Title: Report 1 Linear Elastic Analysis

Author(s): Oscar Minor, Sonia Guerra.

Unit: SA2

Institution: UNIVERSITAT POLITCNICA DE CATALUNYA

Date: November 24, 2016

Erasmus Mundus ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS

Programme: AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Consortium Institutions: UNIVERSITY OF MINHO, PORTUGAL

CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC

UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA, ITALY

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CATALONIA, SPAIN

Satellite Participant: INSTITUTE OF THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS, CZECH REPUBLIC

LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................................................2
DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS..................................................................................................................2
METODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. ........................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................8
ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................................................9

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 1
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

PROBLEM
1. Look for more information about the dimensions and materials used for the construction of the aqueduct.
2. Draw in GID the geometrical model to be used for the numerical simulation by FEM. There are different
level of approximations:
a) 2D model + symmetry conditions
b) 2D model of a larger part of the aqueduct
c) 3D model + symmetry conditions
d) 3D model of a larger part of the aqueduct
3. Perform a linear elastic simulation of the structure under self-weight.
4. Consider the following parameters for the generation of the Mesh.
5. Perform different analysis with varying the size of the elements in the mesh in order to get convergence in
the results.

DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS

The Segovia aqueduct has a total length of 18 km, and has a maximum height of 28.5 m. on the tallest column
(N 108). From column 76 to 108 it has a double arch and the rest of the arches are simple. The dimensions on
the base are of 2.40 x 3.60 m. The span of the arches oscillate between 4.9 and 5.10 m. (Arch N 24 has the
largest span)

The stone used in the construction of the structure was the granite. The density of this material is 2.67 ton/m3,
and the total weight of the structure is 20,000,000 kg; The Poisson Coefficient and Young Modulus for granite
rock is 50 GPa and 0,28 respectively [1]

FIGURE 1. (LAYOUT OF THE AQUEDUCT) [2]

FIGURE 2. (DETAIL OF A SECTION OF THE AQUEDUCT) [2]

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 2
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

FIGURE 3. (GRABADO DE VILLANUEVA, 1757 (DETAIL OF A SECTION OF THE AQUEDUCT))

The structure is in stone masonry and does not have mortar in the joints (opus quadratum technique) [3]. It is a
good aspect for the small movements in the structure, because if a movement is presented the energy will be
released in the little spaces between the units.

The opus quadratum is a type of masonry made of superimposed squared stone blocks without mortar
arranged in a regular pattern and used by the ancient builders for the most important buildings of the past.
When properly constructed it showed good mechanical properties, in fact, due to shape, size, and particular
arrangement of the blocks, friction and interlocking mechanisms tend to provide a monolithic behavior to the
wall. On the other hand, the irregular stone masonry constituted a less noble material, which, however - if
constructed according to certain rules of good workmanship - could also provide an acceptable structural
behavior as demonstrated by the performances of some irregular stone masonry buildings which withstood
strong earthquakes. Those rules, contained also in the building manuals of the past, insisted on the need for
interlocking among the stones, and on the presence of horizontal courses. The objective appears that of
obtaining walls with a less expensive material, but with mechanical properties similar to those of the opus
quadratum. [4]

However, the fact the units are not filled by any cementing material is an important aspect of weakness
because in the situation of an important movement of the soil, like an earthquake, the structure will collapse
like a card house. Even, during a fire, due the high temperatures, the stones have important changes of volume
and the organization of the structure will be affected and the collapse will be inevitable.

METODOLOGY
The problem explained in the first part of the report was solved using the following steps:

1. Figure 1. (Layout of The Aqueduct) and Figure 3. (Grabado de Villanueva, 1757 (detail of a section of the
aqueduct), were used to draw the geometry of the aqueduct in AutoCAD program.

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 3
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

2. The images were scaled to 1:100 in AutoCAD and the lines were traced to get the arch figure. The
following decisions were taken into account:
a. The cornice in the columns was ignored because it will not contribute to the main
performance of the structure of the aqueduct.
b. The pillars were considered to be a straight and inclined line in the bottom part and in the
upper section the pillars have a rectangular prismatic form.
c. The section that was analyzed is located between columns 75 to 117. Figure 4 (AutoCAD
Aqueduct Model), which is considered to be the largest section.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (m)

FIGURE 4 (AUTOCAD AQUEDUCT MODEL)

FIGURE 5 (SECTION OF AUTOCAD AQUEDUCT MODEL)

3. Finally, once the geometry was finished, the different models were imported into GID Software under
MECHANICA Program Type 1 and the properties detailed in DIMENSIONS AND MATERIAL for Granite
(Figure 8 (Detail of Constraints in Symetrical portion)) and self-weight load (Figure 7 (Interval Data))
were assigned.

1
Mechanica Problem Type was assigned and given during the SA2 Course.

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 4
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

FIGURE 6 (DETAIL OF THE MATERIALS USED IN GID PROGRAM)

FIGURE 7 (INTERVAL DATA)

4. The constraints considered for the analysis of a section of the aqueduct is shown in Error! No se
encuentra el origen de la referencia.. The Constrains in the bottom part of the aqueduct (x axis) are
fixed and on the y axis have free movement in vertical direction.

FIGURE 8 (DETAIL OF CONSTRAINTS IN SYMETRICAL PORTION)

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 5
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

FIGURE 9 (DETAIL OF CONSTRAINTS IN THE LARGE SECTION OF AQUEDUCT)

5. Once assigning properties was finished, the mesh was created according to the criteria given in table
1.

TABLE 1 (DETAIL OF MESH PROPERTIES FOR EACH MODEL TYPE)

Number Number Stress in

Model Model Type of Max Max Min Max
of of reference error
Type Number mesh Size Deformation Stress Stress
Elements Nodes point

[m] [N] [N] [N] %

A1 Triangular 1 679 467 -0.00026 -2.60E+05 31476 31476
A2 Triangular 0.5 2069 1284 -0.00026 -2.71E+05 44349 43168 27.1%
2D
Section A3 Triangular 0.2 9406 5320 -0.00026 -2.97E+05 55586 54909 21.4%
A4 Triangular 0.1 34390 18432 -0.00026 -3.67E+05 63306 58061 5.4%
A5 Triangular 0.05 130332 67645 -0.00026 -4.95E+05 79991 58908 1.4%
AA1 Quadrilateral 1 376 504 -0.00026 -2.17E+05 18980 18980
AA2 Quadrilateral 0.5 1162 1412 -0.00026 -2.29E+05 47908 47540 60.1%
2D
Section AA3 Quadrilateral 0.2 6349 6967 -0.00026 -2.40E+05 55224 50268 5.4%
AA4 Quadrilateral 0.1 21602 22840 -0.00026 -2.81E+05 70054 58219 13.7%
AA5 Quadrilateral 0.05 76739 79218 -0.00026 -3.56E+05 82457 58765 0.9%
3D B01 Tetrahedra 0.5 67407 282733 -0.00028 -4.08E+04 95777 70864
Section B02 Tetrahedra 0.4 68846 291108 -0.00028 -4.00E+05 1.01E+05 71325 0.6%
C1 Triangular 1 10763 7367 -0.00027 -3.09E+05 4.06E+04 19913
D2 C2 Triangular 0.5 35046 21493 -0.00027 -3.27E+05 6.99E+04 38268 48.0%
Aqueduct C3 Triangular 0.25 105147 60452 -0.00027 -3.79E+05 1.49E+05 49753 23.1%
C4 Triangular 0.1 567638 303584 -0.00027 -5.17E+09 1.80E+05 53742 7.4%

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 6
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

Table 1 summarizes the results obtained with the different approaches of the same aqueduct.

The deflection is practically equal in all the different approaches (2D or 3D), 0.26 mm, which is a small value
and is due to the high Young modulus considered for the material (granite). The maximum deflection occurs in
the center of the upper part, in the intrados.

About the stresses, the convergence is not as evident as for the deflection. For the 2D section, the convergence
was reached with sizes of 0.1 and 0.05, for both, triangular and quadrilateral types of mesh. The value of the
principal stress in the central point is about 59 KN. For the maximum stresses the convergence seems to be not
reached, but this is due to the concentration of stresses in the angles of the structure, in which a really fine
mesh is required to get the exact value, with the associated cost of processing time. For this, a different mesh is
recommended but for this report, the convergence in the reference point is reached, which was the aim of the
exercise.

For the 3D section, only one iteration was done because the number of elements created for a mesh with size
of 0.5 and 0.4 was likely similar. Mesh of 0.3 was tried but some error appeared. Anyhow, the principal stress in
the surface, for the corresponding point analyzed in the 2D section was 71 KN, a value 20 % higher than the
previous.

In the case of the whole aqueduct modeled for 2D, maximum stresses are different because there is a
concentration of stresses in the central part of the aqueduct where there is an increase in the section between
the lower and upper arches, but the stress in the corresponding point considered for the 2D model resulted in
53 kN, 10 % smaller. Again, this variation is due to the difference in the mesh because the iterations were
stopped with a mesh value of 0.1, meanwhile for the 2D models the las mesh sizes where 0.05.

80

70

60
Principal Stress [KN]

50

40
2D Section Triang.
30
2D Section Quadr.
20
3D Section
10 2D Aqueduct
0
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Size of mesh

FIGURE 10 PRINCIPAL STRESS FOR THE DIFFERENT MODELS

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 7
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

REFERENCES

[1] Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic Transients, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.

[2] A. R. Gallardo, Superviviencia de una Obra Hidraulica: El aqueducto de Segovia.

[3] A. J. M.-G. Lafarga, Los Metodos Informaticos en el Diagnostico de Edificios Antiguos: El Acueducto de
Segovia, Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Direccin General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, 1992.

[4] T. P. a. C. T. Antonino Giuffre'l, IN-PLANE SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF HISTORICAL MASONRY WALLS, de 10th
IB2 MAC, Calgary, 1994.

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 8
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

ANNEXES

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 9
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

FIGURE 11 (MODELS A3 AND AA3 WITH STRESS MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM AND DEFLECTION)

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 10
LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYISIS

FIGURE 12 MODEL B01

FIGURE 13 MODEL C1

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS 11