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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Determine the required strengths and effective length factors for the ASTM A992 material columns in the moment frame shown in Figure 1 for the maximum gravity load combination, using LRFD and ASD.
An ASTM A992 W-shaped member is selected to carry a dead load of 30.000 kips and a live load of 90.000 kips in tension. Verify the member strength using both LRFD and ASD.
An ASTM A992 14×132 W-shaped column is loaded with the given axial compression forces. The column is pinned top and bottom in both axes. Determine whether the column is adequate to support the loading shown in Figure 1 based on LRFD and ASD.
Consider an ASTM A992 W 18x50 beam forspan and uniform dead and live loads as shown in Figure 1. The member is limited to a maximum nominal depth of 18 inches. The live load deflection is limited to L/360. The beam is simply supported and continuously braced. Verify the available flexural strength of the selected beam, based on LRFD and ASD.
An ASTM A992 W 24×62 beam with end shears of 48.000 and 145.000 kips from the dead and live loads, respectively, is shown in Figure 1. Verify the available shear strength of the selected beam, based on LRFD and ASD.
Using AISC Manual tables, determine the available compressive and flexural strengths and whether the ASTM A992 W14x99 beam has sufficient available strength to support the axial forces and moments shown in Figure 1, obtained from a second-order analysis that includes P-𝛿 effects.
A reinforced concrete slab inside a building is to be designed as a 1.0 m stripe with members. The floor slab is uniaxially spanned and runs through two spans. The slab is fixed on masonry walls with free-rotating supports. The middle support has a width of 240 mm and the two edge supports have a width of 120 mm. The two spans are subjected to an imposed load of category C: congregation areas.
A reinforced concrete column is designed for ULS at normal temperature according to DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA/A1:2015, based on 1990-1-1/NA/A1:2012-08. The design employs the nominal curvature method; see DIN EN 1992-1-1, Section 5.8.8. The addressed column is located at the edge of a 3-span frame structure, which consists of 4 cantilever columns and 3 individual trusses hinged to them. The column is subjected to the vertical force of the precast truss, snow and wind. The results are compared with the literature.
A cylinder made of elasto-plastic soil is subjected to triaxial test conditions. Neglecting the self-weight, the goal is to determine the limit vertical stress for shear stress failure. An initial hydrostatic stress of 100 kPa is considered.
A structure made of an I-profile is embedded into the fork supports. The axial rotation is restricted on both ends while warping is enabled. The structure is loaded by two transverse forces in the middle. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
This verification example compares wind load calculations on a flat roof building using the ASCE 7-16 standard and using CFD simulation in RWIND Simulation. The building is defined according to the sketch and the inflow velocity profile taken from the ASCE 7-16 standard.
A symmetrical shallow structure is made of eight equal truss members, which are embedded into hinge supports. The structure is loaded by a concentrated force and alternatively by imposed nodal deformation over the critical limit point when the snap-through occurs. Imposed nodal deformation is used in RFEM 5 and RSTAB 8 to obtain the full equilibrium path of the snap-through. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the relationship between the actual loading force and the deflection, considering large deformation analysis. Evaluate the load factor at the given deflections.
A structure is made of four truss members, which are embedded into hinge supports. The structure is loaded by a concentrated force and alternatively by imposed nodal deformation over the critical limit point, when snap-through occurs. Imposed nodal deformation is used in RFEM 5 and RSTAB 8 to obtain the full equilibrium path of the snap-through. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the relationship between the actual loading force and the deflection, considering large deformation analysis. Evaluate the load factor at given deflections.
Consider an ASTM A992 W 18×50 beam forspan and uniform dead and live loads as shown in Figure 1. The member is limited to a maximum nominal depth of 18 inches. The live load deflection is limited to L/360. The beam is simply supported and continuously braced. Verify the available flexural strength of the selected beam, based on LRFD and ASD.
A column is composed of a concrete section (rectangle 100/200) and a steel section (profile I 200). It is subjected to pressure force. Determine the critical load and corresponding load factor. The theoretical solution is based on the buckling of a simple beam. In this case, two regions have to be taken into account due to different moments of inertia and material properties.
A shell roof structure under pressure load is modeled where the straight edges are free, while at the curved edges the y- and z‑translations are constrained. Neglecting self‑weight, compute the maximum (absolute) vertical deflection, and compare the results with COMSOL Multiphysics 4.3.
A truss structure consists of three rods (one steel and two copper) joined by a rigid member. The structure is loaded by a concentrated force and a temperature difference. While neglecting self‑weight, determine the total deflection of the structure.
A steel rod between two rigid supports with a gap is loaded by a temperature difference. While neglecting self‑weight, determine the total deformation of the rod and its internal axial force.
A cantilever of rectangular cross‑section has a mass at the end. Furthermore, it is loaded by an axial force. Calculate the natural frequency of the structure. Neglect the self‑weight of the cantilever and consider the influence of the axial force for the stiffness modification.