See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264696637

Computational Methods for Structures

Conference Paper · November 2007

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1818.9442

CITATIONS READS
2 1,059

3 authors:

Avelino Samartín Jaime H García-Palacios

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
44 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lee Margetts
The University of Manchester
138 PUBLICATIONS   787 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geometric Mechanics of Solids View project

Nondestructive Techniques for Bridge Inspection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lee Margetts on 13 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computational Methods for Structures

Samartin, Prof. Avelino Q.; García-Palacios, Dr. Jaime; Margetts, Dr. Lee

ABSTRACT

The principal goal in the design of any general engineering structure is to achieve stability. A
structure must remain stable and therefore, fit for purpose, throughout its useful life. This
requirement can be achieved with the help of structural analysis techniques, which nowadays
can be performed using computers. In this paper, the authors consider the three distinct phases
of structural analysis, namely Idealisation, Analysis and Interpretation. The idealisation phase
describes the process of translating the proposed engineering works into a model that
represents the physical response of the structure to applied loading. This model is a
simplification of the real structure and only considers the characteristics of the components
that have the greatest influence on its stability. In the following phase, the analysis phase, the
aforementioned model is used to study and understand how the structure might behave in
reality. The framing of this model may draw upon knowledge obtained in many other
disciplines, including Applied Mathematics and Materials Science. The significance of the
results are determined during the interpretation phase and the engineer either decides that
stability can be achieved or works through the process again, modifying the initial idealisation.
As computers continue to grow in capability, it is the purpose of this paper to consider the role
of computational methods and how they may empower present and future structural engineers.

Keywords: Stability; Idealisation; Analysis; Interpretation

IDEALISATION

When choosing a model to represent the behaviour of a structure, previous experience and
intuition are very important. This is true when considering both the characteristics of the
model and the real structure that is being idealised. One should not rule out the use of a range
of alternative approaches, the results of which can be compared and contrasted. Sometimes, a
2-D model, represented by a plane frame structure or by one comprising beams and slabs, will
be the correct choice. This is the case when modelling a bridge deck for example. On the other
hand, when wishing to undertake an accurate dynamic analysis of the motion of high velocity
trains (an animation will be presented during the conference), it may be more appropriate to
use a 3-D model comprising folded plate or brick elements (1), (2). Although bricks are more
computationally expensive to use, this will not always be a concern. It has recently been
shown that by using one thousand processors simultaneously, a static linear elastic problem
comprising one million bricks can be solved in less than 2 seconds (3).

Other aspects of the idealisation can prove to be quite complicated. Consider neoprene or
teflon bridge supports. Typically, the values of variables that characterise elasticity and
friction are not easy to determine. For example, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio will be
variable along the length of the structure. Although it may be argued that the effect of these
structural components on the behaviour of the overall structure is negligible, this is not always
the case. Furthermore, to describe the rheology of the completed work, it is important to take
into account the other properties such as the coefficients of relaxation, creep and shrinkage.

The structure conceived during a project design phase will inevitably differ from the one that
is built. From the point of view of maintenance, safety and ongoing management, it is
important to know the true dimensions of the structure, the real properties of its component
parts and how it will really behave when used. When a construction has been completed, it is
normal practice to apply a proof load in order to determine how far the structure is from its
limit load. In addition to this test, it should perhaps be a mandatory requirement to carry out
an output-only test (4). With all this post-construction information, the model used in the
conceptual design could be adjusted or refined, enabling all the stakeholders to better
understand and manage the finished product during its working life.

ANALYSIS

The focus of this paper is the analysis phase. Before continuing, it is important to realise that
a poorly conceived idealisation can lead to erroneous conclusions and that this hidden danger
is not necessarily exposed by analysis. The only way to be sure that a structural analysis can
be trusted is to verify the results using a physical experiment. A notice placed in a laboratory
in the United Kingdom supports this assertion, “A good experiment is better than one
thousand reasonable opinions” (or in the context of this paper, one thousand analyses). It is
common sense that the results of structural analysis can only be considered within the context
of the mathematical model used to undertake that analysis. For example, a linear model cannot
be used to determine the limit load for instability. Experimentalists would not hesitate to point
out that a physical experiment answers both the question posed and the one that has not even
been considered. The properties of the real structure, that is to say, the one built in accordance
with the final design or project plan, cannot be known precisely given that small variations in
the known conditions may arise during the construction process. There may be accidental
loads, variations in the properties of the materials or variations in the true support conditions.
Experiments are not perfect either, with the results obtained being only indicative of the state
of the structure at the instant a test took place. If that were not enough, the uncertainties
increase both as the structure ages and as it experiences random loads during its working life.
All of these factors lead to the need for structural identification, which is discussed later.

A structure can be considered as a system in which the inputs are the applied loads and the
outputs are the resultant stresses, strains and displacements. Depending on the type of input
and the unknowns to be determined, the following problem classes can be listed (in order of
importance): Structural Analysis, Structural Optimisation, Structural Identification and
Structural Control. The characteristics of each of these problem types are described next.

Structural Analysis – Traditional structural analysis seeks to determine the response of the
components of a structure to design loads and limit loads. In structural analysis, the actions
are known (the input), as are the characteristics of the structure (the system) and the purpose is
to determine the structure’s response to those actions (the output). This problem type is the
one typically used to verify the design of a structure and was the only one was used in
professional practice before the widespread use of computers. It is the simplest approach for
simulating structures and is the one that is the most developed today. Depending on the
representation adopted, an analysis could be described as linear, from the point of view of
either geometry or material behaviour (or both), non-linear, static or dynamic. Other
classifications exist, some that take into account whether the material is represented by a
continuum or by discrete particles, or whether it is represented at more than one spatial or
temporal scale (multi-scale). Multi-scale analyses coupling the micro-scale to macro-scale are
just becoming viable. Samples of materials can be imaged using x-ray computer tomography,
automatically converted into a finite element mesh and then tested “virtually” (5).

Until relatively recent times, the principal type of analysis used in the majority of Civil
Engineering projects was linear elastic. It has even been used for testing the loading of
structural members up to the ultimate limit state, which is clearly nonsense. Occasionally both
analytical and discrete techniques are used within the same model. The former are used where
the behaviour is regular and smooth and the latter to represent areas that cannot be described
analytically, for example regions with stress discontinuities or complex geometry (6). Another
possibility, that has not been explored completely, is the use of periodic finite elements to
generate superelement matrices, particularly for 3-D problems that require significant compute
resources. During the conference, some results of 2-D and 3-D problems for periodic
structures will be presented to illustrate their usefulness (7).

Some problems need to consider the interaction between different media, a growing field
called multiphysics. In Civil Engineering, these commonly arise as fluid-structure interaction
problems. In such cases, one approach is to employ special boundary conditions (8).
Alternatively, when fluid pressures act upon a solid structure, it is sometimes convenient to
use stiffness matrices that take into account the action of follower forces (9).

Non-linear analysis was rarely used in practice until the last two decades. In the 1970s, it was
used in the order of 1% of analyses, a figure that has steadily increased to around 30% or 40%
today. A non-linear viewpoint enables the engineer to under take more realistic analyses,
considering both the serviceability and ultimate limit states for example. It can also help
ensure consistency between the distinct phases of an analysis and help identify potential
failure mechanisms. A non-linear analysis of the Guadalfeo Arch Bridge in Spain (Figure 1)
was needed to determine the critical loads leading to in plane and out of plane buckling. Other
phenomena of concern include aerodynamic instabilities, such as the galloping instability (10)
that occurred during the construction phase of an arch bridge at Alconetar in Spain (Figure 2).

Analysis that takes into account geometric non-linearities is not just concerned with instability
problems. At times, large displacements occur when the structure is being built and these must
be studied to understand what might happen during the construction phase. Figure 3 illustrates
one particular example, the installation of underwater outlets on the sea floor. The outlets
comprise flexible high density polythene tubes, which are carefully laid through a float and
sink procedure. Simulations are complicated because apart from the non-linear geometrical
deformations (influenced by large movements, nature of the boundary conditions and the sea
floor, etc.), one must also consider the role played by the dynamic interaction between the
water and the structure, the influence of buoyancy forces, underwater currents and swell.

Many medium sized countries, including Spain, are investing in a national high speed rail
network. The structural response of bridges to dynamic loading is an important factor to
consider when designing for safety and passenger comfort. It is essential that the possibility of
the track being loosened is reduced to within acceptable limits. During the presentation, an
animation will be shown that illustrates the dynamic behaviour of the Las Piedras viaduct in
Almeria (11). The viaduct is of mixed construction, is 1,200 metres in length and supports the
passage of trains travelling at a maximum design velocity of 460km/hour.

Structural Optimisation – This is the next level of engineering simulation considered here.
The traditional iterative process of an engineering project can be represented by the loop:
design-analysis-test-new design. For some types of analysis, it is possible to automate this
process and undertake what may be termed direct structural optimisation. The purpose of this
process is to determine a series of structural parameters (dimensions, material characteristics
etc.) that satisfy a series of conditions (or restrictions) when the structure is subjected to
various actions (stresses, strains and displacements). In general, a large set of candidate or
feasible solutions may satisfy the problem posed. The optimisation process seeks a feasible
solution that minimises (or more generally optimises) a function, which is normally a scalar
called the objective function (total weight, cost etc). Sometimes the objective function may be
defined by a vector and in this case is known as Pareto Optimisation. There is a wide range of
literature and computer programs that deal with the different mathematical and practical
aspects of the optimisation process (12), (13). In computing terms, optimisation problems are
embarrassingly parallel. Each solution is independent of the others and therefore all solutions
could be computed at the same time using many different computers. Tools are available that
enable the engineer to run many independent analyses across a number of workstations (14).

Can structural optimisation be used to help drive a design project entirely automatically? No.
Structural optimisation appears in many aspects of a project (optimal shape, minimum weight,
etc) and provides valuable results. However, in general, some may consider the process to be
one of sub-optimisation, now that the project manager has a whole universe of solutions to
hand. Years ago, the Spanish philosopher Torroja suggested that automated engineering was
beyond the capability of computers (15). Despite their power today, this is still the case. But
just how far can structural optimisation tools go? Before the days of optimisation software,
engineers iteratively optimised early designs “by hand”. With fast processing, it is now
technically possible for the engineer to modify the structure, change the geometry, apply
arbitrary loading and view the results of the analysis almost immediately (16). It is likely that
the future will see engineer-in-the-loop structural optimisation programs.

Structural Identification – This important stage uses information obtained in the previous
optimisation stage together with experimentation to determine the characteristic parameters of
the model used. It is becoming increasing frequent to carry out experiments to measure the
response of the structure to loads that arise naturally and are uncontrollable (17). The lessons
learnt from this stage enable decisions to be made regarding maintenance as well as to
determine the level of safety in terms of serviceability and ultimate limit states. Techniques
used in structural reliability theory (18) are made more practical through their application to a
structure that is more realistic than the theoretical one developed earlier in the design process.
Sometimes laboratory tests are carried out under strictly controlled conditions. This is less
common in Civil Engineering than in Aerospace Engineering. In the latter, the structure is
sensitive to small imperfections, for example in the thickness of the aircraft wings or the build-
up of ice that can modify the wing’s profile. To detect material imperfections, non-destructive
techniques involving high frequency sound waves (Rayleigh, Lamb, etc.) can be used (19).

Structural Control – This is the future of Civil Engineering. The basic idea is to introduce
forcing elements into the structure that counteract the unfavourable effects of forces that arise
through the exterior environment. The system of pre-tensile loading developed by Eugene
Freyssinet is an early example of structural control, which dealt with the effects of predicted
loading. Nowadays, the idea is to enable a structure to react automatically to random,
unpredicted events (20). This possibility can be achieved through distinct technologies that
include intelligent materials, sensors and actuators. In the USA, research is underway to
couple these devices to virtual models running on supercomputers. One day, computers may
automatically activate devices embedded in the structure to counteract sudden loading (21).

INTERPRETATION

This final stage is fundamental as the results of the analysis must be consistent with the reality
of the construction project. This task requires experience and a deep understanding of
structural engineering. Translating the forces and stresses obtained during the analysis phases
to those encountered in the real structure is not straightforward, particularly for reinforced
concrete structures (the layout of the reinforcing bars, the quantities, etc) and metal structures
(connectors, reinforcement and welded joints, etc.). In structures of mixed construction such as
concrete filled tubes, the three phases of idealisation, analysis and interpretation are intimately
interconnected. During the presentation, a simple model will be used to show just how
complicated the behaviour of this type of structure can be (22). The use of post-processors for
analysis, despite the difficulties faced in interpretation, is rapidly growing in Civil
Engineering. In 2-D representations of reinforced concrete structures (slabs, simple or doubly
curving shells) there is no unique arrangement that the reinforcement can take to satisfy the
loading conditions (Figure 4). The reader is invited to refer to a recent publication (23) that
describes the difficulties and advantages of post-processing in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

From a computational point of view, a Civil Engineering project requires not only the aspects
of strength and safety to be taken into account, but also durability and maintenance. Without a
doubt, the power of computing brings into question the need for certain models that were
developed in the past, such as beams, plates and shells or the general simplifications of
asymptotic methods and homogenisation. Perhaps it is now possible to idealise the model
directly in 3-D. In order to properly manage a structure during its lifetime, the model used
during the design stages of the project needs to be modified according to knowledge gained
during the structural identification process. It is typical in Civil Engineering works to
undertake a static load test when the construction has been completed, to ensure it is safe and
as a final acceptance test before handing over responsibility to the client. Knowledge
regarding the dynamic behaviour of the structure, through tests that are carried out
immediately after construction, during periodic inspections or continuously (through sensors
embedded in the structure), allow the engineer to improve or identify the model that truly
describes the behaviour of the structure designed at the beginning of the project. By virtue of
this model, the performance of the structure can be improved (in comparison with expectations
during the design stage), through appropriate management and maintenance as well as a better
knowledge of safety factors. In summary, structural analysis can be thought of as an
interactive process which comprises the three stages described; namely idealisation, analysis
and interpretation. Without a doubt, this process is leading to better quality and longer lasting
civil engineering structures, which in turn addresses a growing concern in society, the
responsible and sustainable use of the Earth’s limited resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Professor Samartin and Dr García-Palacios would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Education for their kind support (DPI-2005-09203-C03-02). The contribution of
Dr Margetts was supported by EPSRC in the UK, through grant EP/D037867/1.

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

Professor Samartin (avelino@mecanica.upm.es) holds the Chair of Structural Engineering at

the Technical University of Madrid, Spain. Dr García-Palacios (jgpalacios@caminos.upm.es)
is a Lecturer in Hydraulic Engineering at the same institution. Dr Margetts is a Senior
Researcher at the University of Manchester, England (lee.margetts@manchester.ac.uk).

REFERENCES

1. E. Reynders, E. O. Arman, G. De Roeck, J. García-Palacios and A. Samartín. “Ambient Vibration

Tests on Two Highway Bridges across the M50 Ring at Madrid” BWM-2006-10, (June 2006).
2. E. Reynders, E. O. Arman, G. De Roeck, J. García-Palacios and A. Samartín. “Finite Element
Modelling and Analysis of Two Highway Bridges across the M50 Ring at Madrid” BWM-2006-11.
KUL and UPM, (June 2006).
3. L. Margetts, R.F. Ford and G. Riley. “Interactive simulation of materials with complex
architectures” NAFEMS World Congress, Vancouver, Canada, (May 2007).
4. Peeters, B. “System Identification and Damage Detection in Civil Engineering” PhD Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering. K.U. Leuven, 2000.
5. F. Calvo, L. Margetts and I.M. Smith, “Towards the micro-structural analysis of open-celled foams
through the compaction regime” Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the UK Association
for Computational Mechanics in Engineering, Glasgow, (April 2007).
6. Samartin, A. “Some examples of the simultaneous use of closed form and numerical solutions in
Shell Structural Analysis” I.A.S.S. Congress of Moscow, (June 1985).
7. Samartin, A. “Analysis of spatially periodic structures. Application to shell and spatial structures”
Proceedings of the I.A.S.S. Symposium on Innovative Applications of Shell and Spatial Structures.
Bangalore (India). Oxford and IBH Publshing Ltd. (November 1988), pp 205-221
8. C. Navarro and A. Samartin “A transmitting boundary in the time domain for soil-structure
interaction problems” Proceedings of NUMETA 87, (July 1987), pp T13.1-T13.8
9. J. Garcia Palacios, A. Samartín and V. Negro “A non-linear analysis of laying a floating pipeline
on the seabed” Proc of the IASS-ACPS 2006 International Symposium New Olympics New Shells
and Spatial Structures, Beijing, China, 2006
10. E. Simiu and R.H. Scanlan “Wind Effects on Structures” John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2nd edition,
1986
11. J. Garcia Palacios and A. Samartín “Investigación del comportamiento dinámico de las Piedras al
paso de trenes de alta velocidad” Informe a la Fundación Agustín de Betancourt, Madrid, 2002
12. S. S. Rao “Engineering Optimization” John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 1996.
13. J. Nocedal and S.J. Wright “Numerical Optimization” Springer Science-Business-Media Inc. 1999.
14. D. P. Anderson. “Public Computing: Reconnecting People to Science” Conference on Shared
Knowledge and the Web, Madrid, Spain, 2003.
15. E. Torroja “Razón y Ser de los Tipos Estructurales” I. T. C. y C. Madrid, 1960.
16. L. Margetts, R.F. Ford and C. Smethurst. “Interactive Finite Element Analysis” NAFEMS World
Congress, Malta, (May 2005).
17. L. Ljung “System Identification Theory for the User” Prentice Hall PTR, 1999.
18. B. Gnedenko, Y. Beliaev and A. Soloviev “Méthodes Mathématiques en Theorie de la Fiabilité”
Editions Mir. Moscow, 1972.
19. A. Samartín, P. Tabuenca, J. García-Palacios “Structural damage identification using dynamic
numerical models” Proceedings of IASS Symposium Shell and Spatial Structures from Models to
Realization. Montpellier, France, (September 2004).
20. L. Meirovitch “Dynamics and Control of Structures” John Wiley and Sons, 1990.
21. I.F.C. Smith “Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture” Springer, Germany, 2006.
22. Y.L. Pi, M.A. Bradford and B. Uy “Second Order Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis of Composite
Steel-Concrete Members I: Theory” Journal of Structural Engineering, 132, 5, 2006.
23. A. Samartín, P. Diaz Domínguez and J. Garcia Palacios. “A consistent method of analysis of RC
shell structures. Proceedings of the IASS-ACPS 2006 International Symposium New Olympics.
New Shells and Spatial Structures, Beijing, China, 2006.

FIGURES

Transverse
section

Out of plane buckling

mode

Fig. 1 Concrete Filled Tube Structure of the Guadalfeo Bridge

 Fig. 2 Arch bridge with aerodynamic spoilers

water control
Válvula de control de agua air control
Válvula de control de aire

Fase inicial
Initial phase C1
Fases intermedias
Intermediate phases
Sin
No friction fricción
soil-pipe C2
Finalfinal
Fase phasede descenso

100
p

Fig. 3 Process of laying a submarine pipe on the sea floor

Fig. 4 Reinforcement layout for the cantilever section of a bridge deck

View publication stats