A structure is consisted of an I-section beam and two tube trusses. The structure contains 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind force coefficient (Cf) of cube shapes with EN 1991-1-4 [1]. There are three dimensional cases that we will explain more about if in the next part.
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.
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 curved frame called Lee's frame is pinned at the end points and loaded by a concentrated force at point A. Determine the deflection ratio at point A in the given load steps. The problem is defined according to The NAFEMS Non-Linear Benchmarks.
A sandwich cantilever consists of three layers (the core and two faces). It is fixed on the left end and loaded by a concentrated force on the right end.
A Z-Section Cantilever is fully fixed at the end and loaded by a torque which, in the case of a shell model, is represented by a couple of shear forces. Determine the axial stress at point A (at mid-surface). The problem is defined according to The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks.
A thin string is tensioned by an axial force. Determine the natural frequencies of the string.
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.
A planar truss consisting of four sloped members and one vertical member is loaded at the upper node by means of a vertical force and an out-of-plane force. Assuming the large deformation analysis and neglecting the self-weight, determine the normal forces of the members and the out-of-plane displacement of the upper node.