Computer applications in CE

Abdul Razzaq Touqan and Monther Dwaikat

22/3/2015 1
 Laws versus theories

• Structural Analysis Laws

– constitutive (stress-strain) relationships: essential
– equilibrium equations: essential
– compatibility equations: optional
• Structural Analysis Theories:
– Based on assumptions
– Assumptions based on available knowledge
– Available knowledge is constrained with available tools like
hand calculators and personal computers
– Computer programs are based on assumptions on which the
theoretical basis of the software was developed.
 Structural analysis system
approach
Input:
1.Goal
2.Given information
3.Create a mathematical model
Processing:
1.Propose a theory
2.Formulate equations
3.Solve the equations
Output:
1.Verify Compatibility
2. Verify Equilibrium
3. Verify Constitutive (stress-strain) relationships.
 Structural analysis system approach:
processing ‫ق‬
Processing
• Propose a theory:
– reduce assumptions
– reduce deviating model from reality
– 3D nonlinear dynamic probabilistic soil-structure interaction

• Formulate equations: according to state of knowledge and

available tools
– analytical, anatomical, analogical.

• Solve the equations: analyze the structure

– verify analysis laws
Structural analysis system approach: output
‫ص‬
Output (Verifications)
1.Verify compatibility.
2. Verify equilibrium.
3. Verify constitutive (stress-strain) relationships.
Structural Modeling
 Structural modeling assumptions

• Elements
– 1D
– 2D
– 3D
• Structures
– 1D structure with 1D elements
– 2D structure with 1D, 2D elements
– 3D structure with 1D, 2D, 3D elements
• Load assumptions
– Static (Linear or nonlinear)
– Dynamic (Linear or nonlinear)
Space-frame versus Shell
 1D –Space-frame

•
 2D -Shell

•
 Methodology

1. Understand exact 1D (continuous versus discrete)

2. Perform analogical solutions between 1D and nD
models (tensor analysis)
3. Build up experience with 3D models
 Example: IN MECHANICS

• Cantilever beam 3m span, 0.2m width by 0.3m

depth made of concrete with weight density
25kN/m3 and E=25GPa, =0.2. Find end span
deflection and maximum stress at fixed end due to
weight using:
1. Continuous exact solution
2. Using virtual work method
3. Finite element solution:
– 1D space frame model
 Example: temperature loading

• For the previous cantilever beam, find the deflection

at the end if it is subjected to a linear temperature
gradient such that the top surface of the beam is at
temperature 200 lower than the bottom surface.
2. Analyze the following structure by virtual work method
to find displacement under the concentrated load, then use
the result to verify SAP output. Given the cross section is a
square tube 0.25m width with 6mm thickness. E=200GPa,
=0.3

22/3/2015 14
1D, 2D or 3D modeling
1D: slab-beam-column
1D: slab-beam-column/
continued
1D, 2D or 3D modeling
2D: plane frame
 1D, 2D or 3D modeling
3D: space frame with slabs/walls
 example

• A single story RC slab-beam factory structure shown next

slide.
• Fixed foundations, 4 spans 5m bays in x and a single 8m
span in y, 6m elevation
• E=24GPa, μ=0.2, ρ=2.5t/m3
• Slab 25cm thickness, drop beams 30cmX80cm, columns
30X60cm
• superimposed loads=5kN/m2, live load=9kN/m2
 Analogical: 1D analysis: slab
model
•
• Moment distribution (modified)

Joint A B C D E
Member AB BA BC CB CD DC DE ED
k 0.75 1 1 1 1 0.75
DF 1.00 0.43 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.43 1.00
FEM 0.00 -0.1250 0.0833 -0.0833 0.0833 -0.0833 0.1250 0.00
D1 0.00 0.0179 0.0238 0 0 -0.0238 -0.0179 0.00
CO1 0.00 0.0119 -0.0119 0.00
D2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EM 0.00 -0.1071 0.1071 -0.0714 0.0714 -0.1071 0.1071 0.00

22/3/2022 22
• Moment distribution
Joint A B C D E
Member AB BA BC CB CD DC DE ED
k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DF 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00
FEM 0.0833 -0.0833 0.0833 -0.0833 0.0833 -0.0833 0.0833 -0.0833
D1 -0.0833 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0833
CO1 0.00 -0.0417 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0417 0.00
D2 0.00 0.0208 0.0208 0.00 0.00 -0.0208 -0.0208 0.00
CO2 0.0104 0.0000 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.0000 -0.0104
D3 -0.0104 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0104
CO3 0.0000 -0.0052 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0052 0.0000
D4 0.00 0.0026 0.0026 0.00 0.00 -0.0026 -0.0026 0.00
CO4 0.0013 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 -0.0013
D5 -0.0013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013
CO5 0.0000 -0.0007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0007 0.0000
D6 0.00 0.0003 0.0003 0.00 0.00 -0.0003 -0.0003 0.00
EM 0.0000 -0.1071 0.1071 -0.0716 0.0716 -0.1071 0.1071 0.0000

22/3/2022 23
1D analysis: slab analysis
 1D analysis: slab analysis

• wD= (.25*24.5+5)=11.125kN/m
• wL= 9kN/m
• wu=1.2*11.125+1.6*9=27.75kN/m
1D analysis: slab analysis, values
of bending moment kN.m
1D analysis: slab analysis, values
of reactions in kN
 1D analysis and design: beam analysis,

• Assume simply supported beam:

-Beam C, Mu=(129+1.2*0.3*.55*24.5)*82 /8=1070kN.m,
-Beam B, Mu=(159+1.2*0.3*.55*24.5)*82 /8=1311kN.m,
-Beam A, Mu=(54.5+1.2*0.3*.55*24.5)*82 /8=475kN.m,
 3D SAP

If the same assumptions are used in 3D model, results

should be the same
• Do not put secondary beams
• Set modifiers for slab m12=m22=0.01
• Set modifiers for beam torsion=0.01, flexure 3=100,
weight=0.55/0.8
• Set modifiers for column: axial=100,
flexure=torsion=0.01

22/3/2015 29
 3D SAP: Gravity equilibrium checks

D:
Slab=20X8X (0.25X24.5+5) =1780kN
Beams= (5X8) X.55X.3X24.5=161.7kN
Columns=10X6X.3X.6X24.5=264.6KN
Sum=2206.3kN
• L:
R =20X8X9=1440KN
 Gravity equilibrium checks

• SAP results:
Left: bending moment in slab at point c 48.8kN.m/m
Right: bending in beam C 1081kN.m.
• Left: bending moment in slab at point B 69.4kN.m/m
• Right: bending in beam B 1293kN.m
22/3/2015 33
• Left: bending moment in slab at point A 0.0kN.m/m
• Right: top bending in beam A 480kN.m, bottom area of steel 18.8cm2
22/3/2015 34
 Left: maximum bending moment in slab between A and B 55.4kN.m/m
• Right: maximum bending moment in slab between B and C 24.1kN.m/m
22/3/2015 35
 3D static analysis for lateral forces

• Implicit modeling
• Idealization
• Verification
• 2D versus 3D analysis
– Rigidity of diaphragms
– Center of mass versus center of rigidity

36
Idealization

37
 2D versus 3D analysis: rigidity of diaphragm

• Lateral forces are distributed to elements

according to stiffness ratio between diaphragm
and lateral load resisting units:

– For large ratios lateral loads are distributed in

proportion to stiffness of lateral load resisting
units
– For small ratios lateral loads are distributed in
proportion to tributary area
38
a one-story flat plate reinforced concrete building subjected to
an earthquake force of 360kN in the x-direction and a live load
of equal magnitude distributed on the whole floor. Columns are
square having 20cm dimensions, 3m elevation, and the distance
between them is 6m, elastic modulus Econ=20GN/m2

39
40
 Column reactions in kN
for floor systems with
different rigidities
case situation R1 R2 R4 R5
corner edge edge interior
1 tslab=40cm, EQ
Eslab= Ecol LL
2 tslab=2cm, EQ
Eslab=Ecol/1000 LL
3 tslab=20cm, EQ
Eslab= Ecol LL
41
 2D versus 3D analysis:
rigidity of diaphragms: Conclusions

• Case 1:

• Case 2:

• Case 3:

42
 2D versus 3D analysis:rigidity of diaphragms

Recommended Changes to study effect on LL and EQ:

• Change interior column to 40cm square

• Change exterior frame columns to 1.5m height

• Remove columns on grid line 1-4-7

Main conclusions:

43
 Coincidence of center of mass with
center of rigidity: conclusions

• Conclusions

44
22/3/2015 45
22/3/2015 46
 Ribbed Slab example

• Analyze (as a one-way ribbed slab in the 7m direction)

the following one story structure (3m height) using 3D
model (figure next page):
• A. Specifications: B250, fy=420MPa, superimposed=
0.7kN/m2 , live loads= 2kN/m2, ribs 34cm height/ 15cm
width, blocks 40X25X24cm height (weight
density=10kN/m3), beam 25cm width by 50cm depth,
column dimensions 25cmX25cm
 Local practice: slab-beam-column
construction

Slab: assume c=5cm

• wd=[(0.15*.24+0.55*0.1)*24.5+0.4*0.24*10]/0.55+
0.7=6.5kN/m2
• wu =[1.2*6.5+1.6*2]*0.55=6.05kN/m/rib
• Mu- =6.05(2.5)2 /2=18.9 kN.m
• Mu+ ≈ 6.05 (7)2/8-18.9/2=27.6kN.m
1D model
 Beam analysis

Beam B1: (interior frame)

• wu =(39/0.55)+0.25*0.4*24.5*1.2 =73.8kN/m
• Mu- =73.8(6)2 /8=332kN.m
• Mu+ =73.8(6)2 /14.2=187kN.m
•
Beam B2: (exterior frame)
• wu =(18.5/0.55)+0.25*0.4*24.5*1.2 =36.6kN/m
• Mu- =36.6(6)2 /8=165kN.m
• Mu+ =9*36.6(6)2 /128=92.8kN.m.
3D Model
3D SAP: if same assumptions are used in 3D model,
results should be the same
A. Set modifiers for slab M22 = M12 = 0.01
B. Set modifiers for rib torsion=0.01,
weight=0.24/0.34
C. Set modifiers for beam torsion=0.01, flexure 3=10
(do not put 100), weight=0.4/0.5=0.8
D. Set modifiers for column: axial=100,
flexure=torsion=0

22/3/2015 53
 Gravity equilibrium checks

D:
– Slab=12X9.5X 0.1X24.5 =279kN
– Superimposed+blocks=12X9.5 ((0.24 X0.4 X10/0.55)
+0.7)= 12X9.5X2.45 =279kN
– Ribs=9.5X23X.15X0.24X 24.5=193kN
– Beams= (2X12) X.25X.4X24.5=58.8kN
– Columns=6X.25X.25X3 X 24.5=27.6KN
– Sum=837.4kN
• L:
– R =12X9.5X2=228kN

22/3/2015 54
22/3/2015 55
• Repeat previous example but if the beams are
34cm depth by 37cm width .(to preserve beam
weight). Draw conclusions

22/3/2015 56