wael 3 floating bridges
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
1/14
- 1 -
Dynamic Analysis of a Pontoon-Separated Floating Bridge
Subjected to a Moving Load
WANG Cong ( )a, FU Shi-xiao ()
a,b,
LI Ning ( )c, CUI Wei-cheng ()dand LIN Zhu-ming ()e
a. School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China;
b. Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim N-7491, Norway;
c. Engineering Institute of Engineering Crops, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210007, China;
d. China Ship Scientific Research Center, Wuxi 214082, China;
e. The First Engineers Scientific Research Institute of the General Armament Department, Wuxi 214035, China.
ABSTRACT
For the design and operation of a floating bridge, the understanding of its dynamic behavior under a moving load is of great
importance. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the dynamic performances of a new type floating bridge, the
pontoon-separated floating bridge, under the effect of a moving load. In the paper, a brief summary of the dynamic analysis of the
floating bridge is first introduced. The motion equations for a pontoon-separated floating bridge, considering the nonlinear
properties of connectors and vehicles inertia effects, are proposed. The super-element method is applied to reduce the numerical
analysis scale to solve the reduced equations. Based on the static analysis, the dynamic features of the new type floating bridge
subjected to a moving load are investigated. It is found that the dynamic behavior of the pontoon-separated floating bridge is
superior to that of the ribbon bridge by taking the nonlinearity of connectors into account.
Keywords:pontoon-separated floating bridge; moving load; dynamic;FEM; nonlinear
1. Introduction
Since the most significant feature of the moving loads is its mobility, the interaction between the vehicle and
bridge is very complicated, which can be classified as a coupled vibration problem. Therefore, much attention
has been paid to the dynamic behavior of flexible structures under the effect of the moving loads. Fryba (1999)
has widely discussed and analyzed the effects of moving loads on various structures, from 1D structural
members to 3D structures, as well as the effect of variable speed of the load. In addition, theoretical
formulations and mathematical solutions for all cases and their application to civil, mechanical and naval
structures are summarized.
Many large fixed bridges have been constructed across rivers as well as seas, however, floating bridges take
advantage of the natural law that the buoyancy of water can support the dead and live loads on the bridge.
Therefore, floating bridges have been constructed in many countries such as the USA, Norway, UK, Japan and
Canada (Watanabe, 2003; Watanabe and Utsunomiya, 2003; Watanabe et al., 2004). Until now, two different
structural forms for floating bridges have been used (Seif and Inoue, 1998): Continuous concrete pontoon type
This project was supported by the Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense.
1 Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
2/14
- 2 -
floating bridges and the steel truss deck one which is supported by discrete pontoons. Regarding the structural
dynamic responses of a floating bridge subjected to moving loads, Virchis (1979) has once performed the
numerical calculation to obtain the dynamic response of a military floating bridge subjected to tracked or
wheeled loads by Runge-Kutta method, taking into account the initial condition of wheels, the variable speed
and the separation status in vehicle-bridge system. However, with the popularity of the computer and the
development of the finite element method (FEM), it is possible for the researchers to simulate the main
features of the vehicle and bridge models more clearly and accurately. Wu et al. (2000, 2001) presented a
technique employing combined finite element and analytical methods to predict the dynamic response of an
experimental mobile gantry crane structure due to the two-dimensional motion of the trolley. Wu and Sheu
(1996) investigated the dynamic performances of a rigid ship hull subjected to a moving load by simplifying
the hydrostatic forces as the action of linear springs and dampers, obtained the motion behavior based on the
solution of the heave-pitch coupled equation, and compared it with the corresponding experiment. Wu and
Shih (1998) studied the elastic vibration of a partial-catenary-moored floating bridge (in still water) subjected
to a moving load by taking the entire pontoon as a slender beam resting on an elastic foundation, and the
influence of hydrodynamic forces as constant added mass, respectively. Furthermore, the stiffness and mass
matrices of two-node beam element with different nodal DOFs have been derived to simulate the features of
the rigid- or hinged-connection by using the FEM and the conservation of energy. Considering the nonlinear
properties of the connection, Fu et al. (2005) estimated the dynamic response of a military ribbon bridge
subjected to a moving load by means of the super element method.
The present investigation is a part of the project Hydroelastic Response of the Floating Bridge Subjected to
Moving Loads in High Speed Current. Based on the previous researches (Fu et al., 2005; Fu, 2005), the paper
mainly focuses on the dynamic behavior of a new type floating bridge, the pontoon-separated one, which
conspicuously differs from the aforementioned ribbon bridge in structural format. Consequently, it is necessary
to investigate the features of dynamic responses of the pontoon-separated floating bridge subjected to a
moving load. For a more precise dynamic analysis, the full floating bridge is modeled by 3D FEM and each
ferry raft is connected by nonlinear elements, and to diminish the scale of calculation, the substructure method
is applied to condense the DOFs of the system.
2. Description of the Equation of Motion
The nonlinear motion equations governing the dynamic response of a structure can be derived by assuming
the work of external forces to be absorbed by the work of internal, inertial and viscous forces, for any small
kinetically admissible motion. On the basis of the FEM and local separation of variables, the nonlinear
equilibrium equations of the structure can be expressed as:
[ ] [ ] extint RRDCDM =++ 1
where { }D
and { }D
are respectively the structural velocity and acceleration vectors; [ ]M and [ ]C arethe structural mass and damping matrices; { }intR and { }extR are the internal force and external load vectors.
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
3/14
- 3 -
Structural external load { }extR consists of the body force { }ext1R , the surface force { }ext2R and theconcentrated force { }ext3R , and is variable with time. As for a floating bridge with uniformly mass distribution,the body forces (the weight of the floating bridge) can be balanced by the static buoyancy (the integration of
static pressure over undisturbed wetted surface); therefore, only the unbalanced force originated from the
dynamic buoyancy and the moving distribution force count.
2. 1 External Forces
The oscillating body in the fluid will cause the movement of surrounding water, inversely the inertial forces
of water will induce the reaction forces to the wetted surface of the body, which can be written as:
{ } [ ] { } weS S
SNRw we
dT
1
ext
2 = 2
where wS is the total area of the wetted surface, [ ]N is the shape function, and { } is the prescribedsurface traction force and has the form as:
{ } { }uS
M
we
ea= . 3
Here, eaM is the element added mass of the wetted surface obtained by using Todds method (Todd, 1961),
weS is the element area of the wetted surface, { }u is the acceleration vector for any point in the wettedelement, and can be known from the nodal acceleration vector { }d ,
{ } [ ]{ }dNu = . 4
Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eq. (2) and assuming wet to be the uniform thickness of the wetted
element will produce:
{ } [ ]{ }DMR a =1ext
2 5
with
[ ] [ ]=wS
eaa mM , 6
[ ] [ ] [ ]=weV
we
wewe
eaea VN
tS
MNm d
T, 7
where wewewe tSV is the volume of the wetted element, { }D is constructed by standard FEM procedures,i.e. conceptual expansion of element matrices to structure size.
On the basis of the classification of the mass matrix, Eq. (7) can be termed as theconsistent added mass
matrix. The diagonal matrix form of the added mass matrix is computed by evenly assigning eaM to the
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
4/14
- 4 -
translational DOFs of the node in each wetted element; however, structural added mass matrix [ ]aM must becalculated by standard FEM procedures with non-zeros on the corresponding DOFs between the interfaces and
the fluid and zeros on the remaining.
The so-called hydrostatic force is defined as wetted surface distribution force produced by the buoyancy
when the floating bridge is away from the equilibrium position. Assuming the force is linear to the vertical
displacement of the floating bridge and uniformly acts upon the structural wetted surface, then
{ } [ ] { } =w we
S S
we
we
b SuS
pNR d
T
2
ext
2 8
where bp is the hydrostatic pressure of unit displacement and can be determined in the draft-displacement
curve; and { }u is the displacement of any point in the wetted element and can be obtained from the nodal
displacement vector { }d ,
{ } [ ]{ }dNu = . 9
Then similar to Eq. (5), we have
{ } [ ]{ }DKR b=2ext
2 10
with
[ ] [ ]=wS
bb kK , 11
[ ] [ ] [ ] eT
d wV wewe
bb VN
tS
pNk
we
= . 12
The expression of [ ]bk in Eq. (12) has the same form as Eq. (7) and is specified as the consistent form ofthe hydrostatic force. Similarly, the distributed element force is evenly assigned to the wetted surface nodes to
form the element diagonal hydrostatic force matrix, and [ ]bK is the hydrostatic force coefficients matrix withnon-zeros on the element nodal DOFs of the wetted surface and zeros on the remaining.
On the assumption that the vehicles are always in contact with the surface of the floating bridge, leaving out
of consideration of elastic and damping features, we will have the surface distributed load due to the
gravitation and the inertial force of the motion. Here, the gravitation load of the vehicles is:
{ } ( ) ( )( ) [ ] ( ){ } =vall ve
E E
veVvtve StpNEnumEnumR dT
3
ext
2 13
where, vallE and vtE respectively represent all the loaded elements in the procedure of the motion and theelements subjected to the moving load at time t; and veE is one of the vtE elements; ( )num denotes
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
5/14
- 5 -
the element number; is the Dirac function; veS indicates the area of veE ; ( ){ } ( )tAPtp VV = impliesthe gravity distribution density of all loaded elements at time t, with VP the weight of the vehicle and ( )tA the loaded area at time t.
The structural inertial force due to the moving vehicle can be given by
{ } ( ) ( )( ) [ ] ( )[ ]{ } =vall ve
E E
veVvtve SdNtNEnumEnumR dT
4
ext
2 14
where gtpt VV )()( = is the surface density of mass distribution on all vehicle-loaded elements. Provided
that all the above elements have the uniform thickness vet , Eq. (14) becomes:
[ ]DtMR V )(4ext
2 = 15
with
[ ] ( ) ( )( )[ ] =vallE
VvtveV mEnumEnumtM )( , 16
[ ] [ ]( )
[ ]=veV
ve
veve
VV VN
tS
tNm d
T , 17
where veveve tSV is the volume of the vehicle-loaded elements; [ ])(tMV is the moving mass matrix dueto the inertial forces of the vehicle with non-zeros on the DOFs of the vehicle-loaded elements at time t and
zeros on the remaining.
2. 2 Internal Forces
For the nonlinear system, the structural internal force vectorintR is related to the nodal displacement,
velocity and acceleration, whereas the linear stress-strain system has the following relation:
{ } [ ]{ }DKR =int 18
where [ ]K is the stiffness matrix for a linear system and assembled by the standard FEM procedures tooverlap the element stiffness matrix [ ]k . Substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (1), the dynamic equilibrium equationof a linear system can be transformed into:
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } { }extRDKDCDM =++ . 19
Since the nonlinear properties of the connection of the floating bridge can be primarily featured by the
tension-only or compression-only connectors, the internal force can be further decomposed into:
{ } [ ]{ } { }intconint RDKR += 20
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
6/14
- 6 -
where [ ]{ }DK is the linear internal force, { }intconR is the part of the nonlinear connectors which can besummed by the force { }
irintcon of each nonlinear connector.
The element shown in Fig.1 can provide the internal force only when the extension between the two nodes is
larger than initial slack gap, which can simulate the mechanical characteristics of the tension-only connector.
Conversely, when the extension is less than the initial gap, the element illustrated in Fig.2 can generate the
internal force that can describe the behavior of the compression-only one. L is the present length between
two nodes, 0L is the initial length in case of non-stress condition, and pG is the initial gap.
Fig.1 Tension-only truss element with initial gap ( 0pG ).
Consequently, the internal force of the i th nonlinear connector can be written as:
{ }{ }{ }
{ }{ }
=
=k
j
k
j
id
d
CC
CC
L
AE
F
Fr
000000
000000
0000
000000
000000
0000
11
11
int
con 21
where, { } { })()( kjkj
dzdydxd = is the nodal translation vector along x , y and z direction; A is
the sectional area; E is the Youngs modulus; L is the present length of element and can be defined as:
222 )()()( kkjjkkjjkkjj dzzdzzdyydyydxxdxxL +++++= . 22
For the tension-only element,
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
7/14
- 7 -
structural dynamic problems, which is convenient to be dealt with numerically. A popular spectral damping
scheme, called Rayleigh or proportional damping (Wu and Sheu, 1996; Wu and Shih, 1998) is often used to
form the damping matrix as a linear combination of the stiffness and mass matrices of the structure, that is:
[ ] [ ] [ ]MKC += 24
where and are called, respectively, the stiffness and mass proportional damping constants, which can
be associated with the fraction of critical damping by
( ) /5.0 += . 25
Therefore, and can be determined by choosing the fractions of critical damping ( 1 and 2 ) at two
different frequencies ( 1 and 2 ):
( ) ( )( ) ( )
==
2
1
2
2122121
2
1
2
21122
22
. 26
Substituting the Eqs. (5), (10), (15) and (20) into Eq. (1), one can derive the governing equation of the
floating bridge subjected to a moving load by taking the nonlinear properties into account.
[ ] [ ]( ) [ ] [ ] [ ]( ){ } { } [ ] intcon)()( RDtMtPDKKDCDMM VVba =++++ (27)
where
{ } 3ext
2)( RtPV= .
2. 4 Condensation of the Equation
Considering the nonlinearity of the internal force, iteration method must be applied to solve Eq. (27).
However, large numbers of DOFs usually make the solution very time consuming and even computation
unpractical, which inevitably results in the application of the super element method (Guyan, 1965). In this
approach, the structural system is divided into different substructures, and some DOFs of the particular
substructures are specified as master DOFs while the remaining as slave ones, whose properties are also
related to the master ones. The substructure without slave DOFs are termed as the super element. By the
combination of the super and non-super elements, the governing equation of the structure can be derived as:
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } { } [ ]{ } { }intcon000 )()( RDtMtPDKDCDM VV =++ (28)
where [ ]0M , [ ]0C and [ ]0K are, respectively, condensed mass, damping and stiffness matrices of thesystem, which can be given by the composition of the corresponding element matrices (detailed please see
Appendix). Then direct integration and Newton-Raphson iteration method can be applied to solve the
nonlinear Eq. (28).
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
8/14
- 8 -
3. Analysis and Discussion
3. 1 Physical Model
As shown in Fig.3, the floating bridge is composed of the pontoon-separated floating bridge, the anchoringraft and the ribbon bridge. Regarding the research objective of the investigation, only the pontoon-separated
part is taken into consideration, which is rigidly connected by nine bridge rafts. Fig.4 shows the schematic
view of a bridge raft with the bridge span being supported and rigidly connected with the board of the two
bridge pontoons.
Fig.3 Schematic view of a floating bridge.
Fig.4 Schematic view of a bridge raft of the pontoon-separated floating bridge.
3. 2 Finite Element Model
The floating bridge is discretized by the combination of the shell and beam elements, with the beamelements meshed on the corresponding lines of the shell elements. The nonlinear connecting components
Pontoon-Separated Floating Bridge
Anchoring Raft
Ribbon Bridge
Bridge Pontoon
Bridge Span
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
9/14
- 9 -
between the ferries are modeled by the tension-only and/or compression-only truss element with initial gap,
and the hydrostatic forces are simulated by the linear spring elements. Fig.5 is the finite element model of the
bridge raft.
Fig.5 Finite element model of the bridge raft.
In the finite element model for a bridge raft, the nodes of the vehicle-loaded elements, and those located at
the connection of different bridge rafts are defined to be the master nodes; whereas the remaining to be the
slave ones. Based on the condensation performed to the bridge raft exclusive of the vehicle-loaded elements,
the super element model is shown in Fig.6.
Fig.6 Super element model of the bridge raft.
3. 3 Static Analysis
Since the floating bridge, over 300 meters, is connected by nine rafts, for the convenience and simplicity of
computation, we just take the five-raft connected part into consideration. Fig.7 illustrates the vertical
displacement of the vehicle-loaded substructures of the floating bridge with a constant static load of KN588
at the position amidst the longitudinal length of the five-connected bridge. It is found that the maximum
displacement response is 65.5 cm and the influential length is nearly 51m. Furthermore, the deflection curve is
oscillatory at the two ends of the influential length by taking the initial gap and the nonlinearities of the
connectors into consideration, and this is not quite analogous to that of the nonlinearly connected ribbon bridge
(Fu et al., 2005).
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
10/14
- 10 -
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0-0 .8
-0 .7
-0 .6
-0 .5
-0 .4
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
x /L
Verticaldisplacemen
t(m)
Fig.7 Static response of the floating bridge.
3. 4 Dynamic Response Analysis
Figs. 8 and 9 show the vertical displacement response history of the vehicle-loaded substructures of the
floating bridge at the position amidst the longitudinal length of the five-connected bridge subjected to a
moving load of KNPV 588= with different velocities. It is demonstrated that the maximum magnitudes of
the dynamic response of the floating bridge for different velocities approximate 65cm, which is almost the
same as that in the abovementioned static analysis, and happens after the middle point of the overall length.
However, as for the oscillation feature, the vertical displacement response of the floating bridge subjected to a
moving load is much more remarkable than that to a static load; while in the state of dynamic loading, theoscillatory traits weaken in the fore part of the floating bridge and strengthen in the aft part with the increase of
the speed of the moving load. Furthermore, there only exists the upward dynamic displacement in the vicinity
of the end of the pontoon-separated floating bridge, which is totally different from that of the ribbon bridge (Fu
et al., 2005). The difference can be accounted by the fact that the pontoon-separated bridge has more
self-weight and can endure larger moving load than the ribbon bridge.
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
-0 .8
-0 .7
-0 .6
-0 .5
-0 .4
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
x /L
Verticaldisplacement(m)
Fig.8 Dynamic response of the floating bridge subjected to a moving load with v=8.33m/s.
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
11/14
- 11 -
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
-0 .8
-0 .7
-0 .6
-0 .5
-0 .4
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
x /L
Verticaldisplacemen
t(m)
Fig.9 Dynamic response of the floating bridge subjected to a moving load with v=13.89m/s.
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
-2 0 0
0
2 0 0
4 0 0
6 0 0
8 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 2 0 0
1 4 0 0
x /L
Connectionforce(KN)
Fig.10 Dynamic response history of the connection force (v=8.33m/s).
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
- 2 0 0
0
2 0 0
4 0 0
6 0 0
8 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 2 0 0
1 4 0 0
1 6 0 0
x /L
Connectionforce(KN)
Fig.11 Dynamic response history of the connection force (v=13.89m/s).
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
12/14
- 12 -
Figs. 10 and 11 show the dynamic connection force response histories in the lower connector of the middle
bridge span of the floating bridge under a moving load action of KNPV 588= with different velocities. The
positive values in the figures stand for the state of tension, and the negative ones for the state of compression.
As illustrated, the amplitude of the connection force goes up conspicuously with the increase of the speed of
the moving load; for instance, the maximum difference of the hump value is over KN200 ; meanwhile, the
hump value appears at the position of aft part for the low speed and fore part for high speed. In addition, the
connector has been, to some extent, always in the tension state with the value varying along the longitudinal
direction. When the moving load is not within the scope of the influential length, the connector will tolerate the
impact produced by the declined vibration of the floating bridge, which is much smaller than the hump value
that the moving load has ever produced, and the trend of decline will speed up with the rise of the moving
velocity.
4. Summary
A governing equation of three-dimensional dynamic response analysis for a pontoon-separated floating
bridge subjected to a moving load, considering the nonlinear properties of connectors and vehicles inertia
effects, has been introduced, in which the nonlinear motion equation has been condensed by the super element
method and solved with the direct integration and iteration method. Moreover, the static and dynamic
particulars of the pontoon-separated floating bridge have been studied and compared with those of the ribbon
bridge. It is testified that the pontoon-separated type has more advantages than the ribbon one from the
dynamic point of view by taking the nonlinearities into consideration.
References
Fryba L., 1999. Vibration of Solids and Structures under Moving Loads, Telford, London.
Fu S. X. et al., 2005. Hydroelastic analysis of a nonlinearly connected floating bridge subjected to moving loads, Marine
Structures, 18 (1): 85-107.
Fu S. X., 2005. Nonlinear hydroelastic analyses of flexible moored structures and floating bridges, Ph. D. thesis, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University (In Chinese).
Guyan R. J., 1965. Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices,AIAA Journal, 3 (2):380.
Seif M. S. and Inoue Y., 1998. Dynamic analysis of floating bridges,Marine Structures, 11(1): 29-46.
Todd F. H., 1961. Ship Hull Vibration, Edward Arnold, London.
Virchis V. J., 1979. Prediction of Impact Factor for Military Bridges, ISVR Technical Report No.107.
Watanabe E. and Utsunomiya T., 2003. Analysis and design of floating bridges,Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials,
5: 127-144.
Watanabe E. et al., 2004. Very large floating structures: applications, analysis and design. Center for Offshore Research and
Engineering National University of Singapore, Core Report No. 2004-02.
Watanabe E., 2003. Floating bridges: past and present, Journal of the International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), 13 (2): 128-132.
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
13/14
- 13 -
Wu J. J., Whittaker A. R. and Cartmell M. P., 2001. Dynamic responses of structures to moving bodies using
combined finite element and analytical methods, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 43(11):
2555-2579.
Wu J. J., Whittaker A. R. and Cartmell M. P., 2000. The use of finite element techniques for calculating the
dynamic response of structures to moving loads, Computers and Structures, 78(6): 789-799.
Wu J. S. and Sheu J. J., 1996. An exact solution for a simplified model of the heave and pitch motions of a ship
hull due to a moving load and experimental results,Journal of Sound and Vibration, 192 (2): 495-520.
Wu J.S. and Shih P. Y., 1998. Moving-load-induced vibrations of a moored floating bridge, Computers and
Structures,66 (4): 435-461.
Appendix
The equation of the free vibration of a single substructure can be written as:
[ ]{ } { } 0=+ xkxm A1
with [ ] [ ] [ ]ammm~~ += and [ ] bkkk
~~+= , where [ ]m~ , [ ]am
~ , k~
and bk~
are the mass matrix, the
added mass matrix, the stiffness matrix and the hydrostatic force matrix respectively. Thus, Eq. (A1) has been
changed into an eigen-value equation:
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } 0=+ xkxm . A2
Suppose the nodal coordinate { }x can be represented as the master coordinate { }1x and slave one { }2x ,or expressed as the vector form { } { }T21 xxx = , Eq. (A2) becomes:
=
+
0
0
2
1
2221
1211
2
1
2221
1211
x
x
kk
kk
x
x
mm
mm A3
From the second row of Eq. (A3), one can obtain:
( ) ( ) 01212122222 =+ xmkxmk . A4
Hence,
( ) ( ) 121211
22222 xmkmkx =
. A5
Neglecting the inertial forces, then
-
7/30/2019 Wael 3 Floating Bridges
14/14
- 14 -
[ ]{ }12
1xT
x
x=
A6
where
[ ]
=
21
1
22 kk
IT A7
where, [ ]I is a unit matrix of the same order as the dimension of { }1x . Introducing Eq. (A6) into Eq. (A2)and multiplying [ ]TT to both sides of the equation, the reduced stiffness and mass matrices can be simplydescribed as:
[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]211
221211
T
0 kkkkTkTk== A8
and
[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ][ ] [ ]211
2222
1
221221
1
221221
1
221211
T
0 kkmkkkkmmkkmTmTm
+== . A9
Similarly, the damping matrix is
[ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ][ ] [ ]211
2222
1
221221
1
221221
1
221211
T
0 kkckkkkcckkcTcTc
+== . A10