The purpose of this Master thesis is to evaluate the RFEM software and determine if it could be used for dynamic analyses using blast loads from explosions. Determining the blast resistance for a structure is a growing market and would therefore be beneficial for Sweco Eskilstuna if RFEM could be used for this type of work. The verification involved comparing the RFEM software to a real experiment which consisted of a set of blast tested reinforced concrete beams. By using the structural properties from the experiment project with the experiment setup the same structure could be replicated in RFEM. RFEM would then simulate a dynamic analysis loaded with the same dynamic load measured from the experiment project in two different dynamic load cases caused by two differently loaded explosions. The structural response from the experiment could then be compared to the response simulated by the RFEM software, which consisted of displacement- and acceleration time diagrams. By analysing the displacement and acceleration of both the experiment and the RFEM software the accuracy was determined, and how well RFEM preformed the analysis for this specific situation. The comparison of the displacement and acceleration between the experiment and RFEM was considered acceptable if the maximum displacement was consistent with the experiments result and within the same time frame. The acceleration was considered acceptable if the initial acceleration was consistent with the experiment result. These criteria needed to be met for the verification that RFEM could simulate a dynamic analysis. If the software managed to complete a dynamic analysis for two dynamic load cases, then the software could be evaluated which consisted of determining if the post blast effects could be determined and if the modelling method was reliable. The acceleration from RFEM were in good agreement with the experiment test at the initial part of the blast, reaching a close comparison for both load cases after 3 ms. Then the RFEM acceleration had a chaotic behaviour reaching no similarities for the duration of the blast. The displacement managed to get a close comparison of the maximum displacement with a margin of 0,5 mm for both load cases within a 1 ms time margin. RFEM managed in conclusion to simulate a blast load analysis, the displacement and acceleration gave acceptable results according to the criteria. With the method chosen a fast simulation was achieved and with the same model complying with two different load cases for the same model gave indication that the first result was not a coincidence. The steps taken in the modelling method was straight forward, but two contributing parameters were determined to devalue the reliability. First parameter was the material model chosen for the concrete, which was chosen to a plastic material model. The two optional material model’s linear elastic and non-linear elastic both caused failed simulations. Also, the better model for the material model would have been a diagram model which insured that the concrete lost is capacity in tension with maximum capacity, but this was not available in a dynamic analysis with multiple load increments. Which is the reason why a plastic material model was chosen for the concrete. The second reason was the movement of the beam in the supports. This data was not recorded in the experiment but was determined to be a contributing part of the test. This however gave big differences of the result depending on how much the beam could move. In the end the best possible result was chosen to comply with the first load case where the same RFEM model was used in the second test. The second load case showed just as good results as the first load case, but with the big variation in results depending on the movement of the beam in the supports made this part unclear. For the evaluation the question if the RFEM could provide a post blast analysis needed to be addressed, where the answer is no. The failure mode was chosen to comply with the choice of modelling method which required the analysis of the plastic strain in the reinforcement bars. This information was not available using the add-on module DYNAM-PRO and could therefore not provide the answer if the model structure resisted the blast. For future work of this master thesis is to build a model that would give a more detailed post blast analysis, where this thesis was made to test the software. For this more work would be necessary by the creators Dlubal to further improve the add-on-module, which involves more extractable results and more detailed tools when using a dynamic load case, where some important functionality is only usable in a static load case. Other than that, RFEM managed to complete the dynamic analysis, and with further improving of the modelling method a more detailed analysis can be made and then be usable in real projects in the future.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:ltu-84784 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Dädeby, Oskar |
| Publisher | Luleå tekniska universitet, Institutionen för samhällsbyggnad och naturresurser |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds