Post on 06-Sep-2018
transcript
1376
AbstractIn thiswork it is presented a coupling between theBoundary Ele‐mentMethod BEM andtheFiniteElementMethod FEM fortwo‐dimensionalelastostaticanalysisofframe‐solidinteraction.TheBEMisused tomodel thematrixwhile thereinforcement ismodeledbytheFEM.Regardingthecouplingformulationathirddegreepolyno‐mial is adopted to describe the displacement and rotations of thereinforcement, while a linear polynomial is used to describe thecontact force among the domain matrix and the reinforcement.Perfect bounding contact forces are improved bymeans of redun‐dant equations and Least squaresmethod. Slip‐boundingwith twoandthreepathswrittenasfunctionofrelativedisplacementareusedto calculate the transmitted contact forces. Examples are used todemonstratethattheproposedslip‐boundingprocedureregularizesthecontactforcebehavior.KeywordsBoundaryElementMethod,FiniteElementMethod,BEM/FEMcou‐pling,adherencemodels.
Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
1 INTRODUCTION
Thecombinationof the finiteelementmethod FEM andboundaryelementmethod BEM tosolvestructuralanalysisisattractivebecauseitallowsforanoptimalexploitationoftherespectiveadvantageofthemethods Zienkiewiczetal.,1977 .ThemainstrengthoftheBEMforboundary‐valueproblemsgoverned by linear, homogenous, and elliptic differential equationswith constant coefficients is thereductionof thedimensionalityof theproblembyoneunit for linearconstitutiverelations Brebbia,1978;Brebbia,1980 .Particularly,BEMisusefultomodelspecialsituationssuchasverylargeorun‐boundeddomains,geometricalsingularities e.g.cracks ortoobtainveryaccurateresultsinregionsofcomplicatedshape Aliabadi,1997;Bonnet,1999;Frangietal.,2002 .Thus,couplingtheBEMandtheFEMallowsexploitingtheircomplementaryadvantages.Bytheotherhand,theFEMisappropriatetosolvealotofproblems,includinge.g.thosewithheterogeneousornon‐linearconstitutiveproperties,orfinitedeformations. The idea of combining these twomethods goes back to Zienkiewicz et al. 1977 .OnebranchofBEM/FEM coupling is the iterative coupling in which the individual sub‐domains are treated inde‐pendentlybyeithermethod.Theprocedurestartswithaninitialguessoftheinterfaceunknownsthatwillbeimprovedbysolvingeachsub‐domainandreturnedtointerface.Thisprocedurerepeatsuntilanerror tolerance is achieved.Although this iterative coupling is very attractive to softwaredesign, itsconvergence commonly depends on relaxation parameters which are rather empirical Estorff andHagen,2005 .Forthisreason,adirectcouplingapproachisadoptedinthiswork. StandardBEMformulationstodealwithsolidsstiffenedbybarsorfibersarederivedbycombiningtheBEMandFEMalgebraicequations.Thedomain continuumormatrix isanalyzedbyBEM,while
FabioCarlosdaRochaaWilsonSergioVenturinibHumbertoBrevesCodaca,b,cUniversityofSãoPaulo,SchoolofEngineeringofSãoCarlos,DepartmentofStructuralEngineering,Av.TrabalhadorSãoCarlense,400,13566‐590SãoCarlos‐SP,Brazil;aFederalUniversityofSergipe,Depart‐mentofCivilEngineering,Av.MarechalRondon,s/n,49100‐000SãoCristovão‐SE,Brazil;afabcivil@sc.usp.brbventurin@sc.usp.brchbcoda@sc.usp.br
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1377
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
finite elements areused to represent inclusions bars for instance .The coupling is alwaysdonebyenforcingdisplacementcompatibilityandtractionequilibriumatinterfacenodes.Practicalapplicationsfornon‐slippingorslippingcouplingusingBEM/FEMcouplingarepresented,forinstance,inBeerandWatson 1996 , Coda and Venturini 1995 , Coda 2001 , Leite et al. 2002 , Botta and Venturini2005,2003 ,Leonel 2009 ,Rocha 2010 . Ascontribution, thepresentwork isable tocapturebendingeffects in theanalysisof frame‐solidinteraction,which includesbending stiffness in reinforcements immersed in 2D continuum.For thispurpose,inthisstudyitisadoptedaRissner‐Mindlintypeframefiniteelementwiththirdorderofap‐proximation forbothdisplacementandrotationsresulting in fournodesand12degreesof freedom.However,thecontactforceismodeledbylinearapproximationresultinginonly4independentvalueswhich leads toanot square forcematrix.Theseapproximations displacementsand tractions wereusedbecauseitisthelowestorderthatsatisfiesthedifferentialequationgoverningtheproblem.Inthisapproach, theboundaryelement force linesarebuild inacompatibleway, that is thereare4sourcepointsgeneratingathirdorderapproximationfordisplacements,butthecontactforceapproximationislinear,alsoresultinginanotsquareforcematrix. The leastSquares technique isused toeliminate thedependentequationsdue to theabovemen‐tioneddifferenceinapproximationorderfordisplacementandtractions.Moreoversomeauthors,BottaandVenturini 2005,2003 andLeonel 2009 ,claimthatthisprocedurereducescontactforceoscilla‐tions. Thispaper isorganizedas follows. It ispresented insection2 theFEMformulation tomodel theframestructure,which isshownthekinematicsadopted. Insection3 isshowntheBEMformulationadaptedtodomainmodeling.Insection4itispresentedtheproposedcouplingformulationbetweenBEMandFEMconsideringbothperfectbondinganddebondingcases.Thissectionisdividedinsubsec‐tion4.1inwhichtherearepresentedthebasicequationstoperfectbondingandanexampletoverifythis formulation. In sub‐section4.3 it is presented the coupling formulation considering the slip be‐tweenreinforcementanddomain.Debondingmodels,basicequationsandthenon‐linearformulationtosolveslippingarepresentedinsub‐sections4.3.1,4.3.2and4.3.3,respectively.Thesub‐section4.4presentstwoexamples.Thefirstsimulatesapullouttestandthesecondsolveasoil‐structureinterac‐tioncase.Finally,insection5thefinalremarksandconclusionsaregiven.2 THEFRAMEELMENTMODELING–FEMFORMULATION
Asmentioned before, the FEM is used tomodel frame elements and structures. Here, elementswhichhavethreedegreesoffreedompernodeandcubicapproximationfordisplacementandrotationareemployed.Thisway,theelementshavefournodesandthesenodespresenttwotranslations verti‐calandhorizontal andonerotation.Moreover,thedistributedappliedforceswillfollowlinearapprox‐imation.2.1Kinematics
Foranypointonthestructure,thehorizontalandverticalcomponentsofdisplacementsaregivenby,respectively:
( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )
= +=
0 0
0
,,
,p
p
U x y U x x y
V x y V x
q1
where x and y arethereferencesysteminthecenterofthelayer,asshowninfigure1and pU and
pV arethedisplacementsofpoint P .
1378F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure1:Kinematicsofpoint“P”.
Fromequation 1 ,onecanapplythedifferentialoperatortoobtainthelinearstraincomponents:
( )( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )
( )( ) ( )
( )( )
¶ ¶ ¶= = +
¶ ¶ ¶¶
= =¶
æ ö æ ö¶ ¶ ¶÷ ÷ç ç÷ ÷ç ç= + = +÷ ÷ç ç÷ ÷÷ç ç÷¶ ¶ ¶è øè ø
0 0
00
,,
,, 0
, ,1 1, .
2 2
px
py
p pxy
U x y U x xx y y
x x xV x y
x yyU x y V x y V x
x y xy x x
qe
e
e q
2
Applyingtheconstitutivelawfortheisotropicmaterials,thestresscomponentsatthepoint“p”areobtained:
( ) ( )( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
æ ö¶ ¶ ÷ç ÷ç= = + ÷ç ÷÷ç ¶ ¶è ø= =
æ ö¶ ÷ç ÷ç= = + ÷ç ÷÷ç ¶è ø
0 0
00
, ,
, , 0
, , ,2
x x
y y
xy xy
U x xx y E x y E y
x x
x y E x y
V xGx y G x y x
x
qs e
s e
t e q
3
whereEandGarethelongitudinalandshearelasticmoduli,respectively. TowritetheequilibriumequationitisusedthePrincipleofMinimumTotalPotentialEnergy.Usingequations 2 and 3 onewritestheTotalPotentialEnergyequationas,
( )( ) ( ) ( )
( )
-
-
= -æ é ù öæ ö æ ö ÷ç ¶ ¶ ¶ê ú ÷÷ ÷ç çç ÷÷ ÷ç ç= + + +ç ê ú ÷÷ ÷ç çç ÷÷ ÷÷ ÷ê ç ç ú¶ ¶ ¶ç ÷è ø è ø ÷çè øê úë û
= +
ò ò
ò
2 21 0 0 0
0 21
1
0 01
2 4
,
e p
e A
p x y
U U
V UEU G y dA d
L L
U t U t V dA
x x q xq x x
x x x 4
where eU and pU aretheinternalandpotentialenergyofexternalforces, xt and yt arethecompo‐
nentsof thedistributed loading contact tractions appliedtothestructure, L and A arethe lengthandcrosssectionalareaoftheframeelement,respectively.Forapproximateunknowns 0U , 0V e 0q
cubicindependentapproacheswereused,asshown:
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1379
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )= = =
= =
= = =
= =
å å å
å å
4 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 01 1 1
2 2
1 1
, ,
,
i i ii i i
i i i
j jx j x y j y
i i
U u V v
t t t t
j x j x q j x q
y x y x
5
with 0
iu , 0iv e 0
iq beingthenodalvalues unknown .Since ( )ij x and ( )jy x areshapefunctions:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )æ öæ ö æ ö÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç= - + - - = + + - -÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç÷ ÷ ÷è øè ø è ø1 2
9 1 1 27 11 , 1 1
16 3 3 16 3j x x x x j x x x x
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )æ ö æ öæ ö÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç= - + + - = + + - +÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç÷ ÷ ÷ç ç ç÷ ÷ ÷è ø è øè ø3 4
27 1 9 1 11 1 , 1
16 3 16 3 3j x x x x j x x x x
( ) ( )- += = - £ £1 2
1 1, 1 1
2 2and
x xy x y x x 6
Minimizingtheenergyfunctional,equation 4 ,onefindsthealgebraicequilibriumsystemgivenby:
= +3 ,3 3 ,1 3 ,2 3 ,12 ,1extr extr
E E E E
NF NF NF NF NF NFNF
K U G f F7
where: EK is stiffnessmatrix, EG is equivalence forcematrix, EU unknownvectorwithdisplace‐ments and rotations, Ef is the vector containing thenodal valuesof thedistributed load, F is theconcentratedforce.LabelsNF and extrNF arenodenumbersforthedisplacements androtations ,
fourperelement,andnodenumbersforforces twoperelement ,respectively3 THEDOMAINMODELING–BEMFORMULATION
LetusconsiderthedomainW anditsboundary G .ForanelasticbodydefinedbythedomainW ,theequilibriumequation,writtenintermsofdisplacements,isgivenby:
( ) + ⋅ + =-
2 10
1 2 Gnb
u u 8
whereurepresentsthedisplacementvector,G istheshearmodulusandn isthePoisson’sratio. ForadomainW withboundary G ,theintegralrepresentationofdisplacementsisderivedbyap‐plyingreciprocitytheorem orGreen’ssecondidentity .
G G⋅ = - ⋅ G + ⋅ Gò ò* *d dc u P u U p 9
Wherethesymbols“*”isusedtoindicatefundamentalsolution equation10 and p representbound‐arytractionvalues.
1380F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )( ){ }
ì ü-ï ïï ïé ù= - - - Ä +í ýë ûï ï- ï ïî þé ù= - ⋅ - + Ä + - Ä - Äë û-
*
*
7 81ˆ ˆ3 4 ln
8 1 2
1ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ1 2 2 1 2
4 1
rG
r
nn
p n
n np n
U I r r I
P n r I r r n r r n
10
where ,ˆ i ir r r= =r with r beingthedistancebetweenthesourceandfieldpoints, ( )1 2i ir rr= , ir are
componentsofthevector r , n̂istheboundarynormalunitvectorand I isthesecondorderidentitytensor orKroneckerdelta . For numerical solution, u and p are approximate by polynomial functions over boundary ele‐ments,inthisworklinearpolynomialsareusedforboundaryelements internalforcelinesarefurtherdiscussed ,andtheintegralequation 9 isconvertedintoanequivalentalgebraicsystemasfollows:
=U PH G 11wherematrix H isobtainedfromthelefttermsinequation 9 andmatrixG fromthetermsontherightside.U isavectorwhichcontainsthenodalvaluesofdisplacementsforallboundarynodesandP isthenodaltractionvector. Aftersubstitutionoftheprescribedboundaryconditions,thealgebraicequationsmaybewrittenas
= =X YA B F 12Thevector X containsalltheunknownboundarydisplacementsandtractions, A isacoefficientma‐trixwhichisusuallynon‐symmetricanddenselypopulated,andB isamatrixwhichcontainsthecoef‐ficientscorrespondingtotheprescribedboundaryconditionsY . Onecandifferentiateequation 9 toderivetheintegralrepresentationofstrainsandthenapplytheHooke’slawtoobtainthestressintegralequation,writtenforinternalpoints,asfollows,
G G= - ⋅ G + ⋅ Gò ò* *d dS u D ps 13
Where *S and *D arewellknownthird‐ordertensorforthestressequationobtainedbyapplyingtheHooke’slawonthefundamentalsolutionatthesourcepoint BrebbiaandDomingues,1992 .4 BEM/FEMCOUPLINGFORMULATION
Inthissection,additionaltermsinsertedintheclassicalformulationsofBEMandFEMaswellasthecouplingbetweenBEMandFEMareshown.4.1Basicequations–perfectbonding
Inthissubsectiontheperfectboundingsituationisdescribed. It impliesadirectcompatibilitybe‐tweendisplacementsandcontactforceequilibrium orcontinuity .Thus:
= -R Df f 14
=D RU QU 15
Where RU and DU arevectors containingnodaldisplacements for frameelementanddomain, re‐
spectively; Rf and Df arenodaldistributedforcevectorappliedontheframefiniteelementsandon
theforcelineboundaryelement inthe2Ddomain ,respectively.Oncevector RU containsthreecom‐
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1381
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
ponents twotranslationsandonerotation andvector DU contains twocomponents two transla‐tions ,thecorrelationbetweenthesetwovectorsisdonebyQ matrix.
Thecomponentsofthevectors , ,R D RU U f and Df areshowninfigure2.
Figure2:Forceanddisplacementapproximationatframeinterface.
For3Dsolidstheunknownforces, Df ,wouldbedistributedover internalsurfaces.For2Dsolidsthisforcesappearsdistributedalonginternallines,which,roughly,workasinternal“boundaries”dedi‐catedonlyfortractions.Thus,theintegralequation 9 ismodifiedtoincludetheadditionalterm:
G G G⋅ = - ⋅ G + ⋅ G + ⋅ Gò ò ò* * *
R
DRd d dc u P u U p U f 16
where Df is the internal forceactingalong the interface, GR ,between the twomaterialsandrepre‐
sents the fibereffectapplied in thedomain.Similarly, the integralequation 13 including thisaddi‐tionaleffectiswrittenas:
G G G= - ⋅ G + ⋅ G + ⋅ Gò ò ò* * *
R
DRd d ds S u D p D f 17
Selectingapropernumberofcollocationpoints sourcepoints attheboundaryandattheframeelement,twosetsofalgebraicequationsare,respectively,writtenfromequation 16 ,asfollows:
1382F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
= + Dbb b bb b brU P fH G G 18
= - + +D D
rb b rb b rrU U P fH G G 19
whereindexb denotesboundaryandindex r denotesframe,respectively.Additionally,thefirstindexdenotessourcepointsandthesecondindexdenotesfieldpoints,which,areonboundaryorloadline. The superimposed frame element reinforcement and load line representations can be seen infigure3 inwhich n elements finiteand line areemployed.Thedisplacementnodes foreach finiteelement are represented by squares and crosses represent the collocation points of equation 19 wheredisplacementsarecalculated.ItisobservedthatforfiberendsBEMequationsarenotwritteninthesamepositionofthefiniteelementnodestoavoidsingularities;howeverdisplacementsareextrap‐olated to thenodalpositions inorder tomake themcompatible.Moreover, thismodelingallows thereinforcement frame endstoreachthebodyboundarywithoutinterferinginbasicBEMequations.
Figure3:CompatibilitybetweenBEMandFEMnodes.
Therefore,thedisplacementcompatibilityisrewrittenas:
=
=
D RU TU
T TQ20
Where T̂ is thematrix that relates thenodalpositionsanddirectionof the DU vectorwith the RU vector.Furthermore,the
T matrixhasdimension 3NF columnsby int2N rows,forwhich intN isthe
amountofBEMinterfacepoints. Accordingtofigure3,theamountoffiniteelementnodesisequaltotheamountofboundaryinter‐facenodes,i.e. intNF N= ,thereforethedeterminationofthecouplingparametersandtheboundary
valuescanbesummarizedbythefollowingsystemofequations:
ìïïï = +ïïïïïïï + = +íïïïï= +
î
intintint int
int int int int int
2 ,12 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,1
2 ,1 2 ,12 ,22 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,1
3 ,3 3 ,1 3 ,3 3 ,13 ,1
extrextr
extrextr
extr extr
Dbb b bb b br
NN N N N N N NND D
rb b rb b rrN NFN NFN N N N N N
R R R R
N N N N NF NNF
U P f
U U P f
K U G f F
H G G
H G G
ïïïïïï
21
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1383
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
The 1N valuesof bU and 2N valuesof bP areknownon 1G and 2G ( )1 2G=G +G respectively,
hence there are only 2N unknowns in the system of equations 21 . As usual, to introduce theseboundaryconditionsinto 21 onehastorearrangethesystembymovingcolumnsof bbH , rbH with
bbG , rbG fromonesidetotheother,respectively.Onceallunknownsarepassedtotheleft‐handside
andapplyingconditionsofequations 14 and 20 onecanwritethenewsystemofequationsas:
ìïïï = +
+ = +í
= - +
int int intint intint
int int int int int
2 ,1 2 ,12 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,1
2 ,3 3 ,12 ,1 2 ,12 ,2 2 ,22 ,2 2 ,1
3 ,3 3 ,1 3 ,2 3 ,12 ,1
extrextr
extrextr
extr extr
Dbb bb b br
N NN N N N N NNR D
rb rb b rrN N NN NFN N N NFN N NR R R D
N N N N NF NNF
X F f
X T U F f
K U G f F
A B G
A B G
ïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïî
22
Orinmatrixform,
{ } { }
+ ++ + + + +
ì üé ù é ù ì üï ï- ï ïï ï ï ïê ú ê úï ï ï ïï ïê ú ï ï ï ïê ú= +í ý í ýê ú ê úï ï ï ïê ú ê úï ï ï ï- ï ï ï ïê ú ê úï ï ï ïë û î þë û ï ïî þ
int iint int int
2 ,1
2 5 ,2 2 52 5 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 ,1
0 0
0 0
0
extr extr
bb br bbR R R
bD Nrbrb rr
N N N N NN N N N NF N N NF
X
K G U F F
T f
A G B
BA G
nt,1
23
Asdescribedabove,atthefiberelementlevel,thenumberofdisplacementvaluesislargerthanthenumberofbonding orcontact forcenodalvalues.Thisoccursbecauseinequation 19 thenumberofalgebraic relations ismuch larger than thenumberof forcevalues in Df . To reduce thenumberofequationstothesameasthenumberofunknownsonecanapplytheLeastSquareMethod LSM .InthisworktheLSMisappliedoverequation 21 or 19 ,asfollows:
+ = +
intint int int int intint int
2 ,1 2 ,12 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,1 extrextr extr extr extr extr
D Drr rb b rr rr rb b rr rr
N NFNF N NF N NF N NF N N NFN N N N N N
U U P fG H G G G G G 24
Or,
+ = +
int int intint int int int int intint
2 ,3 3 ,12 ,1 2 ,12 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,2 2 ,1 extrextr extr extr extr extr
R Drr rb rr rr rb b rr rr
N N NN NFNF N NF N NF N N N NF N N NFN N N
X T U F fG A G G B G G 25
Wherethematrix
rrG definedforeachfiberand
rrG isthetransposematrixof rrG ,i.e. =
T
rr rrG G .
Therefore,thesystemofequations 23 turnsintoasquaresystemas:
+ ++ + + + + +
ì üé ù é ùï ï- ï ïê ú ê úï ïï ïê ú ê úï ï =í ýê ú ê úï ïê ú ê úï ïï ï-ê ú ê úï ï ë ûë û ï ïî þ
intint int int2 3 2 ,2 3 2 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 ,1
0
0 0
extrextr extr extr
bb br bbR R R
Drr rb rr rr rr rr rb
N N NFN N NF N N NF N N NF
X
K G U
T f
A G B
G A G G G G B
{ } { }
+ +
ì üï ïï ïï ïï ï+ í ýï ïï ïï ïï ïî þint
2 ,1
2 3 2 ,12
0
0
extr
b
N
N N NFN
F F 26
1384F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
4.2Numericalexample–perfectbonding
In this section,onenumerical example isanalyzed to check theperformanceandaccuracyof theproposedBEM/FEMcouplingfortwo‐dimensionalreinforcedsolids. The reinforced simple supported beam subjected to homogeneous transversal surface load
710q N= - ,showninfigure4,isanalyzed.Thisplanestructureisfivemeterlength ( )L ,onemeter
height ( )H andthepositionofthereinforcementis25centimeter 0( )h fromthelowerpartofthema‐
trixandisfourmeterslong 0L .Thefollowingpropertiesfordomain ( )D andreinforcement ( )R are
considered: Elasticity modulus 2.8DE = 10 210 N m and 2.8RE = 11 210 N m , Poisson’s ration
0.2Dn = and 0.0n = , inertiamoment 1.78891RI = 7 410 m- andcross‐sectionalarea 1.29RS =2 210 m- .
Figure4:Geometryofthestructureunderanalysis.
Thebeamisdiscretizedby120 linearboundaryelementswiththesame length.Threediscretiza‐tionsareemployedtomodelthereinforcement,with25,50and100finiteelements.Thesamenumberof force line BEM elements is employed tomodel the interface. The results are comparedwith thecommercial softwareANSYSemploying100BEAM3elements tomodel the reinforcement and2800PLANE422Dsolidelementstomodelthedomain.Figures5,6and7compareresults axial,transversedisplacementsandrotations achievedusingtheBEM/FEMcouplingdiscretizationsandANSYS.
Figure5:Axialdisplacementgraphicsoninterface,BEM/FEM.
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1385
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure6:Transversedisplacementgraphicsoninterface,BEM/FEM.
Figure7:Graphicshowstherotationoninterface,BEM/FEM.
TheaboveresultsmakeevidentthateventhepoorestBEM/FEMcouplingdiscretizationhasgoodaccuracywhencomparedwiththereferenceresult. Regardingtractionsattheinterface,theBEM/FEMresultscanbeseeninFigures8and9.
Figure8:Axialcontactforcegraphicsoninterface,BEM/FEM.
1386F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure9:Transversecontactforcegraphicsoninterface,BEM/FEM.
According toFigures8 and9, forperfect bonded elastic reinforcement, it’s observed that for thethreeBEM/FEMdiscretizationsthere isaperturbationinthetractionvaluesattheendsof thefiber.Thebehaviorofaxialforces,asshowninFigure8,hadbeenobservedbyBottaandVenturini 2005 ,however,thebehaviorshowninFigure9hasnotbeenreportedbefore.Moreover,theuseofLSMpar‐tiallysmoothesthebehaviorofcontactforcewhencomparedwithresultsthatdonotapplythisstrate‐gy for the coupling, Leite et al. 2003 .At thispoint an important resultof this study shouldbe ad‐vanced; when debondig is allowed always occurs in a small vicinity of infinity contact stress theaboveperturbationdisappears. Whenusingnonlinearconstitutiverelationsformatrix,thereareevidencesofsmoothsolutionsforthiskindofproblemswhichwerereportedbyCoda 2001 .Moreover,onemaynote,inFigure9,thattheextensionofthecontactforceperturbationreducesasdiscretizationincreases. 4.3Couplingformulation–debonding
Inthissection,thepreviouscouplingisextendedtoaccomplishdebonding.Theadoptedmodelstorepresent debonding aswell as the nonlinear formulation to simulate the slip betweendomain andframeelementsarepresented.Thefeasibilityofthisformulationisshownthroughnumericalexamples.4.3.1Debondingmodels
Fibersembeddedinthedomainplayanimportantroletoimprovesolidstiffnessandloadingcapaci‐tyifenoughinternalforcesalongtheinterfacecanbesustained.Slidingalongtheinterfacemaybeal‐lowedwhenacertainamountofstrengthispreserved.Theidealsituationforwhichperfectbondingisassumed,asshowninprevioussection,isimpossibleinpractice;atleastinthevicinityoffiberends,asthe interface forcesapproachthe infinity Radtkeetal,2011 .Therefore,acertainamountofslidingoccursaccordingtothebondingcarryingcapacity. Tomodeltheslipthatmayoccurinthefiber‐domaininterface,adebondingcriterionshouldbecon‐sidered.Inthiswork,twomodelswereimplementedtogetherwiththeproposedBEM‐FEMcoupling. ThecurvesshowninFigure10and11representthedebondingcriterionthatrelatesthebondingforce f withtherelativedisplacementatinterface slip s .Thefollowingparametersdefinethetwomodels:model1dependsonlyonthemaximumbondingforce maxf andmodel2dependsonthemax‐
imumforce maxf ,residualbondingforce resf andslipcharacteristicvalues 1s and 2s .
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1387
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
FromtheFigure10and11,thefollowingrelationshipsarewrittenfortheadoptedmodels,respec‐tively: Model1
max 0f f for s= > 27 Model2
max 1[0, ]f f for s= 28
max 1 max 21 2
1 2 1 2[ , ]res resf f f s f s
f s for s ss s s s
- -= +
- - 29
2resf f for s s= > 30
Figure10:DebodingModel1
Figure11:DebodingModel2
1388F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
4.3.2Basicequations
Theslipconsideration introducesanewvariable inequations 20 .Thisnewvariable representstherelativedisplacement, s ,betweenthedomainandframeelements.Thecompatibilityequationsarenowexpressedby:
( )= -D Rf f s 31
= +
D RU TU TS 32Wherevector S contains thenodal relativedisplacementvalues,T relates thenodalpositions DU with S .Furthermore,T matrixhasdimension 2 extrNF columnsby int2N rows.Theothertermsin
equations 31 and 32 havealreadybeenexplained,butnowtractionsoninterfacedependonrela‐
tivedisplacements s .Inthiswork, DU and RU havebeenapproximatedbycubicpolynomialand S bylinearpolynomial. From the introduction of relative displacements, the equilibrium equation 19 of the boundaryelementmethodmayberewrittenas:
+ = - + +R D
rb b rb b rrTU TS U P fH G G 33
Therefore,theBEMcouplingequationcanberewrittenas,:
( )
( )
= +
+ + = +
int int int int
intint int
int int in
2 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,1 2 ,1
2 ,3 3 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,22 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,1
3 ,3 3
extr extr
extr extrextr extr
Rbb b bb b br
N N N N N N NFN NFR R
rb b rb b rrN N N N NF NF N NFN N N N N N NF
R R
N N N
U P f s
U T U T S P f s
K U
H G G
H G G
( )
ìïïïïïïïïïïíïïïïïï = +ïïïïî
t int int,1 3 ,2 3 ,12 ,1
extrextr
R R
N NF NNF
G f s F
34
Applyingboundaryconditions,theequation 34 results:
( )
( )
= +
+ + = +
int int int int
int intint
int int int
2 ,12 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,1 2 ,1
2 ,3 3 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,12 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,2 2 ,1 2 ,1
3 ,3 3 ,
extr extr
extr extrextr extr
Rbb bb b br
NN N N N N NFN NFR R
rb rb b rrN N N N NF NFN N N N NFN N N NF
R R
N N N
X F f s
X T U T S F f s
K U
A B G
A B G
( )
ìïïïïïïïïïïíïïïïïï = +ïïïïî
int int1 3 ,2 3 ,12 ,1
extrextr
R R
N NF NNF
G f s F
35
If ( )Rf s isknown,thematrixformof 35 is:
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1389
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
( ){ }
{ }
++ + + + + +
é ù é ù é ù é ùê ú ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú= +ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú ê úë ûë û ë û ë û
intint int int int
22 ,1
2 5 ,22 5 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 2 5 ,2
0 0
0 0 0
extr
extr extr extr
bb br bbR R R R
b
NNFrr rbrb
N N NN N N N NF N N NF N N NF
X
K U G f s F
ST T
A G B
G BA
+
é ùê úê ú+ ê úê úê úë û
int
,1
2 5 ,1
0
0
N N
F 36
Bytheotherhand,ifS isknown,onewrites:
( )
{ }
+ ++ + + + +
é ùé ù é ù é ù- ê úê ú ê ú ê úê úê ú ê ú ê ú- = +ê úê ú ê ú ê úê úê ú ê ú ê ú- ê úê ú ê ú ê úë û ë ûë û ë û
int iint int int
2 ,1
2 5 ,2 2 52 5 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 ,1
0 0
0 0 0
extr
extrextr extr
bb br bbR R R
R NF rbrb rr
N N NF N NN N N N NF N N NF
X
K G U S
TT f s
A G B
BA G
{ }+
é ùê úê ú+ ê úê úê úë û
nt int
2 ,1
,2 2 5 ,1
0
0
b
N
N N N
F F 37
As can be seen, in equations 36 and 37 , there are more equations than unknowns, since
int extrN N³ . Thus, to reduce thenumber of equations to be equal to thenumber of unknowns the
LeastSquareMethod LSM isappliedoverinternalpointequations 35 .Thisway:
( )
+ + =
+
int int int intint int intint
int int int int
2 ,3 3 ,1 2 ,2 2 ,12 ,12 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,2
2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,2 2 ,22 ,1 2 ,1
extr extrextr extr extr
extr extr extr extr
Rrr rb rr rr
N N N N NF NFNNF N NF N NF NN NR
rr rb b rr rr
NF N N N NF N N NFN NF
X T U T S
F f s
G A G G
G B G G 38
Where
rrG isthetransposematrixof rrG .
Therefore,equations 36 and 37 becomesquare,asfollows:
( ){ }
+ + + + + + + +
é ù é ù é ùê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú=ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê úë û ë û ë û
int int int int
2
2 3 2 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 ,2
0 0
0 0
ext
extr extr extr extr extr
bb brR R R R
NFrr rb rr rr rr rr
N N NF N N NF N N NF N N NF NF
X
K U G f s
ST T
A G
G A G G G G
{ }
+ ++ +
é ù é ùê ú ê úê ú ê ú+ +ê ú ê úê ú ê úê ú ê úë ûë û
intint
,1
2 ,1
2 3 22 3 2 ,2
0
0
0
r
extrextr
bb
b
Nrr rb
N N NFN N NF N
F F
B
G B
39
Or:
1390F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
( )+ ++ + + + + +
é ùé ù é ù- ê úê ú ê úê úê ú ê ú- =ê úê ú ê úê úê ú ê ú- ê úê ú ê úë ûë û ë û
intint int int2 3 2 ,22 3 2 ,2 3 2 2 3 2 ,1
0 0
0 0
extr exextr extr extr
bb brR R R
Rrr rb rr rr rr rr
N N NF NFN N NF N N NF N N NF
X
K G U
T Tf s
A G
G A G G G G
{ }
{ }
+ ++ +
é ù é ùê ú ê úê ú ê ú+ +ê ú ê úê ú ê úê ú ê úë ûë û
intint
2 ,1
2 ,1
2 3 22 3 2 ,2
0
0
0
extr
tr
extr
NF
bb
b
Nrr rb
N N NN N NF N
S
F F
B
G B
40
4.3.3Non‐linearformulation
Asonecansee,equations 39 and 40 arenonlinearregardingslip s .Tosolvethem,onehastotake into account the non‐linear relationship described by the debondingmodel presented in item4.3.1,inwhichtherelationbetweenthedebondingforce f andtheslip s isestablished.Theequilibri‐umequation 39 isthenrewrittenintermsofthevariableincrements,asfollows:
( ){ } { }é ù é ù é ù é ù é ùDê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úD = D D + D + Dê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úDê ú ê ú ê ú ê ú ê úë ûë ûë û ë û ë û
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
bb i br bbR R R R i
i i i b i
irr rb rr rr rr rr rr rb
X
K U G f s F F
ST T
A G B
G A G G G G G B
41
IsolatingD iX andD R
iU infirstandsecondequation,respectively,of 41 ,onehas:
( ){ } { }- -é ù é ù é ù é ù é ùD = D D + Dë û ë û ë û ë û ë û1 1R i
i bb br i i bb bb bX f s FA G A B 42
{ } ( ){ } { }- -é ù é ù é ùD = D D + Dê ú ê ú ê úë û ë û ë û
1 1R R R R Ri i i iU K G f s K F 43
whichcanbereplacedinequation 41 ,resulting:
( ) ( ){ } { } { } { }é ù é ù é ù é ùD = D D + D + D + D =ë û ë û ë û ë û1 2 3 4 0R ii i i b i iY s M f s M F M F M S 44
With
--
-
-
é ù é ùé ù é ù é ùé ù é ù é ù é ù= + -ê ú ê úë û ë û ë û ë û ë ûë û ë û ë û ë ûé ù é ùé ù é ù é ù é ù é ù= -ë û ë û ë û ë û ë ûë û ë û
é ùé ù é ùé ù = ê úë û ë ûë û ë ûé ùé ù é ù=ë û ë ûë û
11
11
21
3
4
R Rrr rb bb br rr
rr rb bb bb rr rb
Rrr
rr
M T K G I
M
M T K
M T
G A A G G
G A A B G B
G
G
45
Where I istheidentitymatrix.
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1391
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Equation 44 represents a non‐linear system of equations given in terms of the slip increment{ }D iS .ItcanbesolvedbyapplyingtheiterativeNewton‐Raphsonscheme.Then,fromtheiterationn
thenexttry, 1n + ,forthetimeincrement itD isgivenby:
+D = D + D1n n ni i iS S Sd 46
Linearizingequation 44 andusingthefirsttermoftheTaylor’sexpansion,results:
( )( )
0nin n
i ini
Y sY s s
sd
¶ DD + D =
¶D 47
Thederivativethatappearsinequation 47 isdirectlyobtainedfromequation 44 usingthedebond‐ingmodelrelationshipsgivenbyequations 27 ‐ 30 .Then,onehas:
( ) ( ){ }¶ D ¶ D Dé ù é ù é ù= + =ë û ë û ë û¶D ¶D
1 4
n R nCTOi i i
n ni i
Y s f sM M W
s s48
Thematrix é ùë ûCTO
W ,inequation 48 ,istheconsistenttangentoperatoroftheproposedalgorithm.
Thederivativesontherighthandsideofequation 48 dependontheupdatedslipvalue,computedappropriately according to the adoptedmodeldefined inequations 27 ‐ 30 .Thesederivatives arelocallydefinedby:Tomodel1
( )¶ D= >
¶D0 0
R ni i
ni
f sfor s
s49
Tomodel2
( )¶ Dé ù= ë û¶D
10 0,R ni i
ni
f sfor s
s50
( )¶ D - é ù= ë û-¶Dmax
1 21 2
,R ni i res
ni
f s f ffor s s
s ss51
( )¶ D= >
¶D20
R ni i
ni
f sfor s s
s
52
Reachingtheconvergenceinequation 44 forthetimeincrement itD aftern iterations,onehastocomputetheslipvariable s tostartthenextincrement,asfollows:
+ = + D1n
i i is s s 53
1392F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
After finding +D = -1i i is s s , othervariables aredirectlyobtained.The internal displacements, and
boundary tractions and displacements are computed from equation 41 . The debonding forces are
computedfromtheconstitutiverelation ( )D DRi if s .
4.4Numericalexample–debonding
Inthisitem,twonumericalexamplesareanalyzedtoexaminetheperformanceandaccuracyoftheproposedBEM/FEMcombinationusingtwomodelstoconsiderthedebondingbetweenastraightbarandatwo‐dimensionalsolid.4.4.1Example1
Inthisexamplethecapabilityoftheformulationtomodelthebondingshearcontactforcedistribu‐tionalongthebar‐matrixinterfaceduringaclassicalpullingtestisanalyzed.Infigure12,abarispar‐tiallyembedded intoa2Ddomainandasmallpart to thebar isnot immersedtoallowapplyingthepulling force. The adopted geometric dimensions are 1.0H m= , 0 4.0L m= and 5.0L m= , see
figure12.Nulldisplacementsareprescribedalongtheleftverticalsideofthetwo‐dimensionaldomain.Whereasattheoppositesidetheloadisappliedbyprescribingthedisplacement, 4.0U = 710 m- ,atthebarextremity;the2Ddomainrightendisfreetomove.AsU isapplied,itsconjugateforce P iscalculated. Theadopteddomainelasticpropertiesare:Young’smodulus, 2.8DE = 10 210 N m andPoisson’s
ratio 0.0n = . The bar properties are: Young’s modulus, 2.8RE = 11 210 N m , inertia moment,
1.79RI = 7 410 m- andcrosssectionalarea 1.29RA = 2 210 m- .Forthisexampleitisconsideredthe
debonding model 2, with the following parameters: 1 1.0s = 910 m- , 2 1.0s = 810 m- , max 1.40f =2 210 N m and 1.30resf = 2 210 N m .
Figure12:Pullouttest.
Aboundarymeshwith120 linearelements isadoptedtoapproximate thematrix,while100uni‐formcubicfiniteelementswereadoptedtomodelthesinglebar.Finermesheshavebeentestedtocon‐firmthatthediscretizationadoptedwasenoughfinetogiveaccurateresults.
IntheFigure13itispresentedthetractioncurves ( )N m alongtheinterface atbar toninedif‐
ferent imposed displacements, which shows the evolution of the bar pullout. As one can see, thedebondedregionkeepstheconstantvalue, resf ,atallincrements.Whenthepullingoutiscompleted
thefinalloadisexactlytheexpected.
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1393
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure13:Shearcontactforcealongtheinterface,BEM/FEM.
Figure 14 shows thedisplacement curves, inmeter, at the bar‐domain interface. It is possible toverifyadecreaseontheslopeofdisplacementsforthepointslocatedneartheloadapplication,astheloadingprogresses.
Figure14:Evolutionofthedomaindisplacementsalongtheinterface,BEM/FEM.
Figure15shows therelativedisplacementsbetweenbaranddomain.According to thedefinitiongiveninequation 32 ,thebardisplacementsareobtainedbysubtractingtheresultsoffigure14fromfigure15. Theevolutionofdecouplingisillustratedinfigure16whereinthedomaindisplacementsareune‐qualtothebardisplacements.Atthefirstdisplacementincrementitisverifiedthatalmostallnodesareperfectlycoupled,excepttheendsnodes.Asthefreeenddisplacementisincreased,othernodesbegintodecoupleuntiltheninthincrementsituationinwhichthebardisplacementscontinueincreasinganddomaindisplacementdecreasing.
1394F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure15:Relativedisplacement s
Figure16:Decoupleevolutionbetweendomainandbar.
One important aspect shownby this example,more evident in figure13, is that the limitationofadherenceforcebythedebondingprocessregularizestheshearcontactforceandothervariables.
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1395
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
4.4.2Example2
ThestructureanalyzedinthisexampleisshowninFigure17,itisimportanttonotethatthisexam‐plecannotbesolvedwithoutconsideringbendingstiffnessandtransversecontactforcesasdidinthiswork.Thisstructureisa2Ddeepfoundation,i.e.,apileembeddedinaninfinitesoil.Inordertosimu‐late thepresenceofnearby structuresanda rigid supporting rockmass, somesoildisplacement re‐
strictionsareimposed.Thepileisconsideredinclinedatanangleof10 ( )a .Asoilregion,with5me‐
ters length ( )L and20metersdepth ( )H , is considered.Thepilehas4meters in length ( )0L anda
prescribedloadof 0.11xP kN= , 1.2yP kN= and 0.003 .M N m= - atitstop.Loadsincreasefrom
zerotothereferencevaluesin50equalincrements. Ameshof300linearelementsisusedtomodelthesoiland100finiteelements lineelements are
usedtomodelthepile.Thesoilelasticpropertiesare: 2.8DE = 10 210 N m and 0.2Dn = .Thepile
properties are: 2.8RE = 11 210 N m , 0.0Rn = , 1.79RI = 2 210 m- and 1.29RA = 2 210 m- . Both
adherence models are considered. The model 2 parameters are: 71 10s m-= , 2 8.0s = 610 m- ,
max 3.0f = 2 210 N m and 2.7resf = 2 210 N m .Formodel1itisadopted: max 2.0f = 2 210 N m .
Figure17:Inclinedpileembeddedininfinitedomain.
Figure17showstheanalyzedstructureandthereferencenodes forwhichresultsarepresented.Figure18showscurvesofthepile/soilinterfaceforcesatreferencenodes.Thisfigurealsoshowsthedevelopmentofthoseinterfaceforcesastheloadingstepsareincreasedforbothslip’smodels.
1396F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure18:Shearcontactforcealongthepile.
Figures19‐21showthedisplacementintheaxialandtransversedirections,aswellastherotationalongthepileforeachreferencenode.
Figure19:Axialdisplacementattheinterfacepile/soil.
Figure20:Transversedisplacementattheinterfacepile/soil.
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1397
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure21:Rotation, q ,ofthepile.
As can be seen in figures 19‐21, the pile behavior for model 1 presents severe changes. Thesechangesoccurwhenthemaximumloadcapacityisreached increment35 ;thenslipoccurswithoutfurthergainofresistance.Itisimportanttomentionthatovertheloadcapacitythesolutionisunstableandthesystemlossobjectivity. Formodel2astheinterfaceforcesdonotreachtheresidualpartofthemodelthemaximumloadcapacity isnotachievedandnoabruptchangeoccurs in thepilebehavior.However, if the total loadcapacityisreached allcontactpointsreachtheresidualpartofthemodel thecollapseoccurs. Figure22 a and b show thedisplacements in the y direction, inmeters, for the soil internal
pointsconsideringthemodels1and2,respectively.Figures23 a and b showthestressvalues, ys ,
forthesoilinternalpointsformodels1and2.
Figure22:Soildisplacementintheydirection
1398F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Figure23:Soilstress, ys ,fordifferentadherencemodels.
5 CONCLUSIONS
InthisworkaBEM/FEMcouplingamongframebarsand2Dcontinuumissuccessfullydevelopedandimplemented.ThedomainismodeledbyBEMandreinforcementismodeledbyFEM.Thecombi‐nationof the twomethods ismadebywritingdisplacement compatibility and interfaceequilibrium.Themostimportantfeatureoftheformulationistheconsiderationofslidingatframe/continuuminter‐face.Thisprocedureisabletomodel,forexample,theprogressivefailureofpile‐soilinteractionuntilreachingthecollapse load,or theprogressive failureof fiberreinforcedbodiesconsideringthe influ‐enceofshearandnormalcontactforces. Regardingthesolutionbehavioranimportantconclusionshouldbestated.Asboundaryelementsareabletomodelhighstressconcentrations,thevaluesofcontactforcesatthebeginningorendingofanyperfectboundingregionpresentastrongperturbation.Theuseofredundantalgebraicequationsandtheleastsquaresmethodaretestedhereandresultinasmallimprovementofthisphenomenon.Theincreasingofdiscretizationreducestheextensionofperturbationbutincreasesthenearsingularstresses. Thecompletesolutionfor thisproblemresultswhenusingamorerealisticmodel thatallowsthenaturalstressrelaxationatsingularities.Thedevelopednonlinearbehaviorofcontactforces,consider‐ingtheslidingordecouplingbetweenreinforcementandcontinuum,completelyregularizesthecontactforcebehavior,leadingtoreliablesolutionsforloworhighloadsituations.Furtherdevelopmentsaretheconsiderationofnon‐linearbehaviorforbothcontinuumandframemedia.AcknowledgementsAuthorswouldliketoacknowledgeCNPq NationalCounselofTechnologicalandScientificDevelopment andFAPESP SãoPauloResearchFoundation forthefinancialsupport.References
Aliabadi,M.H., 1997 .Boundaryelementformulationsinfracturemechanics.ApplyMechanicsReview50:83–96.
Beer,G.,Watson,J., 1992 .Introductiontofiniteandboundaryelementmethodsforengineers.Wiley NewYork .
Bonnet,M. 1999 .Boundaryintegralequationmethodforsolidsandfluids.Wiley.
Botta,A.S. 2003 .MétododosElementosdeContornoparaanálisedecorposdanificadoscomênfasenofenômenodalocalizaçãodedeformações,Ph.D.Thesis inPortuguese ,UniversityofSaoPaulo,Brazil
F.C.Rocha,W.S.VenturiniandH.B.Coda/Slidingframe‐solidinteractionusingBEM/FEMcoupling1399
LatinAmericanJournalofSolidsandStructures11 2014 1376‐1399
Botta,A.S.,Venturini,W.S., 2005 .Reinforced2ddomainanalysisusingBEMandregularizedBEM/FEMcombina‐tion.ComputerModelinginEngineeringandSciences8 1 :15–28.
Brebbia,C.A. 1978 .Theboundaryelementmethodforengineers.PentechPress London .
Brebbia,C.A.,Domingues,J. 1992 .Boundaryelements:anintroductorycourse.Comp.Mech.Publ. Southampton .
Brebbia,C.A.,Walker,S. 1980 .Boundaryelementtechniquesinengineering.Newnes‐Butterworths London .
Coda,H.B., 2001 .Dynamicandstaticnon‐linearanalysisofreinforcedmedia:aBEM/FEMcouplingapproach.Com‐putersandStructures79:2751–2765.
Coda,H.B.,Venturini,W.S., 1999 .Onthecouplingof3DBEMandFEMframemodelappliedtoelastodynamicanaly‐sis.InternationalJournalofSolidsandStructures36 31/32 :4789–4804.
Estorff,O.,Hagen, C., Iterative coupling of FEMandBEM in3D transient elastodynamics, Eng.Anal. BoundaryEle‐ments29:775–787
Frangi,A.,Novati,G., Springhetti,R.,Rovizzi,M. 2002 .3D fractureanalysisbysymmetricGalerkingBEM.ComputMechanic28:220–232
Leite,L.G.S.,Coda,H.B.,Venturini,W.S., 2003 .Two‐dimensionalsolidsreinforcedbythinbarsusingtheboundaryelementmethod.EngineeringAnalysiswithBoundaryElements27:193–201
Leonel, E. D. 2009 .Nonlinear boundary elementmodels to analyze fracture problems and reliability / optimizationmodelsappliedtostructuressubmittedtofatigue,Ph.D.Thesis inPortuguese ,UniversityofSaoPaulo,Brazil
Pozrikidis,C., 2006 .Anoteon therelationbetweentheboundary‐and finite‐elementmethodwithapplication toLaplace’sequationsintwodimensions.EngineeringAnalysiswithBoundaryElements30:143–147.
Radtke, F.K. F., Simone,A., Sluys, L. J., 2011 .Apartitionof unity finite elementmethod for simulatingnonlineardebondingandmatrix failure in thin fiber composites. International Journal forNumericalMethods inEngineering86:453–476.
Rocha, FC., 2010 . Analysis of domains reinforced consideringmodels of adherence in Portuguese . Caderno deEngenhariadeEstruturas,12:93–105.
Zienkiewicz,O.,Kelly,D.,Bettess,P., 1977 .Thecouplingofthefiniteelementmethodandboundarysolutionproce‐dures.InternationalJournalforNumericalMethodsinEngineering11:355–375.