Verification Examples
Dlubal Software programs provide comprehensible structural analysis calculations. They are not a "black box". The verification examples available by clicking the following link provide further transparency into the software calculation methods.
A structure is consisted of the I-profile beam and two tube trusses. The structure is containing several imperfections and it is loaded by the force Fz. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the deflections uy and uz and axial rotation φx at the endpoint (point 4). The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
Kelvin-Voigt material model consists of the linear spring and viscous damper connected in parallel. In this verification example there is tested the time behaviour of this model during the loading and relaxation in a time interval 24 hours. The constant force Fx is applied for 12 hours and the rest 12 hours is the material model free of load (relaxation). The deformation after 12 and 20 hours is evaluated. Time History Analysis with Linear Implicit Newmark method is used.
Maxwell material model consists of the linear spring and viscous damper connected in series. In this verification example there is tested the time behaviour of this model. The Maxwell material model is loaded by constant force Fx. This force causes initial deformation thanks to the spring, the deformation is then growing in time due to the damper. The deformation is observed at time of loading (20 s) and at the end of the analysis (120 s). Time History Analysis with Linear Implicit Newmark method is used.
A collar beam roof with the selected geometry is compared in terms of its internal forces between the calculation using RFEM 6 and the manual calculation. In total, three load systems are analyzed.
Continuous beam with four spans is loaded by axial and bending forces (replacing imperfections). All supports are fork - warping is free. Determine displacements uy and uz, moments My, Mz, Mω and MTpri and rotation φx. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
This example compares the effective lengths and critical load factor, which can be calculated in RFEM 6 using the Structure Stability add-on, with a manual calculation. The structural system is a rigid frame with two additional hinged columns. This column is loaded by vertical concentrated loads.
In this example, the shear at the interface between concrete cast at different times and the corresponding reinforcement are determined according to DIN EN 1992-1-1. The obtained results with RFEM 6 will be compared to the hand calculation below.
A reinforced concrete beam is designed as a two-span beam with a cantilever. The cross-section varies along the length of the cantilever (tapered cross-section). The internal forces, the required longitudinal and shear reinforcement for the ultimate limit state are calculated.
In this verification example, the capacity design values of shear forces on beams are calculated in accordance with EN 1998-1, 5.4.2.2 and 5.5.2.1 as well as the capacity design values of columns in flexure in accordance with 5.2.3.3(2). The system consists of a two span reinforced concrete beam with a span length of 5.50m. The beam is part of a frame system. The results obtained are compared with those in [1].
The axial rotation of the I-profile is restricted on the both ends by means of the fork supports (warping is not restricted). The structure is loaded by two transverse forces in its middle. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the maximum deflections of the structure uy,max and uz,max, maximum rotation φx,max, maximum bending moments My,max and Mz,max and maximum torsional moments MT,max, MTpri,max, MTsec,max and Mω,max. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A member with the given boundary conditions is loaded by torsional moment and axial force. Neglecting its self-weight, determine the beam's maximum torsional deformation as well as its inner torsional moment, defined as the sum of a primary torsional moment and torsional moment caused by the normal force. Provide a comparison of those values while assuming or neglecting the influence of the normal force. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A cantilever is loaded by a moment at its free end. Using the geometrically linear analysis and large deformation analysis, and neglecting the beam's self-weight, determine the maximum deflections at the free end. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A thin-walled cantilever of a QRO-profile is fully fixed on the left end and warping is free. The cantilever is subjected to torque. Small deformations are considered, and the self-weight is neglected. Determine the maximum rotation, primary moment, secondary moment, and warping moment. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
An inner column in the first floor of a three-story building is designed. The column is monolithic connected with the top and bottom beams. The fire design simplified method A for columns according to EC2-1-2 is than proofed and the results compared to [1].
A beam is fully fixed (warping is restricted) on the left end and supported by a fork support (free warping) on the right end. The beam is subjected to a torque, longitudinal force, and transverse force. Determine the behavior of the primary torsional moment, secondary torsional moment and warping moment. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe (see reference).
A cantilever of I-profile is supported on the left end and it is loaded by the torque M. The aim of this example is to compare the fixed support with the fork support and to investigate the behaviour of some representative quantities. The comparison with the solution by means of plates is also made. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A structure made of I-profile trusses is supported on the both ends by the spring sliding supports and loaded by the transversal forces. The self-we ight is neglected in this example . Determine the deflection of the structure, the bending moment, the normal force in given test points and horizontal deflection of the spring support.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure coefficient (Cp) for both main structural members (Cp,ave) and secondary structural members such as cladding or façade systems (Cp,local) based on NBC 2020 [1] and Japanese Wind Tunnel Data Base for low-rise building with 45 degree slope. The recommended setting for three-dimensional flat roof with sharp eaves will be described in the next part.
A structure made of I-profile is fully fixed on the left end and embedded into the sliding support on the right end. The structure consists of two segments. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the maximum deflection of the structure uz,max, the bending moment My on the fixed end, the rotation &svarphi;2,y of the segment 2 and the reaction force RBz by means of the geometrically linear analysis and the second-order analysis. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
Beam pinned at the both ends is loaded by means the transversal force at the middle. Neglecting its self-weight and shear stiffness, determine the maximum deflection, normal force and moment at the mid-span assuming the second and the third order theory. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe (see the reference).
Planar truss consisting of four sloped members and one vertical member is loaded at the upper node by means of the vertical force Fz and out of plane force Fy. Assuming large deformation analysis and neglecting self-weight, determine the normal forces of the members and the out of plane displacement of the upper node uy. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure value for both general structural design (Cp,10) and local structural design such as cladding or façade systems (Cp,1) based on EN 1991-1-4 flat roof example [1] and Japanese Wind Tunnel Data Base . The recommended setting for three-dimensional flat roof with sharp eaves will be described in the next part.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure coefficient (Cp) of flat roof and walls with ASCE7-22 [1]. In the section 28.3 (Wind loads - main wind force resisting system) and Figure 28.3-1 (load case 1), there is a table which shows Cp value for different roof angle.
The model is based on the example 4 of [1]: Point-supported slab.
The flat slab of an office building with crack-sensitive lightweight walls is to be designed. Inner, border and corner panels are to be investigated. The columns and the flat slab are monolithically joined. The edge and corner columns are placed flush with the edge of the slab. The axes of the columns form a square grid. It is a rigid system (building stiffened with shear walls).
The office building has 5 floors with a floor height of 3.000 m. The environmental conditions to be assumed are defined as "closed interior spaces". There are predominantly static actions.
The focus of this example is to determine the slab moments and the required reinforcement above the columns under full load.
The model is based on the example 4 of [1]: Point-supported slab. The internal forces and the required longitudinal reinforcement can be found the in verification example 1022. In this example, punching is examined in the axis B/2.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has presented a number of well-known benchmark scenarios of wind simulation.
The following article deals with "Case E - Building Complex in Actual Urban Area with Dense Concentration of Low-Rise Buildings in Niigata City".
In the following, the described scenario is simulated in RWIND& 2 and the results are compared with the simulated and experimental results by AIJ.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure value for both general structural designs (Cp,10) and cladding or façade design (Cp,1) of rectangular plan buildings with EN 1991-1-4 [1]. There are three dimensional cases that we will explain more about if in the next part.
Das Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) hat eine Reihe an bekannten Benchmark-Szenarien für Windsimulation vorgestellt.
Der Nachfolgende Beitrag dreht sich dabei um den "Case A - high-rise building with a 2:1:1 shape".
Im Folgenden wird das beschriebene Szenario in RWIND2 nachgebildet und die Ergebnisse mit den simulierten und der experimentellen Resultate des AIJ verglichen.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has presented a number of well-known benchmark scenarios of wind simulation.
The following article deals with "Case D - High-Rise Building Among City Blocks".
In the following, the described scenario is simulated in RWIND 2 and the results are compared with the simulated and experimental results by the AIJ.
The settlements of a rigid square foundation on a lacustrine clay [1] are calculated with RFEM. One quarter of the foundation is modelled. The foundation has a width of 75.0 m in both sides. Construction stages are used to generate the results.