R
(1.25)
where C is the damping matrix of the structure,

C =
m V (m )
(m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) (m ) k H H dV = C
T
(1.26)
In practice it is difficult if not impossible to determine for general finite element assemblages the element damping parameters, in particular because the damping properties are frequency dependent. For this reason, the matrix C is in general not assembled from element damping matrices. Instead, it is constructed using the mass matrix and stiffness matrix of the complete element assemblage together with experimental results on the amount of damping. Equation (1.25) is the basic equation of virtual engineering; note how it models the combination of motion, damping and mechanical deformation. If the stresses are still of interest, they can be calculated at any time during the analysis by application of the formula {} = E{}, where {} (the strain vector) is easily obtained from the displacement vector {U}.
2. Change of Basis to Modal Generalized Displacements.
In order to transform the equilibrium equations into a more effective form for direct integration the following transformation on the finite element nodal point displacements U, will be used
8
U (t ) = PX (t )
(2.1)
Where P is a square matrix and X(t) is a time-dependent vector of order n. The transformation matrix P is still unknown and will have to be determined. The components of X are referred to as generalized displacements. Substituting (2.1) into (1.25) and premultiplying by PT, we obtain
~ & ~ && ~ ~ M X (t ) + C X (t ) + K X (t ) = R (t )
(2.2)
Where:
~ T M = P MP ~ C = PT CP ~ K = PT KP ~ R = PT R
(2.3)
The above transformation is obtained by substituting (2.1) into (1.8) to express the element displacements in terms of the generalized displacements,
u (m ) ( x, y, z , t ) = H (m ) PX (t )
(2.4)
and then using (2.4) in the virtual work equation (1.12). The objective of the transformation is to obtain new system stiffness, mass, and damping matrices, K, M, and C, which have a smaller bandwidth than the original system matrices, and the transformation matrix P should be selected accordingly. In addition, it should be noted that P must be non-singular (i.e., the rank of P must be n) in order to have a unique relation between any vectors U and X as expressed in (2.1) Theoretically, there can be many different transformation matrices P, which would reduce the bandwidth of the system matrices. However in practice, an effective transformation matrix is established using the displacement solutions of the free vibration equilibrium equations with damping neglected, (2.5) && M U + KU = 0 With solution having the form
U = sin (t t 0 )
(2.6)
Where is a vector of order n, t the time variable, t0 a time constant, and a constant identified to represent the frequency of vibration (rad/sec) of the vector .
9
Substituting (2.6) into (2.5) will be obtained the generalized eigenproblem, from which and must be determined,
K = 2 M
(2.7)
The eigenproblem in (2.7) yields n eigensolutions (12, 1), (22, 2), (n2, n), where the eigenvectors are M-orthonormalized; i.e.,
iT M j
and
= 1; i = j = 0; i j
(2.8)
2 2 2 2 (2.9) 0 1 2 3 ... n The vector i is called the ith-mode shape vector, and i is the corresponding frequency of vibration (rad/sec). It should be emphasized that (2.5) is satisfied using any of the n displacement solutions i sin i(t-t0), i=1,2,n. Defining a matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors i and a diagonal matrix 2 which stores the eigenvalues i2 on its diagonal; i.e.,
= [1 , 2 ,..., n ]; 2 1 2 2 . 2 = the n solutions to (2.7) can be written as . 2 n
(2.10)
K = M 2
(2.11)
Because the eigenvectors are M-orthonormal, we have
T K = 2 T M = I
Using
U (t ) = X (t )
(2.12)
(2.13)
the equilibrium equations that correspond to the modal generalized displacements will be obtained
10
&& & T M X (t ) + T C X (t ) + T KX (t ) = T R (t )
(2.14)
Considering (2.12),
&& & X ( t ) + T C X ( t ) + 2 X ( t ) = T R ( t )
(2.14a)
3. Computation of Rayleigh damping coefficients for large systems.
The orthogonal transformation (2.14a) is valid only when the damping matrix is proportional with the mass and stiffness matrix [M] and [K].
[C ] = [M ] + [K ]
(3.1)
It is for this reason that the damping in the form, shown in equation (3.1), is advantageous as on orthogonal transformation the damping term in equation (2.14a) reduces to:
2 + 1 0 2 + 2 0 T . C = . . . 0 .
. . . 2 . . + n . . . . . . 0 0 .
(3.2)
The general form of the equilibrium equations of the finite element system in the basis of the eigenvectors i, i=1,,n was given in (2.14a), which shows the equilibrium equations decouple and the time integration can be carried out individually for each equation, providing the damping effects are neglected. Considering the analysis of systems in which damping effects cannot be neglected, we still would like to deal with decoupled equilibrium equations in (2.14a). Considering that:
iTC j = 2iiij
(3.3)
where: i is a modal damping parameter and ij is the Kronecker delta (ij =1 for i=j, ij =0 for ij), damping effects can readily be taken into account in mode superposition analysis. Therefore, using (3.3) it is assumed that the eigenvectors i, i=1,,n, are also Corthogonal and the equations in (3.14a) reduce to n equations of the form:
11
&&i (t ) + 2 ii xi (t ) + i2 xi (t ) = ri (t ) & x
(3.4)
Comparing equations (2.14a) and (3.4) and using (3.2) can be inferred that:
211 = + 12 2 222 = + 2 .......... ........ .......... .......... .......... ........ 2 2nn = + n When the system has two degrees of freedom equation (3.5) reduces to:
211 = + 12 2 222 = + 2
(3.5)
(3.6)
And to find the values of and , one has to solve the system of equations (3.6). However, while resolving a system having large degrees of freedom, the analyst can have difficulty obtaining the values of Rayleigh coefficients, which shall be valid for all the n degrees of freedom or shall be valid for all significant modes. An iterative solution is possible and this can be obtained possibly from the best-fit values of and in a particular system. Chowdhury and Dasgupta [9] developed a method through which one can arrive at the unique values of Rayleigh coefficients, and they will also be valid for systems having a large degree of freedom.
4. The calculation of and Rayleigh coefficients for n-degrees of freedom free standing systems.
Based on equations (3.2) and (3.3) the orthogonal transformation reduces the damping matrix [C] to the form:
2i i = + i2
(4.1)
This can be reduced to the form:
i = 2 + i
i
2
(4.2)
12
From equation (4.2) it can be observed that the damping ratio is proportional to the natural frequencies of the system. A typical plot of the right term of equation (4.2) is as shown in fig. 4.1.
Damping Ratio vs. Natural Frequency

0.25
Damping Ratio =(C/Cc)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Natural Frequency - (Hz)
Fig. 4.1. Damping Ratio Versus Natural Frequency.
As can be seen in fig. 4.1, the first portion (frequency range: 0.15-2.5 Hz) the curve shows marked non-linearity, and beyond thereafter the variation is practically linear. Thus, a set of values 1, 2, 3...n and 1, 2, 3...n , have been assumed as the corresponding damping ratio for ith mode considering a linear relationship and the damping ratio thus obtained is given by:
i =
m 1 (i 1 ) +1 m 1
(4.3)
where: i = damping ratio for the ith mode (for all im); 1 = damping ratio for the first mode; m = damping ratio for the mth significant mode considered in the analysis; i = natural frequency for the ith mode; 1 = natural frequency for the first mode; m = natural frequency for the mth significant mode considered in the analysis; For structures having large degrees of freedom, it is only the first few modes which contribute to the significant dynamic behavior.
13
For most of the engineering structures, the number of significant modes by which almost 95% of the mass has participated is usually around 3 at minimum and about 25 at maximum [9]. Base on an eigenvalue solution and modal mass participation result, one can identify the significant modes (m) and follow the procedure outlined at the end of this chapter step by step to determine Rayleigh coefficients and . To calculate 1, 2, 3...m a modal analysis with damping neglected can be performed. It can be demonstrated that the difference between damped circular frequency D and undamped circular frequency is minimal. Thus, solving equations (1.22) and (1.25) at equilibrium and comparing the solutions easily can be concluded that: (4.4) D = 1 2 The difference D and depends on the value of which for the majority of real structures ranges between 0.01 and 0.1 [10]. For the extreme value of =0.1 equation (4.4) yields: (4.5) D = 0.99 Equation (4.5) indicates that the frequency of the damped system can be taken as equal to the natural frequency of the corresponding undamped system. This observation can be extended to multi-degree-of-freedom systems and is of paramount importance in the evaluation of the natural frequencies and mode shapes of real structures.
Damping Ratios for Various Systems. System Metals (in elastic range) Metal structures without joints Metal structures with joints Steel transmission lines Small diameter pipe systems Large diameter pipe systems Auto shock absorbers Rubber Large buildings during earthquake Pre-stressed concrete buildings. Reinforced concrete buildings Damping Ratio <0.01 0.02-0.04 0.03-0.07 ~0.0004 0.01-0.03 0.02-0.03 ~0.3 ~0.05 0.01-0.05 0.02-0.05 0.04-0.07
To determine m, the number of significant natural modes to be considered in obtaining and , one has to calculate the modal mass participation factors. Comparing equations (2.2) and (2.14) it can be deduced that the systems generalized mass matrix will be given by relation:
14
~ M = T M
(4.6)
Considering I the influence vector which represents the displacements of the masses resulting from static application for a unit ground displacement, the modal participation factors matrix can be calculated as:
T T MI P = T MI = ~
(4.7)
or individually:
Pi =
i T MI i T M i
(4.7a)
and modal mass participation ratios:

Mi =
M i Pi 2 mi
(4.7b)
15
Analytical Experiments
Further on, some analytical experiments will be considered to determine applicability of the method for three different types of tubular free standing structures, these being: high mast, antenna and transmission towers. The structures considered are twelve sided, tapered multi-sections, interconnected using slip joints or flanged connections.
Transmission Tower
Antenna Tower
High Mast Tower
A variety of heights and weights were chosen to best represent the large array of applications for these structures. All these structures were designed and built by West Coast Engineering Group Ltd., the largest Canadian Manufacturer of Poles. For these structures the following parameters were calculated; the first eight natural frequencies, the modal mass participation factors, as well as the cumulative mass participation and the damping ratios with a realistic value of 0.05 for and considered for this type of structure. The software used to calculate the above parameters was Algor.
16
High Mast Towers

Table. 4.1 High Mast Towers - Natural Frequencies. Tubular High Mast Poles Top Height Bottom O.D. O.D. Weight (m) 18.30 34.50 38.06 (m) 0.60 0.85 0.85 (m) 0.20 0.40 0.20 (kg) 860 5630 4000 1 2.03 0.93 0.75 2 8.27 3.13 2.57 3 20.45 7.65 6.28
Natural Frequencies (Hz) 4 37.25 13.87 11.42 5 59.69 22.67 18.66 6 85.21 33.04 27.25 7 115.28 45.51 37.59 8 147.46 59.79 49.44
Table. 4.2 High Mast Towers - Modal Participation Factors. Pole Height (m) 18.30 34.50 38.06 Pi/3 P1 49.75 42.08 43.06 44.96 P2 20.50 21.63 21.10 21.08 Modal Participation Factor (%) P3 9.55 10.56 10.43 10.18 P4 5.63 6.73 6.54 6.30 P5 3.48 3.85 3.80 3.71 P6 2.67 3.13 3.04 2.95 P7 1.75 1.97 1.94 1.89 P8 1.53 1.76 1.70 1.66 Cumulative Mass Participation (%) 94.9 91.7 91.6 92.73
Table. 4.3 High Mast Towers - Damping Ratios. Pole Modal Damping Ratios Height (%) (m) 1 2 3 4 5 18.30 0.0631 0.2098 0.5125 0.9319 1.4927 34.50 0.0501 0.0862 0.1945 0.3486 0.5679 38.06 0.0521 0.0740 0.1610 0.2877 0.4678
6 2.1305 0.8268 0.6822
7 2.8822 1.1383 0.9404
8 3.6867 1.4952 1.2365
Fig. 4.2 Highmast Towers -Modal Mass Participations 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Modal Mass Participations
17
Fig. 4.3 Highmast Towers - Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency 1.20 1.00 Modal Damping Ratio (%) 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Modal Frequency (Hz)
18.3m 34.5m 38.06m
Fig. 4.3A Highmast Poles - Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency 0.16 0.14 Modal Damping Ratio (%) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Modal Frequency (Hz)
18.3m 34.5m 38.06m
18
Antenna Towers
Table. 4.4 Antenna Towers - Natural Frequencies. Natural Frequencies Tubular Antenna Poles Bottom Top Height O.D. O.D. Weight (Hz) (m) 10.00 19.50 20.50 31.70 34.50 36.00 38.00 40.80 40.80 48.30 (m) 0.50 0.65 0.65 0.98 0.85 1.05 1.25 0.61 0.76 1.53 (m) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.76 0.75 (kg) 1734 3854 3865 3925 7058 12188 6900 8825 8076 20818 1 5.16 1.81 1.64 1.07 0.87 0.96 1.04 0.28 0.37 0.37 2 27.10 8.73 7.90 4.60 3.57 4.22 4.34 1.65 2.11 2.42 3 72.09 22.86 20.71 11.68 9.27 11.13 11.26 4.47 5.62 6.69 4 133.27 42.79 38.83 21.71 17.19 20.77 20.81 8.65 10.81 12.48 5 213.48 69.77 63.38 35.38 28.39 34.19 34.17 14.19 17.66 19.62 6 299.84 100.79 91.74 51.39 41.12 49.35 49.12 20.94 25.91 29.11 7 403.54 138.48 126.22 70.74 57.26 68.34 67.88 28.84 35.41 40.82 8 502.04 178.10 162.72 91.90 74.21 87.95 87.10 37.86 46.20 55.26
Table. 4.5 Antenna Towers - Modal Participation Factors. Pole Height (m) 10.00 19.50 20.50 31.70 34.50 36.00 38.00 40.80 40.80 48.30 Pi/10 P1 58.51 55.19 55.19 50.26 49.21 51.63 49.60 51.95 54.71 67.70 54.40 P2 19.93 20.11 20.10 20.36 21.52 21.35 21.57 20.33 20.88 17.03 20.32 Modal Participation Factor (%) P3 7.75 8.30 8.28 9.09 9.56 9.14 9.55 7.92 8.59 8.24 8.64 P4 4.17 4.57 4.56 5.20 5.31 4.91 5.30 4.14 4.47 4.38 4.70 P5 2.66 2.86 2.85 3.22 3.30 3.12 3.32 2.54 2.76 2.00 2.86 P6 1.76 2.03 2.02 2.37 2.35 2.13 2.36 1.73 1.93 0.46 1.91 P7 1.31 1.43 1.43 1.62 1.66 1.57 1.67 1.23 1.36 0.13 1.34 P8 0.89 1.14 1.13 1.35 1.32 1.19 1.33 0.91 0.98 0.03 1.03 Cumulative Mass Participation (%) 97.0 95.6 95.6 93.5 94.2 95.0 94.7 90.8 95.7 100.0 95.20
19
Table. 4.6 Antenna Towers - Damping Ratios. Pole Modal Damping Ratios Height (%) (m) 1 2 3 4 5 10.00 0.1338 0.6784 1.8026 3.3319 5.3371 19.50 0.0591 0.2211 0.5726 1.0703 1.7446 20.50 0.0562 0.2007 0.5190 0.9714 1.5849 31.70 0.0501 0.1204 0.2941 0.5439 0.8852 34.50 0.0505 0.0963 0.2344 0.4312 0.7106 36.00 0.0500 0.1114 0.2805 0.5205 0.8555 38.00 0.0500 0.1143 0.2837 0.5215 0.8550 40.80 0.0963 0.0564 0.1173 0.2191 0.3565 40.80 0.0768 0.0646 0.1449 0.2726 0.4429 48.30 0.0768 0.0708 0.1710 0.3140 0.4918 High nonlinearity zone.
6 7.4961 2.5200 2.2938 1.2852 1.0286 1.2343 1.2285 0.5247 0.6487 0.7286
7 10.0886 3.4622 3.1557 1.7689 1.4319 1.7089 1.6974 0.7219 0.8860 1.0211
8 12.5510 4.4526 4.0682 2.2978 1.8556 2.1990 2.1778 0.9472 1.1555 1.3820
Fig. 4.4 Antenna Towers - Modal Mass Participations
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Modal Mass Participations
20
Fig. 4.5 Antenna Towers - Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency
1.20 Tapered 19.5m Modal Damping Ratio (%) 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Modal Frequency (Hz) Tapered 31.7m Tapered 36m Tapered 38m Round 40m Tapered 48.3m
Fig. 4.5A Antenna Towers - Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency 0.16 0.14 Modal Damping Ratio (%) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Modal Frequency (Hz) Tapered 19.5m Tapered 31.7m Tapered 36m Tapered 38m Round 40m Tapered 48.3m
21
Transmission Towers
Table. 4.7 Transmission Towers - Natural Frequencies. Tubular Transmission Poles Bottom Top Height O.D. O.D. Weight (m) 21.60 24.40 24.70 25.30 27.40 28.30 (m) 0.81 0.97 0.89 0.97 1.35 1.17 (m) (kg) 0.43 2085 0.25 2140 0.25 2215 0.25 2420 0.51 7965 0.31 3300 Average Values 1 1.84 1.86 1.66 1.73 1.97 1.67 1.79 2 8.84 7.15 6.53 6.66 8.41 6.42 7.34 3 23.06 17.49 16.09 16.29 21.11 15.68 18.29
Natural Frequencies (Hz) 4 43.00 31.99 29.55 29.81 38.69 28.65 33.62 5 69.86 51.67 47.88 48.19 62.21 46.21 54.34 6 100.40 74.77 69.43 69.82 88.67 66.80 78.32 7 127.41 101.91 94.98 95.26 120.19 90.91 105.11 8 175.66 132.29 123.45 123.76 152.74 177.78 147.61
Table. 4.8 Transmission Towers - Modal Participation Factors. Modal Participation Pole Factor Height (%) (m) 21.60 24.40 24.70 25.30 27.40 28.30 Pi/6 P1 55.00 47.49 48.31 47.43 51.17 47.32 49.45 P2 20.17 20.49 20.47 20.48 20.55 20.51 20.45 P3 8.38 9.88 9.71 9.87 9.32 9.91 9.51 P4 4.64 5.95 5.77 5.93 5.40 5.98 5.61 P5 2.91 3.64 3.54 3.63 3.37 3.66 3.46 P6 2.07 2.82 2.71 2.81 2.52 2.84 2.63 P7 1.45 1.87 1.82 1.87 1.66 1.88 1.76 P8 1.16 1.60 1.54 1.59 1.42 1.61 1.49
Cumulative Mass Participation (%) 95.8 93.7 93.9 93.6 95.4 93.7 94.4
Table. 4.9 Transmission Towers - Damping Ratios. Pole Modal Damping Ratios Height (%) (m) 1 2 3 4 5 21.60 0.0596 0.2238 0.5776 1.0756 1.7469 24.40 0.0599 0.1822 0.4387 0.8005 1.2922 24.70 0.0566 0.1671 0.4038 0.7396 1.1975 25.30 0.0577 0.1703 0.4088 0.7461 1.2053 27.40 0.0619 0.2132 0.5289 0.9679 1.5557 28.30 0.0567 0.1644 0.3936 0.7171 1.1558 i/6 0.0587 0.1868 0.4586 0.8411 1.3589
6 2.5102 1.8696 1.7361 1.7459 2.2170 1.6704 1.9582
7 3.1854 2.5480 2.3748 2.3818 3.0050 2.2730 2.6280
8 4.3916 3.3074 3.0865 3.0942 3.8187 4.4446 3.6905
22
Fig. 4.6 Transmission Towers - Modal Mass Participations 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Modal Mass Participations
Fig. 4.7 Transmission Towers - Modal Damping Ratio vs. Modal Frequency 4.0 3.5 Modal Damping Ratio (%) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Modal Frequency (Hz)
23
Analyzing the curves presented in figs. 4.1, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7 it can be concluded that for an equation of form:
y = a + bx, x
When x is small, the first term a/x dominates and as x increases this term diminishes approaching zero and the term bx starts to dominate the equation. In other words if the analyzed structure is very flexible and has a very low fundamental frequency it will display non-linear damping behavior in the beginning with respect to frequency, and will converge to a linear proportionality with frequency as the eigenvalues increase with each subsequent mode. In figs. 4.3A and 4.5A it can be seen that the 38.06m high mast tower and respectively the 40m and 48.3m antenna towers display some nonlinearities at the beginning of the analyzed domain. However, extreme applications were considered for these structures. In most cases, the towers are designed to have a reasonable rigidity and would have a higher fundamental frequency value (see transmission towers), and the term bx will usually dominate. Moreover, considering the fact that the non-linear range is very small for most of the investigated free standing structures, it is not unrealistic to assume the damping ratio for each mode is linearly proportional to the frequency of the system. Furthermore, the methodology outlined below will assist to identify if the investigated structure shows a linear damping variation in respect with natural frequencies.
Methodology to calculate Rayleigh Damping Coefficients and 2
Perform a modal frequency analysis to calculate the natural frequencies; tabulate the results (see tables: 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) determine the m value for which the cumulative modal mass participation is close to 95% or higher. Consider the 2.5m vibration modes; Select 1, the damping ratio for the systems first vibration mode; Select m , the damping ratio for the systems mth vibration mode; For intermediate modes i, where 1<i<m, obtain i from equation (4.3) based on linear interpolation. For modes greater than m, extrapolate the values based on equation (4.8)
i =
m 1 ( m+i m ) + 1 m 1
(4.8)
where : m < i 2.5m
Select first set of data: 1, m and 1, m.
To estimate natural frequencies and the modal participation factors can be used a general purpose FE software (Algor, Ansys, Nastran etc.). 24
Based on the first set of data calculate with equation (4.9):
211 2 m m
2 2 1 m
(4.9)
Back-substituting the values of in expression (4.10):

2 211 = + 1
(4.10)
Obtain .
Next select a second set of data consisting of: 1, 2.5m and 1,2.5m. Recalculate and based on equations (4.9) respectively (4.10).
Now one has the three sets of data a, b, and c, below: a) b) c) d) Based on linear interpolation; Based on data set: 1, m and 1, m.. Based on data set: 1, 2.5m and 1,2.5m. Obtain a fourth set of data based on the averages of b) and c). Plot the four sets of data based on equation (4.2) and check which data fits best with the linear interpolation curve for the first m significant modes. Select the corresponding values for and as the desired values which will give the incremental damping ratio based on Rayleigh damping. In some cases it may happen that values will show variation in higher modes, beyond m significant modes, but this is irrelevant as long as the values match closely for the first m modes, since the contribution of (higher) modes greater than m as can be seen above are deemed insignificant for the system.
25
5. Numerical Application 400 kV Transmission Tower
Lets consider the transmission tower shown in fig. 5.1. This tower supports three 400 kV phases, has a height of 40m, 7m span between two phases, 1.2m diameter at the base and total weight of 15 tons. The tower is anchored using 24 anchor bolts with a diameter of 38mm. To level the tower, levelling nuts are used as shown in fig. 5.2. Above the base plate there is a 300mm by 750mm inspection access opening with a 12.7mm thick reinforcing ring.
Fig. 5.1 400 kV Transmission Tower
Fig. 5.2 Pole Bottom Detail
We will try to investigate the response of the structure considering damping, under dynamic induced forces by wind on the electrical cables and by an unexpected rupture of one of the electrical conductors. Using the methodologies presented in the design standards ( [17] to [26] ): - all forces will be approximated and applied in a static fashion; - the damping coefficients will be the same for all natural frequency modes; This approach distorts the system response by eliminating the most dangerous loads, the cyclic ones, which potentially generate fatigue in the systems critical connections.
26
To avoid this inconvenience we will use a dynamic, fully nonlinear approach applying the Mechanical Event Simulation concept3. We will consider a 60s mechanical event defined in table 5.1 and fig. 5.3. In order to not generate excessive perturbation, the gravitational acceleration will be applied gradually from 0m/s2 to 9.81m/s2 on the system (during the first 10s). When the system is completely stabilized (at time 35s) wind pressure forces on the electrical conductors will gradually be applied. Table 5.1 Mechanical Event Description
Mechanical Even Duration = 60 s Wind Pressure Force on Cables 2-6 (N/m2) 0 0 0 400 408 1200 1200 0 0 Wind Pressure Force on Cable 1 (N/m2) 0 0 0 1200 0 0 0 0 0
Time (s) 0 10 30 35 35.1 40 45 45.1 60
Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2) 0 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81
Structure Loading Diagram

1200 Gravitational Acceleration Wind Pressure Force (N/m2) or Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (s) 35 40 45 50 55 60 Wind Pressure Force on Cables 2-5 Wind Pressure Force on Cable 1
Fig. 5.3 Mechanical Event Simulation Loading Diagram Some instability in the system will be generated by applying various wind pressure forces on conductor 1 and simulating a rupture of this conductor (at time 40s).
3
The methodology presented here is been used with success by author for many structures designed and built by West Coast Engineering Group Ltd. 27
The problem requires plotting the axial stress in bolt #1 and to checking the stress distribution around the (hand) hole reinforcing ring, and in the weld between the base plate and shaft during the mechanical event. Algor software will be used to simulate this mechanical event. For these types of complicated nonlinear applications, the author proposes the following procedure which has been incorporated as a standard design procedure into the West Coast Engineering Group Ltd. Design Process. 1) Develop a simple beam finite element model to simulate accurately the geometrical and structural details of the investigated system (Fig. 5.4). This beam FE model will be used to determine the systems natural frequency modes (Table 5.2). 2) Using the methodology presented in chapter 4 calculate the Rayleigh damping coefficients which will approximate the damping for all important natural frequency modes (Table 5.2). 3) Using truss (or beam) finite elements simulate the electrical conductors. 4) Apply the loads (shown in Table 5.1) and boundary conditions to simulate the rupture of conductor #1. 5) Choose the start Time Step for the nonlinear solution: 1/10. 6) Graph the results in all critical areas (above the base plate connection and all flanged connections). Fig. 5.4 Pole beam FE Model In this example, focus is on the pole bottom portion so the dynamic induced loads were graphed at 2m above the base plate and are presented in figs. 5.5 to 5.7.
28
Table 5.2 Natural Frequency Modes and Rayleigh Damping Coefficients.

A Frequency Frequency Linear B Up to 6th mode approx. Damping (%) 0.0200 0.0100 0.0238 0.0382 0.0490 0.0775 0.1000 0.1445 0.1702 0.1863 0.2277 0.2495 0.2637 0.2901 0.3385 0.3506 0.3880 0.4285 C Up to 18th mode approx. Damping (%) 0.0200 0.0091 0.0205 0.0328 0.0420 0.0664 0.0857 0.1237 0.1457 0.1596 0.1950 0.2136 0.2258 0.2484 0.2898 0.3002 0.3322 0.3669 D Average ((B+C)/2) Damping (%) 0.0200 0.0095 0.0221 0.0355 0.0455 0.0720 0.0928 0.1341 0.1580 0.1730 0.2114 0.2315 0.2447 0.2693 0.3141 0.3254 0.3601 0.3977
Mode Damping Nr. (Hz) (%) 1 0.407 0.0200 2 2.064 0.0241 3 7.477 0.0375 4 12.339 0.0495 5 15.937 0.0584 6 25.391 0.0817 7 32.793 0.1000 8 47.443 0.1362 9 55.903 0.1571 10 61.211 0.1702 11 74.818 0.2038 12 81.973 0.2215 13 86.647 0.2330 14 95.333 0.2545 15 111.235 0.2938 16 115.225 0.3036 17 127.509 0.3340 18 140.831 0.3669 Rayleigh Damping Coefficients B C D B= B= C= C= D= D= 0.0061 0.0153 0.0052 0.0154 0.0056 0.0153
29
400 kV Transmission Y Tower Damping Ratio vs. Natural Frequency

0.45 0.40 Damping Ratio =(C/Cc) 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Natural Frequency - (Hz) A B C D
Fig. 5.4 400 kV Transmission Tower Averaged Damping Ratio.

Fz vs. Time 0 0 -50000 -100000 Fz (N) -150000 -200000 -250000 -300000 Fz vs. Time -350000 Time (s) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Fig. 5.5 400 kV Transmission Tower Fz Dynamic Induced Load.
30
Fx vs. Time
0 40000 Fx vs. Time 30000 20000 Fx (N) 10000 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000 Time (s) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Fig. 5.6 400 kV Transmission Tower Fx Dynamic Induced Load.
Fy vs. Time
0 25000 20000 15000 10000 Fy (N) 5000 0 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 Time (s) Fy vs. Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Fig. 5.7 400 kV Transmission Tower Fy Dynamic Induced Load.
31
7) Develop a detailed finite element model for the area of interest (in our case the bottom of the pole as shown in fig. 5.8) and check the stability of this model prior to applying the dynamic induced loads captured from the beam finite element model.
Fig. 5.8 Pole Bottom Detailed Finite Element Model. Correct application of the boundary conditions is critical for the models response to the dynamic induced loads. In our specific case we were interested in tracking the stress distribution around the hand hole reinforcing ring and in the welded connection between the base plate and the shaft. We also want to graph the axial stress in bolt #1. The finite element model was built using plate finite elements to simulate the shaft and hand hole reinforcing ring, brick finite elements to simulate the weld between the shaft and the base plate (two layers), three layers of brick finite elements to simulate the base plate, and brick finite elements to simulate the washers and nuts. The anchor bolts were simulated using beam finite elements. The model also simulates pre-tensioning of the anchor bolts which will induce a high pressure at the contact between the washers and the base plate (see fig. 5.9). The model was checked for different mesh sizes and the results were convergent. The model was run for the above described load case (see fig.5.3) and the results are presented in figs. 5.9 and 5.10. In fig.5.9 it can be seen clearly how the areas of interest respond to the applied loads. The highest stress is at contact between the washers and the base plate, above the shaft base plate welded connection and around the welded hand hole reinforcing ring. It is very important to plan the work before building a finite element model! In this case our model is built to permit even further investigation of the pole bottom, easily.
32
For example: using plate finite elements to simulate the hand hole reinforcing ring, it is easy to investigate the effect of thickness of the hand hole reinforcing ring on the stress distribution around this opening.
Fig. 5.9 400 kV Pole Bottom Stress Distribution

400 kV Transmission Tower Anchor Bolt #1 - Axial Stress vs. Time
4000000 2000000 Axial Stress (N/m 2) 0 -2000000 -4000000 -6000000 -8000000 -10000000 -12000000 Time (s) 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Fig. 5.10 Axial Stress Variation in Bolt #1.
33
In fig.5.10 is presented the axial stress variation in bolt#1 between t=30s and t=48s during the analyzed mechanical event. It is very important to observe that the dynamic induced loads applied to the model triggered the first two natural frequency modes (1=0.407 Hz and 2=02.064 Hz). The model presents behaviour of the areas of interest with a very high degree of detail.
6. Conclusions
How important is durability? In 1982 [27], the Battelle Laboratories were commissioned by the United States government to estimate the annual cost of fatigue and fracture to the countrys economy. Battelle concluded that the cost was 4.4 percent of the gross national product, or in other words, billions of dollars, and that this cost could be reduced by 29 percent the application of current technology. This study says nothing about the amount of money wasted by over-designed products to avoid fatigue and fracture problems. So, how important is durability? Very. It is also widely recognized that approximately 80 to 90 percent or more of mechanical failures arise from fracture and fatigue problems. This Paper presents a modern, new approach in designing free standing structures that are subject to dynamic induced loads, the sources of structural fatigue. The procedures outlined in this paper involve the most advanced engineering simulation concept Mechanical Event Simulation to investigate, analyze, and optimize very complex geometries (see fig.6.1) that are usually the most critical areas for free standing structures.
Fig.6.1 Critical Connection for a Transmission Tower. These complicated connections, can not usually be investigated using closed form solutions. The high degree of detail makes it practically impossible for even a very experienced design engineer, to predict the systems response to dynamic induced loads.
34
Most of the design standards ( [17] to [26] ) present methodologies to design the structures for fatigue, but lack in providing methods to realistically account for the fatigue sources being the interactions between the analyzed system and the (surrounding) real world elements, which in most cases are of nonlinear nature. The new design approach proposed in this paper places the system in direct contact with the surrounding environment and calculates the loads based on this interaction. Using this method the engineer no longer has to approximate the loads and to apply them statically. The simulated interaction will be a realistic one triggering the fatigue sources which are the cyclic loads. When analyzing the effect of cyclic loads on systems, it is very important to account for the damping effect. Some design standards and technical literature do offer values for damping ratios determined for the systems first natural frequency mode. As presented above, interaction between the system and its surrounding real world elements will likely trigger more than one frequency mode. Thus it is important to use Rayleigh coefficients for a good approximation of damping, at higher frequency modes as well. A method to account for damping is also outlined in this paper and its applicability to the most common free standing structures is checked. The methodology presented in this paper was checked using Algor simulation software that incorporates the necessary provisions to implement it. All simulation procedures were developed and tested by the author as a part of the research and development program Stability of Free Standing Structures Under Dynamic Induced Loads initiated by the author, at West Coast Engineering Group Ltd. Some results and animated files can be seen on the West Coast Engineering Group Ltd. web site: www.wceng-fea.com.
35
References
1. Erikson, K (Ed), Estep, D, Hansbo, P and Johnson, C Computational Differential Equations, 1996, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-567-386. 2. Ulises F. Gonzlez, Michael L. Bussler, Algor Inc., Using Mechanical Event Simulation in the Design Process. 3. Sandipon Adhikari, Damping Models for Structural Vibration, Ph. D. Thesis, Cambridge University, Engineering Department, September 2000. 4. Finn Rudinger, Modeling and Estimation of Damping in Non-Linear Random Vibration, Ph. D. Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Mechanical Engineering Department, October, 2002. 5. Klaus Jurgen Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982. 6. W. Weaver, Jr., S.P. Timoshenko, D. H. Young, Vibration Problems in Engineering, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1990. 7. Daniel J. Inman, Engineering Vibration, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001. 8. David V Hutton, Fundamentals of Finite Element Analysis, Mc Graw-Hill, 2004. 9. Indrajit Chowdhury, Shambhu P. Dasgupta, Computation of Rayleigh Damping Coefficients for Large Systems, The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 8/2003, Bundle 8C 10. Constantine C. Spyrakos, Finite Element Modeling in Engineering Practice, Algor Publishing Division, Pittsburg, PA, 1994. 11. Constantine C. Spyrakos & John Raftoyiannis, Finite Element Analysis in Engineering Practice, Algor Publishing Division, Pittsburg, PA, 1997. 12. Vince Adams and Abraham Askenazi, Building Better Product with FEA - 1999. 13. Chandrakant S. Desai, Elementary Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979. 14. Kenneth H. Huebner, The Finite Element Method for Engineers, John Wiley & Sons, 1975. 15. D.H. Norrie, G. Devries, An Introduction to Finite Element Analysis, Academic Press, 1978. 16. Eric B. Becker, Graham F. Carey, J. Tinsley Oden, Finite Elements An Introduction, Volumes 1, 3 & 5 Prentice Hall, 1984. 17. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001. 18. National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council of Canada, 1995. 19. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code - Ministry of Highways and Communications Ontario 1983. 20. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA-S6-00. 21. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board NCHRP-Report 469 Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign, and Light Supports. 2002. 22. Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, Second Edition, 1990, American Society of Civil Engineering Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice N0.72.
36
23. Tubular Steel Structures Theory and Design, M. S. Troitsky, The James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, 1982. 24. NTE 003/04/00 Design Standards for Electrical Transmission Lines over 100 kV (Replaced Standard PE 104). 25. PE 105 Design Methodology for Electrical Transmission Lines Steel Towers. 26. STAS 10101/20-90 Structural Loads Induced by Wind Romanian Standardization Institute 1990. 27. MSC Software How and Why do Structures Fail 2002 MSC Software Corporation.
37

Calculation of C With Rayleighs Model

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Calculation of C With Rayleighs Model

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dynamic Analysis with Damping for Free Standing Structures using Mechanical Event Simulation

f xB f xS Fxi f B = f yB ; f S = f yS ; F i = Fyi ; f zB f zS Fzi

Figure 1.1 General three -dimensional body.

The strains corresponding to U are,

More generally, relation (1.9a) can be written as

R = R B + RS R I + RC The matrix K is the stiffness matrix of the element assemblage,

the effect of the element surface forces, (1.18)

the effect of the element initial stresses,

where C is the damping matrix of the structure,

= [1 , 2 ,..., n ]; 2 1 2 2 . 2 = the n solutions to (2.7) can be written as . 2 n

Because the eigenvectors are M-orthonormal, we have

3. Computation of Rayleigh damping coefficients for large systems.

This can be reduced to the form:

Damping Ratio vs. Natural Frequency

Damping Ratio =(C/Cc)

Natural Frequency - (Hz)

Fig. 4.1. Damping Ratio Versus Natural Frequency.

and modal mass participation ratios:

High Mast Tower

High Mast Towers

6 2.1305 0.8268 0.6822

7 2.8822 1.1383 0.9404

8 3.6867 1.4952 1.2365

18.3m 34.5m 38.06m

18.3m 34.5m 38.06m

Fig. 4.4 Antenna Towers - Modal Mass Participations

0.00 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Modal Mass Participations

6 2.5102 1.8696 1.7361 1.7459 2.2170 1.6704 1.9582

7 3.1854 2.5480 2.3748 2.3818 3.0050 2.2730 2.6280

8 4.3916 3.3074 3.0865 3.0942 3.8187 4.4446 3.6905

where : m < i 2.5m

Select first set of data: 1, m and 1, m.

Based on the first set of data calculate with equation (4.9):

Back-substituting the values of in expression (4.10):

5. Numerical Application 400 kV Transmission Tower

Fig. 5.1 400 kV Transmission Tower

Fig. 5.2 Pole Bottom Detail

Time (s) 0 10 30 35 35.1 40 45 45.1 60

Structure Loading Diagram

Table 5.2 Natural Frequency Modes and Rayleigh Damping Coefficients.

400 kV Transmission Y Tower Damping Ratio vs. Natural Frequency

Fig. 5.4 400 kV Transmission Tower Averaged Damping Ratio.

Fig. 5.5 400 kV Transmission Tower Fz Dynamic Induced Load.

Fig. 5.6 400 kV Transmission Tower Fx Dynamic Induced Load.

Fig. 5.7 400 kV Transmission Tower Fy Dynamic Induced Load.

Fig. 5.9 400 kV Pole Bottom Stress Distribution

Fig. 5.10 Axial Stress Variation in Bolt #1.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai