Upload
vodung
View
222
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OpenFOAM Modeling of Tsunami Forces on Coastal Structures
Michael Motley Randy LeVeque Frank Gonzalez Marc Eberhad
Xinsheng Qin Andrew Winter Hin Kei Wong
PEER Annual Meeting 28 January 2016
Multi-Scale Modeling of Tsunami Forces
Community-Scale Inundation and Force
Prediction
Structure-Scale Force Prediction
Detailed structural models provide insight into the dynamic fluid forces that a structure may experience to permit
capacity analysis
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling
OpenFOAM: Open Field Operation and Manipulation
Purposely developed for solving a wide range of fluid problems Incompressible flows, multiphase flows, buoyancy-driven flows, and
more
Complete CFD software package Comes with 80+ solvers and 170+ utilities
Mesh Generations and Refinements
Data loaders for converting CAD geometries to meshes
Parallelization of fluid problem solutions
In this work, 64-256 processors were commonly used
Other researchers have used up to ~1000 processors
Will be available for use on NHERI Cyberinfrastructure in the coming months
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling We convert CAD *.stl files into OpenFOAM 3D Meshes
CAD Rendering OpenFOAM Internal Mesh OpenFOAM Boundary Faces
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling We convert CAD *.stl files into OpenFOAM 3D Meshes
CAD Rendering OpenFOAM Internal Mesh OpenFOAM Boundary Faces
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling We convert CAD *.stl files into OpenFOAM 3D Meshes
CAD Rendering OpenFOAM Internal Mesh OpenFOAM Boundary Faces
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling We convert CAD *.stl files into OpenFOAM 3D Meshes
CAD Rendering OpenFOAM Internal Mesh OpenFOAM Boundary Faces
Experimental Data from Flume Tests
2D 3D
By slightly modifying the geometry of the bridge, we can create scenarios where extrapolating a two-dimensional model does not accurately represent the response of the structure to wave loads.
Consider a skewed bridge:
Modifying the Geometry
Resulting Loading Histories
What about slope effects?
Fluid-air-structure interactions
14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19
0
100
200
300
400
500
Time, t (sec)
Ho
rizo
nta
l F
orc
e, F
x (
kN)
Total vs. Component Responses
Fluid-air-structure interactions
Fluid-air-structure interactions
14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Time, t (sec)
Ho
rizo
nta
l F
orc
e, F
x (
kN)
Total vs. Component Responses
Structure-Scale Models
14.95 15 15.05 15.1 15.15 15.2 15.25 15.3 15.35
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Time, t (sec)
Hor
izon
tal
Forc
e, F
x (k
N)
Total vs. Component Responses
Front Faces at 15.25 s Front Bay at 15.35 s
Approximately equal and opposite contributions from back face of girder 1 and front face of girder 2
Structure-Scale Models
15.45 15.5 15.55 15.6 15.65 15.7
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Time, t (sec)
Hor
izon
tal
Forc
e, F
x (k
N)
Total vs. Component Responses
Front Faces at 15.45 sec Bays and Front Barrier at 15.625 s
back face of girder 1 front face of girder 2
Structure-Scale Models
15.45 15.5 15.55 15.6 15.65 15.7
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Time, t (sec)
Hor
izon
tal
Forc
e, F
x (k
N)
Total vs. Component Responses
Front Faces at 15.45 sec Bays and Front Barrier at 15.625 s
back face of girder 2 front face of girder 3
Structure-Scale Models
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
Time, t (sec)
Ver
tical
For
ce, F
y (k
N)
Total vs. Component Responses
Structure-Scale Models
15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time, t (sec)
Ver
tical
For
ce, F
y (k
N)
Total vs. Component Responses
Deck Impact at 15.25 s Internal Deck Impact at 15.65 s
Largest peaks occur on deck bottom and coincide with equal and opposite spikes in horizontal load, implying air effects, as do many of the minor peaks
OpenSees/OpenFOAM Model Overview
OpenSees/OpenFOAM Model Overview
OpenSees/OpenFOAM Model Overview
Earthquake/Tsunami Response