Modeling of the 3D rocking problem

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2012.02.004Get rights and content

Abstract

The rocking motion of a rigid rectangular prism on a moving base is a complex three dimensional phenomenon. Although, with very few exceptions, the previous models in the literature make the simplified assumption that this motion is planar, this is usually not true since a body will probably not be aligned with the direction of the ground motion. Thus, even in the case where the body is fully symmetric, the rocking motion involves three dimensional rotations and displacements.

In this work, a three dimensional formulation is introduced for the rocking motion of a rigid rectangular prism on a deformable base. Two models are developed: the Concentrated Springs Model and the Winkler Model. Both sliding and uplift are taken into account and the fully non-linear equations of the problem are developed and solved numerically.

The models developed are later used to examine the behavior of bodies subjected to general ground excitations. The contribution of phenomena neglected in previous models, such as twist, is stressed.

Highlights

► Two models, the CSM and WM, are developed for the 3D Rocking problem. ► The CSM uses concentrated vertical springs and dampers, and the WM distributed. ► Euler angles are used to describe rotations and Lagrange's equations are used to derive the equations of motion. ► Sliding, uplift and geometric non-linearities are included in the behavior of the models. ► Examples illustrate the ability of the models to capture 3D rocking.

Introduction

The rocking motion of a body is a highly non-linear phenomenon, that has attracted a significant number of researchers, since it was first formulated by Housner [1] in 1963. The majority of the studies on rocking have only considered the problem as two dimensional, i.e. the planar rocking of a body, and the associated complex properties. However, rocking is in general a three dimensional phenomenon and thus planar rocking is only a limited aspect of it.

In fact, even in the simplest case of a symmetric body, one cannot expect the rocking motion to be planar, unless the ground excitation is in parallel with one of the axes of symmetry of the body. The latter, however, is rarely true and thus one should expect the motion of the body to include 3D displacements and rotations. Despite this fact, the literature for the full three dimensional formulation of the problem is rather limited in comparison with the work done on the planar aspect of the phenomenon.

Housner proposed the first model, the inverted pendulum model [1], to study the planar rocking motion of a body. Expansions of this model in assemblies of two stacked rigid bodies were presented in [2], [3]. While the inverted pendulum model neglected sliding, uplift and the deformability of the support medium, a series of papers gradually incorporated these effects into the 2D rocking models. Sliding and uplift, for a rigid support medium, were included with some additional assumptions, in the work of [4], [5]. Psycharis and Jennings [6] proposed a model, considering the flexibility of the ground, with either concentrated springs and dampers at the corners, or a Winkler type of foundation, which however was geometrically linear and ignored sliding and uplift. Koh et al.'s model [7] also included a Winkler type of foundation model with geometrically non-linear equations, however still the effects of friction and uplift were not incorporated. The latter model was used to investigate the response to random input in [8]. Finally, fully geometrically non-linear CSM and WM models that included the effects of uplift and sliding were proposed in [9].

On the other hand, the literature on the modeling of the 3D rocking problem is rather limited. Konstantinids and Makris in [10] proposed a 3D rocking model for rigid symmetric prisms on a rigid foundation, however the analysis was stopped right before an impact occurred, while sliding and uplift was also neglected. 3D rocking models for rigid cylindrical objects on a rigid base were presented in [11], [12], with the assumption of no loss of energy during impacts, while the motion of a cylinder on a Winkler foundation was examined under the assumptions of no slipping or twisting in [13]. Apart from these models, it has been suggested in [14] that the 3D rocking problem can be examined with 2D approximations, an approach which as the authors state would require the existence of a constant rocking plane, i.e. the plane perpendicular to the vector of rotation. In addition, researchers [15], [16], [17] have used models based on the DEM theory as developed by Cundall [18], or general FEM models such as those proposed in [19], [20]. These models, however, were developed for 3D contact problems in general and are thus not optimized for the rocking problem.

In the current paper, two 3D rocking models are developed by expanding the benefits of the CSM and WM, proposed in [9], into the 3D rocking case. The suggested models examine rigid body prisms on a deformable base and take geometric non-linearities, sliding and uplift fully into account. The models are later used in suitable examples, where the complex 3D character of rocking is highlighted.

Section snippets

Body properties

The body in Fig. 1 is a rectangular rigid prism with centroid C and mass m. The Cartesian system S is defined by the axes X, Y, Z parallel to the unit vectors ex, ey, ez respectively and intersecting at O, the point of reference. Note that vectors will be denoted in bold from here on. Point O is a point fixed on the ground surface, which is chosen to match the YZ plane. Let us also refer to the Cartesian coordinates of any point i, [ri/O], as [xi,yi,zi]. In the particular case of C the

Defining the generalized coordinates

In order to define the current position and orientation of the body, six degrees of freedom are required. The first three are simply the coordinates of the center of mass C, with respect to the Cartesian base S, i.e. xC, yC and zC. The remaining three DOF are needed to describe the rotation of the body. To this end, the sequential Euler angles ψ, θ, ϕ are used as shown in Fig. 2. The initial Cartesian basis ex,ey,ez is rotated with respect to the ey vector by an angle ψ, resulting in the basis e

Models

In this section the two models developed to simulate the vertical reactions of the supporting medium are described and they are (i) the Concentrated Springs Model and (ii) the Winkler Model. Both models simulate the ground as vertical springs and dampers. These models produce only vertical forces creating the terms Ftotalx and QϕQψQθxin the system of equations (28). Note that the horizontal frictional forces at the interface between the ground and the block will be described later in Section 5.

Frictional forces

A Coulomb Model is used to simulate friction. The model considers the frictional forces to act on the bottom corners of the box. A frictional springs formulation is used, that produces only horizontal frictional forces creating the terms Ftotaly, Ftotalz and hence QϕQψQθy,zin the system of equations (28).

Example 1: earthquake response simulation

A rectangular concrete rigid prism of dimensions h=0.35 m, b=0.09 m, w=0.1 m is placed on a support medium that can be described by the WM with the values: kl=116,667KN/m/m2, cl=467KN/(m/sec2)/m2. These values would correspond to the experimentally estimated values for an elastic rubber mat foundation of modulus of elasticity 7 MPa and thickness 6 cm. The coefficient of friction has the value μ=0.3. The following equations are used to determine the parameters of the CSM:k0i=klbw/4,c0i=clbw/4

These

Conclusions

Two models for examining the 3D rocking motion of a rigid rectangular prism on a flexible support medium, the 3D CSM and the 3D WM, have been introduced in this study. The models describe the motion of the body by tracking the displacements of the center of mass xC,yC,zC and the rotation of the body, as expressed by the three sequential Euler rotations ψ,θ,ϕ. The geometric non-linearities, sliding and uplift are taken fully into account and no terms are omitted in the dynamic equations of

References (31)

  • P.D. Spanos et al.

    Dynamic analysis of stacked rigid blocks

    Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

    (2001)
  • P.D. Spanos et al.

    Analysis of block random rocking

    Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

    (1986)
  • G.W. Housner

    The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes

    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

    (1963)
  • I.N. Psycharis

    Dynamic behaviour of rocking two-block assemblies

    Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

    (1990)
  • Y. Ishiyama

    Motion of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by earthquake excitations

    Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

    (1982)
  • H. Shenton et al.

    Base excitation of rigid bodies. 1: formulation

    Journal of Engineering Mechanics

    (1991)
  • I.N. Psycharis et al.

    Rocking of slender rigid bodies allowed to uplift

    Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

    (1983)
  • A. Koh et al.

    Harmonic rocking of rigid block on flexible foundation

    Journal of Engineering Mechanics

    (1986)
  • M.N. Chatzis et al.

    Robust modeling of the rocking problem

    Journal of Engineering Mechanics

    (2012)
  • D. Konstantinidis et al.

    The dynamics of a rocking block in three dimensions

  • M. Srinivasan et al.

    Rocking and rolling: a can that appears to rock might actually roll

    Physical Review E

    (2008)
  • Y. Li et al.

    Response of 3d free axisymmetrical rigid objects under seismic excitations

    New Journal of Physics

    (2008)
  • A. Koh et al.

    Base isolation benefits of 3d rocking and uplift. i: theory

    Journal of Engineering Mechanics

    (1991)
  • B. Shi et al.

    Rocking and overturning of precariously balanced rocks by earthquakes

    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

    (1996)
  • C. Papantonopoulos et al.

    Numerical prediction of the earthquake response of classical columns using the distinct element method

    Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text