The results of this study are similar to existing literature and data, with the numerical analysis being consistent with the physical simulation tests in the existing literature, verifying the applicability of the SPH-DEM-FEM coupling analysis for assessing the debris flow impact retaining structures of erosion and sedimentation. The impact process of the debris flow, the impact height behind the retaining dam, the deposition thickness, and the debris flow dynamic response significantly influence both with and without considering the effects of erosion. The coupled numerical analysis completely reproduces the debris flow erosion test, fitting the debris flow shape and thickness profile well. The strain-softening model was adopted to simulate the transformation of the debris flow body from the solid state to the transition state and finally into the liquid state. This paper adopted the coupled SPH-DEM-FEM to establish a complex dynamic model of the particle-fluid-erosion-structure of the debris flow and to assess the impact of erosion and sedimentation and analyse the dynamic response of the retaining structure of the debris flow. You can refer to my presentation on seismic analysis of ground supported water tanks by registering in the link (for free) below.The erosion of debris flows on the material source will affect the movement and impact of the debris flow. The rest of the procedure to be followed is as in the code. Now, P/delta would give you the spring stiffness provided by the staging with which you would be able to calculate the Impulsive Time Period. Run the analysis and evaluate the deflection of the Master Node in that direction. Once this is done, apply a static load of any value, say P in the required direction.
Once you are able to determine the location of the centre of mass, you need to create a node at that point and assign a MASTER SLAVE RIGID CONNECTION with this newly created node as the Master and all the other nodes on the container and gallery as the slaves. You would need to evaluate the centre of the mass using the distributed mass of the container, 1/3 of the mass of the staging and the impulsive mass of the liquid. The only thing to evaluate is the impulsive mode time period which would be dependent on the spring stiffness that would be provided by the staging arrangement.
The distributions are hyperbolic functions and are readily available in the code. IN case you want to see the stress / force variation on the wall of the container, you can go for a distribution of hydrodynamic and inertial pressures for the impulsive mode and only hydrodynamic pressures for the convective mode on the wall of the tank. The expressions for calculating the base shears and Overturning moments is readily available in the code. It would be enough if you can evaluate the peak forces in the two modes and do a SRSS combination to obtain the resultant as you do for a response spectrum method. And you would not be able to model the convective mass because of the absence of spring elements in STAAD.Pro. Now, you do not need to exclusively model the masses to evaluate the seismic response of the tank. (2) The Convective Mass cannot be considered to be rigidly connected as this represents the sloshing mass of the water.
The 1/3 of the mass of the stage should be lumped along with it. However, based on what you have said I am not too convinced with your way of modelling because (1) The Impulsive Mass acts in concordance with the water tank and thus should be the only mass that should be rigidly connected. Hi Nitin, I do not seem to see any attached STAAD file.
0 kommentar(er)
