几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-10, 02:53 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 moment distribution discrepancy

moment distribution discrepancy
i have been running continuous beam models in sap2000 and trying to verify those results using hand calculations. the models consist of twenty equal spans with cantilever end spans and a uniform load across the entire beam. the hand method i am most familiar with is moment distribution and the results are not matching within a reasonable percentage for the spans closest to the cantilevered ends. i have had three other fellow engineers check the hand calcs to see if any errors were made in calculating k's, df's, the use of the cof's and for random sign errors, no errors were found. at first i thought i was making an error in the inputs for sap so i checked moment distribution examples from my text book versus results produced by sap. the examples were all two or three span continuous and the results matched fine. it seems the more spans the further off the results get for the spans adjacent to the cantilevers. the moments calculated using the moment distribution method for the first interior support are significantly lower than the sap results. i am puzzled, any helpful tips?
find a job or post a job opening
i don't know how far off you are and i have never used sap but first check to make sure shear deformation is not included and also make sure that you don't have a support fixed for lateral translation which would cause axial load in the beams.
how far are the results off?
when i have compared moment distribution with the stiffness matrix method, i have experienced some cases off by as much as 10%. the differences between the methods have to do with axial or shear deformations which are not taken into account with the moment distribution method.
what you might want to do with your sap model is to input very large cross sectional areas, so that those deformations do not have any influence and your sap results should approach the results obtained by moment distribution.
see if your software allows you to turn off shear deformations. risa allows this, so sap may as well. you could have your hand calc include shear deformation by adjusting your moment of inertia. try reducing your moment of inertia by dividing it by: 1+(36i/a*l^2), where a is your shear area.
are you sure you handled the end conditions of your twenty span continuous beam with cantilever ends properly? the moment at the first support is statically determinant and will be exact in both methods if handled properly. do you have a worked example of a moment distribution problem with a pin supported end? that is the approach you should use. after doing the pin supported end model (both ends, mind you), superimpose the static end moments onto those results and you have the solution. good luck.
thank you very much for all your comments. it was the shear deformations that were causing such dramatic changes in the results. i have a matrix analysis book by kassimali and throughtout the book shear deformations are ignored in the calculation of the stiffness matrices. hidden at the very back of the text was one page which states that whenever your span to section depth ratio exceeds 10 the effects of shear deformation are negligible and when that ratio is below 10 then the effects become considerable. my model involved 24in spans with the default w18x35 section. as you can see the ration of span to depth is well below 10 and the moments were alot bigger than the moment distribution results. i then used a general section i created with most properties set equal to 1 including the depth and the results matched the md results. in addition i also used a bigger section than the default w18x35 and the moments were amplified. thanks again to all who responded
this whole discussion smells fishy. particularly the parts about shear deformation. the matrix analysis and moment distribution i use are based on plane sections remaining plane (basic beam theory). are you sure your software analysis as well as moment distribution are appropriate?
it doesn't sound like you know what your doing, particularly since the extent of your library is an introductory structural analysis book.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
 


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
design of moment connections huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 05:43 PM
concrete tank moment distribution huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 12:54 PM
cantilever steel beam at column huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 10:40 PM
beams shear splices vs. moment splices huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 03:13 PM
aisc 13th ed. and cjp dw moment connections huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 10:27 AM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 10:09 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多