Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A modified conjugated bond-based peridynamic analysis for impact failure of concrete gravity dam

  • Published:
Meccanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Description of the impact damage of dams subjected to projectile penetration objectively is a significant but difficult issue. To take the advantages of bond-based peridynamics (BB PD) in analyzing multiple crack growth and fragmentation, a modified conjugated BB PD model with two micro-moduli is established for analyzing the quasi-static deformation and the projectile impact damage of a typical concrete gravity dam. The nonlocal interaction force in the conjugated BB PD is not only related to the relative normal stretch of a bond, but also related to a series of relative rotation angle of a pair of conjugated bonds. This model can be regarded as considering the tensile spring and the rotation spring together, so that it can break through the fixed Poisson’s ratio limitation of the original BB PD model due to the central pairwise interaction. Furthermore, compared with the original conjugated BB PD model, the definitions of tangent bond force and rotation strain energy density are distinctly different, which will not varied with different geometry discretization; also an attenuation kernel function related to the bond length is incorporated to reflect the decreasing long-range force with the increasing distance between material points. Finally, the failure analysis of a dam subjected to high-velocity projectile impacting at the center of dam crest demonstrates the effectiveness of the PD method for simulating the projectile impact failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silling SA (2000) Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. J Mech Phys Solids 48:175–209

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Silling SA, Epton MA, Weckner O, Xu JF, Askari E (2007) Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling. J Elast 88:151–184

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Madenci E, Oterkus E (2014) Peridynamic theory and its applications. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bobaru F, Foster JT, Geubelle PH, Silling SA (eds) (2016) Handbook of peridynamic modeling. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ballarini R, Diana V, Biolzi L, Casolo S (2018) Bond-based peridynamic modelling of singular and nonsingular crack-tip fields. Meccanica 53(14):3495–3515

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Madenci E, Oterkus S (2016) Ordinary state-based peridynamics for plastic deformation according to von Mises yield criteria with isotropic hardening. J Mech Phys Solids 86:192–219

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Asgari M, Kouchakzadeh MA (2019) An equivalent von Mises stress and corresponding equivalent plastic strain for elastic–plastic ordinary peridynamics. Meccanica 54(7):1001–1014

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Warren TL, Silling SA, Askari A, Weckner O, Epton MA, Xu J (2009) A non-ordinary state-based peridynamic method to model solid material deformation and fracture. Int J Solids Struct 46(5):1186–1195

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Gu X, Madenci E, Zhang Q (2018) Revisit of non-ordinary state-based peridynamics. Eng Fract Mech 190:31–52

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gu X, Zhang Q, Madenci E, Xia X (2019) Possible causes of numerical oscillations in non-ordinary state-based peridynamics and a bond-associated higher-order stabilized model. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 357:112592

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Silling SA, Askari E (2005) A meshfree method based on the peridynamic model of solid mechanics. Comput Struct 83(17–18):1526–1535

    Google Scholar 

  12. Parks ML, Lehoucq RB, Plimpton SJ, Silling SA (2008) Implementing peridynamics within a molecular dynamics code. Comput Phys Commun 179(11):777–783

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang D, Zhang Q, Qiao P (2011) Damage and progressive failure of concrete structures using non-local peridynamic modeling. Sci China Technol Sci 54(3):591–596

    Google Scholar 

  14. Henke SF, Shanbhag S (2014) Mesh sensitivity in peridynamic simulations. Comput Phys Commun 185(1):181–193

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Oterkus E, Guven I, Madenci E (2012) Impact damage assessment by using peridynamic theory. Cent Eur J Eng 2(4):523–531

    Google Scholar 

  16. Xu J, Askari A, Weckner O, Silling S (2008) Peridynamic analysis of impact damage in composite laminates. J Aerosp Eng 21(3):187–194

    Google Scholar 

  17. Askari A, Nelson K, Weckner O, Xu J, Silling S (2011) Hail impact characteristics of a hybrid material by advanced analysis techniques and testing. J Aerosp Eng 24(2):210–217

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sun C, Huang Z (2015) Peridynamic simulation to impacting damage in composite laminate. Compos Struct 138:335–341

    Google Scholar 

  19. Levine JA, Bargteil AW, Corsi C, Tessendorf J, Geist R (2014) A peridynamic perspective on spring-mass fracture. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH/eurographics symposium on computer animation, pp 47–55

  20. Hu W, Wang Y, Yu J, Yen CF, Bobaru F (2013) Impact damage on a thin glass plate with a thin polycarbonate backing. Int J Impact Eng 62:152–165

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ren B, Wu CT, Askari E (2017) A 3D discontinuous Galerkin finite element method with the bond-based peridynamics model for dynamic brittle failure analysis. Int J Impact Eng 99:14–25

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lai X, Liu L, Li S, Zeleke M, Liu Q, Wang Z (2018) A non-ordinary state-based peridynamics modeling of fractures in quasi-brittle materials. Int J Impact Eng 111:130–146

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macek RW, Silling SA (2007) Peridynamics via finite element analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des 43(15):1169–1178

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee J, Liu W, Hong JW (2016) Impact fracture analysis enhanced by contact of peridynamic and finite element formulations. Int J Impact Eng 87:108–119

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gu X, Zhang Q, Huang D, Yv Y (2016) Wave dispersion analysis and simulation method for concrete SHPB test in peridynamics. Eng Fract Mech 160:124–137

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang G, Gazonas GA, Bobaru F (2018) Supershear damage propagation and sub-Rayleigh crack growth from edge-on impact: a peridynamic analysis. Int J Impact Eng 113:73–87

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tupek MR, Rimoli JJ, Radovitzky R (2013) An approach for incorporating classical continuum damage models in state-based peridynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 263:20–26

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Silling SA, Parks ML, Kamm JR, Weckner O, Rassaian M (2017) Modeling shockwaves and impact phenomena with Eulerian peridynamics. Int J Impact Eng 107:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  29. Demmie P, Silling S (2007) An approach to modeling extreme loading of structures using peridynamics. J Mech Mater Struct 2(10):1921–1945

    Google Scholar 

  30. Diyaroglu C, Oterkus E, Madenci E, Rabczuk T, Siddiq A (2016) Peridynamic modeling of composite laminates under explosive loading. Compos Struct 144:14–23

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Q, Wang Y, Zan Y, Lu W, Bai X, Guo J (2018) Peridynamics simulation of the fragmentation of ice cover by blast loads of an underwater explosion. J Mar Sci Technol 23(1):52–66

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ren B, Fan H, Bergel GL, Regueiro RA, Lai X, Li S (2014) A peridynamics–SPH coupling approach to simulate soil fragmentation induced by shock waves. Comput Mech 55(2):287–302

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Lai X, Ren B, Fan H, Li S, Wu CT, Regueiro RA, Liu L (2015) Peridynamics simulations of geomaterial fragmentation by impulse loads. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 39(12):1304–1330

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fan H, Bergel GL, Li S (2016) A hybrid peridynamics–SPH simulation of soil fragmentation by blast loads of buried explosive. Int J Impact Eng 87:14–27

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang Y, Deng J, Deng H, Ke B (2018) Peridynamics simulation of rock fracturing under liquid carbon dioxide blasting. Int J Damage Mech. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789518807532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gerstle W, Sau N, Silling SA (2007) Peridynamic modeling of concrete structures. Nucl Eng Des 237(12–13):1250–1258

    Google Scholar 

  37. Prakash N, Seidel GD (2015) A novel two-parameter linear elastic constitutive model for bond based peridynamics. In: 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, pp 1–22

  38. Zhou XP, Shou YD (2016) Numerical simulation of failure of rock-like material subjected to compressive loads using improved peridynamic method. Int J Geomech 17(3):04016086

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang Y, Zhou X, Wang Y, Shou Y (2018) A 3-D conjugated bond-pair-based peridynamic formulation for initiation and propagation of cracks in brittle solids. Int J Solids Struct 134:89–115

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zhou X, Wang Y, Shou Y, Kou M (2018) A novel conjugated bond linear elastic model in bond-based peridynamics for fracture problems under dynamic loads. Eng Fract Mech 188:151–183

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zhu QZ, Ni T (2017) Peridynamic formulations enriched with bond rotation effects. Int J Eng Sci 121:118–129

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. O’Grady J, Foster J (2014) Peridynamic beams: a non-ordinary, state-based model. Int J Solids Struct 51(18):3177–3183

    Google Scholar 

  43. Diyaroglu C, Oterkus E, Oterkus S, Madenci E (2015) Peridynamics for bending of beams and plates with transverse shear deformation. Int J Solids Struct 69:152–168

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hu YL, Madenci E (2016) Bond-based peridynamic modeling of composite laminates with arbitrary fiber orientation and stacking sequence. Compos Struct 153:139–175

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gu X, Zhang Q (2017) Progress in numerical simulation of dam failure under blast loading. J Hohai Univ 45:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yang G, Wang G, Lu W, Yan P, Chen M, Wu X (2017) A SPH-Lagrangian-Eulerian approach for the simulation of concrete gravity dams under combined effects of penetration and explosion. KSCE J Civ Eng 22(8):3085–3101

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gong Y, Zhang WH, Jin XY (2009) Computer simulation of dynamic brittle damage process in arch dam due to blast load. In: Computer science and information engineering, 2009 WRI World Congress, pp 144–148

  48. Gu X, Zhang Q, Xia X (2017) Voronoi-based peridynamics and cracking analysis with adaptive refinement. Int J Numer Methods Eng 112(13):2087–2109

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Huang D, Lu G, Qiao P (2015) An improved peridynamic approach for quasi-static elastic deformation and brittle fracture analysis. Int J Mech Sci 94:111–122

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bobaru F, Yang M, Alves LF, Silling SA, Askari E, Xu J (2009) Convergence, adaptive refinement, and scaling in 1D peridynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 77(6):852–877

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Ha YD, Bobaru F (2010) Studies of dynamic crack propagation and crack branching with peridynamics. Int J Fract 162(1–2):229–244

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang Z, Chen Y (2014) Modeling nonlinear elastic solid with correlated lattice bond cell for dynamic fracture simulation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 279:325–347

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Wolfram S (1992) Mathematica: a system for doing mathematics by computer—user’s guide for microsoft windows. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  54. Foster JT, Silling SA, Chen W (2011) An energy based failure criterion for use with peridynamic states. Int J Multiscale Comput Eng 9(6):675–688

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kamensky D, Behzadinasab M, Foster JT, Bazilevs Y (2019) Peridynamic modeling of frictional contact. J Peridynamics Nonlocal Model 1:107–121

    Google Scholar 

  56. Yu T (2009) Dynamical response simulation of concrete dam subjected to underwater contact explosion load. In: 2009 WRI world congress on computer science and information engineering, vol 1. IEEE, pp 769–774

  57. Chen J, Liu X, Xu Q (2017) Numerical simulation analysis of damage mode of concrete gravity dam under close-in explosion. KSCE J Civ Eng 21(1):397–407

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yang D, Dong W, Liu X, Yi S, He X (2018) Investigation on mode-I crack propagation in concrete using bond-based peridynamics with a new damage model. Eng Fract Mech 199:567–581

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zhang SR, Wang GH (2012) Study on the antiknock performance and measures of concrete gravity dam. J Hydraul Eng 43(10):1202–1213

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11932006, 11672101, U1934206), the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (Nos. 2017YFC1502603, 2018YFC0406703) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M651667).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Mechanics, Hohai University, Nanjing, 211100, China

    Xin Gu & Qing Zhang

Authors
  1. Xin Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gu, X., Zhang, Q. A modified conjugated bond-based peridynamic analysis for impact failure of concrete gravity dam. Meccanica 55, 547–566 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-020-01138-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-020-01138-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation