Software Verification

Similar documents
Software Verification

Method of Virtual Work Frame Deflection Example Steven Vukazich San Jose State University

M.S Comprehensive Examination Analysis

k 21 k 22 k 23 k 24 k 31 k 32 k 33 k 34 k 41 k 42 k 43 k 44

Supplement: Statically Indeterminate Frames

Introduction to Structural Member Properties

= 50 ksi. The maximum beam deflection Δ max is not = R B. = 30 kips. Notes for Strength of Materials, ET 200

Lecture 8: Flexibility Method. Example

SLOPE-DEFLECTION METHOD

999 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD ORANGE, CALIFORNIA TITLE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS EXAMPLE BY R. MATTHEWS DATE 5/21/01

Structural Analysis III Compatibility of Displacements & Principle of Superposition

DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS (from Nilson and Nawy)

276 Calculus and Structures

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination Analysis

BENCHMARK LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE USING OPENSEES & COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

Multi Linear Elastic and Plastic Link in SAP2000

3.4 Analysis for lateral loads

Experimental Lab. Principles of Superposition

Moment Distribution Method

Module 4 : Deflection of Structures Lecture 4 : Strain Energy Method

EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS with SAP2000

Chapter 11. Displacement Method of Analysis Slope Deflection Method

Example 37 - Analytical Beam

Moment Area Method. 1) Read

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS TEST SERIES PILE #2 USING OPENSEES (WITH LPILE COMPARISON)

Software Verification

Due Tuesday, September 21 st, 12:00 midnight

3 Relation between complete and natural degrees of freedom

Finite Element Modelling with Plastic Hinges

Module 3. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Displacement Method

Problem d d d B C E D. 0.8d. Additional lecturebook examples 29 ME 323

Types of Structures & Loads

QUESTION BANK ENGINEERS ACADEMY. Hinge E F A D. Theory of Structures Determinacy Indeterminacy 1

Software Verification

Abstract. I. Introduction

Final Exam Ship Structures Page 1 MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND. Engineering Ship Structures

5. What is the moment of inertia about the x - x axis of the rectangular beam shown?

Finite Element Analysis Lecture 1. Dr./ Ahmed Nagib

D : SOLID MECHANICS. Q. 1 Q. 9 carry one mark each. Q.1 Find the force (in kn) in the member BH of the truss shown.

Lecture Slides. Chapter 4. Deflection and Stiffness. The McGraw-Hill Companies 2012

Methods of Analysis. Force or Flexibility Method

If the number of unknown reaction components are equal to the number of equations, the structure is known as statically determinate.

Deflection of Beams. Equation of the Elastic Curve. Boundary Conditions

Supplement: Statically Indeterminate Trusses and Frames

Indeterminate Analysis Force Method 1

Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis will be performed on a railroad bridge bent using wframe to determine its ultimate lateral deflection capability.

Vertical acceleration and torsional effects on the dynamic stability and design of C-bent columns

PLAT DAN CANGKANG (TKS 4219)

UNIT II 1. Sketch qualitatively the influence line for shear at D for the beam [M/J-15]

Soil-Structure Interaction in Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Frame RC Structures: Nonhomogeneous Soil Condition

LATERAL STABILITY OF BEAMS WITH ELASTIC END RESTRAINTS

ANSWERS September 2014

(2) ANALYSIS OF INDETERMINATE STRUCTRES

Force-based Element vs. Displacement-based Element

Module 3. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Displacement Method

Module 3. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Displacement Method

This procedure covers the determination of the moment of inertia about the neutral axis.

Linear Static Analysis of a Cantilever Beam (SI Units)

Software Verification

6/6/2008. Qualitative Influence Lines for Statically Indeterminate Structures: Muller-Breslau s Principle

March 24, Chapter 4. Deflection and Stiffness. Dr. Mohammad Suliman Abuhaiba, PE

Laith Batarseh. internal forces

1 Static Plastic Behaviour of Beams

Project. First Saved Monday, June 27, 2011 Last Saved Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Product Version 13.0 Release

Presented By: EAS 6939 Aerospace Structural Composites

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination Analysis

99/104 Large-Deflection Coupled Torsion/Bending

Level 7 Postgraduate Diploma in Engineering Computational mechanics using finite element method

Lecture-08 Gravity Load Analysis of RC Structures

Axial force-moment interaction in the LARSA hysteretic beam element

Chapter 2 Basis for Indeterminate Structures

FLEXIBILITY METHOD FOR INDETERMINATE FRAMES

Geometric Nonlinear Analysis of a Cantilever Beam

A METHOD OF LOAD INCREMENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SECOND-ORDER LIMIT LOAD AND COLLAPSE SAFETY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURES

Deflection of Flexural Members - Macaulay s Method 3rd Year Structural Engineering

Chapter 2: Deflections of Structures

Module 10: Free Vibration of an Undampened 1D Cantilever Beam

Module 2. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Matrix Force Method

Deflection of Flexural Members - Macaulay s Method 3rd Year Structural Engineering

Module 2. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Matrix Force Method

Seismic Response Analysis of Structure Supported by Piles Subjected to Very Large Earthquake Based on 3D-FEM

Non-linear and time-dependent material models in Mentat & MARC. Tutorial with Background and Exercises

Due Monday, September 14 th, 12:00 midnight

CAPACITY DESIGN FOR TALL BUILDINGS WITH MIXED SYSTEM

UNIT II SLOPE DEFLECION AND MOMENT DISTRIBUTION METHOD

Structural Continuity

UNIT IV FLEXIBILTY AND STIFFNESS METHOD

Course in. Geometric nonlinearity. Nonlinear FEM. Computational Mechanics, AAU, Esbjerg

CHAPTER 14 BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF 1D AND 2D STRUCTURES

EMA 3702 Mechanics & Materials Science (Mechanics of Materials) Chapter 2 Stress & Strain - Axial Loading

Discrete Analysis for Plate Bending Problems by Using Hybrid-type Penalty Method

Materials: engineering, science, processing and design, 2nd edition Copyright (c)2010 Michael Ashby, Hugh Shercliff, David Cebon.

Response Spectrum Analysis Shock and Seismic. FEMAP & NX Nastran

Nonlinear static analysis PUSHOVER

Finite Element Simulation of Bar-Plate Friction Welded Joints Steel Product Subjected to Impact Loading

Linear Static Analysis of a Cantilever Beam (CBAR Problem)

Introduction to Continuous Systems. Continuous Systems. Strings, Torsional Rods and Beams.

CIVL 7/8117 Chapter 4 - Development of Beam Equations - Part 2 1/34. Chapter 4b Development of Beam Equations. Learning Objectives

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS

ME Final Exam. PROBLEM NO. 4 Part A (2 points max.) M (x) y. z (neutral axis) beam cross-sec+on. 20 kip ft. 0.2 ft. 10 ft. 0.1 ft.

Transcription:

EXAMPLE 1-026 FRAME MOMENT AND SHEAR HINGES EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION This example uses a horizontal cantilever beam to test the moment and shear hinges in a static nonlinear analysis. The cantilever beam has a moment (M y ) hinge and a shear (V z ) hinge at its fixed end. A vertical load, P, is applied to the cantilever and increased until the vertical tip deflection, U z, equals 2". Two models are used in the example. Model B applies a default auto subdivide hinge overwrite to the line object containing the hinge whereas Model A does not. Multiple states are saved for the analysis with the minimum number of saved states set to 6 and the maximum number of saved states set to 10. The tip deflection, U z, and tip rotation, R y, for several of the saved states (identified on the next page) are compared with independent hand calculated results. Important Notes: Bending and shear deformations are included in this example. Also, in frame hinges are only active in nonlinear static and nonlinear direct time history load cases. The hinges are ignored in all other types of load cases GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Moment (kip-in) Z Y 1920 1440 480 Moment hinge (M y ) and shear hinge (V X z ) 24" 12" Material Properties C E = 3,600 k/in 2 ν = 0.2 G= 1,500 k/in 2 C Moment Hinge Moment-Rotation P Shear (kips) 80 70 18" Section C-C Shear Hinge Force-Deformation Section Properties b = 12 in d = 18 in A = 216 in 2 I = 5,832 in 4 A v = 180 in 2 (shear area) Loading Increase P until the free end tip deflection in the Z direction is 2 inches 0.04 Plastic Rotation (radians) 0.4 Plastic Deformation (inches) EXAMPLE 1-026 - 1

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF TESTED Static nonlinear analysis of a frame structure with moment and shear hinges RESULTS COMPARISON Force P and free end vertical displacement and rotation are reported for the saved states corresponding to the points labeled 1, 2 and 3 on the cantilever beam force-tip deflection (P-U z ) diagram shown to the right. Independent results are hand calculated using the unit load method described on page 244 in Cook and Young 1985 together with basic deflection formulas and superposition. Force P (kips) 80 60 1 2 20 3 Tip Deflection, U z (inches) Results Without Hinge Overwrite (Model B) Point Output Parameter Independent Percent Difference Force P (free end) kips 60 60 0% 1 U z (free end) in 0.0185 0.0185 0% R y (free end) rad -0.0008-0.0008 0% Force P (free end) kips 80 80 0% 2 U z (free end) in 1.3847 1.3847 0% R y (free end) rad -0.0411-0.0411 0% Force P (free end) kips 20 20 0% 3 U z (free end) in 1.3662 1.7612 29% R y (free end) rad -0.0403-0.0567 41% EXAMPLE 1-026 - 2

Results With Hinge Overwrite (Model B) Point Output Parameter Independent Percent Difference Force P (free end) kips 60 60 0% 1 U z (free end) in 0.0185 0.0185 0% R y (free end) rad -0.0008-0.0008 0% Force P (free end) kips 80 80 0% 2 U z (free end) in 1.3847 1.3847 0% R y (free end) rad -0.0411-0.0411 0% Force P (free end) kips 20 20 0% 3 U z (free end) in 1.3662 1.3701 0% R y (free end) rad -0.0403-0.0404 0% COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-026a, Example 1-026b CONCLUSION The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results when the auto subdivide overwrite is used. Sharp vertical drops in hinge forces or moments may not always be realistic and can cause analysis convergence difficulties in more complicated models. For this reason Sap2000 automatically limits the steepness of vertical drops to one-tenth of the elastic stiffness of the element containing the hinge. When a frame object is subdivided the shorter elements have larger elastic stiffnesses which permit drops in hinge forces or moments that are closer to vertical. It is for this reason that model B, which has an automatically meshed element that is 1% of the total length, permits a steeper drop than model A. The drop is so steep that snap back (negative displacement increment) of the overall cantilever can be observed. Steep (nearly vertical) hinge drops should be avoided whenever possible. EXAMPLE 1-026 - 3

HAND CALCULATION EXAMPLE 1-026 - 4

EXAMPLE 1-026 - 5

EXAMPLE 1-026 - 6