MATRIX ANALYSIS OF WELDED TUBULAR JOINTS

MATRIX ANALYSIS OF WELDED TUBULAR JOINTS

A Thesis
by
B.L. Mehrotra, B.E. (Rons), M.E.
Submitted to the Facu1ty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fu1fi11ment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Phi1osophy.
cv B.L. Mehrotra 1970
McGi11 University
December 1969
DEDICATION
Tc My Wife and Parents
ii
Matrix Ana1ysis of We1ded Tubu1ar Joints
B. L. Mehrotra
Department of Civil Engineering
and App1ied Mechanics
Ph.D.
December 1969
ABSTRACT
A numerica1 procedure based on the finite e1ement method has been
deve10ped and presented in the form of a genera1 purpose computer program
which is capable of comp1ete1y ana1ysing stresses, strains and deformations
over the entire topography of any arbitrari1y configured thin-wa11ed three-
dimensiona1 structure having random static loadings, boundary conditions
and variable wall thickness, inc1uding stiffening. The method is used to
analyse joints between rectangu1ar tubu1ar members.
For symmetrica11y we1ded fu11-width connections between
rectangu1ar tubes, semi-empirica1 formu1ae are deve10ped for predictd.ng.the
joint modu1us as we11 as stresses and def1ections in the connected branches.
Another computer program is deve10ped for this purpose and is inc1uded
herein.
A two-dimensiona1 plane-stress substitute mode1 is suggested to
approximate1y depict the joint behaviour of its counterpart three-
dimensiona1 fu11-width connection in the e1astic range and is then extended
into the ine1astic range.
To verify the resu1ts, full sca1e experiments were conducted
under different loadings and boundary conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this thesis was carried out under the
direction of Prof. R.G. Redwood to whom the author wishes to express his
deepest gratitude. His guidance contributed a l r g ~ part to the
development of this study.
The author would also like to sincerely thank the following
persons and organizations for their contributions and for the help the y
have provided:
iii
Profs. L.G. Jaeger and P.J. Harris who have been a constant
Rource of encouragement and have devoted their time in fruitful discussions
and guidance;
The author's fellow graduate students whose discussions and
suggestions were greatly appreciated; special mention is due to
discussions with Dr. A.A. Mufti, who studied in association with the author,
and to J.C. Mamet.
The staff of the structures laboratory for providing help in the
fabrication and testing of the specimens;
Mrs. J. Mufti and Mr. C. Martoni for proof-reading the
manuscript; Mr. M.C. Sharma for tracing and Miss R. Then for typing.
The Computing Centre of McGill University;
The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Committee of the
Government of Canada who offered the author a doctoral scholarship;
The Regional Engineering College, Al lahabad , India who granted
the author a leave of absence for carrying out this work.
)
Chapter
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
DEDICATION
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS
SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
General Behaviour and Purpose of Study
Survey of Previous Work
Method of Solution
Scope of Investigation
MATRIX DISCRETE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
General Concepts
Deve10pment of Element Characteristics
Ana1ysis Procedure for Complete Structure
DEVELOPMENT OF A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER PROGRAH
General Description
Capability
Input
Output
Eva1uative Examp1es
SHEAR-LAG ANALYSIS OF FULL-WIDTH
General Approach and the Governing Differentia1 Equation
Solution for the Pure Moment Case
Solution for the Moment Plus Shear Case
Computer Program for Joint Modu1us and Stress Prediction
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
General Outline
Test Equipment and Specimen
Instrumentation and Testing
ANALYTIC AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
12" x 8" x 1/4" Full-Width Connection Under Pure Moment
12" x 8" x 1/4" Full-Width Connection Under Axial Load
8" x 8" x 1/4" Fu11-Width Connection Under Pure Moment
4" x 4" x 1/4" Fu11-Width Connection Under Pure Moment
Summary of Resu1ts
iv
Page
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
1
1
5
6
8
II
II
13
29
35
35
37
38
38
40
45
45
47
51
53
55
55
56
57
68
69
71
72
72
73
)
Chapter
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
8
A TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF THE CONNECTION
Basis of Deve10pment
Two-Dimensiona1 E1astic Solution
Extension in" the Ine1astic Range
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
v
Page
95
95
96
100
104
107
l Derivation of Reissner's Differentia1 Equation III
II Listing of Shear-1ag Computer Program 115
III Micro Flow Chart of General Purpose Computer Program 118
IV Listing of General Purpose Computer Program 137
V Coupon Test Resu1ts. 156
Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
ILLUSTRATIONS
We1ded Connections Between Rectangu1ar
Joint Rigidity - Length to Depth Ratio
Joint Rigidity - Length to Depth Ratio
A Typica1 Coarse Finite Element Layout
Local and Global Axes
Element at the Loaded Boundary
Idea1ization of Box Girder Bridge
Box Girder Bridge Def1ections
Box Girder Bridge Strains
Tube Idea1ization
Tubes
25
4.17
Disp1acements and Moments in Circu1ar Tube
Longitudinal In-Plane Shear Deformabi1ity of Branch F1ange-
- 8" x 8" x 1/4" FW (Pure Moment)
Fu11-Width Tubu1ar Joint (Pure Moment)
Fu11-Width Tubu1ar Joint (Moment and Shear)
Connection Under Moment and Shear Loading
Test Set up for Pure Moment on the Connection
Test Set up for Axial Load in the Branches
Fabrication Details of FW Connection
Discretization and Layout of Strain Gages
5.6 Load vs. Strain Variation of Two Symmetrica11y P1aced
Post-Yie1d Gages (Pure Moment)
vi
Page
2
3
3
13
31
33
41
41
42
44
44
46
47
51
59
60
61
62
63
64
6.1 Discretization for Axial Load Case 74
6.2 Numerica1 Experiment on a Cantilever Bearn 75
6.3 Convergence Study on Tubu1ar Connection (Pure Moment) 76
6.4 Def1ection vs. Distance Along Branch (Pure Moment) 77
6.5 Longitudinal Strain Distribution in Branch (Pure Moment) 78
6.6 Distribution of Strain in Co1umn (Pure Moment) 79
6.7 Distribution of Stress in Branch (Pure Moment) 80
6.8 Stresses in F1ange of Branch (Pure Moment) 81
6.9 Stresses in Branch Web and Co1umn Side Wall (Pure Moment) 81
6.10 Stresses on We1ded Face of Main Member (Pure Moment) 82
)
Figures
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
Distribution of Longitudinal Membrane Stress in the Branch
F1ange (Pure Moment)
Distribution of Moment Between F1anges and Webs (Pure Moment)
Distribution of Longitudinal Strain in Branch (Axial Load)
Distribution of Strain in Co1umn (Axial Load)
Distribution of Longitudinal Stress in Branch (Axial Load)
Stresses in Branch Web and Co1umn Side Wall (Axial Load)
Distribution of Load Between F1anges and Webs (Axial Load)
Z-Def1ection Vs. Distance Along Branch (Pure Moment)
Distribution of Longitudinal Membrane Stress in Branch
F1ange (Pure Moment)
Z-Def1ection Vs. Distance Along Branch (Pure Moment)
6.21 Distribution of Longitudinal Membrane Stress in Branch
F1ange (Pure Moment)
6.22
7.1
Distribution of Moment Between F1anges and Webs (Pure Moment)
Two-Dimensiona1 Mode1 of 12" x 8" x 1/4" FW Connection
7.2 Comparison of Two and Three-Dimensiona1 Solutions (Pure
7.3
7.4
1.1
Plates
5.1
5.2
5.3
Tables
1.1
3.1
7.1
7.2
V.1
Moment)
Load-Def1ection Plot for a V-Notched Tension Plate
Load Vs. Tip Def1ection of Branch (Pure Moment)
Sketch of spanwise Element of Box Beams
Test Arrangements
Details of End-Attachments
Buck1ed Co1umn Wall at Fai1ure
Design Classification
Input Data Format
Effective Width of F1anges
Joint Modu1i Prediction
Coupon Test Resu1ts
vii
Page
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
98
99
102
103
111
65
66
67
4
38
97
97
156
)
viii
SYMBOLS
Unless otherwise defined, the following symbols are used.
M
Fb

D
L or BL

FW
WW
f


N
u,v
U,V
w,ex,e
y
W,Mx,My
a

G

]
S
,.J
D

6
-
0-
'"
Q

q
H

F

F
E
G or GE
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Applied Bending Moment
Permissible Bending Stress
Rotation of the Connection
Depth of the Branch
Branch Length
Plastic Moment Capacity of the Branch
Full-Width
Less than Full-Width
Displacement Field Vector (Transposed)
Nodal Displacement Vector
Displacement Matrix Relating the Displacement Field to the
Nodal Displacement Vector
= Degrees of Freedom for Plane Stress
= Nodal Forces Corresponding to Plane Stress Degrees of Freedom
= Degrees of Freedom for Bending Action
= Nodal Forces Corresponding to Bending Degrees of Freedom
= Generalized Displacement Vector
= Matrix Relating Generalized Displacement Vector and the
Displacement Field Vector
= Strain Matrix
= Stress Matrix
= Elasticity Matrix
= Strain Vector
= Stress Vector
= Matrix Relating Strain Vector to Generalized Displacement
Vector
= Stress Distribution on a Loaded Boundary
= Transformation Matrix Relating Nodal Displacements to
Generalized Displacements
= Fictitious InternaI Load Vector
= Applied Axial Force Through the Branch
= Young's Modulus of Elasticity
= Shear Modulus of Elasticity
"' .. : :')
Est
W
T
B
NCS
NLOAD
NPOIN
NPROB
NSTART
NE LEM
NBOUN
NCOLN
NWIDTH
NFREE
NCONC
X(, )
NCARD
NOD(, )
THICK( )
R( )
NF( )
NB(, )
BV(, )
= Poisson's Ratio
= Element Stiffness Matrix in Local Coordinates
= Element Stiffness Matrix in Global Coordinat es
= Strain Hardening Modulus
= Half the Branch Width
= Thickness of the Branch Section
= Half the Width of the Unconnected Column Sides
= Number of Cross Sections Along the Branch
= 0 for Pure Moment Case
= l for Moment Plus Shear
ix
= Total Number of Nodal Points in the Structure (in the Finite
Element Program) or Total Number of Nodal Points Across the
Width of the Branch Flange (in the Shear-Lag Programme)
= Total Number of Problems to be solved
= Total Number of Partitions of the Structure
= Total Number of Elements in the Structure
= Total Number of Points with Prescribed Displacements
= Total Number of Different Loadings
= Total Admissible Band Width Commensurate with 'DIMENSIONS'
= Total Number of Degrees of Freedom
= Total Number of Concentrated Load Points Per Loading
= Coordinates of a Nodal Point in the Global System
(X
G
, yG, zG) respectively
= Total Number of Cards in a Do Loop
= Nodal Point Numbers of an Element
= Thickness of an Element
= 0 For Clockwise Counting of Element Nodes
= l For Counter Clockwise Counting of Element Nodes
= Number of a Nodal Point with Prescribed Displacements
= 0 For Displacements Not Allowed
= l For Displacements Allowed
= Magnitude of Prescribed Displacements
NSTART() = Number Pertaining to First Element in a Particular Partition
NEND( ) = Number Pertaining to Last Nodal Point in a Particular
Partition
K
= Nodal Point Number Where Concentrated Load is Prescribed
x
U(, ) = Magnitude of Concentrated Load (Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz)
] Denotes a Matrix
{ }
Denotes a Vector
(
Denotes 'READ' Statement
Denotes 'WRITE' Statement
Denotes 'IF' Statement
< >
Denotes 'DO' Loop
Denotes ASSIGNMENT
o
Denotes 'GO TO' Statement
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Behaviour and Purpose of Study
A we1ded joint between tubu1ar members constitutes a comp1ex
three-dimensiona1 intersecting she11 structure in which the wa11s are
loaded by both membrane and local bending stress resu1tants. The complete
static stress ana1ysis of such a structure having variable thickness of
wa11s, with or without stiffening plates, with arbitrary loadings and
boundary conditions is beyond the scope of existing c1assica1 methods.
Persistent attempts towards a theoretica1 solution have fa11en short of
providing a satisfactory method for the determination of the joint
modu1us, stresses and deformations in such connections. The purpose of
the investigation described in this thesis is to give a numerica1
procedure for solving these prob1ems.
From the aesthetic and economic viewpoint, a significant
deve10pment in structural ro11ing has been the recent manufacture of
Rectangu1ar Ho11ow Sectioned tubes (RHS). They provide outstanding
strength in proportion to their weight, especia11y under compressive and
torsiona1 loading as we11 as mu1ti-directiona1 bending, besides having
other advantages. Their use in Vierendee1 girders, articu1ated she11s,
space frames, building trusses and co1umns is becoming more and more
cornmon, and this trend has resu1ted in the standardization of sizes and
the avai1abi1ity of 1arger sections.
A1though there is a wea1th of information avai1ab1e, most1y
experimenta1, regarding the structural behaviour of junctions between
) wide-f1ange (WF) shapes as we11 as between circu1ar sections, 1itt1e is
known about the behaviour of connections between RHS tubes. In this
2
investigation, therefore, particular attention is concentrated on the
analytical and experimental study of joints between the latter.
These connections, on the basis of their structural behaviour,
can be divided into two categories; full-width (FW) connections and less
than full-width (LFW) connections, as shown in Fig. 1.1.
MAIN MEMBER
BRANCH
(a) FULL-WIDTH (FW) (b) LESS TRAN FULL-WIDTH (LFW)
FIG. 1.1 WELDED CONNECTIONS BETWEEN RECTANGULAR TUBES
While the first type of connection provides a load transfer from
the branch member to the main member predominantly by membrane action in
the planes of the webs, the latter type can be treated primarily as a
plate bending problem [1]. Both types of connections are basically semi-
rigid.The former type, however, will have a larger rigidity in most
practical situations and would be expected to act almost as a rigid
connection.
The rigidity as viewed from Batho's beam-line concept depends on
the joint modulus of the connection as well as on the type of loading,
span of the branch, its moment of inertia, and the material properties.
For instance, as shown in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3, a 4" x 4" X 1/4
11
RHS tube
welded to a column member of the same size may give a less rigid joint
than one consisting of a 12" x 8" x 1/4" tube welded to an 8" x 8" x 1/4"
-. 8
N
o
r-l
8
-.
N
0
r-l
>::
::r.:

Z
H
4
Pol
H

'-"


o
3
Fb = 23 KSI
J = 80 x 10
4
KIP INCH/RAD. (12" x 8" x 1/4" FW)
12" x 8"x i1/4" RHS
J = 6 x 10
4
KIP INCH/RAD.
(4" x 4" X 1/4"
FW)
BEAM;..LINE 4" x 4" X 1/4"
RHS
4 16 20
FIG. 1.2 JOINT RIGIDITY - LENGTH Ta DEPTH RATIO 25
J = 80 x KIP INCH/RAD.
F = 23 KSI
b
J = 6 x BEAM-Llt-."TE 4" x 4" x
______ Rlffi
o 8 32
FIG. 1. JOINT RIGIDITY - I.ENGTH Ta DEPTH RATIO 4.167
4
column member, when different lengths are used. This type of behaviour,
in which the former seemingly more rigid joint is actually less rigid, and
in which the same joint between the same sections may show different
rigidity values with different branch lengths, makes it evident that the
rigidity of the connection is not a fundamental characteristic of a given
joint, but depicts the behaviour of the entire assembly. The joint
modulus on the other hand is the basic property of a joint, irrespective
of the branch lengths.
The divergence from complete rigidity in full-width welded
connections occurs because of the deformation of the column faces as weIl
as the in-plane shear deformability of the branch member flanges near the
junction. In fact, the latter is a consequence of the column wall
deformation and this therefore is the basic reason for the joint
flexibility. Less than full-width connections produce relatively large
column wall deformation and are, therefore, less rigid than full-width
connections.
In North America, both the American Institute of Steel
Construction [2] and the National Building Code of Canada [3], permit three
methods of elastic design in steel construction. These are classified on
the basis of joint behaviour as follows [4]:
Description Classification Restraint (R)
Fully rigid Type 1 above approx. 90%
Simple or Conventional Type 2 below approx. 20%
Semi-rigid Type 3 between 20% and 90% approx.
Table 1.1 Design Classification
Here the degree of restraint (R) is defined by Batho's beam-1ine
and the joint modu1us of the connection. This is i11ustrated in Figs. 1.2
and 1.3 by the point of intersection between the beam-1ine and the moment-
rotation curve of the connection.
5
Types 1 and 2 are more commonly used but type 3 is more realistic
[5,6,7,8,9]. The limited use of type 3 design even in the case of wide-
flange sections is essentially due to the lack of basic information about
the joint, namely its joint This is a pre-requisite for a semi-
rigid analysis. Until now this joint characteristicwas determined
experimentally, with no theoretical ana1ysis avai1ab1e for its prediction.
1.2 Survey of Previous Work
Very 1itt1e work has been reported on the fundamental behaviour
of joints between RHS tubes. A research project on riveted beam-to-column
connections between WF beams and RHS co1umns was carried out at Corne11
University [10] and another investigation at Bristol [11,12], Eng1and has
been reported in which tubu1ar branches were we1ded to the faces of much
wider tubular co1umns. Both projects were concerned with experimenta1
investigation as weIl as approximate two-dimensiona1 analyses emp10ying
finite difference techniques. In addition, experimental work on truss
joints was carried out at Sheffield, England and Stuttgart, Germany, under
the auspices of the Comit International pour l'Etude et le Dveloppement
de la Construction Tubulaire [13] (CIDECT). Drexel Institute of Technology,
in Philadelphia is currently engaged in investigating certain connections
between such sections. Stewarts and Lloyds have conducted a series of
tests on RHS welded joints at Corby, England. The Architectural Institute
of Japan [14] has also reported test results on welded truss joints between
such sections.
\
1
6
On the theoretical side, Redwood's [1] finite difference approach
seems to be the first attempt towards the analytic prediction of joint
behaviour. Because of its nature, however, the finite difference method
demands simplifying assumptions in reducing the problem to that of plate
bending, with additional assumptions regarding loading and boundary
conditions. Thus, the method remains useful only for cases where branches
of small cross section are welded to much wider column faces. The
determination of peak stresses at the corners of the branches near the
junction remains beyond the scope of this analysis.
White [15] has reported sorne results of the tests, conducted at
Cornell University, on full-width connections between RHS tubes and has
obtained a rather low stiffness value. Lack of information on the
fundamental behaviour of these joints appears to have led the use of an
experimental model in which the load transfer from the branch to the main
member was assumed to be similar to the case of wide flange connections,
where a major part of the load goes through the flanges. This load
transfer, as will be shown in chapters 6 and 7, occurs in a completely
different manner in the case of full-width connections between rectangular
tubes.
1.3 Method of Solution
It has been indicated that the complexity of the problem places
it beyond the scope of the existing classical methods of analysis. Even
the finite difference method is not satisfactory because of its need for
the availability of a governing differential equation. This restriction is
more stringent wh en many other parameters such as arbitrary loadings,
boundary conditions and variable wall thickness, etc., have to be accounted
7
for. In order to obtain a complete stress and deformation pattern over the
entire topography of the tubu1ar connection, no other existing approach but
the one based on the matrix method of discrete e1ement ana1ysis can be
emp1oyed. The method, in brief, idea1izes a continuum into a system of
discrete e1ements interconnected at nodal points, where the conditions of
equi1ibrium give rise to as many simu1taneous algebraic equations as the
number of unknown degrees of freedom. The solution of these equations
yields unknown disp1acements, and thence the stresses and strains in each
element. The number of equations for the type of structure under
consideration will be large and cannot be hand1ed without a 1arge-memory
e1ectronic digital computer.
The theoretica1 conceptua1 basis of the matrix method of
discretization can be attributed to the original deve10pments of
Maxwell [16] and Castig1iano [17]. These deve10pments were restricted to
framed structures which were comprised of 1inear one-dimensiona1 e1ements
on1y. The systematization of the framed structure prob1em into the
solution of simu1taneous a1gebraic equations of equi1ibrium at the joints
appeared in the ear1y part of 20th century under the name of the slope-
def1ection method. This was due to Maney [18] and Ostenfe1d [19]. But its
potentia1ity could not be fu11y used in the absence of adequate means for
solving large numbers ~ simultaneous equations.
With the availabi1ity of the digital computer, the above basic
concepts led to the deve1opment, in the 1ate fifties, of a more genera1
direct stiffness method. In this, the stiffness characteristics of a two-
dimensional plate e1ement in plane-stress were introduced and a method of
analysis of two-dimensiona1 continua suggested. This work was simu1taneously
carried out by Turner et al [20] in the U.S.A. and Argyris [21] in Eng1and.
8
The method, since then, has taken large strides to encompass practically
all fields of continuum mechanics. In the present work, the finite element
technique is the chief method of analysis employed.
A shear-lag analysis employing Reissner's [22] differential
equation is also used for the case of symmetrical full-width beam-to-column
welded connections. This analysis was made possible from the insight given
by the discrete element solution and has led to the development of
approximate formulae for predicting the joint moduli, stresses and
deflections of the branches.
1.4 Scope of Investigation
The scope of the investigation is defined in the following brief
review of the contents of this thesis.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the development of the element
characteristics used in the discrete element analysis. A modified cubic
function for bending is proposed and the explicit forms of all the matrices
used are derived, along with the description of the overall method of
analysis.
Chapter 3 explains the development of a general computer program
for the elastic analysis of any three-dimensional plate structure. Because
any RHS tubular joint configuration may realistically be idealized by flat
plate surfaces, a flat triangular element capable of discretizing any of
these was chosen. Since the subject problem generally involves complex
geometry and stress concentrations, simple elements with fine
discretization were preferred to more sophisticated ones [23,26,50]. Thus
flat plate elements with a linear membrane field [20] and a modified cubic
function [24] for bending were employed in the original development of the
)
9
program 1isted herein. An initial attempt to analyse the joints using a
two-dimensiona1 idea1isation necessitated the deve10pment of a plane stress
program [25] which was a corrected, modified and comp1eted version of one
given e1sewhere [26]. The program given in Reference [25] served as the
basis for the deve10pment of the genera1 three-dimensiona1 program which
was la ter expanded to hand1e orthotropic materia1 properties as reported in
Reference [27]. Later modification to inc1ude an alternative conformab1e
bending field invo1ving a set of 1inear functions [28,29] is reported in
References [30,31,32]. The listing of the genera1 program as we11 as a
f10w chart are given in Appendices III and IV.
Chapter 4 gives a shear-1ag ana1ysis of fu11-width beam-to-co1urnn
connections and shows the deve10pment of approximate formu1ae for
predicting the joint behaviour. Two cases of common occurrence are dea1t
with. The first one concerns a pure moment acting on the branch and the
second, a moment together with transverse shear. By verification with the
finite e1ement three-dimensiona1 solutions and the experimenta1 resu1ts,
it is demonstrated that the proposed formu1ae can be convenient1y used for
predicting the joint modu1us, branch stresses and deformations. For this
purpose another computer program was deve10ped and is 1isted in Appendix II.
In Chapter 5 full sca1e ,experimenta1 tests are described. The
specimen chosen was a fu11-width beam-to-co1urnn symmetrica1 connection
which cou1d be convenient1y used for two different types of 10adings and
boundary conditions, that is, pure moment on the branches and axial thrust
through them. Both cases can be ana1ysed in a single run of the computer
program emp10ying three fo1d symmetry.
Chapter 6 gives a comparison of ana1ytica1 resu1ts for a wide
range of fu11-width connections, and inc1udes those obtained experimenta11y
10
in Chapter 5.
In Chapter 7 the basis of the development of a two-dimensional
model of a full-width beam-to-column configuration is suggested. This model
is then used for the analysis of its three-dimensional counterpart. The
predicted joint modulus and deflections are compared with the three-
dimensional solutions as weIl as with the experimental results and the
shear-Iag analysis. Good agreement is demonstrated. An approximate
extension into the inelastic range is also outlined. The previously
reported plane-stress program [25] is modified to handle the two-dimensional
model of the connection in the elasto-plastic range. This elasto-plastic
plane-stress program has been reported in Reference [33].
Although the general program was developed for the complete
elastic analysis of any welded tubular joint under static loading, only
RHS full-width beam-to-column configurations are dealt with in detail. The
problems of buckling and of the complete inelastic behaviour are considered
as potential avenues for further work.
Il
)
2. MATRIX DISCRETE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
2.1 General
Out of the three types of numerica1 methods common1y emp10yed
for hand1ing an e1asticity prob1em in continuum mechanics, name1y the
energy methods, the finite difference method and the finite e1ement method,
the 1ast, by far, is the most recent and the most powerfu1. This method
emp10ys a physica1 approximation, in as much as the actua1 continuum is
substituted by a modified structural system, but no approximation in the
mathematica1 ana1ysis of the substitute system is necessary. This feature
physica11y distinguishes the finite e1ement technique from the finite dif-
ference method in which the exact differentia1 equation of the actua1
physica1 system is solved by approximate mathematica1 procedures. In the
energy methods, instead of solving the differentia1 equation governing the
prob1em, one seeks a solution which will minimize an energy expression and
thereby avoid the mathematica1 difficu1ty in the solution of such equations.
In the ana1ysis of a tubu1ar connection, the in-plane and bending
components of forces and disp1acements must be considered. Since the
ana1ysis will be restricted to thin f1at e1ements with sma11 disp1acements,
the coup1ing of bending and membrane action is e1iminated and a separate
treatment for the two actions is possible. As indicated before, the present
ana1ysis incorporates a constant strain membrane triangle [20] and two a1ter-
native bending fields. The first is a nonconforming disp1acement function
which emp10ys a full cubic polynomial and is reduced to nine terms by
specifying a 1inear combination of the
2 2
x y and xy terms. This genera1
form [24] inc1udes many different cubic combinations obtained by a1tering
12
the values of the coefficients P and Q of
2 2
x y and xy terms. Two
weIl known functions available by this type of choice of p and Q
are Tocher's [34] and Gallagher's [35] cubic functions. The explicit
forros of the element properties as given in the derivations for this
modified cubic field are directly applicable to many alternative choices.
The weIl known singularity problem associated with Tocher's function is
easily avoided by this modified form, as will be discussed in Chapter 3.
Evidently, the cubic bending displacement field combined with
a linear membrane field will produce discontinuities across element
boundaries for a tubular joint. Although, the discontinuities may not
necessarily slow down the convergence with refined mesh size when com-
pared with the so-called conformable fields, [23,26,31,36,37,38] it was
considered desirable to check the results with both types of functions -
conformable and nonconformable. A conformable field, which at the same
time provides continuity between non co-planar elements has, therefore,
been included in this analysis. This is a set of linear functions ori-
ginally proposed by Melosh [28] and later used by Utku [29] and Melosh [39]
for fIat plate and shallow shell problems, using 5 degrees of freedom.
These functions are made to satisfy macroscopic equilibrium, but only
approximate the deformation state corresponding to bending and shear
stress acting over the element. This is elaborated further during the
derivations.
13
2.2 Development of Element Characteristic&
zG
t
.. X

G
FIG. 2. 1 A TYPICAL COARSE FINITE ELEMENT LA YOUT
A typical finite element is defined in Fig. 2.1 by nodes
1,2,3 and its straight line boundaries. The axes form a right handed
system. The local axes have their origin at node 1. The x axis is paral-
lel to side 1,2 and the z axis is perpendicular to the plane of the
element. In the following pages a general development for the subject
case with particular reference to membrane action is outlined. Bending
action is treated subsequently.
2.2.1 General Development
Displacement Function:
f;P N'P
0
oP
-
"'"
r-
e
Ne oe
(2.1) f (x ,y)
=
fb
= =
rv r--
'"'-
Nb
ob
0
,..., r""
14
where superscript 'e' stands for lement, 'p' represents plane-stress
and 'b', bending action. A tilde underscore is used to indicate a
matrix besides usual bracket notations.
{:} [:
x y 0
fP (x ,y) =
=
;'V
0 0 1
and the subsequent matrix re lat im sare

P
.......
P
ex
,..,
=
=
fP (x y)=
,." ,
Strain Matrix:

P
.... 1

P =
HP exP
where
'""
,...,
,..,2

P
,..3
GP[HP]-l
P
=
NP
P
.... ,.., ..., ,....
~
:]
0
x
~ =
~
e
{:: }=
Be

e
[:p
;J
E = =
,.J ,.... ....,
For membrane act ion,
P
= B
P

P

,..,
'"
......
where
E
P
dU/dX
x
E
P
=
P
=
dV/dY
'"
E
Y
dU dV
P
dY
+
dX
E
xy
p
exl
=
GPex
P
(2.2)
,.., ,....
P
ex
6
,
{ : ~ } ,
i= 1,2,3 (2.3)
(2.4)
(2.4a)
1:: 1
(2.5)
(2.6)
(2.6a)
15
D
'il.'
QP a,P
=
(2.6b)
'"
,...
=
QPCHP]-l
...., ,...
El
'"
(2.6c)
B
P
is defined as the strain matrix and is given below in the explicit
,..J
form
-y
3
0
Y3
0 0 0
1
0 x
32
0 -x 0 x
2
(2.6d)
B
P
=
3
""
2 x Area
0 x
32
-y -x
Y
3
x
2 3 3
Here
x.. = x. - x. , i = 1,2,3; j = l,2,3
~ J ~ J
Area
1
= '2 x
2
Y
3
= A.
These notations shall apply in subsequent sections
also unless otherwise defined.
Stress Matrix:
e
=
{ ~ }
Dee
[ ~ P
~
{ ~ }
cr = =
,.., ,..,
(2. 7)
For membrane action
l =
D
P p
.-J "-
""
(2.8)
where
cr
P
D
P
D
P
0
x x 1
~
~
=
D
P
D
P
0
p
=
l'J
1 y
(2.8a)
0 0
P
D
l2
).
)
For an isotropie materia1
Eqs. (2.6)
cl
'"
= YD
P
x
G
xy
and (2.8)
=
D
P
B
P

,.., .....,
--
=
sP
,..,

yie1d,
16
(2.8b)
(2.9)
(2.9a)
where
sP
is defined as the stress matrix and is given be10w in
'"
the exp1icit form
o
o
Stiffness Matrix:
In genera1,the Hcti tious equiva1ent nodal forces
stiffness matrix K
e
are defined by
......
xe = {;:} = l = [:p :J
If 1s't
e
is some virtual nodal displacement vector, then
and
(X,y}e = {2v} e
(2.9b)
o
Fe and the
""
(2.10)
(2.11)
(2.12)
The work done by the nodal forces during this virtua1 disp1acement
will be
R
2
V}JT
Fe
(2.13)
...,
and the interna1 work done per unit volume is
e
cr
,..;
17
(2.14)
Equating the externa1 work to the total interna1 work, by integrating
over tvo1ume, yie1ds
J
(2.15 )
Vol
This equation is true for any virtua1 disp1acement, therefore
cre d (vol) =
....
(2.15a)
Rence the e1ement stiffness matrix is expressedby
= J
(2.16)
Vol
In expanded form, more convenient for computation,
K
e
~ e -lf [ Tee J e-
1
(2.16a) = (g ) J [g,e] E 9. d (vol) ~ ] ,...
Vol
For membrane action
u.
~
F
P =
1,2,3 i =
.... i
V.
~
and for constant thickness t of the e1ement, Eq. (2.16) gives
T
K
P
= J J
[B
P
] DPB
P
t dxdy
,.., ,.., ,y ..,
(2.17)
A
which reduces, for the assumed 1inear field, to
K
P
T
=
[B
P
] DPB
P
t A .
..... ,y ..... "'V
(2.17a)
This e1ement stiffness matrix, in theeKp1icit form, for the
assumed choice of local axes is given by Eq. (2.17b).
P 2 P 2
D
x
Y3+
D
12 (x
3
-x
2
)
-(Di2+
D
i)y
3
(X
3
-X
2
)
P 2 P
D
12
y
3
+D
y
. (x
3
-x
2
)
2
Symmetric
P 2 P
-DxY3-D12x3(x3-x2) Di2X3Y3+DiY3(x3-x2)
P 2 P 2
+DxY3+D12x3
K
P
= !.-.
P P P 2 P
P p)
P 2 P 2
.-J 4A
D1x3Y3+D12(x3-x2)Y3 -D12Y3-Dy(x3-x2)x3
-(D
12
+D
1
x
3
Y
3
D
12
Y
3
+D
y
X
3
Di2(x
3
-x
2
)x
2
P
-D
12
y
3
x
2
P
-D
12
x
2
Y3
P
D
12
y
3
x
2
P
-D
1
Y
3
x
2
Dy(x
3
-x
2
)x
2
P
D
1
y
3
x
2
P
-Dy
X
3
X
2
Membrane Stiffness Matrix K
P
Corresponding to 8 P
""
P 2
D
12
x
2
0
D
P
2
y
X
2
(2.170)
.....
00
19
2.2.2 Bending Action
As indicated previously two alternative functions, one non-
conformable and the other conformable, have been used. The element
characteristics are derived below:
2.2.2a Nonconformable Field
Displacement Function:
b
f (x,y) = w(x,y)
=
,..
=
The displacement vector

b
..,
where

b
-1
=
b
,..2

b
"'3
= '
Qy.

=
[1 x y x
2
xy y
2
x
3
px
2
y + Qxy2
y
3] ab
G
b
ab
...., ...,
is:
Rb ab
-' ....
CM
(dY ) .

i = 1,2,3
(2.18)
(2.l8a)
(2.19)
(2.l9a)
The transverse displacements are taken as positive in the
positive direction of the local z axis and the rotation vectors
Q
x
and Q are positive in the opposite direction of the local x and y
y
axes. The element axes are the same as for the membrane case.
b
a
;v
b
f (x,y)
,...,
Eqs. (2.19) and (2.l8a) yield
=
= =
(2.20)
(2.20a)
20
Strain Matrix:
The substitution of curvatures for strains and internaI
moments for stresses has been found to be more convenient in the
present derivation. Cartesian strains and stresses at extreme fibres
are obtained by the following relationships.
Cartesian Strains:
b Z t
d
2
W/}x2
Y
x
= = -
R 2
x
b Z t
d
2
W/dy2
Y
y
= = -
R 2
Y
(2.21)
b
2Z 2
Y
xy
=
=
t
d W/dXdY
R
xy
Cartesian Stresses:
b
6M /t
2
't"
=
x y
b
6M /t
2
't" =
Y
x
b
6M /t
2
't"
=
xy xy
(2.22)
The strain vector is then defined as
b
d
2
W/dX
2

x
b b
d
2
W/dy2
=
=
'"
y
(2.23)
b 2
2 d W/dXdY
xy
Qb
b
= ex
,... IV
=
Qb
[H
b
r
1

b
'"
rv rv
(2.23a)
=
B
b

b
,... ,... (2.23b)
where B
b
is the strain matrix
,...
)
)
In explicit form,
[ ~
0 0 -2 0 0 -6x -2Py
b
0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2Qx
Q
=
,..,
0 0 0 2 0 0 4(PX+Qy)
and
Rb
is easily obtained from Eq. (2.19.) .
,..,
Stress Matrix:
The stress vector is defined as
where
Eqs.
b
cr
=
,.,
Db
is
,..,
(2.23b)
b
cr =
N
cr
cr
cr
the
and
b
M
x y
b
M =
y x
b
M
xy xy
Db
b
= E
~ ....
elasticity matrix for bend ing and
b t
3
D
P
D =
12
"'"
(2.24a) give
=
- ~ ~
is given by
where Sb is the stress matrix, whose numerical value is readily
....,
obtained by the computer.
Stiffness Matrix:
For bending action, the equivalent nodal forces are
F ~ =
. . . ~
w.
~
M
xi
M
yi
i = 1,2,3
21
(2.23c)
(2.24)
(2.24a)
(2.24b)
(2.25)
(2.26)
)
22
Emp10ying the same procedure as in the plane-stress case
b -1 T b T b b b -1
= ([H] ) (1 1 (Q) D Q dxdy) (H )
i"V _ 'V,.., ,-.J
(2.27)
b -1 T
= ([H] )
-
(2.27a)
The non-zero terms of the 9 x 9 matrix A have been exp1icit1y
,..,
derived and may be found in Eq. (2.29). The fo11owing re1ationships
are applicable for this choice of local coordinate system.
II
dxdy =
A
II y
dxdy
=
1 2
6" Y3
x
2
A
II y
2
dxdy
=
A
II
x dxdy
1
(x
2
+x
3
)
(2.28)
=
'6 Y3
x
2
A
II
2
dxdy x
1 2 2
=
12 Y3
x
2
(x
2
+x
2
x
3
+x
3
)
A
II xy dxdy
1 2
(x
2
+2x
3
) =
24 x
2
Y
3
A
At this stage, the numerica1 value of !b may be readi1y obtained
using the Eqs. (2.29) and (2.27a).
A44
b
=
2D
2
Y3
x
2
ASS
b
=
2D
12
Y3
x
2
A64
=
b
2D
1
Y3
x
2
b
A66
=
2D
2
Y3
x
2
b
A74
=
2D2Y3x2(x2+x3)
b
A76
=
2D1Y3x2(x2+x3)
An
AS4
AS5
AS6
23
b 2 2
3D2Y3x2(x2+x2x3+x3)
2 b b
= 3 x2Y3[D2PY3+DIQ(x2+x3)]
4 b
= 3 DI2Y3x2(P(x2+x3)+QY3)
2 b b
= 3 y3x2 [Dl Py3+
D
2Q(x
2
+x
3
)]
l b b 2 2
= 2 x2Y3[D2Py3(x2+2x3)+2DIQ(x2+x2x3+x3)]
AS7
ASS
AS9
l b 2 b 2 2 b 2 b 2 2 2 b b
= 3 x
2
Y3[(D
2
P +4D
12
Q )y
3
+(D
2
Q +4D12P )(x2+x2x3+x3)+(DI+4DI2)(PQY3(x2+2}
= X Y 2 b 2 b 2 2 2 b 2 b 2 b b
~ [y
3
(D
2
P +4D
12
Q )+(x
2
+x
2
x
3
+x
3
) (D
2
Q +4D12P )+Y3PQ(DI+4DI2)(x2+2x3)
3
b 2
= 2D
I
y
3
x
2
b 2
= 2D
I
y
3
x
2
(2.2
1
3 b 2
= 2 Dlx2Y3(x2+2x3)
l 2 b b
= 2 x
2
Y3 [2DIPY3+D2Q(x2+2x3) ]
b 3
= 3D
2
y
3
x
2
a nd A.. = A.. for i = l, 9 and j = l, 9 .
1.J JI.
2.Z.2b. Conformable Field:
In the following development, bening deformations are considered
as consisting of flexure as weIl as transverse shear deformations; thus,
new superscripts are introduced. Superscript's 1 stands for shear action,
'f; for flexure, and 'm'denotes the overall moment action which includes
both flexure as weIl as transverse shear action. The choice of local
axes is the same as before. The positive e and e rotation vectors
x y
are in this case oriented along the positive local axes.
DisElacement Function:
{ ~ }
(:;)
U
x y 0 0 0 0 0
~ J ~ m
m
f (x,y) = = =
0 0 l x y 0 0 (2.30)
rJ
0 0 0 0 0 l x
24
)
G
m
a
m
(2.31) =
,.. ,..
= s
Q ~
{ ::} G
f
(2.31a)
""
Then,
OS
=
j ~ }
=
H
S
s
(2.32)
,.,
,.., a
t w3
,...
s
[H
S
(l OS
(2.32a)
Cl! =
r' '" N
and
of
"'1
of
=
of
=
Hf a
f
(2.33)
.v ..... 2
,... ""
of
.... 3
where
of
=
{:::}
i =
1,2,3 (2.33a)
..... i
f
f -1
of
(2.3lb)
a
[H ]
'"
,.;
,..
S
-1
OS N
S
OS
f (x,y) = G
S
( H
S
) = (2.34)
,., .... ,., ,.;
..., ,.,
and f
-1
of Nf of
f (x,y)
Gf(H
f
)
=
(2.35)
,..,
..., ,.,
,..; ,.. ,.,.
Strain Matrix:
The strain vector consists of curvature and twist terms for
the f1exura1 part, and of cartesian strains for transverse shear.
Thus
)
)
25
f
f
d
2
W/X
2
de /dX
N
x y
f
d
2
W/dy2
-deX/dy

y
m
f
2 deX
~
=
=

=
2d w/dxdy
~
dx -
(2.36)
'"
xy
s dw
+
Gy'
dw
+
g,

dx dX xz -y
s
dW dw
S
dy
Qx
dy
ex
'"

yz
f
Qf cl
Qf [Hf] -1 ,f
(2.36a)
=
"'"
,..;
""
"" '" -v
=
B
f
~
'" ,..J
(2.36b)
B
f
,..,
is the strain matrix for flexura1 strains and reads:
0
-y
3
0
Y3

0
B
f 1
0 0 0
(2.36c) =
x
23
x
3
-x
,..,
2A 2
-Y3
x
23
Y3
x;3
0 -x
2
Stress Matrix:
As the f1exura1 stresses on1y are needed for the present stress
ana1ysis, the stress vector is expressed as:
f
a
x
f f
a
a
,y
y
f
a
xy
=
M
Y
M
x
M
xy
f f
D
'" ....
(2.37)
where Qf is the e1asticity matrix for flexure and is given by Eq.(2.24b).
Eqs .. (2.36b) and (2.37) give
a
f
= D
f
B
f

f
= Sf
f
(2.37a)
,.., l''V''''''''' ,-.,J ""
where Sf is the stress matrix for f1exura1 stresses and is given
be10w in the exp1icit form
26
b b b b b
0

D
1
x
23
-D y D
1
X
3
D
x
Y3
-D
1
X
2 x 3
f 1 b b b b b
0
s: =
DyX23
-D
1
Y3
Dy
X
3 D
1
Y3
-D x
(2.38)
'""
2A Y 2
b
-D
12
Y3
b
D
12
x
23
b
D
12
Y3
b
D
12
Xt.3
0
b
-D
12
x
2
Stiffness Matrix:'
For f1exura1 action, the equiva1ent nodal forces are
M.
=
Xl.'
i = 1,2,3 (2.39)
Fo11owing the same procedure as for the plane stress case, the f1exura1
stiffness matrix in the exp1icit form is given by Eq. (2.40).
The contribution to the overa11 bending stiffness matrix due
to transverse shear deformations is provided by a shearing stiffness
matrix which will be obtained by a procedure simi1ar to the one for membrane
and bending action. However, the assumption of a 1inear distribution for
rotations resu1ts in a constant bending moment which imp1ies a state of
zero transverse shear. The assumption of constant transverse shear
requires ,a quadratically varying distribution of rotations or a cubic
distribution of transverse disp1acement. These incompatibi1ities in the set
of 1inear fields have not been satisfactori1y exp1ained by either Me10sh
or Utku. The shear stiffness matrix, thus derived does not satisfy the
overa11 equi1ibrium of the e1ement. An approximate method of assigning
unba1anced moments to adjacent nodes, proposed by Utku [29], has been
found'to give good resu1ts. This technique is known as an equi1ibrium
a1gorithm. Details are given in References [29,32]. On1y the exp1icit
form of the shear stiffness matrix is given here by Equation 2.41. The
\..:J
b 2 b 2
D
y
(x
3
-x
2
) +D
12
Y
3
b b
(x
3
-x
2
) (D
1
+D
12
)Y3
b 2 b 2
DxY3+D12(x3-x2)
symmetric
b b 2
-Dy(x3-x2)x3-D12Y3
b b b 2 b 2
-Dlx3Y3-D12(x3-x2)Y3 DyX3+D12Y3
K
f
= 1:....
b b b 2 b b b b 2 b 2
,.... 4A
-Dl(x3-x2)Y3-D12Y3x3 -DxY3-D12(x3-x2)x3 Dlx3Y3+D12x3Y3 DxY3+D12x3
b
D
y
x
2
(x
3
-x
2
)
b
+D
1
x
2
Y
3
b
-Dy
X
3
X
2
b
-D
1
X
2
Y2
b
D
12
y
3
x
2
b
D12x2(x3-x2)
b
-D
12
y
3
x
2
b
-D
12
x
2
x
3
Flexural Stiffness Matrix K
f
corresponding to
f
,-.J ,..,
Db 2
y
X
2
0
b 2
D
12
x
2
(2.40)
N
'-1
s 1
K =-
4A
f
11
1
-"2
f
31
Y
3
1 2
-4
f
31
Y
3
1 1
"2
f
21
x
2+
f
31
x
3 4f31x3Y3
122
-4(f21x2+f31x3)
f
21
0
1
-"2
f
21
x
2
f
22
Symm.etric
0
0 0
1
-"2
f
32
Y
3
1 2
-4
f
32
Y
3
1
0
1 2
1 "2
f
21
x
2
-4
f
21
x
2
1 1 1 2 2
"2(f32x32-f21x2) -4
f
32
x
23
Y
3 -4
f
21
x
2+
f
32
x
32)
(2.41)
f
31
1
1
"2
f
31
Y
3
-"2
f
31
x
3
f
32
1 1
f33
"2
f
32
Y
3 "2
f
32
x
23
1
If 2
1
-"2
f
31
Y
3 -4 31
Y
3 4
f
31
Y
3
x
3
1 1 2 1 1 i 1 2 2
-"2
f
32
Y
3 -4
f
32
Y
3 -4
f
32
x
23
Y
3
"2(31
Y
3+
f
23
Y
3) -4(f31Y3+f32Y3)
1 1 1 2
"2
f
31
x
3 l;:f31
x
3
Y
3
-4
f
31
x
3
1 1 1 2 1 1
"2
f
32
x
32
Lj:f32x32Y3 -4
f
32
x
32
-"2(f31x3+f32x32)4(f31x3+f32x32)Y3-
122
where -4(f31x3+f32x32 )
_ p 2 2 _ p 2 _ p 2 2 _ p _ p _ p 2
f11-D12(Y3+x32)' f
21
- -D12(Y3-x3x32)' f
22
- D
12
(y
3
+x
3
), f
31
- D12(x32x2)' f
32
- -D
12
x
3
x
2
, f33 - D
12
x
2
Shearing Stiffness Matrix K
S
Corresponding to w
1
, 6
x1
,e
y1
etc
l'V
())
f s
overa11 stiffness matrix in bending will be the a1gebraic sum K + K
,.., ,y
and will be a 9 x 9 matrix.
2.3 Ana1ysis Procedure for Complete Structure:

-1
29
The is achieved by determining the stiffness properties
of the individua1 plate e1ements which are then suitab1y added, after trans-
formation, to generate the overa11 structure stiffness matrix. The simu1-
taneous solution of the nodal point equi1ibrium equation yie1ds the value
of the unknown nodal disp1acements. After transformation, these disp1ace-
ments are used in conjunction with the stress and strain matrices of each
individua1 e1ement to yie1d the stresses and strairu at the desired points.
The ll:e:1evant . matrices and procedure mentioned above at:e discussed be1ow.
Plate Element Stiffness and Stress Matrices:
The 1ayout of the 18 x 18 stiffness matrix and the 6 x 18 stress
"1
matrix are given by Eqs. (2.42) and (2.43) respective1y.
Plate Element Transformation Matrix:
Since the disp1acements at each node of an e1ement consist of
one translation vector and one rotation vector, each having three com-
ponents, two arrays of direction cosines are required at each node. The
same ho1ds true for force and moment vectors. Thus the e1ement transfor-
mation matrix is
. 0
...,
'"
.
T
.
(2.44) =
,..
,..,
.
,.,
;\.

0 .
...- ,..
where . is an array of direction cosines.
,..,
The geometry of a discretized structure is defined by the ortho-
gona1 cartesian coordinates of its nodal points in the global system of
axes xG, yG, ZG as shown in Fig. 2.2.
M
x2
M
y2
M
z2
U
3
V
3
W
3
M
x3
My3
M
z3
b
cr
y
b
cr
xy
=
=
P kP
k
n
12
o
,..
P kP
k
41
42
9
P kP
k
51
52
o
,..J
P P
8
n
8
12
P P
8
21
8
22
P P
8
31
8
32
o
,...,
o
,.,
o
....,
o
."
o
rv
b b b
8
n
8
12
8
13
b b b
821822823
b b b
831832833
1
P P
8
13
8
14
1 P P
1
8
23
8
24
18
P
8
P
1 33
1
1 Q
1
1
b b b
814815816
b b b
824825826
b b b
834
8
35
8
36
1
1
1
1
1
b b b 1
817818819 1
b b b 1
827828829 1
b b b 1
837838839
1
30
W
2
(2.42
9
x2
9
y2
9
z2
u
3
(2.4
31
y(x
z
)
FIG. 2.2 LOCAL AND GLOBAL AXES
Arrays of direction cosines are calculated by fixing the
local system (denoted by primes or lower case letters) on the element
The z(or
,
) axis is chosen in the direction perpendicular as follows. x
3
to the plane of the element at its node i, thus three direction cosines
are fixed. The
,
x(or xl ) and
,
y(or x
2
) axes will lie in the plane
,
of the element. Axis x(or x ) is chosen so that it lies parallel to
1
edge ij of the element and lies in a plane parallel to the x
G
_ yG
plane. (The last choice makes the interpretation of stresses simpler).
Thus, three more direction cosin8s are fixed. The remaining three are
found by using three appropriate conditions of orthogonality and nor-
malization [40].
Thus the matrix of direction cosines for the dashed to un-
dashed set is
D
)
~
71.
12
71.
13
.
-
~ 2
X
22
71.
23
'"
71.
31
71.
32
71.
33
where
A
G
ZG.
= Y .
J ~ m ~
B
G
ZG
= -X .. +
J ~
m ~
C
G
yG.
= X ..
J ~ m ~
G
X ~ - X ~ etc. X .. =
J ~ J
1.
=V
A2
1
a + B
2
+ C
2
b = -VA
2
+ B
2
=
x
G
.
m ~
xG
m ~
-B/b
G
Z .
J ~
G
Z ..
J ~
G
Y
J ~
AC
--
ab
A
a
A/b 0
BC (A
2
+B
2
)
-ab
ab
(2.45)
B C
a a
(2.46)
It will be noted that if the e1ement lies in a plane para11e1
to t XGyG plane, A = B = 0 and Eq. (2.45) becomes indeterminate.
For such cases an appropriate identity matrix is used.
Structure Stiffness Matrix and Solution of Equations:
32
The stiffness contribution of each e1ement meeting at a parti-
cu1ar no de may be added, after due transformation, to generate the
overa11 structure stiffness matrix. This procedure has been considered
better suited for progrannnLlg because of its ease and speed against the
alternative procedure of matrix multiplication [35]. The usua1 congruent
transformation gives, for each e1ement
= (2.47)
33
The structure is divided into partitions in such a way that
partition boundaries do not intersect, nor join more than two subdivi-
sions. With a proper nodal numbering scheme, these conditions yie1d
~ ~ b a n d e d matrix that can be suitab1y hand1ed by tridiagona1ization
[26,41]. The solution invo1ves e1imination and back substitution, in-
dividua1 matrices being inverted by Cho1esky's method.
The residua1 force vectors are ca1cu1ated to keep a check on
the truncation am round-off errors or for detecting i11-conditioning.
Statica11y Equivalent Nodal Forces:
The expression for the equiva1ent forces due to a 1inear1y
varying or constant membrane stress distribution is derived in this sec-
tion. Such a stress pattern is indeed prevalent at the loaded boundaries
of the connection under investigation, where pure moment and axial forces
are app1ied through the branches.
The derivation is based on the princip1e of virtua1 work.
Because the connecticn discretization emp10yed on1y right ang1ed triangles
on the loaded boundaries, the subject derivation is restricted to such
a triangle. However, extension to the genera1 case is straightforward.
q=q +my
o
FIG. 2.3 ELEMENT AT THE LOADED BOUNDARY.
)
From the principle of virtual work the equivalent boundary-
load vector for in-plane loading (Fig. 2.3) is given by:
(2.48)
From Eq. (2 . 4a ) and (2.48)
= -
(2.49)
o
The explicit form of the equivalent load vector
is
1
2A
2
x
2
Y3(qoY3
+
mY
3
2
2
q
o
Y3
x
2
( -2-
) - x
0
0
0
+
0
2 3
2
( qoY
3
+ mY3
2 3
)
3
m
Y
3
)
3
(2.50)
34


35
3. DEVELOPMENT OF A GENERAL COMPUTER PROGRAM
3.1 General Description
The computer program listed in this thesis has been developed
for the complete elastic analysis of a three-dimensional plate structure.
It can be used for structures in which both in-plane and bending stress
components are significant, or in cases where one or the other of these is
absent. It has been used successfully in the analysis of tubular member
connections, shell structures of general form, box bridges, plate bending
and plane-stress problems.
The mathematical development is explained in Chapter 2. This
Chapter includes the general outline, capability, input, output and
evaluative examples. In the Appendices are included the listing, along
with its micro flow chart. Only the nonconformable bending field, which
is preferred for the present analysis, has been included. The subroutine
for the conformable field is given in Reference [32J.
Since this program is intended for the analysis of structures in
which adjacent elements may be arbitrarily oriented, it is necessary to
consider six degrees of freedom at each node. The in-plane rotation, which
is ignored in the membrane displacements defined previously, may indeed
correspond to an important bending dis placement (a component of 9x or 9y)
in an adjacent non co-planar element. In this program it is assumed that
the stiffness contributions of each element are zero in the local 9
z
direction. If aIl the elements meeting at a node lie in a plane
perpendicular to a global coordinate axis, this assumption will result in a
singular structure stiffness matrix. In this case, which is identified by
the presence of a complete row and column of zeros in the matrix, the
)
36
diagonal term is automatica11y put equa1 to a large number. Thus, the
solution for this particu1ar disp1acement is neg1igib1y sma11, and the
matrix remains we11 conditioned. This is in 1ine with the c1assica1 p1ane-
stress assumption [42]. This technique simp1ified the programming effort
significant1y but is not the best when considering core storage and
computing time.
As pointed out in Chapter 2, the genera1ized form of the cubic
bending function adopted inc1udes in it Tocher's function. The latter
yie1ds a singu1ar E matrix under certain conditions (e.g. isosce1es right
angle e1ements with equa1 sides para11e1 to the local coordinate axes).
It is usua11y quite easy to avoid e1ements of such shapes and orientation
but if this proves impossible, the program automatica11y recognizes such
e1ements and generates their properties by alternative choices avai1ab1e.
Thus, it uses P = 1, Q = 0 and then P = 0, Q = 1 and takes their average
value for such e1ements.
The reason for the inclusion of a conformab1e bending field was
given in Chapter 1. The subject prob1em of this thesis, however, being
predominant1y under membrane action, shows indistinguishab1e resu1ts with
either choice of bending functions. This is c1ear1y brought out in the
eva1uative examp1e on the box girder bridge given in sub-section 3.5. A
further point of interest, noted in the circu1ar tube examp1e, and a1so in
many others, is the fact that the nonconformab1e cubic field in
conjunction with the 1inear membrane field gives resu1ts superior to those
given by the conformab1e set of 1inear functions, when the same
idea1ization is used. This is perhaps due to the mutua1 compensative
behaviour of a stiffer membrane e1ement and a flexible cubic bending e1ement
as against the cumulative stiff behaviour of the 1inear fields.
37
3.2 Capability
The program is written in FORTRAN IV LEVEL Gand is compatible
with LEVEL H. It has been run at the McGi11 Computing Centre on an
IBM 360/75 (sma11er version on IBM 360/50). The fo11owing limitations are
to be noted for the version given herein. A 1arger capabi1ity program is
reported in Reference [27].
Item Maximum Number
Nodal points
Elements
Partitions
Nodal points in a Partition
Loading Vectors
Number of prob1ems
Nodes with prescribed disp1acements
150
300
20
20
4
Un1imited
60
Typica1 running times on the above machine for the ana1ysis of
the tubu1ar connection were:
i) 18 nodes, 20 e1ements, 1 partition, 1 loading 2.26 minutes
ii) 55
"
80
"
9
" "
4.20
"
iii) 86
"
134
"
13
" "
6.11
"
iv) 136
"
232
"
8
" "
8.21
"
v) 213
"
371
"
14
" "
11.85
"
On1y CPU times are shown. Case (v) was run with the bigger deck.
To give some ide a on the computingtime, for more than one loading, the
following two cases maY be compared.
i) 111 nodes, 182 e1ements, 7 part it ions, 4 loadings, 17 minute-s
ii) 160
"
412
"
8
"
4
"
26
"
)
38
3.3 Input
With the notations exp1ained previous1y, the fo11owing table
gives the input data and their formats.
Number of
Cards/Prob.
1
1
NPOIN
1
NELEM
1
NBOUN
NPART
1
1
NCONC
3.4 Output
Items on data cards
NPROB
NPART, NPOIN, NELEM,NBOUN, NCOLN,NFREE
X(I,1),X(I,2),X(I,3)
NCARD
NOD[(I,J),J=1,3],THICK(I),R(I)
NCARD
NF(I),NB(I,1),NB(I,2),NB(I,3),NB(I,4),NB(I,S),
NB(I,6),BV(I,1),BV(I,2),BV(I,3),BV(I,4),
BV(I,S) ,BV(I, 6)
NSTART(I),NEND(I),NFIRST(I),NLAST(I)
E, V, GE
NCONC
K, U(6K-S, 1), U(6K-4, 1), U(6K-3, 1), U(6K-2, 1),
U(6K-1,1),U(6K,1)
(Repeat 1ast two 1ines for each loading
condition. )
Table 3.1 Input Data Format
14
614
Format
3F 14.6
14
3I4,2F 16.8
14
7I4,6F 7.4
414
3F 14.3
14
14, 6F 16.8
The output consists of the fo11owing information in consecutive
order:
i) Res idua1s :
These are the unequi1ibrated forces at the nodal points obtained
from
39
where
Rs = Residual force vector
'"
R = Applied load vector
'"
K =
Overall structure stiffness Matrix
b
c
= Computed nodal displacement vector.
,..
They can be used as loading should their values not be very small
compared to the originally applied load vector.
The residuals are printed out for each nodal point in seriai
order (6 for each node, 2 nodes in a line). Those for the case of more
than one loading are printed out partition after partition. For each
partition ail the loading cases used are dealt with before proceeding to
the next.
ii) Global Displacements:
These are printed out in seriai order for the entire structure,
one line per node per loading case. Each loading case is dealt with
separately for the entire structure.
iii) Membrane and Bending Stresses:
These are printed out separately for each element for ail the
loadings before proceeding to the next element. Each line contains the
complete information about the cartesian stresses at the centroid of the
element, for membrane as weil as bending action.
iv) Displacements in Local Coordinates:
These are printed out for ail the nodal points of each individual
element in turne Ali the loading cases are dealt with before going to the
next element.
This feature is useful for circular tubular joints and may be
)
suppressed for RHS connections.
40
v) Combined Cartesian Stresses and Principal Stresses:
The membrane and bending stresses are a1gebraica11y added for the
top and bottom fibres of each e1ement at their centroid and the principal
stresses and angle are computed for each surface.
The print-out comprises, for each e1ement taken in order: the
nodes ijm, the coordinates of the centre of gravit y, the combined
cartesian stresses, the principal stresses and the principal angle. This
information is printed in one 1ine, one for each surface. A11 the loading
cases are considered before going to the next e1ement. The coordinates of
the centroid and the node numbers are used to determine the local system
of axes.
vi) Cartesian Strains:
These are printed both for the top and bottom surfaces of each
e1ement taken in order. The sequence is simi1ar to that used for stresses.
3.5 Eva1uative Examp1es
The solutions of two typica1 three-dimensiona1 thin-wa11ed
structures are i11ustrated be1ow. The individua1 behaviour of-the e1ements
in bending and membrane action is reported e1sewhere [24,25,32,43,44].
i) Box Girder Bridge:
This examp1e is chosen to eva1uate the program's performance in
ana1ysing fo1ded p1ate-1ike structures. The resu1ts of the ana1ysis of
the bridge, shown in Fig. 3.1, are given in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3 together with
experimenta1 values as we11 as those obtained with rectangu1ar
e1ements [45]. As indicated before, the resu1ts obtained for this prob1em
by using either of the triangu1ar bending e1ements are indistinguishab1e.
)
41
[
/4
11
1-"; 60"
. ====il r'=3/8==rr"E===rr==III=1
1--8"-1
E = 3.9 x 105 psi
'l = 0.4
FIG. 0,1. IDEALIZATION OF BOX GIRDER BRIDGE
. t 224 LBS.
-----,---------r------J 0
o
x
f-I _
_
-_x
o
-<.
.04 CI)

o
HZ
08
[-i <t:
OP-!

HI

.12 r:s
1 224 LBS.
V

o
-


---- EXPERIMENTAL
45
><
o
E-!Z
-<H

.04 Z

E-!CI)
01
.08


.12 :::l
0'
1The two e1cments give indistinguishah1e resu1ts for this prob1em.
FIG. 32. BOX GIRDER BRIDGE DEFLECTIONS
)
x
o
.0006 ><

+ 224 LB. + -0- X
o
OUTSIDE SURFACE
EXPERIHENTAL
45
RECTANGU1AR ELEHENT
45
TRIANGULAR ELEJ:vlENTS
INSIDE SURFACE
EXPERlMENTAL
/j
5
1//
V STRAINS ON
)( CENTERLINE
+ RECTANGULAR ELEJ:vNT45
-e- TRIANGULAR ELEt-NTS
0006
t 224 LB
o
TRANSVERSE STRAINS ON OUTSIDE SURFACE
FIG. 3. '3'
BOX GIRDER BRIDGE STRAINS
42
43
ii) Circular Tube:
This example has been chosen to evaluate the program's
performance in handling circular tube sections. Because of symmetry, only
one eighth of the tube is analysed, as shown in Fig. 3.4. The radial
deflections and the moments are compared with the analytical solutions [46J
in Fig. 3.5. Centroidal bending moments averaged between adjacent elements
are shown. For more detailed information near the ends, a finer mesh in
this region is necessary.
It is noted that the conformable set of linear fields predict
lower deflection values in the bending zone.
Z
INTERNAL PRESSURE
1 = 10 psi
E = 15 x 10
6
psi.,
FIG. 3.4
1.5
.,....,
1.0 0
Z
H
'-"
..;t
0
r-4

0.5
0
3
0
.,....,
0
Z
H
......
-3
0
z
H
.
r:tl
H
-6
'-"
::t
-9
-12
-15
15
FIG. "'5. '5
44
Z
y
v = 0.25
TUBE IDEALIZATION
NODAL DIS PIACEHENTS
LONGITUDINAL HOHENTS
C1assi.ca1
46
X Pyramid functions
o Cubic functions
12 9 6 3 o
DISTANCE ALONG Y-AXIS (IN
o
)
DISPLACENENTS AND H-lliNTS IN CIRCULAR TUTIE
)
45
4. SHEAR-LAG ANALYSIS OF FULL-WIDTH CONNECTIONS
4.1. General Approach and Differentia1 Eguation
As indicated previous1y, a fu11-width beam-to-co1umn
connection betweeen rectangu1ar tubes, in which the branches are sym-
metrica11y we1ded to the opposite faces of the co1umn, undergoes in-
plane shear deformation in the f1anges of the branches even under a
pure moment loading. This is due to the f1exibi1ity of the co1umn
face to which the branches are we1ded. In the fo11owing, a convenient
and simple approach is suggested for an approxima te prediction of the
joint behaviour for such connections.
The fo11owing four observations are of value to the deve1op-
ment of the proposed method of ana1ysis. They are based on a complete
three-dimensiona1 ana1ysis of a wide range of such connections
(4"x 4"x 1/4" to 12"x 8" 1/4" sizes)
(i) The shear deformabi1ity of the branch f1anges, for the
subject case, produces approximate1y parabo1ic dis-
placement profiles across the width (Fig. 4.1)
(ii) The longitudinal membrane stress in the f1ange (crx),
(iH)
( iv)
at the junction of the f1ange to the co1umn face, away
from the web of the branch, is very sma11 (about 1/30 of
the edge stress or 1/10 of the stress given by the simple
beam theory. (Fig. 6.8a)
The ratio of computed longitudinal strain E and that given
x
by simple beam theory, in the branch webs, at the f1ange
1eve1, near the junction, is of the order of
The transverse membrane stress (cr ) throughout the branches
y
is very sma11 compared with the longitudinal membrane
stress (cr ).
x
12.23
DISTANCE
OF CROSS-
SECTION
FROM
COLIJMN
FACE. INCH
o
0
8" X 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION M = 98.83 KIP INCH
FINITE ELEHENT SOLurION (6x x 10-4 INCH)
PARABOLA
9.94
0.65
7.40
l.31
5.40 2.48
1.96 3.92
.FIG. 4.1
LONGITUDINAL IN-PLANE SHEAR OF BRANCH FLAN GE
(PUP.E NmIENT)
(DISPLACEMENT OF CENTRE RELATIVE TO EDGE)
0.%
:-<t
OF
FIA1\GE
--'<J EDGE
5.88

0\
,
M
o
r
47
Reissner [22] has given an energy approach for developing the
differential equations for the problem of shear-lag in box beams. In
this Chapter, Reissner's differential equation is used in conjunction
with the adequate boundary conditions posed by the FW connections and
the applied loadings to arrive at solutions for predicting the joint
moduli, the stresses and the deflections of the branches. The necessary
assumptions and derivations are given in brief in Appendix 1. The
governing differential equation for the bent box beam is:
where
1')
k
If
l
w
Z
M
M
- -+
El
1/(1 _ 5 If )
61
V ~ Q
w 2 E
1
El
(4.1)
Moment of inertia of both flanges about mid-depth
of box cross section (i.e. about y - y).
Total moment of inertia of a branch cross section about y-y.
Half width of the box flange.
Lateral deflection along the z axis.
Applied bending moment.
4.2. Shear-Lag Solution for Full-Width Connection under Pure Moment
1
1
~ --+- - ==--':a:-- + --I!---.=,-. ___
____ - 1 1 - ___
~ - - - - - _ _ t
b L - - - - - - - - ~
1
CROSS SECTION A-Ai
FIG. 4.2 FULL-WIDTH TUBULAR JOINT (PURE MOMENT)
48
Assumptions: From the considerations of section 4.1, the fo11owing
assumptions are made:
(i) The in-plane shear deformabi1ity of the f1anges produces
a parabo1ic deformation u with respect to y.
(ii) The branch f1anges at the junction are free.
(iii) The e1astic curve of the branch is assumed to be re-
strained against rotation and def1ection at the point of
intersection of the of the co1umn and the branches.
(iv) In order to obtain the boundary for the webs
of the branches, their e1astic curves between B and the
centre 1ine of the co1umn have been assumed to conform
to the simple beam theory.
Rence
(Z)B =
0.5 M b
2
/EI (4.2)
0
dZ M b
(4.3)
(dx)B
=
0
El
where b = Ralf the co1umn width 'on the unconnected face
l = Moment of inertia of the branch cross section
about its y-y axis.
This 1ast assumption, a1though crude, was found to give the
over-a11 def1ected e1astic curve which was in good agreement with the
disp1acements obtained by the finite e1ement ana1ysis for a11 the
three cases dea1t with.
In the fo11owing deve10pments a bending moment as shown in
Fig. 4.2 is considered positive. Def1ections in the positive direction
of z are positive.
Solution:
The governing differentia1 equation for the bent branch,
Eq. (4.1), reduces, for the case of pure moment, to
= -
M
o
El
The fo11owing boundary conditions are used
x = 0,
dZZ
M
0
dx
Z
= -
El
d
2
Z
M
= - 1"}
0
2
El
dx
x = t,
The solution of Eq. (4.4) for the curvature is
=
M
o
El
(cl sinh kx + C
z
cosh kx - 1)
49
(4.4)
(4.5)
( 4.6)
(4.7)
The boundary conditions (4.5) and (4.6) in conjunction with Eq. (4.7)
yie1d
=
i) Stresses:
M
o
El
[(1 - 1"})
sinh kx
sinh kt
The longitudinal normal stresses in the branches are given
by Eqs. (4.8) and (1.4) of Appendix l, by
M z
sinh kx 0
( 1 - Y cr =
x
l
sinh
kt
[
1
- t
L
where Y
=
(1 - 1"})
If
ii) Slope:
The integration of Eq. (4.8) gives:
dZ
dx
(x)
2
= J.u dx + A
dx
2
)
2
)J
(1- L
Z
w
(4.8)
(4.9)
(4.9a)
(4.10)
50
The arbitrary constant A is eva1uated from Eq. (4.3)
so that
dZ
M
[(b
+ X] (x)
0
+ t - x) =
dx El
(4.11)
where
X
1.:.!l
cosh kx - cosh kt
=
k (
)
sinh kt
(4.11a)
iii) Def1ections:
Further integration of Eq. (4.10) gives
Z(x):. = J J + Ax + B
dx
(4.12)
The boundary condition (4.2) used in conjunction with
Eq. (4.12) yie1ds the constant B so that
M
[{ sinh kx _ {}
+ {b-
cath kt +1rlJ
Z(x) =
0
El
k sl.nh kt
(4.13)
where
S
=
[-
1-1l_i+b
2
- bt + )cath kt]
(4.13a)
k
2
2
iv) Joint Modu1us:
The joint modu1us is defined as
J (4.14)
where
QJ is the rotation of the joint and is defined as the excess
rotation of the e1astic curve of the branch, at a sufficient distance
away from the joint, over that given by the simple beam theory with a
comp1ete1y rigid co1umn.
In this definition of QJ it is imp1ied that the joint rotation
derives from the co1umn f1exibi1ity and the in-plane shear deformabi1ity
of the branch f1anges.

;;J
)
51
In the fo11owing derivation of the formula for J, the
rotation at the tip of the branches has been chosen. However, any
point sufficient1y away from the junction where shear deformation
of the f1anges is zero cou1d have been used.
From Eqs. (4.11) and (4.14) the fo11owing formula is ob-
tained for the joint modu1us.
J
Elk
=
sinhkt
(4.15)
(1-T})
(1- cosh kt) + bk sinh kt
A simp1er but slightly more approxima te expression for J is given
below from Eq. (4.15). This is applicable for square sections where
J =
Elk
(4.15a)
2(T}-1)
4.3 Solution for Connections under Moment and Shear
-------- ----1--
FIG. 4.3. FULL-WIDTH TUBULAR JOINT (MOMENT AND SHEAR)
)
52
Assumptions:
Basica11y the same assumptions as for the case of pure
moment will be fo11owed. Assumption (iv), however, 1eads now to
the fo11owing values of the def1ection and rotation of the e1astic
curve at point B:
(Z)B
Pb
2
=
6EI
.dZ) Pb
t
dx
=
B
2EI
Solution:
In this case
M(x) = Px
and governing differentia1
(2b + 3,t)
(2t + b)
Eq. (4.1) reduces
= -
M(x)
El
The boundary conditions now read:
x = 0,
d
2
Z
0
dx
2
=
d
2
Z
1 ) ~
dx
2
-
El
x = t,
to
The solution of Eq. (4.19), for the curvature, is
From Eqs. (4.20), (4.21)and (4.22)
=
L [t(1- ) sinh kx - xJ
El 1') sinh kt
(4.16 )
(4.17)
(4.18)
(4.19)
(4.20)
(4.21)
(4.22)
(4.23)

?J
)
i) Stresses:
The longitudinal normal stresses in the branches are
therefore given by Eqs. (4.23) and (I.4) of Appendix l as
pxz (1 _ y
l
x
sinh kx )
sinh kt
where Y is the same expression as in Eq. (4.9a).
53
(4.24)
Adopting a procedure similar to that used for the pure
moment case, the following result.s can be obtained.
ii) SloEe:
dZ(x)
P
=
dx
El
where X is given by Eq.
iii) Deflections:
Z(x) =
El k2
where
's [-
iv) Joint Modulus:
[ (b+tf -
2
(4.11a)
sinh kx
sinh kt
J =
El kt sinh kt
2
x
+ X.eJ
.t(1-T) coth
k
(1- cosh kt) + b(O.5 b+t)k sinh kt
4.4 ComEuter Program for the Shear-Lag Analysis of Connections
(4.25)
t
2
}
kt +"2 x +
(4.26)
(4.27)
The solutions derived in the previous two sections have been
programmed in FORTRAN IV G Level; the listing is given in Appendix II.
The program is very handy in the sense that it needs only two data cards
which describe the geometry and loading of the connection and that it
)
54
gives as output the complete information about the distribution of normal
stresses throughout the entire branch, the deflected elastic curve both with
and without shear lag effects, the predicted joint modulus and the tip
rotation. The normal stress values in the flanges, just at the junction, are
not reliable because of the assumption of free flanges.
The present version is set for a maximum of 20 nodes across the
width of the branch flange at which stresses are computed. The number of
cross sections along the branch length is unlimited. Any larger number of
nodes across the width could be handled simply by changing the DIMENSION
statement.
The input is read in the first two READ statements of the
program in which 'M' stands for the applied pure moment or the applied tip
load, as may be the case, and NPOIN is the number of nodes across the flange
width. AlI ether notations are the same as previously explained in
'SYMBOLS'.
55
5. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
5.1 General Out1ine
A series of pilot tests was conducted to obtain sorne insight into
the physica1 behaviour of these joints. The tests conducted inc1uded the
study of the bending behaviour of RHS beams, the behaviour of fu11-width
and 1ess than fu11-width we1ded joints as we11 as sorne experimenta1 work on
the buck1ing behaviour of rectangu1ar tubes under 1atera1 10ading. A
typica1 test arrangement of a 4" x 4" x 1/4" connection subjected to
bending and shear, as used in one of these tests, is shown in Fig. 5.1
a10ng with its 10ad def1ection plot.
These studies of the pilot tests he1ped in choosing a suitab1e
specimen, from both experimenta1 and ana1ytica1 view-points, for a detai1ed
study and for verification purposes. It consisted of the symmetrica1
we1ded beam-to-co1umn connection shown in Fig. 5.4, to be used under
different 10adings and boundary conditions. Since the joint modu1us is
direct1y re1ated to the moment in pure bending, it was considered desirab1e
to have a pure moment condition on the connection. A1so, since axial
thrust through the branch is a common feature in vierendee1 truss
construction, this was considered to be another important 10ading condition
for the study of the joint behaviour. Larger sizes of the tubes were
considered necessary so that the strain gages cou1d be mounted with greater
precision, especia11y in the regions of steep stress gradients near the
junction.
)
56
5.2 Test Eguipment and Specimen
A 120 kip loading frame was designed and fabricated to provide a
pure moment loading to the specimen. The details are given in Fig. 5.2
and PlateS;'!. A 440 kip Baldwin Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine was
used in the manner shown in Plate 5:'1. For the pure moment case neoprene
pads with steel cover plates were used in conjunction with rollers to
provide simple support conditions with minimal torsional constraints.
For the axial load through the branches, special end supports had
to be provided to achieve hinged conditions without eccentric loading. The
rather heavy test specimen and did pose difficulties in alignment
but great care was taken in adjusting specimen in the machine. The end
attachments were designed 80 as to allow more or less a mechanical procedure
in centering the specimen under the machine. The details of the end
attachments are given in Fig. 5.3 and Plate 5.2.
A full-width connection was fabricated from a pair of 12" x 8" x
1/4" x 52" branches welded to an 8" x 8" x 1/4" x 60" column. The
dimensions and the details of this connection are shown on Fig. 5.4.
A dimensional check was carried out on the specimen prior to
testing. The average of these measurements indicated that the nominal
dimensions were satisfactory for the processing of the data, although minor
variations were noted. In addition, a fabrication check was made to
determine whether distortions, if any, were within acceptable tolerances.
The ends of the branches were machined square before welding to get the
exact geometry. The free ends were also machined and were later spot
welded to a pair of special machined base plates in order to enable the
specimen to be used in the axial load test. Four strain gages located at
the four corners of the branch cross section were used to give a check
57
against eccentric loading. The branches were butt welded to the main
member with full penetration welds, type TC-U4,according to the AISC
specifications [47], Section 1.17.2. Although a fillet weld would normally
be simpler and faster to fabricate in the re-entrant corner, it was
discarded due to its large size and the difficulty of idealisation for
analysis. The corners of the main member section had an outside radius of
approximately 1 inch and those of the branch members, about 0.75 inch. The
gap at the junction was filled with weld metal as shawn in Fig. 5.4. AlI
welding was done by a qualified welder.
Coupons were machined from the scrap material cut from the
different sections. These coupons were tested, using a Huggenberger
extensometer as weIl as an electronic strain recorder. Typical results are
given in Appendix V.
5.3 Instrumentation and Testing
AlI the locations where electrical resistance strain gages were
to be mounted were thoroughly cleaned. Fig. 5.5 gives the gage locations
as weIl as the discretization used for the analysis. Only an octant of the
connection is shown. The strain gages were wired to a Datran Automatic
Digital Strain Indicator. The gage locations were determined by measuring
distances from the column face and the branch sides. Sorne difficulty was
experienced in measuring the locations exactly due to the welds. Symmetry
was fully utilized to keep the number of gages to a minimum. Only one
octant was threfore instrumented. However, for checking purposes, sorne
gages were installed at symmetric locations as weIl. Post-yield gages were
used in the regions of high stresses for measuring the strains during the
final testing of the specimen to collapse. As the expected strain gradients
58
were steep near the joint, especially in the corners, closely spaced gages
were required to record these gradients accurately. Rotation bars were
used to measure the slope of the elastic line of the branches, as weIl as
any rotation of the main member vertical axis. Dial gages were used for
the measurement of the deflections of the branches along their lengths, and
to determine the support settlements. Dial gage readings from at least two
or four symmetric points were averaged out and the same test was repeated
twice for checking and averaging purposes. Two long travel (4" run) dial
gages were used for measuring the central deflection until collapse.
Three checks under a small load on the entire set up and
instruments were performed and the necessary adjustments made before the
actual testing was started. This procedure was repeated for both tests.
At worst a difference of 5 milli inches in dial gage readings in the pure
bending test and of 5 micro inches on the four corner gages in the axial
load test could be achieved for small loads in the elastic range. These
values amounted to about 5% of the actual records. Both the elastic tests
were carried out first for a maximum load of 20 kips applied in 5
Increments. This maximum load for the bending test amounted to about 1/6th
of the failure load. As will be noted in Fig. 5.6, showing a typical load-
strain plot, the connection behaved elastically up to a load of 30 kips.
In the inelastic range readings were taken after an adequate
waiting time follO'iving application of each load Increment, in order to
enable stabilization of the readings to take place. This period was as
short as 5 minutes in the earlier stages, and was about 30 minutes near the
failure load.
12
10
8
,....
Cf.)
Pol
H
~
-
A
6
cg
t-l
4
2
)
4" x 4" x 1/4" RHS
t------- 36 " ____ --Pi
3/8" FILLET WELD
l l ~ I I BurT WELD
t------- 36 "----0-1
--
EXPERIHENTAL
59
--&-- SI-IEAR LAC SOL UTION
--<:>--
SIMPLE BEfl.N T1IEORY
(RIGID COLillfN)
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
TIP DEFLECTION (INCH)
FIG .. 5.1 CONNECTION UNDER H-lliNT AND SIIEAR LUt\DING
NEOPRENE
PAD


BRAl.'rCH
ct ?VACHINE HEAD

VAIN l-!El-1BER
--. --S PHERICAL ROCKER
-.j-
N
... L, > ,,> ,,_ ROTATION-BA'?;

r-.
LOADING FRAME
N
.-l
-.j-
N
,,)-------f-
-.j-
N
.-l 1


...
FIG. 5.2
-.::r
N
24" 25"
TES': SET UP F\. PlTRE H-illNT ON THE Cm;tCTION
..
N
" .-l
c-
o
61
----- SPllERICAL HINGE
HAIN HEMRER
8" x 8" x 1/ Lf" RES
j
00
____________ ____ __________ ________ L
BRANCH
12" x 8" x 1/ RHS
------- S PllERICAL HINGE
711//1
FIG. 5.; TEST SET UP FOR j\.'nAL LOl\.D IN THE BRANCHES
SIDE VIEH
Hic
STIFFENERS -
1-- 8 "-1
ELEVATION
A
-------r--- ---7',

1
3"x 3" x 1/4"
BACKING
PLATE
M.I\IN l-lEl-1BER
A

1 --l'-L- - ------
, : 1
I
l)_- ----- -
i 90 J' ---
1 24"
1
1
Il l'' 51
2
1

SECTION A-A
1
.-lI..::!"
'-Jf;)))),"')j 10 1---1
FIG .. 5.4 FABRICATION DE':AIl.S OF f\-l CONNECTION
0\
r-.>
V
1
<t 1
Ti
-, le ""..,.v
p- l''C. _. ::;0. .'
.L,
213 NODES
371 ELE1-1ENTS
- ELASTIC GAGES
-.- POST-YIELD GAGES
r EIASTIC ROSETTES
IL POS T- YIELD ROSE'ITES
a)
DISTANCE (INCH) OF SECTIONS FROM
<t. OF COLUMN b) FACE OF COLUNN c) TOP OF BRA.NCH
V1 - 0.65
V4 -
0.20 Hl - 0.20
V2 - 2.58
V5 -
0.85 H
2
- 0.85
V3 - 3.02 V6 -
1.51
V
7
- 4.77
GAGE NO. 32 S'lNHETRIC TO GAGE NO. 2
V8 -
8.80
GAGE NO. 33
" " " "
1
GAGE NOS. 34, 35, 36 & 37 AT SPl'IE CROSS SECTION
V
9
- 14.56
v V fi I(l'I
V
V V V V V V V V V <t.
HALL OF
COLUHN (DISPLACED)
5.5
DISCRETIZATION AND LAY Ot.JT OF STR,\IN GAGES (OCT.ANT NOT TO SCALE)
::::::::::====== ________________
60
"......
P-;
H

40
1
'-"

Z
H
......
>-<
u
20 l



t=l
d
H
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CON:N""ECTION
FIBRE STRAINS IN THE BRlillCH EDGES Nfu\R JlJNCTION (TYPICAL EXPT. -VALUES)
GAGE NO. 1
GAGE NO. 33
200
FIG" 5.6
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
STRAIN (HICRO-INCH-PER INCH)
LOAD vs. STRAIN VARL\TION OF !WO PLACED POST-YIELD GAGES
(PURE

1600 1800
'" .z:-.
65
(a)
PLATE 5.1 TEST ARRANGEMENTS
(a) PURE BENDING
(b) AXIAL THRUST THROUGH BRANCHES
(b)
66
Cf)
Cf)
H
H
H
H
<t:
<t:
H
Il
H
Il
&::1
&::1
&::1
r5
Z
Il
Z
H

P-<
0
E-<
-
U:1)S? .. ,
,,",
----
)
PLATE 5.3 BUCKLED COLUMN WALL AT FAILURE
(PURE MOMENT)
67
68
6. ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In this chapter, the ana1ytica1 resu1ts are given, and where
possible a comparison is made between the two ana1ytica1 methods and the
experimenta1 data, for the fo11owing fu11-width connections.
i) 12" x 8" x 1/4" under pure moment
ii) 12" x 8" x 1/4" under axial load through the branches
iii) 8" x 8" x 1/4" under pure moment
iv) 4" x 4" x 1/4" under pure moment
The co1umn, in each of these cases, was a square section the size
of which is given by the second and third dimension given above.
Both conformab1e and nonconformab1e fields have been used but on1y
the resu1ts obtained with the latter are reported for the reasons indicated
in sections 3.1 and 3.5.
A convergence study was conducted on one of these connections to
determine the fineness of mesh required. This is shown in Fig. 6.3 and
resu1ted in the selection of the idea1izations used in the ana1ysis outlined
below.
The idea1ization of the connection used for the finite element
analysis is shown in Fig. 5.5. An earlier idealization, shown in Fig. 6.1,
had to be refined because of its unsatisfactory performance in diffusing
the statically equivalent nodal loads in the webs. This was due to the
fact that the web had in effect only one node at which the major part of the
web load could be lumped, and thus the constant strain membrane field was
unab1e to produce the desired linear strain variation. The internaI
constraints provided by the membrane field were perhaps thereason for the
fact that the computed values of the stress were sma1ler than those required
for the complete static equilibrium. This was later confirmed by a
69
numerica1 investigation where a series of idea1izations were used for a
simple, plane-stress cantilever beam under pure moment. Fig. 6.2 gives the
stresses above the neutra1 plane, both as computed and in terms of their
ratios to those given by simple beam theory. The average of the centroida1
values of adjacent e1ements is used for the interpretation of the stresses
throughout this thesis. As will be noted, the computed stresses for this
prob1em depend on the aspect ratios of the e1ement sides (ratio of the
1engths of the e1ement sides) as we11 as on the number of 10ad points used.
Better resu1ts are expected with a finer division a10ng the variable stress
field and with a choice of e1ements having an aspect ratio of near1y unity.
6.1 12" x 8" x 1/4" Connection Under Pure Moment
The idea1ization of the box connection assumed 90
0
corners for the
cross sections of both the main and the branch members in or der to avoid the
necessity of using many sma11 e1ements in these curved regions. Full use
was made of symmetry so that on1y the octant shown was ana1ysed. Due
account of the extra thickness of the backing plates and we1d materia1 was
taken.
Typica1 resu1ts of the above ana1ysis, as we11 as experimenta1 and
shear-1ag solutions where appropriate are given in Figs. 6.4 to 6.13.
Fig. 6.4 shows the def1ection a10ng the 1ength of the branch relative to the
vertical disp1acement of the centre of the co1umn. The experimenta1 points
were measured at the tensi1e f1ange whereas the ana1ytica1 resu1ts
correspond to the values at the mid-depth of the branches. Since a
distortion of the cross section was noted from the computed resu1ts, this
may part1y exp1ain the discrepancy noted on Fig. 6.4.
)
)
70
An important characteristic of these connections is brought out
in Figs. 6.8, 6.11 and 6.12 where it is evident that, except for their
edges, the branch f1anges are insignificant1y stressed near the junction to
the co1umn. A ratio of about 30 is observed between the maximum and
minimum stress values (Fig. 6.8-a). This stress distribution approaches
the one expected under pure be.tding conditions at a distance from the
co1umn face rough1y equa1 to the depth of the branch (Figs. 6.11, 6.12).
The measurements indicate a simi1ar strain distribution around the branch
cross section (Fig. 6.5) but the magnitudes near the corner differ. This
may be attributed to the idea1ization that assumes right angle corners and
approximates the we1d and backing plate thicknesses. The difficu1ty in
recording the position of the strain gages exact1y and the effect of their
finite sizes, especia11y in the region of steep strain gradient, may a1so
contribute to the difference.
Horizontal as we11 as vertical strains in the unconnected co1umn
wall are shown in Fig. 6.6 for two vertical sections near the junction.
Good agreement between the measured and the predicted values is apparent.
Other measured surface strains, both horizontal and vertical, showed
equa11y good agreement. However, since the y did not represent significant
values, they were not inc1uded here.
Figs. 6.7 to 6.11 show the computed stresses in the branch and
co1umn wa11s. The connected co1umn face has sma11 stresses, both horizontal
and vertical. The membrane stresses here are neg1igib1e and local bending
predominates (Fig. 6.10). The shear-1ag and finite e1ement resu1ts are
compared in Fig. 6.11 which gives longitudinal stress profiles for ha1f the
width of the branch f1ange. The shear-1ag resu1ts are shown in detai1 for
many longitudinal profiles, but for c1arity, on1y two extreme profiles, one
)
71
near the mid-width and the other near the edge, are shawn from the finite
element solution.
The complete stress analysis of the connection has shawn that most
of its parts are predominantly under membrane action which contributes as
much as 90% of the total fibre stresses.
In Fig. 6.12, the percentage distribution of the moment shared
between the flanges and the webs of the branch is shown. The finite element
and shear-lag solutions are in close agreement and both show a distinctly
different load transfer from branch to column, when compared with a case of
wide-flange beam-to-column connection.
The final testing to failure indicated that the connection failed
by buckling of the unconnected column sides at a load of 118 kips. The
theoretical plastic moment carrying capacity of the branch member
corresponded to a load of 131 kips for the type of loading used. No sign of
distress was noted in the welds.
6.2 12" x 8" x 1/4" Connection Under Axial Thrust Through the Branches
Due to the uniform stress distribution at the loaded boundaries,
use could be made in the finite element analysis of the original mesh shown
in Fig. 6.1. The solution was obtained in two steps; the results obtained
first with the coarse mesh were la ter used as boundary conditions for a more
refined analysis of the zone of stress concentration in the vicinity of the
junction.
Fig. 6.13 shows the longitudinal surface strain measurements and
the finite element solution for a typical section near the junction. The
distribution of strains in the flanges of the branch member under both
loading conditions (namely pure moment and axial thrust) is very similar.
72
Fig. 6.14 shows the strains in the horizontal as well as vertical
directions on two vertical sections through the main member. Again good
agreement is evident. Figs. 6.15 and 6.16 clearly show the predominance of
membrane stresses in this case also.
The percentage sharing of loads between the webs and flanges of
the branch is given in Fig. 6.17. As much as 90% of the load is transferred
from the branch to the main member through the webs, and only 10% goes
through the flanges.
6.3 8" x 8" x 1/4" Connection Under Pure Moment
The mesh shown in Fig. 5.5 was again used for the finite element
analysis. The distribution of stresses and strains was found to have a
pattern similar to that of the 12" x 8" x 1/4" connection. The details are
therefore not inc luded here. The reason for this malys is was, primarily,
to provide a further check for the shear-lag results. Figs. 6.18 and 6.19
show, respectively, the deflected elastic curve of the branch and the
distribution of the longitudinal stresses in the entire length of the branch
flanges. Close agreement between the finite element and shear-lag results
is again noted.
6.4 4" x 4" x 1/4" Connection Under Pure Moment
This analysis was conducted in order to confirm the validity of
the shear-lag analysis for small size full-width connections. Here again
the same mesh as in Fig. 5.5 was used. The distribution of stresses and
strains was again found to have the same pattern as for the above two cases.
The elastic curve of the deflected branch and the longitudinal stress
distribution in the flanges are compared in Figs. 6.20 and 6.21. Close
agreement between the two methods is again found.
73
The distribution .. of load between the flanges and the webs of the
branches, based on the shear-lag analysis, is illustrated in Fig. 6.22, for
the 8" x 8" x 1/4" and 4" x 4" x 1/4" cases. It is worth noting that about
2/3 of the applied moment on the branch is transferred to the column through
the webs, whilst only about 1/3 goes through the flanges. It can further
be seen that this distribution between webs and flanges is practically
reversed at a distance from the face of the column approximately equal to
the depth of the branch. This observation was true for all of the three
cases analysed.
6.5 Summary of Results
Based on the studies in sections 6.1 to 6.4, the following general
conclusions can be drawn regarding the behaviour of full-width connections:
i) Membrane action is predominant. Plate bending action is
of relatively minor significance.
ii) The load transfer from branch members to main members is
predominantly through the webs of the branches.
iii) The branch flanges near the junction are subjected to a
large shear-lag effect. The stress pattern in the branch
flanges is similar, both for the case of axial thrust
through the branches or pure moment in them.
iv) Joint deformation is localized both in the main and branch
members.
v) Large stress concentrations occur at the corners of the
junction.
vi) The connections behave elastically for a moment equal to
about one-fourth of the failure moment. Buckling of the
unconnected column walls was the cause of failure.
ORIGINAL MESH
136 NODES
232 ELEHENTS
Cf L /::e:::
1 )
FIG. 61
REFINED MESH FOR THE JUNCTION REGION
100 NODES
164 ELEMENTS
VI
Cf 1
DISCRETIZATION FOR AXIAL LOAD CASE (OCTANT NOT TO SCALE)
<l
<t
HIDDEN COLill-lN WALL
'-1

c
U
:z;
H
'-'"
CI)
H
~
H
~
~
~
:z;
~
6
4 1
o 2
i=Q
<:
E-I
G
H
f:3
"""
M
E
V
t
CASE Sl1-lliOL
1 -<:>-
2 ----e-
3 .. a -6-
3.b -0-
4.a -G-
4.b
--.-
5
---0-
6.a -.-
6.b
--G-
168 KIP INCH
30 x 10
3
KSI
/ ./ ~ ~ ~ "'- BEAM THEORY
0.3
= 0.25
A CASE 3a
1/ 1
1 1l 24 ~
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
(J-I. STRESS (KSI)
NODES ELEM
D
LOAD POINTS DEPTH DIVISION UNIFORMLY PLACED NODES ON X-AXIS % STRESS OF BEAM THEORY
9 8 2 UN IF ORl."\f 3 51.8
15 16 2 UNIFORM 5 74.0
33 40 2 UNIFORM 11 85.6
33 40 2 NON UNIFORM 11
81.5
44 60 3 UNIFORM 11 92.3
44 60 3 NON UNIFORM 11 87.3
66 80 2 UN IF ORM 22 87.3
55 80 4 UNIFORM 11 93.6
55 80 4 NON UNIFORM 11 93.0
FIG. 6.2 NUMERICAL EXPERIMENT ON A CANTILEVER BEAM
1
""-1
\JI
,.....
12
0
Z
H
..::t
1
0
...-l
X
,.....
'-'
H 8
f2
z
0
'-' H
E-l
CI)
0
CI)
r:J

H
:,.
E-l r:J
CI)
6
x
<J
4
p::
0
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION
4" x 4" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 21.03 KIP INCH
o
6 x AT MID WIDTH OF BRANCH FLANGE
o-x AT EDGE OF BRANCH FLANGE
___ --........ 6 AT EDGE OF BRANCH FLANGE
1\" 0 .
G
CTx NEAR MID WIDTH CF BRAN FIANGE
t:\

40 80 120 160 200 240
NUMBER OF NODES USED
FIG. 63 CONVERGENCE STUDY ON TUBULAR CONNECTION (PURE M()}IENT)
.....

<t. OF COL UMN
14
12
10
,.....
::d
0
Z
H
C"")
1
0
8
.-1
:><:
.....,
z
0
H -
E-i
0 6
~
H
~
~
Q
N
4
2
4 8
o
A
/::::;
QI)
o
FINITE ELEMENT (NON-CONFORMABLE)
SHEAR LAG
EXPERINEl'.'TAL
SIMPLE BEAM THEORY WITH RIGID COLUMN
FINITE ELEMENT (CONFORMABLE)
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH JOU.TT
M = 168.5 KIP INCH
,///
...A'/
//
,/'/
"A/
-<Y
~
..,...,..../
12 16 20
//
24
FIG. 6.4 DEFLECTION VS. DISTANCE ALONG BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
//
/
?
/
28 INCH
.....,
.....,
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 168.5 KIP INCH
--------ct
~ ~ ~ ~ EDGE
o
SECTION Vs
~ FINITE ELEMENT
o EXPERIMENTAL
o 100 200 300
400 ct
STRAIN (x (MICRO- INCH PER INCH)
FIG. 6.5 LONGITUDINAL STRAIN DISTRIBUTION IN BRANCH
(P URE MOl'NT)
78
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 168.5 KIP INCH
SECTION
V
1
10
(5

j:Q
8

0

P-I
f.il
Q
1
Q
6
H


0
j:Q
<:
E-f
tJ
4 H
f.il
::r:

0

H
!5
2
o
-- FINITE ELEMENT S OLtrrION
o EXPERIMENTAL
SECTION
V
2
BRANCH TOP
(y.
100 200 100 200
STRAIN (MICRO-INCH PER INCH)
FIG. 6.6 DISTRIBUTION OF STRAIN IN COLUMN
(PURE HOHENT)
79
300
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M c 168.5 KIP INCH
ZtL
X
o 4
FIG. 6.7
~
EDGE

SECTION Vs
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTIONS
- COMBINED STRESS
MEMBRANE STRESS
8 12
ex STRESS (KS I)
DISTRIBurION OF STRESS IN BRANCH
(PURE MOMENT)
80
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION. FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS.
81
MEMBRANE PLUS BENDING
0
Cf
STRESS
<t
MEMBRANE STRESS
..;t .....
:>
:>
5 5
(c)
H H
E-I
E-I
U U
r:r:I r:r:I
Cf) Cf)
0 EDGE EDGE
0 4 8 12 0 2 4 6
()x (KSI)
(T" (KSI)
ct
\0 co
:> :>
5
z
(d) 0
H H
E-I E-I
U U
r:r:I r:r:I
Cf) Cf)
EDGE EDGE
0 4 8 12 0 2 ~ 6
O"x (KSI) o-x (KSI)
FIG. 6.S STRESSES IN FL.4.NGE OF BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
SECTIONS
--- MEMBRANE
o COMBINED
BRANCH TOP
o 8 0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12 0 4 8
x STRESS (KS I)
FIGo. 6.9 STRESSES IN BRANCn WEB AND COLUMN SIDE HALL (PURE MOMENT)
- MEMBRANE
BENDING
-2
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION. FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS.
VERTICAL STRESSES HORIZONTAL STRESSES
(a)
FLANGE
o 2
OF BRANCH
VERTICAL
LlNE N"EAR
MID WIDTH
OF COLUMN
FACE
(b)
1
H
2
1
_. 'I:
-2
ALL STRESSES IN KSI
2
Hll...-- _ IHI
f
1
1
-6
H
2
2
-4
Hl
-2
-4
(c)
---o!I 1
FIG. 6 10 STRESSES ON WELDED FACE OF MAIN MEMBER (PURE MOMENT)
1
H
2
Hl
......,
():)
N
-.
H

-
Cf.)
Cf.)


Cf.)

12
o.
10
'\
8
6
4
2
o
o 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6
SHEAR-LAG SOLlITION
o FINITE ELEJ:.IENT SOLUTION ONLY FOR
EDGE AND MID WIDTH SHOWN
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 168.5 KIP INCH
o
12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6
X-DISTANCE ALONG THE BRANCH (INCH)
FIG. 6.11 DISTRIBlITION OF LONGITUDINAL MEMBRANE STRESS IN THE BRANCH FIANGE (PURE MOI--IENT)
00
w
1\
j
)
84
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M co 168.5 KIP INCH
- SHEAR LAG SOLUTION
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION
TOTAL
1 0 0 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



~ 75
FLANGE
~
~
A
~
H
H
~ 50
<Il
~
0
~
WEB

25
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
BRANCH LENGTH (INCH)
FIG. 6.12 DISTRIBUTION OF MOMENT BETWEEN FINGES AND WEBS
(PURE MOMENT)
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
F = 20 KIPS
FINlTE ELEMENT SOL urION
o
EXPERIMENTAL
o
o
o 40 80 120
STRAIN Ex (MICRO-INCH PER INCH)
EDGE
SECTION Vs
FIG. 6. E) DISTRIBUTION OF LONGITUDINAL STRAIN IN BRANCH
(AXIAL LOAD)
85
12" X 8" X 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
F = 20 KIPS
SECTION
Vi
p:: 8
u

IX!
J:%.I
0
F-l
6



1

H


IX!
4

[-1.
s
H
0

p::
J:%.I
0
CI)
.f:l
2
f
o
Cy
.
40
FIG. 6.14
--
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION
0
fy-
80
o
EXPERIMENTAL
SECTION
V2
0 0
o
ty
40
STRAIN (MICRO-INCH PER INCH)
BRANCH TOP
ex
0
DISTRIBUTION OF BTRAIN IN COLUHN (AXIAL LOAD)
86
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION. FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS. F = 20 KIPS
VERTICAL SECTIONS AT VI V 3 V 4 V 6
1
MEMBRANE
o COMBINED
\0
o
\0
LI ,1
o 2 4 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4
LONGITUDINAL STRESS (KSI)
FIG. 6.16 STRESSES IN BRANCH WEB AND COLUMN S IDE WALL (AXIAL LOAD)
co
co
-4
89
o 0
100 ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~
TOTAL
80
FINITE ELEMENT RES ULTS
WEB
A
60
~
t-1
t-1
g
, [-1
rx.
0
40
~
FLANGE
20
-2 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
DISTANCE FROM WALL OF MAIN MEMBER (INCH)
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION. F = 20 KIPS
FIG. 6.17 DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD BEl"WEEN FLANGES
AND WEBS (AXIAL LOi\D)
WELDED COLUMN FACE
20
,.... 16
::t:
0
Z
H
C'1
1
0
,....,
12
X
'-"
Z
0
H
H
0
8
r:.l
t-l
rr..
r:.l
t=l
1
N
4
4
8" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 98.83 KIP INCH
8 FINITE ELEMENT SOL trrION
6
o
- - ~ -
SHEAR-IAG SOLUTION
SIMPLE BEAM THEORY
(RIGID COLUMN)
~ , . /
- - - - ~
12
/
16
,//
,//
/
20
./
./
/'
.fi
./"
24 INCH
FIG.
8
G.18 Z-DEFLECTION VS. DISTANCE ALONG BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
\0
o
WELDED COLUMN FACE
20
,.... 16
::x::
t)
z
H
C""l
r
0
~ 12
x
'-"
z
0
H
H
t)
8
~
t-l
1'
~
t=l
1
N
4
4
8" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 98.83 KIP INCH
8 FINITE ELEMENT SOL ur ION
6
,,-
<.:>
~
8
SHEAR-IAG SOLUTION
SIMPLE BEAM THEORY
(RIGID COLUMN)
../'./""
~
12
//
16
./
.,./
/
20
./
./
6
,):J
/"
/'
24 INCH
FIG. G.18 Z-DEFLECTION VS. DISTANCE ALONG BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
-
\oC
C
12 1
10 t
8
,....
H
00

.......
00
00
6


E-I
00

b
4
2
o

8" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH
-
SHEAR-LAG SOLUTION
0
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION ONLY

FOR EDGE AND MID-WIDTR SHOWN
M = 98.83 KIP INCH

n

&



2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6
X-DISTANCE ALONG THE BRANCH (INCH)
FIG. 6.19 DISTRIBUTION OF LONGITUDINAL MEMBRANE STRESS IN BRANCH FLANGE (PURE MOMENT)
'""

\0
1-'
"'-.7 . ~
WELDED COLUMN FACE
10
-. 8
::r::
~
H
("'")
1
~ 6
::<
.......
E.;
z
~
r::I 4
~
l=l-I
Cf.)
H
A
1
N 2
o 1.9
4" x 4" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 21.04 KIP INCH
8 FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION
lit
SHEAR-LAG SOLUTION
o SIMPLE BEMI THEORY
(RIGID COLUMN)
//
/ ~
......... ..-/
__ --cr"'"'"
~
_----e-----
3.8 5.7 7.6 9.5
/,)1
,//
.11.4
FIGo 6.20 Z-DEFLECTION VS. DIS.TANCE ALONG BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
INCH
\0
~
12
10
8
-.
H
tf.)

'-'
tf.)
6 tf.)


tf.)
x
b
4
2
o
1.14 2.28
4" x 4" x 1/4" FULL-IHDTH CONNECTION
o
3.42 4.56 5.70 6.84
DISTANCE ALONG THE BRANCH (INCH)
SHEAR-LAG SOLUTION
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION ONLY
FOR EDGE. AND MID-WIDTH SHCN1N
M = 21.04 KIP INCH
7.98 9.12 10.26
FIG. 6.21 DISTRIBUTION OF LONGITUDINAL MEMBRANE STRESS IN BRANCH FIANGE (PURE MOMENT)
'\;;;.J

VJ
94
8" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M ,= 988 83 KIP INCH
TOTAL
10

FLANGE

75

A

H
50
H


<

WEB 0
t-!!
25
o 4 8 12 16 20
DISTANCE ALONG BRANCH FROM COLUMN FACE (INCH)
4" x 4" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 21.04 KIP INCH
r,TOTAL



75
;:E:
A

H
H
50


<
ILl
0
t-!!
25
FLANGE
\
\
\
\
/
1
,
1
:WEB
2 4 6
, 8
10
DISTANCE ALONG BRANCH FROM COLUMN (INCH)
FIG., G.22 DISTRIBUTION OF MOMENTS BETWEEN FLANGES AND WEBS
(PURE MOMENT)
)
95
7. A TWO-DlMENSIONAL MODEL OF THE CONNECTION
In order to reduce the large amount of computer time needed in the
analysis of a three-dimensional structure, an attempt was made to develop a
two-dimensional moclel capable of predicting the joint-modulus of full-width
connections. This analytical model has also been used in an attempt at an
elasto-plastic analysis, which, because of its step-wise linear nature,
requires considerable computing time and thus disqualified a complete three-
dimensional solution.
7.1 Basis of Development
In Chapter 6, the complete behaviour of the connections has been
discussed. It was demonstrated that the load was transferred mainly by the
membrane stresses through the webs. It was further noted that the full
flange is not effective in resisting the moment in the junction region due
to the shear-lag effect. On the basis of this study, the following two-
dimensional model is proposed:
Each branch of the connection is replaced by an equivalent wide
flange section, having the same depth, the same flange thickness and total
web thickness as the box section. But the width of the flanges of the
proposed model is given an effective value which is variable with the
distance from the column face in such a way that the percentage of load
shared between the web and the flanges at each section is the same as in
the actual connection (Figs. 6.12, 6.22). The column is idealized in a
similar way, but has a constant flange width.
The curves in Figs. 6.12 and 6.22 are readily obtainable from the
results of the shear-lag program given in Appendix II. The plot in
)
il
96
Fi.g. 6.12 has been compared with the three-dimensiona1 finite e1ement
solution and will be used for the present mode1.
Since the finite e1ement program [25] used for this ana1ysis
considers constant thickness inside an e1ement, the f1anges of the two-
dimensiona1 mode1 were given a step-wise variation in their widths. The
basic imp1ied in the deve10pment of this mode1 is that the plate
bending behaviour is absent and that the entire mode1 responds to membrane
action on1y.
7.2 Two-Dimensiona1 E1astic Solution of 12" x 8" x 1/4" Connection
The ana1ytica1 mode1 is shown in Fig. 7.1 which a1so gives the
discretization used for the two-dimensiona1 analysis. The rather coarse
mesh used was able to give fairly good resu1ts (Fig. 7.2) within the e1astic
range. However, as will be seen in the next sub-section, a finer mesh is
desirab1e for ine1astic ana1ysis.
The ca1cu1ation of the effective widths of the branch f1anges on
the basis of the plot given in Fig. 6.12 is shown in Table 7.1. Centre
1ine dimensions were used for the ana1ysis.
A comparison of the def1ected e1astic curve of the branch obtained
from the two-dimensiona1 mode1 is made with the experimental data and three-
dimensiona1 solution on Fig. 7.2. Close agreement between these is
apparent. Table 7.2 gives the comparison between the experimenta1 and
ana1ytic values of the joint modu1i of the connections. The experimenta1
study and the two-dimensiona1 ana1ysis were conducted only for the 12" x
8" x 1/4" case.
97
)
Distance of Branch Computed Mf/Moment Resisted Ralf Effective Width =
Cross Section from Moment by F1anges at a
Width of Branch
Co1umn Face Resisted by Cross Section (3) x
2
F1anges Beyond a Distance
(Mf)
Equa1 to the Depth
of the Branch
inch kip-inch inch
(1) (2) (3) (4)
0.326 13.400 0.453 1.182
0.979 15.120 0.512 2.048
1. 632 17.200 0.582 2.328
4.896 26.070 0.882 3.528
8.813 28.800 0.975 3.800
14.688 29.550 1.000 4.000
Table 7.1 Effective Width of F1anges
Description of Connection Joint Modu1us (Kip. inch/rad.) x 10
4
Branch Co1umn Experi- Finite Finite
Shear-1ag
RHS RRS mental Element Element
3-D 2-D
12" x 8" x 1/4" 8" x 8" x 1/4" 79.3 84.25 85.0 79.99
8" x 8" x 1/4" 8" x 8" x 1/4"
- 28.54
-
27.70
4" x 4" x 1/4" 4" x 4" x 1/4"
- 6.15
-
6.10
Table 7.2 Joint Modu1i Prediction
DISCRETIZATION: 125 NODES
1 198 ELEMENTS
C
L
o
SECTION C-C
C.
4.0"
SECTION B-B
tf = 1.812" 0.25 "
t
0.25"
7
tf = 1.812"
tf = 2.048"
tf = 2.328"
= 3.528"
10
tf = 3.8"
14 18
98
0.25"
SECTION A-A
tf = t..O"
1"

0.25 "
-y-
22

FIG. 7.1 MODEL OF 12" x 8" x 1/4" FW CONNECTION
12
101
z
H
C"'"l
8+
1
-0

x
.....,
6
6
H

c.;;
w
l H

W
t=l
1
N
4
2
o 4
0
8
&
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
M = 168.5 KIP INCH
FINITE ELEMENT (3-D)
FINITE ELEMENT (2-D MODEL)
EXPERIME1TTAL
,../
8
8 12 16 20 24
DISTANCE ALONG THE BRANCH FROM OF COLUMN (INCH)
FIG. 7.2 COMPARISON OF TWO AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTIONS (PURE MOMENT)

28
\0
\0
)
100
7.3 Extension in the Ine1astic Range
The e1astic stress ana1ysis of the connection a1lows the
determination of its joint modulus, which is useful for a semi-rigid
analysis based on working stress methods. However, if the plastic method
of structural ana1ysis is adopted for the design, the M ~ plot of the
connection is needed, both in the e1astic and plastic ranges. Since a
three-dimensional analysis in the ine1astic range is not practically
feasib1e for reasons of inefficiency, the two-dimensiona1 mode1 was
emp10yed to obtain the qualitative behaviour.
A computer program to hand1e e1asto-p1astic prob1ems of two-
dimensiona1 plate structures was, therefore, deve10ped [33]. In brief,
this forms an extension of the program [25] used for the e1astic ana1ysis
and emp10ys a modified stiffness approach with incrementa1 loading, for a
time-independent, isotropic, bi1inear e1astic strain-hardening materia1.
No un10ading was considered and the Von Mises yie1d criterion was used.
For eva1uative purposes a notched tension plate was ana1ysed by
this program, and the resu1ts are compared in Fig. 7.3 with those avai1ab1e
elsewhere [48]. Satisfactoryagreement is noted.
The program was then used on the two-dimensiona1 model of the
12" x 8" x 1/4" connection and the load-deflection plot from this ana1ysis
is compared with its experimenta1 counterpart in Fig. 7.4. The two resu1ts
are wide apart, a1though the trend is simi1ar. The stiffer behaviour of
the mode1 cou1d be attributed to the fo11owing reasons:
i) Coarseness of the mesh
ii) Large load increments used
iii) Materia1 idea1ization (Est/E = 1/500)
iv) The single iteration used at each load increment
101
v) Assumptions in the two-dimensiona1 mode1 itse1f.
It can be noted that a11 these factors contribute towards
stiffening the mode1. Factors i), ii) and iv) are the more obvious and
easi1y rectifiable ones. A refined solution was possible, but since this
ana1ysis was intended on1y to demonstrate the possible extension of this
approach in the ine1astic range, this was not pursued further.
)
X
102
STAGES. OF YIELDING
t
1 P = 328 KG.
2 P = 492 KG.
3 P = 656 KG.
4 P ::: 738 KG.
800
---e-
,.....
A

C,!)
600

.......

E-l
;:s

f:1
;3
400
Z
0
A

..:1
200
o 2
FIG. 7.3
y -c-
-a.-
-
-
-...
-
-
L 20 mm.-ta.+I.--. ---
50 mm-----.. -'I
DISCRETIZED QUADRANT SHOWING YIELDED ELEMENTS
AT FOUR LOADING STAGES
AUTHOR

0
..::t
AurHOR
- yAMADAJ - --
YAMADA [48J
2
E
=
20,000 KG/mm
O"y = 30 KG/mm
2
V
- 0.3
t
=
1.0 mm
. <90:>-

. 40 mm
468
DEFLECTION OF POINT C (X 10-
2
mm)
10
PLOT FOR A V-NOTCHED TENSION
12
100
80
,.....
P-I
H

....,
60
r:l
Z
H
::r:


6
Q
40
3
...:1
20
o 40 80
FIG. 7.4
12" x 8" x 1/4" FULL-WIDTH CONNECTION
120 160 200
DEFLECTION (X 10-
3
INCH)
o FINITE ELENENT (2-D" MODEL)
- EXPERIMENTAL
BUCKLING LOAD = 118 KIPS
MA.XM. DEFLECTION AT BUCKLING = 0.45"
LOAD FOR THEORETICAL
OF BRANCH = 15 l KIPS
240 280
LOAD VS. TIP DEFLECTION OF BRANCH (PURE MOMENT)
1-'
o
loi)
)
104
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RE C OMME ND AT IONS
The finite e1ement procedure presented here, in the form of a
general purpose computer program, has been proven to give a comprehensive
and accurate prediction of the stresses, deformations, and joint moduli of
we1ded connections between rectangu1ar tubes. The validity of the results
from the program has been checked against full scale experiments and
available solutions of classical problems. The program is applicable for
the analysis of any type of tubular we1ded joint between rectangular or
circular tubes having arbitrary configurations, boundary conditions and
stiffening.
The use of this general purpose program is recommended if a full
understanding of the behaviour of a tubular connection is required.
However, for the simple and common case of the full-width right-angled
arrangement, such a comprehensive analysis is not necessary. For such
connections, the joint moduli, stresses and deflections of the branches may
be predicted by the formulae derived in Chapter 4, on the basis of the
shear-lag theory. The nature of the load deflection relationship in the
inelastic range can be obtained by employing the two-dimensional substitute
model and the elasto-plastic plane stress program developed in this work.
For the general program, the nonconformable bending field used in
conjunction with the conformable constant strain membrane element has
demonstrated better performance than the conformable set of linear
functions. This can be attributed to the fact that the latter set results
in a stiff structure, for both membrane and bending actions, whereas the
former yields compensating behaviour from each of these. In addition, the
use of linear fields showed singularities for obtuse angled triangles. The
best interpretation of'the stresses obtained from the finite element
105
analysis, dealt with herein, has been achieved by averaging the centroidal
values of adjacent elements at the midpoint of the common line between
them.
The micro flow-chart of the general pur pose program enables
modifications to be carried out with ease. Thus, alternative element
properties can readily be included. In addition, the program can be used
as a basis for development for more complex problems requiring inclusion of
different types of elemenS or effects such as natural or artificial
orthotropy or thermal loading.
The computations on a wide range of full width connections have
led to the following observations pertaining to their behaviour. As much
as 90% of the total surface stresses are contributed by the membrane action
in most parts of the connection, including all the critical zones. In most
practical situations these joints can be classified as AISe type 1
connections, that is, rigide The load transfer from the branch to the main
member is quite different from that obtained in connections between wide
flange sections. In the latter, a major part of the load from the branches
is carried to the column through the branch flanges whereas in the case
under study, it is through the webs. The stress gradient in the flanges at
the junction is very steep across their widths, resulting in ratios of the
maximum to minimum stresses at a section near the junction of the or der of
30. This ratio reduces to unit y at a distance, from the column face,
approximately equal to the depth of the branch. In this region of the
branch member flanges considerable shear-lag occurs. The faces of the
column, where the branches are connected, are not significantly stressed in
comparison to the other two. The spread of the joint deformation in the
column and the branches is limited to a distance, from the faces of the
106
members, approximate1y equa1 to their 1atera1 dimension.
The test resu1ts showed that fu11-width connections under pure
moment fai1ed due to the buck1ing of the unconnected co1umn faces at a load
1eve1 slight1y lower than the theoretica1 plastic moment capacity of the
branches. No sign of distress was noted in the we1ds. The overa11
deformation of the connection at the incipient fai1ure was re1ative1y sma11.
The scope of this work did not inc1ude either the buck1ing or the
rigorous ine1astic ana1ysis of these joints. These are two important
avenues for further research, for which the present detai1ed study of the
e1astic behaviour is a prerequisite.
In addition to the use of this study as a starting point for
investigating the behaviour under higher loads, immediate practica1 uses
lie in the determination of suitab1e locations, shapes and sizes of
stiffeners. The proposed formu1ae can a1so be emp10yed for producing
tables and charts depicting the e1astic behaviour of these joints for
avai1ab1e tubes.
107
REFERENCES
1. Redwood, R.G., "The Bending of Plate Loaded Through a Rigid
Rectangu1ar Inclusion", Int. Journal of Mech. Sciences, Vol. 7, 1965.
2. Amer ican Institute of Steel Construction, "Spec ification for the
Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for
Feb. 1969.
3. National Building Code of Canada, 1965; Part 4 - Design.
4. B1odgett, O.W., "Design of We1ded Structures", The James F. Lincoln
Arc We1ding Foundation Publication, 1968.
5. Gere, J.M., ''Moment Distribution", Van Nostrand, 1963.
6. Maugh, L.C., "Statically Indeterminate Structures", John Wiley, 1956.
7. de Stein, J.L. and McCutcheon, J.O., "Lateral Rigidity of Steel
Building Frames", The Journal of The Engineer ing Institute of Canada,
Oct. 1956.
8. Bres1er, B., Lin, T.Y., Sca1zi, J.B., "Design of Steel Structures",
John Wiley, 1968.
9. McGuire, W., "Steel Structures", Prentice-Ha11 Inc. 1968.
10. White, R.N., Fang, p.J., "Framing Connections for Square Structural
Tubing", proceedings of the ASCE, Journal of the Structural Div.,
Apr il 1966.
11. Redwood, R.G., "Behaviour of Joints between Rectangu1ar Ho11ow
Structural Members", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Oct.
1965.
12. Jubb, J.E.M., Redwood, R.G., "Design of Joints to Box Sections", The
Institution of Structural Engineers, Conference on Industria1ized
Building and the Structural Engineer, 1966.
13. Comit International pour l'Etude et le Dveloppement de la
Construction Tubulaire, "Bib1iography on Tubu1ar Joints and Synopsis
of Se1ected Reports", Oct. 1966.
14. Yoshiaki Kurobane, Kenzio Washio, Masosuka Shiobara, ''We1ded Truss
Joints Connected with Square Structural Tubing", Trans. of
Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 89, Sept. 1963.
15. White, R.N., "Framing Connections for Square and Rectangular Structural
Tubing", Paper presented at the AISC National Engineering Conference,
April 1965. Also Published in AISC Engineering Journal Vol. 2, No. 3,
July 1965.
16. Maxwell, J.C., "Scientific Papers", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1890.
)
17. Castigliano, A., ''Thorie de L'Equilibre des Systems Elastiques",
Tur in, 1879.
108
18. Maney, G., "Studies in Engineering, No. 1", University of Minnesota,
1915.
19. Ostenfeld, A., "Die Deformations methode", Berlin, 1926.
20. Turner, M.J., Clough, R.W., Martin, H.C. and Topp, L.Jo , "Stiffness
and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures", Journal of
Aeronautical Sciences, Sept. 1956.
21. Argyris, J.H. and Kelsey, S 0' "Energy Theorems and Structural
Analys is", Butterworths Publ. London, 1961.
22. Reissner, E., of Shear-Lag in Box Beams by the Principle of
Minimum Potential Energy", Quart. Appl. Math., Oct. 1946.
23. Holand, l., Bell, K., "Finite Element Method in Stress Analysis",
Tapir-Trykk, Trondheim-Norway, 1969, pp 18, 99-100.
24. Mehrotra, B.L., Mufti, A.A., Tocher's Function for the
Analysis of Three Dimensional Plate and Shell Structures", Structural
Mech. Series, Report No. 8, Dept of Civil Eng. and Appl. Mech.,
McGill University, Nov. 1968.
25. Mehrotra, B.L., Redwood, R.G., "A Program for Plane Stress and Plane
Strain Analysis", Structural Mech. Series, Report No. 4, Dept. of
Civil Eng. and Appl. Mech., McGill University, Aug. 1968.
26. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Cheung, Y.K., "The Finite Element Method in
Structural and Continuum Mechanics", McGraw Hill, 1967.
27. Mehrotra, B.L., Mufti, A.A., Redwood, R.G., Program for the
Analysis of Three Dimensional Plate Structures", Structural Mech.
Series, Report No. 5, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Appl. Mech., McGill
University, Sept. 1968.
28. Melosh, R.J., "A Flat Triangular Shell Element Stiffness Matrix",
Airforce Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mech. at Wright-
Patterson Airforce Base, Dayton, Ohio, Oct. 1965.
29. Utku, S., "Stiffness Matrices for Thin Triangular Elements of Non-zero
Gaussian Curvature", AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 9, Sept. 1967.
30. Mehrotra, B.L., Mufti, A.A., Redwood, R.G., "A Program for the Analysis
of Folded Plate Structures and Shells", Proceedings of the Second
Canadian Congress of Appl ied Mechanics", May 1969.
31. Mehrotra, B.L., Mufti, A.A., Redwood, R.G., "Analysis of Three
Dimensional Thin-Walled Structures", Proceedings of the ASCE, Journal
of the Structural Div., Dec. 1969.
109
32. Mufti, A.A., Mehrotra, B.L., "Deve1opment and Evaluation of Matrices
for Triangu1ar Element Characteristics Using Linear Functiorul',
Structural Mech. Series, Report No. 9, Dept. of Civil Eng. and App1.
Mech., McGi11 University, Dec. 1968.
33. Mehrotra, B.L., ~ Program for E1asto-P1astic Ana1ysis of Two-
Dimensiona1 Continuum", Structural Mech. Series, Report No. 18, Dept.
of Civil Eng. and App1. Mech., McGi11 University, Aug. 1969.
34. Tocher, J.L., "Ana1ysis of Plate Bending Using Triangu1ar Elements",
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ca1ifornia, Berkeley, 1963.
35. Prezemieniecki, J.S., "Theory of Matrix Structural Ana1ysis", McGraw
Hill, 1968.
36. Gallagher, R.H., "Ana1ysis of Plate and Shell Structures", Proc. of
the Symp. on Application of Finite Element Methods in Civil Eng.,
Vanderbilt University, Nov. 1969, p 178.
37. Mehrotra, B.L., Redwood, R.G., "Discussion on Finite Element Ana1ysis
of Plate Bending by Triangu1ar Elements", by Shieh, W.Y.J., Lee,
Seng-Lip, and Parma11ee, R.A., Proc. ASCE, EM. Div. Vol. 95, April
1969.
38. Szabo, B.A., Lee, G.C., "Stiffness Matrix for Plates by Galerkin' s
Method", Proc. ASCE, EM. Div. Vol. 95, June 1969, p 583.
39. Utku, S., Me1osh, R.J., "Behaviour of Triangu1ar Shell Element
Stiffness Matrices Associated with Po1yhedra1 Def1ection
Distributions", AIAA, 5th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, New York, Jan.
1967.
40. Jaeger, L.G., "Cartesian Tensors in Engineering Science", Pergamon
Press, 1966.
41. C1ough, R.W., Wilson, E.L., and King, I.P., "Large Capacity Mu1ti-
story Frame Ana1ysis programs", Proc. ASCE., Journal of the Struct.
Div., Aug. 1963.
42. Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, "Theory of Plates and She11s,
McGraw Hill 1959, p 166.
43. Mehrotra, B.L., Mufti, A.A., "Discussion on Finite Element Ana1ysis of
Thin Shells", by Wempner, G.A., Oden, J.T., and Kross, D.A., Proc.
ASCE, EM. Div. Vol. 95, Aug. 1969.
44. Mufti, A.A., Mehrotra, B.L., "Discussion on Ana1ysis of Plate Bending
by Triangu1ar Elements", by Shieh, W.Y.J., Lee, Seng-Lip, and
Parma11ee, R.A., Proc. ASCE, EM. Div. Vol. 95, April 1969.
45. Sawko, F. and Cope, R.J., "Discussion of Linear Ana1ysis of Complete
Structures by Computer", by Majid, K. I. and Williamson, M., Proc. ICE,
Vol. 40, June 1968.
46. Kraus, H., "Thin E1astic She11s", John Wiley, 1967.
47. Manua1 of Steel Construction, AISC Pub1. 1967.
48. Yamada, Y., Yoshimura, N. and Sakurai, T., "Plastic Stress-Strain
Matrix and its Application for the Solution of E1astic-P1astic
Prob1ems by Finite Element Method", International Journal of
Mechanica1 Science, Vol. 10, pp 343-354, 1968.
49. Roren, E.M.Q., "Fin:.te Element Ana1ysis of Ship Structures", The
Finite Element Method in Stress Ana1ysis edited by Ho1and, I. and
Bell, K., Tapir-Trykk, Trondhem-Norway 1969, pp 152-153.
110
50. Connor, J., to Plane-Stress and P1ane-Strain Linear
E1astic Materia1", Special Summer Program, 1.59S, MIT, June 1968, p 57.
111
APPENDIX l
DERIVATION OF REISSNER'S DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE SHEAR-
LAG ANALYSIS OF BOX BEAMS
t1r
1
I=Q
La
r>::l
1
:?;
Z
----
-.
L
1
0
----.on
H
x
:?; E-!
1
C,.)
t
r>::l
--- ---- ---
~ I
Cf.)
x

,-
Cf.)
:?;
Cf.)
-----
t5 ---.J
~
C,.)
1- dx -l
~
L
h-1

h
Ir."
PLAN 1
:>-.
p dx
-----
T
lM(
)
M + dM
dx
dx
V
-- ----
V'+ dV dx
dx
ELEVATION
FIG. 1.1. SKETCH OF AN ELEMENT OF BOX BEAM
Assumptions:
i) The shear deformability of the flanges allows a
parabolic distribution of deformation u with respect
to y; thus u is a function of x and y in the flange regions.
)
ii)
Derivation:
The transverse strain e is assumed to be zero.
y
The total potentia1 energy of the bent branch is
(1.1)
where
II
=
Potentia1 energy of the load system
t
II
=
Strain energy of the bent webs
w
IIf
=
Strain energy of the flanges
Eq. (1.1) can be written
II =
+
122
2 ff 2t (Ex + Gy )dxdy
(1.2)
where
l = Moment of inertia of the webs about y-y axis
w
G = Shear modu1us of rigidity
= dU/dX, normal strain
x
y
= dU/dY, shear strain.
The minimum potentia1 energy theorem app1ied to the functiona1 given
by Eq. (1.2) 1eads to a partial differentia1 equation for u and a
112
complete system of boundary conditions. If however, a suitab1e function
for the disp1acement u(x,y) is assumed, then the variation of this
functiona1 will resu1t in an ordinary differentia1 equation for trans-
verse def1ection Z, a10ng with the necessary boundary conditions.
The parabo1ic assumption for u(x,y) used in the derivation is
u(x,y)
2
= + h [ dZ + (1- L ) u(x)]
dx 2
w
(1.3)
113
where the 1ast term represents the correction due to shear deformabi1ity
of the f1anges. The form of the correction is such that continuity of
the disp1acement at y = w is preserved.
From Eq. (1.3) the strains in the flanges are
Ou
= + h [ d
2
Z + (1- :l ) dU J =
dx x - 2 2 dx
dx w
(1.4)
Ou -
2h Y.. U
y =
Y
=+
...
w w
(1.5)
Eqs. (1.2), (1.4) and (1.5) give the strain energy in the f1anges
as
th
2
1,
J w
~
{d
2
Z 2 r
IIf
=
J
-+
(1- L. ) dU
2 2 dx
x=o
-w
dx w
+
G {e ; U } ~ dxdy
Integrating with respect to y and putting
2
If = 4wth , yie1ds
1
IIf = 2
J El (d Z) + 1L (dU) + _ d Z .dU + Q -2 U
2
dx
t [22 24
2
4 ]
f d 2 15 dx 3 d 2 dx E
o x x 3w.
(1.6)
Eqs. (1.2) and (1.6) give
t [1
2 2 2 ]
TI =
J -
El
(d Z) + M d Z dx
o 2
dx
2
dx
2
.t
1. El
[ ~
2
d
2
Z dU + Q
+
J
(dU) + i
2 f dx 3
dx
2
dx E
0
Now BTI = 0 1eads to the differentia1 equations
+ 2
3
dU M
dx + El
= 0
4
u
2
]
dx
3w
2
(1. 7)
(1. 8)
114
, -
and
El [ d
2
U _.2. Q .L + .2. d
3
z ] = 0
f d 2 2 E 2 4 d 3
x w x
(1. 9)
and to the boundary condition for the end where flanges are not
fixed to the support
El ( dU 5 d
2
Z ) = 0
f dx + 4 dx
2
(1.10)
By eliminating U between Eqs. (1.8) and (1.9),a differential equation
for Z only is obtained as follows:
(1.11)
The boundary condition (1.10) then reduces to
5 If d
2
Z M
(1- '6 1 ) dx2 + El
= 0 ( 1.12)
115
. APPENDIX II
C lAG ANAlYSI.S FOR PREDICTING JOINT MODUlUS,STRESSES.AND
RHS
C DEFlECTIONS OF WElDEO BEAM TO COlUMN CONNECTIONS BETWEEN
RHS
,C RECTANGUlAR HOllOW SECTIONSo
RHS
C*********'*************************************************************RHS
DIMENSION SIGMC20J
RHS
REAL M,JM
RHS
REAO (5,10' W,T,D,Al,8,M,G,E
f{HS
WRITEC6,10' W,T,D,Bl,B,M,G,E
RHS
10 FORMATCSF702,3F10o2)
RHS
READ (S,12) NCS,NPOIN,NlDAO
RHS
WRITE(6,12) NCS,NPOIN,NlOAO
RHS
12 FORMAT(314)
RHS
FlNI=2o*2o*W*T**3/l2o )+2 o*W*T*{oS*(D-T) )**2)
RHS
WEBI=2o*(T*(D-2o*T)**3'/12o
RHS
8RI=FlNI+WEBI
RHS
RATOI=FlNI/BRI
RHS
RATOE=G/E
RHS
PARAN=lo/(lo-So*RATOI/6o )
RHS
. PARAK=SQRT(205*PARAN*RATOE)/W
RHS
BlK=PARAK*Bl
RHS

C CURVATURE
RHS
C***********************************************************************RHS
ANTER=W/CNPOIN-1'
RHS
X=Bl
RHS
SPACE=Bl/NCS
RHS
WRITE(6,SOl)
RHS
501 FORMAT('O',' NORMAL STRESSES IN THE FlANGE')
RHS
WRITEC6,SOO)
RHS
SOO FORMATC '0', t X
Y
SIGMX RHS
l
' )
R HS
CURVS=M/(E*BRI)
RHS

CSHKl=COSH(BlK)
RHS
SNHKl=SINH(BlK)
RHS
DO 2 I=l,NCS
RHS
XK =X*PARAK
RHS
CSHKX=COSH(XK)
RHS
SNHKX=SINH(XK)
RHS
IF (Nl DAO) 100,100,101
RHS
100 CURV=CURVS",(PN*SNHKX/SNHKl'-loJ
RHS
GO TO 102
RHS
CURV=CURVS*Bl*PN*SNHKX/SNHKl'-X)
RHS
Y=Oo
RHS
DO 1 J=l,NPOIN
RHS
IF (NlOAO) 105,105,106
RHS
105 SIGM(J'=-oS*E*D*(CURV-lo5(RATOI*Clo-CY/W)**2'
RHS
1 *(CURV+M/C E*:BP,!)')
RHS
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SJ
116
GO' TO 1 07
-...
RH S'
106 SYGl=-(loS/RATOIJ*(lo-(Y/W)**2'
RHS
SYG2 =CURV+M*X/CE*BRI)
RHS
. SIGM{J )=-0 S*E*0*(CURV+SYGl*SYG2)
RHS
107 WRITE(6,11)X,Y,SIGMeJ'
RHS
Il FORMAT(3E2006,
RHS
l' 'Y= Y+ANTER
RHS
2 X=X-SPACE
RHS
f c***********************************************************************RHS C VERTICAL OEFlECTIONS- lX
RHS


;.1
;.1:
'.!'
,.

.
r
!
c***********************************************************************RHS
S05
506
110
III
112
3
WRITE(6,S05'
FORMATC'O',' VERTICAL OEFlECTION OF BRANCH')
WRITE(6,506'
FORMAT( '0','
X=Bl
NCS=NCS+1
DO 3 1 = l, NC S
MINUS=Bl-X
XK=X*PARAK
SNHKX=SINH(XK)
C SHKX=COSH( XK)
X
lX
IF(NlOAD'110,110,ll1
FA=(PN*SNHKX/(SNHKl*PARAK**2)-X**2/2o '


1 +Bl*PN*CSHKL/(PARAK*SNHKL)
lX=CURVS*(FA+FB+FC'
lS=o5*CURVS*MINUS**2
GO TO 112
FAT=(BL*PN*SNHKX/(SNHKL*PARAK**2)-X**3/6o)
FBT=(o5*B*(2o*Bl+B)-BL*PN*CSHKl/CPARAK*SNHKL)
1
FCT=-PN*Bl/CPARAK**2'-BL**3/3o-B**3/3o -B*BL*{B+BL)
1
lX=CURVS*CFAT+FBT+FCT)
lS=CURVS*MINUS**3/3o
WRITE(6,11)X,lX,lS
X=X-SPACE
lS )
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
c***********************************************************************RHS : SLOPE AT THE TIP OF THE BRANCH
RHS

1 F ( NL DA 0) 120, 120, 121
RH S
120 F4=PN*(lo-CSHKLt
RHS
F5=BLK*SNHKL
RHS

RHS
SlOPT=M*BL*FACTR/(E*BPI)
RHS
GO TO 122
RHS
.121 FT4 :(B+BU**2/2o
RHS
o
FT5=BL* PN* ( 1" -C SHKL f 1 (PARAK*SNHI<L)
R HS
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
117
. SLOPT=CURVS*(FT4+FT5'
RHS 101
WRITE(6,503'
RHS 102
503 FORMAT('O',' SLOPE AT THE TIP OF THE
RHS 103
WRITE(6,11' SLOPT
RHS 104
105 C JOINT MOOULUS
RHS 106
C******************************************************************************* IF(NLOAO' 130,130,131
RHS 107
130 ROTAS=CURVS*BL
RHS 108
GO TO 132
RHS 109
131 ROTAS=CURVS*BL**2/2o
RHS 110
132 ROTAC=SLOPT-ROTAS
RHS III

RHS 112
IF (NLOAD' 140,140,141
RHS 113
141 JM=JM*BL
RHS 114
140 WRITE(6,504'
RHS 115
504 FORMAT('O',' JOINT MODULUS')
RHS 116
..
\il:)
WRITEC6,11' JM
RHS 117
END
RHS 118
APPENDIX III
FLOW CHART FOR ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF THREE DlMENSIONAL
PlATE STRUCTURES
1. Main Program
a. Input
,-
1
1
l,
1 4
IL
1
1 r-
I
f.
I
f
L_
1 r-
I L_
1'1-
ll_
1
II-
I 1
REWIND 12
REWIND 1
REWIND 4
NPART, NPOIN, NELEM, NBOUND, NCOLN , NFREE ,NWIDTH
NPART, NPOIN, NELEM, NBOUND, NCOLN, NFREE ,NWIDTH
1-- (I,NPOIN)
X(I,I),X(I,2),X(I,3)
X(I,I),X(I,2),X(I,3)
NCARD
l - (1, NELEM)
NOD(I,J) ,J=I,3) ,THICK(I) ,R(I)
NOD(I,J) ,J=I,3) ,THICK(I),R(I)
STOP CONTINUE STOP
1-- (I,NBOUND)
NF l ,NB(I,1),NB(I,2),NB(I,3),NB(I,4),NB(I,5),NB(I,6),BV(I,1),
BV(I 2),BV(I,3) BV(I,4) BV(I,5) BV(I 6)
NF(I),NB(I,1),NB(I,2),NB(I,3),NB(I,4),NB(I,5),NB(I,6),BV(I,1),
BV(I,2),BV(I,3),BV(I,4),BV(I,5),BV(I,6)
1 __ -1,NPART
NSTART,NEND,NFIRST,NLAST
J-- (1,NCOLN)
1 : r
1 1 L_ . . : = = : = = = = = = = - ~
.1: f
118
Q
:'), -\-,
'f <
0
--------
1 i
119
1 1
1 L __
1
L_
b. peneration of Matrices
,-
1 r
1 i
1 LI
1
1
1 r
t 1 1
IlL
1 t l
1 b.l.
1 Il
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 Il
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
(1,NPART
J -- (1, NWIDTH)
MWIDTH=NWIDTH/2
NST=NSTART(II
NEN=NEND(II)
K2 =NFIRST(II)
L =NlAST(II)
MINUS=K2-1
LK- (NST NEN)
MM=LK- INTER
1- (1,3)
JJ =NOD(LK,I)
XE(I, 1) =X(JJ, 1)
XE(I,2)=X(JJ,2)
XE(I,3)=X(JJ,3)
=THICK(LK)
A1=[XE(2,2)-XE(1,2)]*[XE(3,3)-XE(1,3)]-[XE(3,2)-XE(1,2)]*
[XE(2,3)-XE(1,3)]
B1=-[XE(2,1)-XE(1,1)]*[XE(3,3)-XE(1,3)]+[XE(3,1)-XE(1,1)]*
[XE(2,3)-XE(1,3)]
C 1 = [XE (2 , 1) - XE ( 1 , 1) ] [XE (3 , 2) - XE ( 1 , 2) ] - [XE (3 , 1) - XE (1 , 1) ]
[XE(2,2)-XE(1,2)]
Q =SQRT
Pl=SQRT [(A1
M
(2) ]
R(LK)
= -Bl/Q
H(1,2) = Al/Q
H(2,1) = -Al*Cl/(P1*Q)
H(2,2) = (Pl
H(2,3) = /
o
1 Il
'1 J
. 1 H(l,l) = Bl/Q
1
H(1,2) = -Al/Q
1
I
H H22,'2l = Al*Cl/(Pl*Q)
=
Il
H(2,3) = -(A11n'c2+B11d\"2)/(Pli(Q)
1 H(1,3) = O.
1 H(3, 1) = Al/Pl
1 . H(3,2) = BI/Pl
1 H(3,3) = Cl/Pl
Il b.2 Formation of Element Coordinates w.r.t.
III r

Il
t +
1
1
1
III
. 1
III r-
I
1 r
4 1
= 1.
= 1.
= -1.
= -1.
= XE(l,l)
XE(I,l) = XE(I,l) - XEO(l,l)
XE(I,2) = XE(I,2) - XEO(1,2)
XE(I,3) = XE(I,3) - XEO(1,3)
l
it
1
Il 1
+ H(J,K)*XE(I,K)
r--
Local Axes
l' 1 h J- (1,3)
1 i 1.
3
Calculation of Element Stiffness Matrices
Il 1
120
'1
1
!.4 FormatioJ of Rotation Transformation Matrix
1 1 1- 1 18)
Il
t [+'- J - (1, 18) .
1 L_L
/11 i-
l
/ I
l r-
I . 4" r'- '----.,...:--..:.......:...../
1
l
,: IT = l + K3
1
1 1 1 JT-;J+K3
1
'1 LrJ_
T(IT,JT) = H(I,J)
1
'1 r-*r=:[::=:(=T7( ,-J-=-=-l--=, l:-::B7") -, 1-=-:-1-,
CONTINUE
, 1 b.5 Formation of Stiffness Matrix of Element in Global Coordinates
1 r-- I-1,lB
,
Il li:- J - 1, 18
t
tH;-
111
11s- K-- l,lB
P(I,J) = P(I,J) + K1(I,K)*T(K,J)
1 r- 1-- 1 lB
Il ; r - J - 1,18
1111 r K-- l, lB
Ul_ K1(I,J) = K1(I,J) +
I
l b.6 Formation of Overal1 Structure Stiffness Matrix
1 r--<LL- f
1
,3)
III -<KK-- (1:3) >
1 1 r
1
Il:
1/1
1
M = NFREEi: [NOD(LK, KK) -K2]
f N = [NOD (LK, LL) - K2 ]
111
11
: ;
1111i : 1
.11 III 1 1
NHI = M + MI
NNJ = N + NJ
IH! = l + MI
JNJ = J + NJ
121
C)
III li H
III II w-_ ST(MMI,NNJ)=ST(MMI,NNJ)+K1(IMI,JNJ)J

Il l d P ih d D 1 t
c. ntro uc t J.on 0 rescr e J.sp acemen s
l'
l' +
Il
r----
1
1
1
t
l --1.NBOUN
_t
M = NF(I) -K21
MM = NF(I)-1

SIZE = (MWIDTH/6 - 1)

+1
It
1
1
t-
M
-
SIZ
'
J s;g"NFREE) >
1
'1
Il
Il
Il
" Il
Il
1 :
Il
+1
Il
d
1
,
,
+

1
r--
1
1
1 1
1
L ___
,
1
L ___
l
Il L_
NMI =
ST(NMI,NMI) = ST(NMI,NMI)*.1E+12
JJ--l,NCOLN

JN J = NFREE')'(MM+J 1

U(JNJ,JJ) = ST(NMI,NMI)*BV(I,J)J

CONTIN
t
CONTIN
t
INTER = NEN
MI =
NJ =
M = NJ-MI+l
.-L.. .
II-NPART
+ O.lE+18
-
I L _ _ _ r-
D
-
I
-
S
K-(7"':"4-:-) -M-,.J-
N
-, =-=[ (,--S T-(-:-I-, ---'J)-,-I-= l-,-M7'""") ,-J-=-l ,-M-=-J-, -=--[ ('-S-T -:-( I-, -eJ)'--,-I-=-l ,-MO:-) -, J-=-MM-,-NA--=-"J,
1 [(U(I,J),I=MI,NJ),J=1,NCOLN]
1
1
1
122
)
f
1
1
REWIND 1
1 d. Solution of Tridiagonal Matrices and Ca1culation of Residua1s
t
1 e.
L ___
CALL STRESS
CONTINUE
STOP
2. Subroutine for Plane Stress (FEMP)
,----
. ,--
1 ~
1
t L __
: ,--
1 ~
~ ___
r
---
r-
L_L __
r-
L_
J-(1,6)
1-- (1,3)
B(I,J) = O.
DB(I,J) = O.
DBA(I J) = O.
1-(1,6)
CCI, J) = O.
J- (1,3)
1--(1,3)
D(I,J) = O.
ORX = [XE(1,1)+XE(2,1)+XE(3,1)]*.333333
ORY = [XE(1,2)+XE(2,2)+XE(3,2)]*.333333
3)
XE(I,l) = XE(I,l)-ORX
XE(I,2) = XE(I,2)-ORY
ZX(l) = XE(2,2)-XE(3,2)
ZX(2) = XE(3,2)-XE(1,2)
ZX(3) = XE(1,2)-XE(2,2)
Z Y ( 1) = XE (3 , 1) -XE (2 , 1)
ZY(2) = XE(1,1)-XE(3,1)
ZY(3) = XE(2,1)-XE(1,1)
ZK. = XE(2,1)*XE(3,2)-XE(3,1)*XE(2,2)
Z = 3. 'kZK
A(l,l) = ZK/Z
A(2,1) = ZK( 1) /Z
A(3,1) = ZY(l)/Z
A(4,2) = A(l,l)
123
)
E1asticity matrix
,---
,--
1-
__
,-----
l r--
1 1-

1----
1
l ,--
1 1
t j '----1
1 l ,

A(5,2) = A(2,1)
A(6,2) = A(3,1)
A(1,3) = ZK/Z
A(2,3) = ZX(2)/Z
A(3,3) = ZY(2) /z .
A(4,4) = A(1,3)
A(5,4) = A(2,3}
A(6,4) = A(3,3)
A(1,5) = ZK/Z
A(2,5) = ZX(3)/Z
A(3,5) = ZY(3)/Z
A(4,6) = A(1,5)
A(5,6) = A(2,5)
A(6,6) = A(3,5)
B(1,2) = 1.
B(3,3) = 1.
B(3,5) = 1.
B(2,6) = 1.

DEN =
D(l,l) = E/DEN
D(2,1) = V*D(l,l)
D(1,2) = D(2,1)
D(2,2) = D(l,l)
D(3,3) = G
J-- (1,6)
DB(I,J) =
J--(1,6)
K-- (1,6)
M = 0
N = 0
K--(1,lS,6)
K3 = K-1
M = N+1
N = M+1
K2 = 1
JL = K2 + K3 i
DQ2C(I,JL) = DBA(I,J) :
K2 = K2 + 1 .
124
()
,r--.---
, r-
L- ___ _
I-
1-Jl,3)
1--(1,3)
l r---
L _L _-
i-
l
1

,--
1
,-
1 l

K3 = K-l
M = N+1
N = M+1
K2 = 1
J-- (M,N)
JL = K2+K3
3C l JL) = BA(I J)
125
DISK(l) [(DQ2C(I,J),I=1,6),J=1,18),[(DQ3C(I,J),I=1,6),J=1,18),ORX,ORY
Complete stress &
strain matrices
for plate e1ement
stored on

+ l ,--
L_L_i_
1-----
CONTINUE
J--(1,6)
1-(1,6)
= BTDBA(I, J) +B(K, J) *VOL
1 :-C--- 1--(1,6)
t. K--(1,6)
L -,- CJ)===C=(::::::I:"'-,-J)--tA-(-K-,
Stiffness matrix
for membrane
stress formed
,----
1
1
1

1
1
i
1
'-. -
1
1

1
1.
,-
1
.1
M = 0
N = 0
K--1,13,6
N = M+1
M = N+l
K2 .= K-1
K6 = 1
I-(N,M)
IL = K6+K2
N1 = 0
Ml = 0
K3--1,13,6
K4 = K3-1
N1 = Ml+l
Ml = Nl+l
K5 = 1
)
1 1
! f r-
I Il!
LJ_LJ-
Membrane stiffness
matrix located at
proper place in
the plate element
stiffness matrix.
3. Subroutine for Bending (FEMB)
START )
p = 1.
Q = 1.
X2 = XE(2, 1)
X3 = XE(3, 1)
Y3 = XE{3, 2)
D2 = / [12*(l-V
i
(*2) J
Dl' = Vi(D2
D12 = (l-V)/2.*D2
r---
L_r-_

1-(1,18)
J--(l,18)
t
KI (l, J) = O.
J-l,9
t
1-- 1.9
1----
,-
1 t D(l, j) = O.
L L
A(I,J) = O.
- - ..... C(I.J) = O.
C (1,1) = 1.
C(2,3) = -1.
C(3,2) = 1.
C(4,1)
= 1.
C(4,2) = X2
C(4,4) =
C(4,7) = X2-ld:3
C(S,3) = -1.
C(S,S) = -X2
C(S,8) = -
C(6,2) = 1.
C(6,4) = 2. -l(X2
C(6,7) = 3.
C(7,1) = 1.
C(7,2) = X3
C(7,3) = Y3
C(7,4) =
C(7,S) =
C(7,6) =
C{7,7) =
-
C(7,8) =
C(7,9) =
C(8,3) = -1.
C(8,S) = -X3
1
126
.-
)
matrix inverted
Generation of stress
1---
r--
L--L- _
1----
1 r ,-=
L-L-l- __
C(8,6) = -21(Y3
C(8,8) = -P*(X3**2)-2.*Q*X3*Y3
C(8,9) =
C(9,2) = 1.
C(9,4) = 2.*X3
C(9,S) :::: Y3
C(9,7) =
C(9,8) = 2.*P*X3*Y3+Q*(Y3**2)
matrix in bending
J-(1,9)
QIC(I, J) :::: O.
1IJ)=0.
Q1(1,4) :::: -2 0
Ql(2,6) :::: -2.
Q1(3,S) :::: 2.
Q1(1,7) :::: -6.*ORX
Ql(1,8) :::: -2.
Q1(2,8) :::: -2.*Q*ORX
Q1(2,9) :::: -6.*ORY
Q1(3,8) :::: 4.*(P*ORX+Q*ORY)
J-(1,9)
11-- (1,3)
K--(1,9)
Q1C(I1,J) :::: QIC(I1,J)+Q1(I1,K)*C(K,J)
Strain matrix Q1C is formed in curvature and twist.
rv ,
Generation of strain in cartesian forme
,---
,-
1 4
L-.L_
1--1,3
J-19
O. (l, J)
Strain matrix in cartesian form generated.
i .
127
Location of strain matrix from FEMB at proper place in overa11 strain matrix.
,--
r-
L-L._
1- (1,6)
C)
r--
1
1 1
t 1
L
t ,-
1 ~
~ 1
K-- (3,18 6)
K3 = K-1
Ml = N+1
N = Ml+2
K2 = 1
J-(M1,N)
JL = K2+K3
DQ3C(1+3,JL) = Q1C(1,J)
Strain matrix of FEMB located at proper place in complete strain matrix.
Stress matrix for bending'.
,-
4 I-
~ -
,---
! ,--
1 +
L-1S-
Stress
,--
U=
1 - (1,3)
J --(1,3)
EM(1 J) = O.
EM(l,l) = D2
EM(1,2) = Dl
EM(2,1) = Dl
EM(2,2) = D2
EM(3,3) = D12
J--1,9
1---1,3
DQ1C(1, J)
K---1 3
= DQ1C(1,J)+EM(1,K)*Q1C(K,J)
is formed in moments and twisting moments.
J---1 9
128
Stress matrix DQ1C is formed in cartesian form
Location of s t ~ s matrix
1
from FEMB in complete stress matrix of the e1ement
r---
Le-
i-
1
t
1
1
1
r-
I
~
1
1
J--(1,18)
DQ2C(1 J) = O.
1-(1,3)
K-3,18,6
K3 = K-1
Ml = N+1
N = M1+2
K2 = 1
)
l, 1
1 ,-
1 l = DQlC(I,J)
.L
129
Stress matrix of FEMB located at proper place in the complete stress matrix
of the plate element.
A(4,4) = 2.*D2*X2*Y3
A(4,6) = 2.*Dl*X2*Y3
A(4,7) = 2.*D2*Y3*X2*(X3+X2)
A(4,8) = (. ]
A(4,9) = 2.*Dl*X2*(Y3**2)
A(5,5) = 2.*D12*X2*Y3
A(5,8) = (1.33*D12*X2*Y3)*[P*(X3+X2)+Q*Y3]
A(6,6) = 2.*D2*X2*Y3
A(6,7) =
A(6,8) = (O. ]
A(6,9) =
A( 7 , = 3.
A(7 , 8) = O. i(X3) +2. ]
A(7 ,9) = [1.
A( 8,8) = X2*Y3 /3. * +4. +4.
(P-:d(2 +(Dl+4. ]
A(8,9) = [O. [2.
A(9,9) =
.-----
1 r----
f 1
LLr-
1---
! 1---
1 t r-
Ll __ L-
,---
1
t
1
1
1
'1--1,9
J-l,9 )
t
A (J, 1) = A (1 , J) 1
1-- (1,9)
t
J-(1,9)
D(I, J) = 0.1
K--(1,9)
D(I,J) = 1
1--1,9
A(I,J) = 0.1
,
K--l,9
A(I,J) = A(I,J)+C(K,I)i(D(K,J) 1
,
M2 = 0 1
N2 = 0
f
K--(3, 15,6)
N2 = M2+1
M2 = N2+2
K2 = K-l
K6 = 1
,---
L_.[-
IL = K6+K2
N1 = 0
Ml = 0
K3- (3,15,6)
K4 = K3-1
N1 = M1+1
Ml = N1+2
;=K5::::=:::::
1
~ 1
J--(N1,M1)
JL = K5+K4
K1(IL,JL) = A(I,J)+K1(IL,JL)
130
4. Subroutine "SOLVE" for Solution of Equations and Printing or Residua1s:
,----
1
1
1
~
1 1-
L_..l __
I--1,MWIDTH
J---1,NCOLN
TF(1,J) = O.
RS (1 J) = O.
J-1,MW1DTH
YM(1, J) = O.
,----
LL--1 NPART
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
DISK(4)M,N, [(AM(1,J),1=1,M),J=1,M], [(BM(1,J),1=1,M),J=1,N],
[(F(1,J),1=1,M),J=1,NCOLN]
,---,
r-
I
j
1---1 M
J--1 NCOLN
1
1
t L ___ D1S(I,J) = F(I,J)
1 r-
L-L __
J-1,M
)
)
1
1
1
,--
t r-
I 1 r-
LL-l--

1
1
DISK(2)M,N, [(AM(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,M],[(BM(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,N],
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
,---
1 r--
.
1 1 r-

,----
l ,--
t [-
LJ_
,---
l ,--
t f r-

1---
j r--
LJ_f_
1 r--
[(F(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,NCOLN]
K-1 NCOLN
TF(I,K) = O.
J-(1,M)
TF(I K) = TF(I,K)+BM(J,I)*DIS(J K)
J---(1 N)
1-- (1 M)
K--1,M
YM(I,J) = YM(I,J)+AM(I,K)*BM(K,J)
J--(1,N)
:::---(1 N)
K-1M
AM( 1, J) = AM( 1, J) +BM(K, 1) J)
1-1,N
J-1,N
1 r-
L __ I-=-:--
,----
1
t
1
LL-1,NA
131
o
-1
1
BACKSPACE 2
BACKSPACE 2
1
1
DISK(2)M,N, [(AM(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,MJ, [(BM(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,N],
[(F(I,J),I=1,M),J=1,NCOLNJ
1
t
1
1
1
1----
! J--
1 t

r--
r-
L-L _
l ,--
1
t
. 1 1 r-
L
.L.J. _..1-_
----
1--- (l,M)
K--- (l,NCOLN)
TF(I,K) = TF(I,K)+BM(I,J)*DIS(J,K)
1 - -- -- -- LL-- l, NPART
1
DISK(4)N,N, [(AM(I, J) ,:=1 ,M) ,:=1 ,MJ , [(BM(I, J) ,1=1 ,M) ,J=1 ,NJ ,
1
1
1
1
1
,---
,--
1 1
l
1 1
[(F(I,J),I-1,M),J-1,NCOLNJ
BACKSPACE 3
. DISK(3) [(DIS (l, J) ,1=1 ,M) , J=1 ,NCOLN]
. BACKS PACE 3
BACKSPACE 3
DISK(3) [(TF(I,J),I=l,N),J=l,NCOLN]
J-1,NCOLN
I-IM
= F ( l , J) - RS ( l , J)
1
1
1 1
1 i-
L -.J _ i ___
r----
: 1 r--
1 1 1 [-
LJ_
L ___ _
J-(l,M)
RS(I,K) = RS(I,K)+BM(J,I)*DIS(J,K
[(F(I,J),I=l,M),J=l,NCOLN]
CONTINUE
RETURN
132
133
5. Subroutine "ncOMP" for Decomposing Stiffness Matrix into Triangu1ar Form.
r----
1 1---
1 1
1 1
: 1 [=-
t 1
1 t
1 1
1--(1 ,N)
J-1,N

SUM = SUM-AN(K J)
(J-I
THAN ZERO AND SUBROUTlNE FAlLS
U
= S UM;"TEMP

6. Subroutine "INVERTI! for Inverting Decomposed Stiffness Matrix
,-----
l ,---
J--(J1,N)
i
.1 f C= __
___ ___
1------
l j--
1 t
J--(l,N)
__ >IIII!r
)
7. Subroutine "STRESS" for Ca1cu1ation of Stresses and Strains.
r-
I
t
L
---
---
II-(l,NPART)
f
JJ = NPART+I-I1
M = NFREE*[NFIRST(JJ)-l]+l
N = NFREE*NLAST(JJ)
DISK(3) [(U(I, J) , I=M,N) ,J=l ,NCOLN] J
134
Title: NODE X-DIS PLACEMENTS
OX-DISPLACEMENTS
Y-DIS PLACEMENTS Z-DISPLACEMENTS '1
OY-DISPLACEMENTS OZ-DIS PLACEMENTS
i
1
[(l, U( 6*1-5, J) , U(6
ok
I-4) , J) ,U( 6*1-3, J) J) J), '1
U(6*I,J),I=1,NPOIN),J=1,NCOLN]
REWIND 13
REWIND 2
REWIND 4
+
1 Title: ELEM X-PLANESTRESS Y-PLANESTRESS XY-PLANESTRESS
X-BENDING STRESS Y-BENDING STRESS XY-BENDING STRESS
t
-- LL ---1, NELEM )
t
(DISK(l) [(DQ2C(I, J) ,1=1,6), J=l, 18] , [(DQ3C(I, J) ,1=1,6), J=l, 18] ORX, ORY 1
,-
1
1
1
1
DISK(12) [(T(I, J) , J=l, 18) ,1=1,18]
1
1
r-
I

1
L
1 1
t !
-----
I-
1

1
1 __
--
,--
r
1 1
1 L
1

t
)
t
I-(1,3)
t
JJ = NOD(LL,I)
= U(6
i
:JJ-5,J)
Z J) =
Z(6*I-3,J) = U(6*JJ-3,J)
= U(6
i
'JJ-2, J)
Z -l, J) =
,
Z J) = U( J)
1-(1,18)
t
J---- (l, NCOLN)
t
Cl(I, J) = O.
1
K--(1,18)
,
Cl(I, J) = 1
1
1
1
1
1 DISK( 13) [( (LL, NOD(LL, J) ,C l( 6
i
:J-5 ,K) ,Cl( K) ,K), 1
,Cl(6
i
:J-l,I\) ,K=l,NCOLN) ,J=1,3]
1
1
1
1
1
r-
I

1
1
L
---
r--
1

,-
l_L_
J---(l,NCOLN)
1--(1,6)
DB(I, J) = o.
1
DB1(I, J) = o.
t
K-_(1,18)
DB(I, J) = DB(I, J) +DQ2C(I, K) (K, J) 1
DB1(I, J) = DBl (l, J) +DQ3C (l, K) (K, J) 1
.
)
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
[--
--
J --( 1, NCOLN)
(LL,DB(I,J),I=1,6)
Complete strain matrix (DB1) formed
+
1--(1,3)
',---
l ,-- t
, 1 DZT(I, J) = O.
DZB(I, J) = O.
1 1 DSZT(I, J) = O.
L -L - -
t
t
J--(l,NCOLN) )
1 "'1 ---
.---
J---1,NCOLN )
'-----'.y----'
1--1,3
1 t f
t
DZT(I,J) = DB(I,J)+DB(I+3,J) 1
1 L L -- = DB(I,J)-DB(I+3,J) 1
CALL PRIN for principal stresses on top fibre 1
1 CALL for principal stresses on bottom fibre
135
1
DISK(2)LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY,[(DZT(I,J),I=1,3),(A3(I,J),I=1,3),
J=1,NCOLN],LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DZB(I,J),I=1,3),
(A2(I,J),I=1,3),J=1,NCOLN]
l ,---
l ,--
J--1,NCOLN
+
1--1,3
t
DSZT(I, J) = DB1(I, J) +DB1(I+3, J) 1
1 1
LL -- DSZB(I,J) = DB1(I,J)-DB1(I+3,J) 1
1 DISK(4)LL,(NOD(LL,J),J:1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DSZT(I,J),I:1,3),J:1,NCOLN],1
LL,(NOD(LL,J),J-1,3),ORX,ORY,[(DSZB(I,J),I-1,3),J-1,NCOLN] 1
, - CONTINUE

REWIND 13
REWIND 2
REWIND 4

Tit1e: ELEH NODE X-DIS PLACEMENTS
OX-DISPLACEMENTS
r ------ LL--1,NELEM
Y-DISPLACEMENTS Z-DISPLACEMENTS 1
OY-DISPLACEMENTS OZ-DISPLACE}NTS 1
1 (DISK(13) [LL,NOD(LL,J) ,C1(6"(J-S,K) ,C1(6'(J-4,K) ,C1(6'(J-3,K), 1
1 C1(6"(J-2,K) ,C1(6"(J,K ,K=1,NCOLN) ,J=1,3]
L_ [LL, NOD(LL, J) , C 1 (6"(J-S, K) , C 1 (6"(J-4,K) , C 1 (6"(J-3, K) ,C 1 (6"(J-2 ,K) ,')
C1(6*J-1,K),C1(6*J,K,K=1,NCOLN),J=1,3] 1
ELEM. NODES COORD OF CENTROIDS CARTESIAN STRESSES
NUHBER FIRST SECOND THIRD X-COORD Y-COORD X-STRESS Y-STRESS XY -STRESS
PRINCIPAL STRESSES PRINCIPAL
STRESS-1 STRESS-2 ANGLE
136
,----- LL--1,NELEM
1 DISK(2)LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY,[(DZT(I,J),I=1,3),
1 (A3(I,J),I=1,3),J=1,NCOLN],
LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DZB(I,J),I=1,3),(A2(I,J),
1=1 3) J=l NCOLN]
l ,--- J--1 NCOLN
LL,(NOD(LL,K),K=1,3),ORX,ORY,[(DZT(I,J),I=1,3),(A3(I,J),1=1,3)]
-L_ LL, (NOD(LL, K) ,K=l, 3) , ORX, ORY, [(DZB(I, J) ,1=1,3) , (A2 (l, J) ,1=1,3)
. ELEMENT NODES COORD OF C.G. CARTESIAN ST INS
FIRST SECOND THIRD X-COORD Y-COORD X-STRAIN Y-STRAIN XY-STRAIN
1---- LL--1,NELEM
DISK(4)LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DSZT(I,J),I=1,3),J=1,NCOLN ,
l LL,(NOD(LL,J),J=1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DSZB(I,J),I=1,3),J=1,NCOLN]
1 1---- J---1,NCOLN

-L LL,(NOD(LL,K),K=1,3),ORX,ORY, [(DSZB(I,J),I=1,3)]
8. Subroutine "PRIN" for Ca1cu1ation of Principal Stresses from Cartesian
Stresses.
J --- 1, NCOLN
Tl
T2
T3
T4
A( 1, J)
A(2, J)
THA
THB
SIG
= [DB(1,J)+DB(2,J) 2.
= [ (DB ( 1 , J) - DB (2 , J) JI 2 ) 2
= (DB(3, J)
= 2.*DB(3,J)/[DB(1,J)-DB(2,J)]
= T1+SQRT(T2+T3)
= T1-SQRT(T2+T3)
= o. (T4)
=
= T1+SQRT(T2) (2. +SQRT(T3) *S IN (2.
= 3.14159
137
. APPENDIX IV

C A GENERAL PROGRAM FOR THE ANALYSIS OF 3-D PLATE STRUCTURES

C
C

C MAIN PROGRAM 1
C*******************************************************************************
C
C
C
C
C
10
REAL KI RHS 2
DIMENSION X(150,3',XE(3,3"NF(60),NB(60,6"BV(60,6),NOD(3DO,3', RHS 3
1 THICK(3001,NSTART(20',NEND(20',NFIRST(20"NLAST(201,H(3,31, RHS 4
IXEI(3,3),T(18,18),P(18,18),R{300),XEOCl,3) RHS 5
COMMON ST(120,240), RHS 6
1 Kl(18,181,C(9,91,DBA(6,6"DB{6,6"A(9,91,B(3,6', RHS 7
1 RHS 8
IDZT(3,4),DlB(3,4',)SlH3,4I,DSlB(3,4) ,A3(6,61,A2(6,61 RHS 9
CALL PGMCHK RHS 10
READ (5,101 NPROB
FORMAT (9I4,2F16
0
8)
DO 20 LA = 1,NPROB
REHIND 12
REWIND 1
REWIND 4
READING AND PRINTING OF DATA
Il
RHS 12
RHS 13
RHS 14
HS 15
RHS 16
RHS 17
RHS 18
RHS 19
RHS 20
RHS 21
READ (5,lO) NPART,NPOIN,NELEM,NBOlJN,NCOLN,NFREE RHS 22
WRITE (6,10) NPART,NPOIN,NELEM,NBOUN,NCOLN,NFREE RHS 23
DO 30 1 = 1,NPOIN RHS 24
READ (5,35' X(J,l),X(I,2),Xn,31 RHS 25
30 WRITE (6,35) X(I,U,X(l,21,X(I,3J RHS 26
35 FORMAT (5F140 61 RHS 27
READ (5,10) NCARD RHS 28
IF (NCARD-NPOIN) 110,111,110 RHS 29
Il 0 S TO P RH S 3 0
111 CONTINUE RHS 31
DO 40 I=I,NELEM RHS 32
READ (5,45) (NODCI,J),J:l,31, THICK<II,R(I) RHS 33
40 WRITE (6,45) (NOD(I,J),J=I,3),THICK(I),R(I) RHS 34
45 F.ORMAT (3I4,2F160 8,I4) RHS 35
READ (5,101 NCARO RHS 36
1 F (N CAR 0- N E LEM 1 1 2 , 1 21 , 1 20 R H S 3 7
120 STOP RHS 38
121 CONTINUE RHS 39
DO 50 l=l,NBOUN RHS 40
READ (5,46) NF(II,NBCI,1I,NB(I,21,NB(I,3),NB(I,4),NB(I,5),NB(I,61,RHS 41
.1BV(I, 11 ,BV( 1,21 ,BV( 1,31 ,BV( 1,4) ,BV{ l,51 ,BV<I,6) RHS 42
50 W RITE C 6, 46 ) NF CI) ,N B ( l, 11 , NB ( 1 , 2) ,N B ( 1 , 3 l ,N B ( l , 4 l ,N B (1 , 5 ) ,N B ( l , 6) ,R H S 43
(
,:", IBV(I,1),BV(I,21,BV(I,3),BV(I,4),AV(I,51,BV(I,6) RHS 44
-.l6 FORMAT (714,6F70 4t RHS 45
. DO 60 I=1,NPART RHS 46
REAO ('5,10) NSTART(I),NENDCII,NFIRSTCII,NLAST(II RHS 47
60 WRITE (6,101 NSTART(I),NENDCl),NFIRSTOI,NLAST(I) 48
READ (5,991 E,V,GE RHS 't9
WRITE (6,99) E,V,GE RHS 50
c
c
c
c
6
69
65
34
33
75
85
9
Il
83
(:).
1..,_.>
FORMAT (5F14,,3)
. DO 65 J=l,NCOlN
READ (5,lO)NCONC
WRITE (6,10'NCONC
NPOIN6 = NPOIN*6
DO 68 1 = 1,NPOIN6
U(I,J'=Oo
DO 69 I=l,NCONC
READ (5,34) K,U( 6*K-5,J) ,U(6*K-4,J) ,ue 6*K-3,J) ,U{6*K-2,J),
.lU(6*'K-l,J),U(6*K,J)
WRITE(6,33' K,U(6*K-5,J),U{6*K-4,J),U(6*K-3,J),U(6*K-2,J),
lU(6*K-l,J',U(6*K,J'
NCONC ='0
CONTINUE
FORMAT (I4,6F1104)
FORMAT (I4,6E160 8'
FORMATION OF MATRICES
INTER = 0
DO 70 II = 1,NPART
DO 75 J=1,240
DO 75 1=1,120
ST(I,J) = 0
0
NST = NSTART( II)
NEN = NENDCII,
K 2 = NF 1 RS T ( 1 1 ,
l = NlASTCIII
r-1INUS =. K2-1
DO 80 lK = NST,NEN
MM = lK-INTER
DO 85 1 = 1,3
JJ = NOD(lK,I'
.XEeI,l) = XeJJ,l)
XE( 1,2) = X(JJ,2'
XE ( l , 3) = X ( J J , 3 )
TH = THICK (lK)
DEVElOPMENT OF COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION MATRIX
"RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

Al = (X E ( 2 , 2 ) - X F. ( 1 , 2' ( XE ( 3 ,3 , - XE ( l, 3) , - ( XE { 3 , 2 , - XE: ( l , 2 , , Il' ( XE ( 2 ,3 ) RH S
1 -XE(1,31l RHS
B1=-(XEC2,l'-XECl,l' )*( XE(3,3,-XE(1,3" RHS
l '+(XE(3,1)-XE(1,l))*(XE(2,3'-XE(I,3') RHS
Cl = (XE(2,l}-XE(1,U'*(XE(3,2,-XECl,2)) RHS
1 -(XE(3,1I-XE(1,lI'*(XE(2,2'-XEO,2" RHS
IF (Al' 11,9,11 RHS
IF (BU II,12,11 RHS
Q = SQRT (A1**2' + (B1**:2)' RHS
P1= SQRT A1**2) + (81**2) + (Cl**2)) RHS
1 F (R (l K)' En, 84, 83 RH S
H( 1,11 = -B1/Q RIiS
138
51
52
53
54
55
.56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
.. -..... - ... --------
C
C
,.
"
84
86
12
14
184
183
130
H( 1,2) = A1/Q
=-Al*C1/CPl*Q,
H(2,2' = -Bl*Cl/(P1*Q)
H(2,3) =
GO TO 86
H ( 1,1' =B 1/ Q
H(1,2' =-Al/Q
H(2,1'=Al*Cl/(P1*Q,
H(2,2)=Bl*Cl/(P1*Q,

H ( 1,3) = 00
.H(3,1' = Al/Pl
H(3,2' = BI/Pl
H(3,3' = Cl/Pl
FORMATION OF ELEMENT COORDTNATES WoRoTo LOCAL AXES
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
.RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
GO TO 130 RHS
DO 14 1=1,3 RHS
DO 14'J=1,3 RHS
H(I,J' = 00
IF (R(LK').184,183,184 RHS
H ( l, 11= 10 R HS
H(2,2.=l
o
RHS
H(3,31=lo RHS
GO TO 130 RHS
H ( 1 , 1 1 = 10 R HS
H(2,2'=-lo RHS
H(3,31=-lo RHS
XEO (l ,l1=XE ( 1,1) RHS
XEO(1,2'=XE(1,21 RHS
XEO(1,3'=XE(1,31 RHS
13 DO 1 1=1,3 RHS
XE( 1, 1t=XE( I,l'-XEO(l ,1' RHS
XE(I,2.=XE(I,2)-XEO(1,2' RHS
1 XE(I,3'=XE(I,31-XEO(l,3' RHS
DO 2 1 = l , 3 R HS
DO 2 J=1,3 RHS
XEI{I,J'=Oo RHS
DO 2 K=1,3 RHS
2 XEI(I,J'=XEUI,J'+H(J,K'*XEO,K, RHS
DO 3 1=1,3 RHS
DO 3 J=1,3 RHS
3 XE( I,J'=XFI(I,J' RHS
. 139
C'
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
..
..,
r
."
CALCULATION UF ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIX RHS
*****************************************************************RHS
CAL L FE M B ( XE, E, V, GE , TH, MM) R H S
CALL FEMP(XE,E,V,GE,TH,MM' RHS
FORMAT(9E140 5' RHS,
C ([)*** * *** ** ** ** ********* ************ ******* **** ****** ** * ** ********R H S
C FORMATION OF ROTATIO TRANSFORMATION MATRIX RHS

DO 300 1=1,lB
DO 300 J=l,lB RHS
300 T(I,J'=Oo RHS
DO 301 K=1,16,3
K'3=K-l RHS
DO 30 l 1 = 1,3 R HS
DO 30 1 J = 1, 3 R H S
'1 T = 1 + K 3 HS
JT = J+K3 RHS
301 T(IT,JTt = H(I,J' RHS
IF(MM'214,214,212 RHS
212 WRITE(12)T(I,J',J=1,1B,,1=1,1Bl RHS
214 CONTINUE RHS

: FORMATION JF STIFFNESS MATRIX OF ELEMENT IN GLOBAL COORDINATES RHS
c***********************************************************************RHS
c
DO 3J2 1= 1, lB
DO 302 J= 1, lB
302 P ( l , J l = 00
DO 30 3 1 = 1, l B
DO 303 J=1,18
DO 303 K=1, lB
303 P ( l ,J , = P ( l , J ) + KI ( l , K , *T ( K , J )
DO 304 I=1,1B
DO 304 J=l,lB
K1(I,J'=Oo
DO 304 K=1,18
304 K 1 ( l , J ) = K 1 ( l , J , + T ( K, 1 , * P ( K, J ,
FORMATION OF OVERALL STRUCTURE STIFFNESS MATRIX
C
DO BO LL=1,3
DO BO KK=1,3
IF (NOD(LK,KKI-K21 80,131,131
131 IF (NOD(LK,KK' - L) 132,132,80
132 M=NFREE*(NOD(LK,KK'-K2)
N=NFREE*(NOD(LK,LL'-K21
I=NFREF.*(KK - II
J=NFREE*(LL - 11
IF(N' BO,900,900
900 DO 5 NJ=l,NFREE
DO 5 MI=l,NFREE
MMI=M+MI
NNJ=N+NJ
IMI=I+MI
JNJ=J+NJ
5 ST(MMI,NNJ' = ST(MMI,NNJ) + Kl(IMI,JNJ'
0-
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
140
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
15B
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
IB1
182
183
184
185
186
187
IB8
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
~ o CONTINUE
C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C INTRODUCTION OF PRESCRIBED DISPLACEMENTS
C
00-290 I=l,NBOUN
M=:NF( 1 t -K2
MM=NF(I)-1
IF(M' 290j242,242
242 IFCM-19' 243,243,290
243 DO 230 J=l,NFREE
"IFCNBCI,J') 230,345,230
345 NMI=NFREE*M+J
STCNMI,NMI) = ST(NMI,NMU*oIE+12
DO 233 JJ=I,NCOLN
JNJ=NFREE*MM+J
233 UeJNJ,JJ'= ST(NMI,NMI)*BV(I,J'
230 CONTINUE
290 CONTINUE
INTER = NEN
MI=NFREE*MINUS + 1
NJ=NFREE*L
M=NJ-MI + 1
IF( II-NPART' 115,116,115
115 NA=NFREE*(NLAST(II+l' - MINUS)
GO TO 117
116 N A = ~ 1
Il 7 N=NA-,"1
MM=;'-1+ l
DO 51 l=l,M
1 FeST el, 1 ) ) 51 , 52, 51
. 52 ST ( 1 ; 1 , = ST ( l , 1 1 +00 lE + 18
"51 CONTINUE
70 W RITE ( 4) M, N, e eST CI, J , , 1 = 1 , MI, J = 1 , M' , ( ( ST ( 1 , J ) rI = 1 , M' ,J = MM, NA) ,
1 UCI,JI,I=MI,NJ),J=I,NCOLN'
REWIND 1
REWIND 2
REWIND 3
REWIND 4
REWIND 12
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SOLUTION OF TRIDIAGONAL MATRICES AND CALCULATION OF RESIDUALS
CALL SOLVF.CNPART,NCOLN)
REI.J IND 3
CALCULA TI ON OF STRESS ES
CALL STRESS(NPART,NFIRST,NLAST,NCOLN,NELEM,NOO,NFREE,NPOIN'
20 CONTINUE
STOP
END
141
RHS 201
RHS 202
RHS 203
RHS 204
RHS 205
RHS 206
RHS 207
RHS 208
RHS 209
RHS 210
RHS 211
RHS 212
RHS 213
RHS 214
RHS 215
RHS 216
RHS 217
RHS 218
RHS 219
RHS 220
RHS 221
RHS 222
RHS 223
RHS 224
RHS 225
RHS 226
RHS 227
R HS 228
RHS 229
RHS 230
RHS 231
RHS 232
RHS 233
RHS 234
RHS 235
RHS 236
R HS 237
RHS 238
RHS 239
RHS 240
RHS 241
RHS 242
RHS 243
RHS 244
RHS 245
RHS 246
RHS 247
RHS 248
RHS 249
SUBROUTINE FEMP(XE,E,V,G,TH,MM)
SUBROUTINE FOR FORMATION OF ELEMENT STIFFNESS AND STRESS MATRICES
,REAL Kl
DIMENSION D(3,3),BTDE3A(6,6) ,XE(3,3) ,lX(3) ,lY(3)
COMMON ST(l20,240),
lKl(18,18),C(9,91,DBA(6,6),DB(6,6),A(9,9),B(3,61,
1 QIC(3,9, ,DQIC(3,9),BA(3,6' ,OQ2C(6,18' ,DQ3C(6,18' ,U(900,4',
IDlT(3,4),DlB(3,4"DSlT(3,41,OSlB(3,4"A3(6,61,A2(6,6)
DO 20 J=1,6
Op 21 1=1,3
B( l ,J )=00
DB( l, J) =00
21DBA(I,J)=Oo
DO 20 1=1,6
A ( l, J )= 00
BTDBA( l ,J )=00
20 C( I,J)=Oo
DO 22 J=1,3
DO 22 1=1,3
220(I,J)=-Oo
ORX=(XE(l,11 + XE(2,1) + XE(3,1)'*c333333
ORY=(XE(1,2) + XE(2,2) +
DO 5 1=1,3
XE(I,U = XE(I,U-ORX
5 XE(!,2' = XE(I,2'-ORY
\
V
lX(!) = XE(2,2)-XE(3,2)
lX(2'= XE(3,21-XE(1,21
lX(3'= XE(1,2'-XE(2,21
lY(11 ='XE(3,1)-XE(2,l)
lY(2' = XE(1,11-XE(3,U
lY(3) = XE(2,lI-XE(I,U
lK=XE{2,U*XE(3,2) - XE(3,1'*XE(2,2)
l= 30 * lK
A(I,l"= lK/l
A(2,II=lX(1I/l
A(3,1)=lY(I'/l
A(4,2,=A( 1, 11
A( 5,2 '=A( 2,11
A(6,21=A(3, U
A(1,3'=lK/l
A(2,31=lX(2'/l
A(3,3'=lY(2)/l
A(4,4'=A( 1,3'
A(5,4'=A(2,3'
A(6,41=A(3,3'
A ( 1 , 5) = lK 1 Z
A(2,5'=ZX(3)/Z
A(3,5'=ZY(3'/Z
A(4,6 )=A( l,51
A(5,6'=A(2,5'
A(6,6)=A(3,5)
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
142
250
251
252
253
254
255 .
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
143
@
~ . '; ::
"
B(1,2'=10
RHS 301
B(3,3'=10
,RHS 302
B(3,5'=10
RHS 303
B(2,6'=10
RHS 304
75 OEN=10-V**2 RHS 305
O(I,l'=E/OEN RHS 306
o ( 2, l , = V*O ( 1, 1 , RHS 307
0(l,2'=0(2,U RHS 308
'O(2,2'=D( 1, 1) RHS 309
0(3,3'=G RHS 310
72 DO 30 J=l,6 RHS 311
DO 30 1=1,3 RHS 312
DO 30 K=I,3 ~ H S 313
30 OB( I,J'=OB( l,J' + 0 ( l ,K' * B ( K, J ) RHS 314
DO 40 J=1,6 RHS 315
DO 40 1=1,3 RHS 316
DO 40 K=I,6 RHS 317
40 OBAtI,J'=DBA(I,J'
+ DB(I,K'*A(K,J) RHS 318
DO 44 1 =1,3 RHS 319
M=O RHS 320
N=O' RHS 321
DO 44 K=1,18,6 RHS 322
K3=K-1 RHS 323
M=N+l RHS 324
N=M+l RHS 325
K2=1 RHS 326
DO 44 J=M,N RHS 327
JL=K2+K3 RHS 328
OQ2C(I,JL'=DBA(I,J' RHS 329
44 K2=K2+1 RHS 330
DO 41 1=1,3 RHS 331
DO 41 J=1,6 RHS 332
41 BA( I,J'=Oo RHS 333
DO 42 J= 1,6 RHS 33
f
t
DO 42 1=1,3 RHS 335
DO 42 K=1,6 RHS 336
42 BA( I,J'=BA( I,J'+B(I,K'*A(K,J' RHS 337
DO 43 1=1,3 ~ HS 338
M=O RHS 339
N=O RHS 340
DO 43 K=1,18,6 RHS 341
K3=K-1 RHS 342
M=N+ 1 RHS 343
N=M+1 RHS 344
K2=1 RHS 345
DO 43 J=M,N ~ H S 346
JL=K2+K3 RHS 347
OQ 3 C ( l , J L , = B A ( l , J , RHS 348
43 K2=K2+1 RHS 349
0
"or, :
* * * * .. * * * * *
C
IF(MM' 126,126,127
127 W RITE ( l' OQ 2 C ( l , J , , 1 = 1,6' ,J = l ,18' ,( (DQ3 C ( 1 , J, , 1 = 1 ,6) , J= l , 18 ) ,
10RX,ORY
C COMPLETE STRESS AND STRAIN MATRICES WRITTEN ON THE DISC 1 SIlE (3,18'
126 CONTINUE
VOL = o5*TH*l
DO 50 J=1,6
.00 50 1=1,6
DO 50 K=1,3
50 BTDBA(I,J'=BTOBA(I,J' + B(K,I'*OBA(K,J'*VOL
DO 60 J=1,6
DO 60 1=1,6
DO 60 K=1,6
60 C(I,J)= C(I,J' + A(K,I'*BTOBA(K,J'
C
C STIFFNESS MATRIX C IS FORMEO
C
M=O
N=O
DO 2 K=1,13,6
N=M+l
M=N+l
K2=K-1
K6=1
DO 2 I=N,M
1 L=K6+K2
Nl=O
M1=O
DO 1 K3=1,13,6
K4=K3-1
Nl=M1+1
M1=N1+1
K5=1
DO 1 J=Nl,M1
JL=K5+K4
KI ( 1 L , J L , =C ( 1 , J ,
1 K5=K5+1
2 K6=K6+1
15 FORMAT (9E1405'
3 FORMAT (6E1605,
RETURN
o
END
SUBROUTINE FEMB (XE,E,V,G,TH,MM'
SUB ROUTINE FOR OF ELEMENT STIFFNESS
REAL KI
DIMENSION 0(9,9',L(91,M(9I,XE(3,3),QIC3,9I,EM(3,31
COMMON STCI20,240),
1 K1(10,18',CC9,91,OBA(6,6),OB(6,6),A(9,9"B(3,6),
-, -', -',
" <,il
RHS
RHS
RHS,
RHS
.RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
'144
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
350
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
145
(2)
l
01CC 3,9' ,001C(3,9' ,BAC3,6' ,DQ2C(6,18' , DCDC C6,18' ,U(900,4', RHS 401

l Dl T ( 3 ,4 l ,DZ B C 3,4) ,D S Z T ( 3,4 ) , D S Z B ( 3 ,4 , , A 3 ( 6 , 6 , , A 2 ( 6, 6 , RHS 402
p= 10
RHS 403
0=10
RHS 404
X2=XEC2,U
RHS 405
. X3=XE(3,U RHS 406
V3=XE(3,2) RHS 407
D2= E*(TH**3'/C12*(1-V**2"
RHS 408
Dl
=
V*D2
RHS 409
D 12
=
( 1-V' /2*02 410
DO 6 1=1,18 RHS 411
DO 6 J= 1,18 RHS 412
6 K 1 CI, J ) =00 RHS 413
1000 DO 1 .J= 1,9' RHS 414
DO 1 1= l, 9 RHS 415
D(I,J' = 00 RHS 416
A(I,J'
=
00 RHS 417
1 C(I,J' =
00 RHS 418
CC1,1' = 10 RHS 419
CC2,3'
=
-10 RHS 420
C(3,2)
= 10 RHS 421
C(4,l' =
10 RHS 422
C(4;2' = X2 RHS 423
C(4,4'
=
X2**2 RHS 424
C(4,7, = X2**3 RHS 425
C(5,3' = -10 RHS 426
C(5,5) = -X2 RHS 427
C(5,8) = -P*(X2**21 RHS 428
C(6,2' = 10 HS 429
C(6t4' = 20*X2 RHS 430
C(6,71
= 3o*(X2**2'
RHS 431
C (7, U = 10 RHS 432
C(7,2' = X3 RHS 433
C(7,31 = Y3 RHS 434
C(7,4'
= X3**2 RHS 435
C(7,5)
= X3*V3 RHS 436
C(7,6' = KHS 437
C(7,7' = X3**3 RHS 438
C(7,8,
= P*V3*(X3**2' + Q*X3*(V3**2' RHS 439
C(7,9,
= V3**3 RHS 440
C(8,3)
=
-10 RHS 441
CC8,5' = -X3 RHS 442
C( 8,6' = -2*V3 RHS 443
C(O,S,
= -P*CX3**2' -20 *0*X3*Y3 444
C(S,9,
=
-3o*CY3**2' RHS 445
C(9,2)
=
1 RHS 446
C(9,4' = 20*X3 RHS 447
C(9,5' = V3 RHS 448
C(9,7' = 30 *( X 3**2' RHS 449
C(9,O,
=
2o*P*X3*V3 + Q*(V3**21 RHS' 450

..--,..--,-..-,- ' _y __ '0'" ..... ' , '.
... -"...... .."c ..... ','c'., ." """"", , .
"\
<iD CALL MINV (C,9,Z,L,M)
IF.(Z' 100,101,100
101 P=OCl
Q= 10
GO TO 1000
100 CONTINUE
STRAIN $ STRESS MATRIX IN FEMB
ORX= (XE( 1,1 ,+XE{2,1 )+XE (3,1) }*o 333333
ORY=(XE(1,2'+XE{2,2'+XE(3,2"*o333333
00 9 1=1,3
00 9 J=1,9
Q 1C ( 1 , J , = 0
0
9 QUI,J'=Oo
Q1(1,4'=-20
QI { 2 , 6' =- 20
Q1(3,5)=20
Q 1 ( l, 7) =- 60 * OR X
Qi( 1, 8'=-2::J*P*ORY
Q1(2,8)=-20*Q*ORX
Q1(2,9)=-6o*ORY
Ql{3,8,=40 *(P*ORX+Q*ORY'
00 10 J=1,9
00 10 11=1,3
00 lOK=1,9
10 Q1C(I1,J,=Q1C(I1,J,+Q1(I1,K'*C(K,J)
C STRAIN IS FORMED IN CURVATURE $ TWIST
:: STRAIN MATRIX IN USUAL FORM
DO 17 1 = 1,3
DO 17 J=1,9
18 Q1C(I,J)=o5*TH*Q1C(I,J'
17 CONTINUE
C STRAIN MATRIX IN USUAL FORM IS FORMEO
'::r TO LOCATE STRAIN MATRIX FROM FEMS AT PROPER PLACE
c
DO 13 1=1,6
DO 13 J=1,18
13 DQ3C(I,J'=Oo
DO 14 1=1,3
M1=0
N=O
DO 14 K=3,18,6
K3=K-1
M 1= N+ 1
N=M1+2
K2=1
DO 14 J=Ml,N
JL=K2+K3
OQ3C( I+3,JL,=Q1C( I,J}
14 K2=K2+1
@
146
RHS 451
RHS 452
RHS 453
RHS 454
RHS 455
RHS 456
RHS 457
RHS 458
RHS 459
RHS 460
RHS 461
RHS 462
RHS 463
RHS 464
RHS 465
RHS 466
RHS 467
RHS 468
RHS 469
RHS 470
R HS 471
RHS 472
RHS 473
RHS 474
RHS 475
RHS 476
477
RHS 478
RHS 479
RHS 480
RHS 481
RHS 482
RHS 483
RHS 484
RHS 485
RHS 486
RHS 487
RHS 488
RHS 489
RHS 490
RHS 491
RHS 492
RHS 493
R HS 494
RHS 495
RHS 496
RHS 497
RHS 498
RHS 499
500
147
MATRIX OF FEMB PLACEO AT PROPER PLACE IN COMPLETE STRAIN MATRRHS 501
C RHS 502
C StRESS MATRIX FOR BENOING RHS 503
DO 50 1=1,3 RHS 504
DO 50 J=1,3 RHS 505
50 EM(I,J'=Oo RHS 506
EM(1,1)=02 RHS 507
EM(1,2)=01 RHS 50S
EM(2,1)=01 RHS 509
EM(2,2)=D2 RHS 510
EM(3,3)=012 RHS 511
DO 15"J=1,9 RHS 512
DO 15 1=1,3 RHS 513
OQ1C( I,J'=Oo RHS 514
DO 15 K=1,3 RHS 515
15DQIC(I,J'=OQ1C(I,J'+EM(I,K,lt-Q1C(K,J' RHS 516
C STRESS MATRIX (OQ1C) IS FORMEO IN MTSo $ TWISTING MOMENT RHS 517
DO 16"1=1,3 RHS 51S
DO 16 J=1,9 RHS 519
16 OQ1C( I,J'=12o/(TH**3'*OQIC(I,J' RHS 520
C STRESS MATRIX IN USUAL FORM IS FORMEO RHS 521
C Ta LOCATE STRESS MATRIX FROM FEMB IN COMPLETE STRESS MATRIX OF AN ELRHS 522
C R HS 523
DO Il 1=1,6 RHS 524
DO Il J=l,lS RHS 525
Il DQ2C( I,J'=Oo RHS 526
DO 12 1=1,3 RHS 527
M1=O RHS 52S
N=O RHS 529
DO 12 K=3,lS,6 RHS 530
K3=K-l RHS 531
M1=N+l RHS 532
N=M1+2 RHS 533
K2=1 RHS 534
00 12 J=Ml,N RHS 535
JL=K2+K3 536
OQ2C(!+3,JL'=OQ1CO,J) RHS 537
12 K2=K2+1 RHS 53S
C STRESS MATRIX OF FEMB LOCATED AT PROPER PLACE IN COMPLETE STRESSMARHS 539
C RHS 540
A(4,4' = 2o';:02*X2*V3 RHS 541
A(4,6' = 2o*Ol*X2*V3 RHS 542
A(4,7' = 2o*D2*V3*X2*(X3+X2' RHS 543
A(4,8' = (0667 RHS 544
A(4,9' = 2o*01*X2*<V3**2' RHS 545
A(5,5' = 2o*D12*X2*V3 RHS 546
A ( 5 , 8 , = ( 10 3 3 * 0 12 * X 2:01< Y 3 , "'C P * ( X 3 + X 2 ) + Q (: y 3 , R H S 54 7
A(6,6' = 2*02*X2*V3 RHS 548
A(6,7' = 2*Ol*X2*V3*(X3+X2' RHS 549
A(6,S'={o667 RHS 550
,@ A(6,9' = 20*D2*X2*(V3**2t RHS
A(7,7J = 3o*D2*X2*V3*(X2**2+X2*X3+X3**2) RHS
A(7,8'=(o5 *X2*V3t* (P*D2*V3*(X2+2*X3)+2*Q*Dl*(X2**2+X2*X3+X3**2"RHS
A(7,9) '= (lo5*X2*Dl*(V3**2,'*(X2+2*X3' RHS
A(8,8'= X2*V3/3o *D2*(P**2'+4*012*(Q**2' '*(V3**2)+(D2*(C**2'+4* RHS
'1 - 'D12*(P**2"*(X2**2+X2*X3+X3**2'+(D1+4*D12,*(P*Q*V3'*( X2+2*X3" RHS
A(8,9' = (05 *X2*(V3**2)'*(2*V3*P*Dl+02*Q*(X2+2*X3') RHS
A(9,9) = 3*D2*X2*(V3**3) RHS
DO 2'1=1,9 RHS
DO 2 J=I,9 RHS
2 A(J,I'=A(I,J' RHS
DO 3 1=1,9 RHS
DO 3 J=1,9 RHS
D (l,J' = 00 RHS
DO 3 K=I,9 RHS
3 D(I,J' = D(I,J'+A(!,K)*C(K,J' RHS
DO 4 1= 1,9 RHS
DO 4 J=1,9 RHS
A1I,J"; 00 RHS
DO 4 K=1,9 RHS
4 An ;J, = A( I,J'+C(K,U*O(K,J' RHS
5 FORMAT (9E12 0 4' RHS
M2 =0 ' RHS
'N2'=0 RHS
DO 7 K = 3,15,6 RHS
N2 =M2+1 RHS
M2 = N2+2 RHS
K2 =K-1 RHS
K6 =1 RHS
DO 7 I=N2,M2 RHS
Il = K6+K2 RHS
N1 =0 RHS
M1=0 RHS
DO 8 K3=3,15,6 ~ S
K4 = K3-1 RHS
N1 = Ml+l RHS
Ml=Nl+2 RHS
K5 =1' RHS
DO 8 J=N1,M1 RHS
Jl = K5+K4 RHS
KUIl,Jl,=A(I,J'+KUIl,Jl' RHS
8 K5 = K5+1 RHS
7 K6 = K6+1 RHS
IF(P)104,103,104 RHS
103 Q=Oo RHS
P= 10 RHS
GO TD 1000 RHS
104 1 F ( Q 1 106, 106 , 105 RH S
106 DO 107 1=1,18 RHS
DO 107 J=1,18 RHS
C)
148
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
149
K1(I,J)=Oo5*K1(I,J' RHS 601
105 RETURN RHS 602
END RHS 603
SUBROUTINE SOLVE (NPART,NCOLN, RHS" 604
SUBROUTINE FOR SOLUTION OF EQUATIONSo CALCULATION AND PRINTING OF RHS 605
1 RESIDUALS RHS 606
REAL Ki RHS 607
DIMENSION AM(120,120' ,BM(120,120),YM(120,120),TF(120,4),RS{120,4',RHS 608
1F(120,4),DIS(120,4) RHS 609
COMMON"ST(120,240), RHS 610
1"" "Kl(10,18' ,C(9,9),DBA(6,6' ,DB(6,6) ,A(9,9) ,B(3,6', RHS 611
1 Q1C(3,9J ,OQ1C(3,9, ,BA(3,6' ,DQ2C(6,18' ,DQ3C(6,18J ,U(900,4', RHS 612
1DZT(3,4),OlB(3,4),DSZT(3,4"DSZB(3,4),A3(6,6),A2(6,6) RHS 613
E QU 1 V AL EN CE ( AM ( 1, l' , ST ( l, l' , , ( BM ( 1 , 1) , ST ( l, 121) , , (T F ( 1 ,1) ,U ( 1 ,1 ) , , R HS 614
1 (DIS(1,l),U(I,2",(RS(1,1"',U(1,3'),(F(1,1"U(I,4" RHS 615
DO 140 1=1,120 RHS 616
DO 141 J=I,NCOLN RHS 617
TF( I,J'=Oo RHS 618
141 RS(I,J'=OQ RHS 619
DO 140 J=1,120 RHS 620
140 YM(I,J'=Oo RHS 621
DO 144 LL=l,NPART RHS 622
REAO(4' M,N,AM(I,J',!=l,M',J=l,M',BM(I,J),I=l,M',J=l,N', RHS 623
1 F(I,J',I=l,M',J=l,NCOLN' RHS 624
150 DO 424 I=1,M RHS 625
DO 425 J=l,NCOLN RHS 626
F(I,J'=F(I,J'-TFCI,J' RHS 627
425DIS(I,J'=F(I,J' RHS 628
DO 424 J=l,M RHS 629
424 AM(IfJ'=AM(I,JJ-YM(I,J' RHS 630
RHS 631
CALL RHS 632
CALL INVERT(MJ RHS 633
DO 100 I=l,M RHS 634
DO 100 K=l,NCOLN RHS 635
DIS(I,KJ=Oo RHS 636
DO 100 J=l,M RHS 637
100 OIS( I,K'=OIS( I,K'+AM( I,J'*F(J,K) RHS 638
411 W RIT E ( 2' M, N, ( ( (1 ,J J , 1 = 1 , M, ,J = 1 ,M ) , ( ( BM ( l , J , , 1 = 1 , , J = 1 , N ) , R HS 639
l "F(I,JJ,I=l,M"J=I,NCOLN' RHS 640
IF(NPART-LL' 437,437,432 RHS 641
432 00 101 I=l,M RHS 642
00 101 K=l,NCOLN RHS 643
OIS(I,K'=Oo RHS 644
DO 101 J=l,M RHS 645
101 DIS( I,K)=DIS( I,K'+AM( I,J'*F(J,K' RHS 646
DO 102 I=l,N RHS 647
DO 102 K=l, NCOLN RHS 648
TF(I,K'=Oo RHS 649
DO 102 J=l,M RHS 650
o
110
111
112
144
437
601
.103
444
104
441
515
F':\.'.'"
-<J
TF ( l , K' =T F ( l ,K , +B M( J,l' *01 S (J, K'
DO 110 J=l,N
DO 110 I=l,M
VM<I,J'=Oo
DO 110 K=l,M
VM(I,J'=VM(I,J' + AM(I,K'*BM(K,J'
DO III J=l,N
DO 111 1= l, N
AM(I,J'=Oo'
DO III K=1,M
AM(I,J'=AMII,J' + BM(K,U*VM(K,J'
DO 112 I=1,N
DO 112 J=1,N
VM(I,J'=AM(I,JJ
CONTINUE
RE\..JIND 4
WR 1 TE (3' ( ( OIS ( l ,J, , 1= 1, M' ,J = l ,NC OLN)
IF(NPART-l) 600,600,601
NA=NPART-1
DO 441 LL=l,NA
BACKSPACE-: 2
BACKSPACE 2
REA 0 ( 2) M, N, ( ( AM ( l , J , , 1 = l , M J , J= 1, M' , ( (B M ( l , J ) , 1 = l , M ) ,J = l , N , ,
1( (F(I,J),I=l,M' ,J=l,NCOLN'
DO 103 I=l,M
DOLO 3 K = l , NC 0 L N
TF( l ,K '=00
DO 103 J=1,N
TF ( l , K) =T F ( l, K , +B M ( l, J , *D 1 S (J, K ,
DO 444 J= 1, NCOLN
DO 444 I=l,M
F(I,J'=F(I,J' - TFO,J'
DO 104 I=l,M
DO 104 K=1,NCOLN
DIS(I,K'=Oo
DO 104 J=1,."'1
DIS( I,K'=DIS( I,K'+AM( I,J)*F(J,K'
WRITE (3' DIS(I,J',!=1,M"J=1,NCOLN'
WRITE (6,515'
FORMAT(10H RESIDUALS)
DO 500 LL=1,NPART
REA D (4 lM, N , ( ( A ~ ( l , J , , 1 = l , M) , J = l , M ) , ( ( B ~ ( l ,J , , 1 = l , M) ,J = l , N ) ,
1 F(I,J),!=l,M),J=l,NCOLN)
.BACKSPACE 3
READ(3J DIS( I,J'tI=l,M),J=l,NCOLN)
BACKSPACE 3
BACKSPACE 3
READ (3) TF(I,J',!=l,NJ,J=l,NCOLN)
DO 510 J=l,NCOLN
DO 510 l=l,M
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
~ S
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
~ S
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
~ S
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
R. HS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
R. HS
150
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
<D F(I,Jt=F(I,Jt - RSCI,J)
DO 512 K=l,M
512 F( I,J '=F( I,J t - AMC l ,K'*DI SlK,J'
DO 510 L= 1, N
510 F(I,Jt= F(I,J' - BM(I,L'*TFCL,J)
DO 105 J=l,N
DO 105 K=1,NCOLN
RS( l ,K '=0 0 .
DO 105 J= 1, M
105 R S CI, K' =R S ( l , K ) "'B M ( J , J ) *01 S ( J , K )
500 WRITE (6,31) FCI,J',!=1,M),J=1,NCOLN'
31 FORMATC1H ,12E902'
600 CONTI NUE
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE DCOMPCN'
THIS DECOMPOSES THE SYMMETRIC MATRIX A(N*N'
COMMON AN(120,120)
00 1 1= l, N
DO 1 J=J,N
SUM = AN(I,J'
K 1= 1-1
IF(I-l) 3,3,5
5 DO 2 K=1,K1
2 SUM = SUM-AN(K,I)*ANCK,J)
3 1 F ( J- l' 4, 6 , 4
6 IFCSUM) 7,7,8
7 vlRITE (6,501)
503
502
1 F ( SU M'50 3 , 50 3 , 5 04
WRITE (6,502) I,J,Kl,K,SUM,AN{K,I) ,AN(K,J)
FORMAT (4I4,3E2005)
STOP
8 TEMP=100/SQRTCSUM'
AN(I,J)=TEMP
4
l
501
504
fC"\
~ ~ J
GO TO 1
AN( J,Jt=SUM*TEMP
CONTINUE
FORMAT('O','SUM IS LE ZERO AND SUBROUTINE FAlLS"
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE INVERT(N)
COMMON AL(120,120'
Il=N-l
DO 1 1= l, Il
J 1=1 + 1
DO 1 J=Jl,N
SUM =000
Kl=J-1
RHS
RHS
RHS
~ H S
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
~ H S
RHS
151
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
c
1
DO 2'K=I,K1
SUM = SUM-Al(K,It*Al(K,J'
Al(J,I'=SUM*Al(J,J'
DO 3 I=l,N,
DO 3 J=I,N
SUM =000
DO 4 K=J,N
4 SUM = SUM+Al(K,I'*Al(K,J'
Al(I,J' = SUM
3 Al(J,I'=SUM
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE STRESS(NPART,NFIRST,NlAST,NCOlN,NElEM,NOD,NFREE,NPOIN'
SUBROUTINE FOR CAlCULATION OF STRESSES
OlMEN SION -NOD ( 300,3 , , NF 1 RS T (20' ,N lAS T ( 20' ,T ( 18, 18 , ,C l( 18,4) ,
1 DB l( 6,4' , Z ( 18,4'
COMMON ST(120,240),
1 Kl(18,18),C(9,9),DBA(6,6"OB(6,6t,A(9,9),B(3,6),
1 Q1C(3,9) ,DQIC(3,9',BA(3,6) ,OQ2C(6,18"DQ3C(6,18' ,U(90U,4),
10 ZT ( 3 ,4' , OZ B ( 3,4' ,D S Z TC 3,4 ) ,0 S Z B ( 3,4' , A 3 ( 6,6' , A 2 ( 6,6)
'DO 600 II=l,NPART
JJ=NPART+1-I1
M=NFREE*{NFIRST(JJ' - l' + 1
N= NFREE*NLAST(JJ) '-;
600 READ (3' ({U(I,J',I=M,N),J=l,NCOLN)
WRITE(6,690)
690 FORMAT('1')
WRITE (6,615)
615 FORMAT ('J' ,'NODE X-DISPlACEMENTS Y-DISPLACEMENTS Z-DISPlACEMENTS
10X-DISPLACEMENTS OY-OISPLACEMENTS OZ-DISPlACEMENTS' 1
WRITE (6,32' I,U(6*I-5,J),U(6*I-4,J',U(6*I-3,J),U(6*I-2,J',
1 U ( 6* 1 - l , J , , U ( 6 * l , J , yI = l, NP DI N) t J = l ,N CO LN'
32 FORMAT(1H ,I4,6E1608'
625 FORMAT('OI,'ELEMENT NODES COORDS OF
l' CARTESIAN STRESSES PRINCIPAL STRESSES l,
2' PRINCIPAll)
635 FORMAT( 1 I,'NUMBER FIRST SECOND THIRD X-COORD Y-COORO',
l' X-STRESS Y-STRESS XV-STRESS STRESS-1 STRESS-2',
2' AN GL E' )
PRINCIPAL ANGLE IS THE ANGLE BETWEEN y AXIS AND STRESS-1
REWIND 13
REWINO 2
REWIND 4
WRITE(6;690)
WRITE (6,715)
715 FORMAT('J','ElEM X-PLANESTRESS Y-PLANESTRESS XY-PLANESTRESS
lX-BENDINGSTRESS Y-BENDINGSTRESS XY-BENDINGSTRESS')
DO 20 ll=1,NElEM
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS

RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
152
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
174
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
o REA 0 1) CC OQ 2 C (1 , J , , 1 = l , 6 ) ,J = 1 , 1 8' ,( (0 Q 3 C (1 , J , ,I = 1 , 6' ,J = 1 , 18 ) , RH S
10RX,ORY RHS
25 FORMAT(9E1405) RHS
REAO (12) T(I,J),J=1,181,I=1,l8' RHS
00 620 J=l,NCOLN RHS
DO 620 1=1,3 RHS
JJ=NOO(LL,I' RHS
RHS
Z(6*I-4,J'=U(6*JJ-4,J) RHS
Z(6*1-3,JI=U(6*JJ-3,J' RHS
Z(6*I-2,J'=U(6*JJ-2,J' RHS
Z(6*I-l,JI=U(6*JJ-1,J' RHS
620Z(6*I,J'=U(6*JJ,J' RHS
00 621 1=1,18 RHS
DO 621 J=1,NCOLN RHS
Cl(I,J'=Oo RHS
DO 621 K=l,18 RHS
621 Cl( I,J)=CU I,JI+T(I ,K)*l(K,J' RHS
WRITE (131 (LL,NOO(LL,J),CU6*J-5,KI,Cl(6*J-4,K', RHS
lCU 6*J-3;KI ,CU6*J-2,K' ,C1(6*J-1,KI ,C1(6*J,KI l ,K=l,NCOLNI ,J=1,31 RHS
DO 630 J=l,NCOLN ,_ RHS
DO 630 1=1,6 RHS
OB(I;J'=Oo RHS
OB1(I,JI=Oo
DO 630 K=1,18 RHS
OB ( l, JI = DB ( l, J ) +OQ2C ( l, K' *C l( K, J, RHS
630 OBUI,JI=DBl<I,J'+OQ3C(I,K,sr.Cl(K?J' RHS
DO 631 J=1,NCOLN RHS
631 (LL,(OB(I,JI,I=1,61' P.HS
C C01v1PLETE STRAHJ MATRIX( DBl) FORMEO RHS
DO 1 1=1,3 RHS
DO 1 J= 1, NC OLN RHS
OZT( l ,J '=00 RHS
OZB(I,J'=Oo RHS
OSlT( I,J'=Oo RHS
1 OSlB( I,J)=Oo
DO 2 J=l,NCOLN RHS
DO 2 1=1,3 RHS
OZT( t,JI=DB( I,JI+OB(I+3,J) RHS
2 0 l B ( l ,J 1 = DB ( l , J , - DB ( 1 + 3, J 1 RH S
CALL PRIN(OlT,A3,NCOLNI RHS
CALL PRIN(OlB,A2,NCOLN) RHS
WR 1 TE ( 2 ) L L, ( NOD ( L L, J ) ,J= 1, 3 , , OR X, 0 R Y, ( ( OZ TC l , J , , 1 = 1 ,31 , ( A3 ( l , J , , RH S
11=l,31,J=1,NCOLN', RHS
1 lL,{NOD(LL,J' ,J=1,3),ORX,ORy,OZB(I,J',I=1,3',(A2(I,J), RHS
lI=1,31,J=1,NCOLN' RHS
DO 3 J=l,NCOLN RHS
DO 3 1 = 1, 3 HS
DSlTCI,JI=DBUI,JI+OBU!+3,J' RHS
3 OSZB(I,J'=DBUI,JI-DBl(I+3,JI RHS
153
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
.850
@ WRITE(4'LL, (NODeLL,J) ,J=1,3),ORX,ORY, (DSZTO ,J),I=1,3),J=1,NCOLN)RHS
1, LL,(NOD(LL,J' ,J=I,3),ORX,ORY, OSZB(I,J',!=1,3t,J=1,NCOLN'RHS
626 FORMAT('O','ELEMENT NODES COORDa OF CoG CARTESIANSTRAINRHS
IS " RHS
627 FORMATe 'O','NUMBER FIRST SECOND THIRD X COORDa y CDORD RHS
1 X STRAIN y STRAIN XY STRAIN' t RHS
20 CONTINUE RHS
REWIND 13 RHS
REWIND 2 RHS
REWIND 4 RHS
WRITE (6,690' RHS
WRITE (6,815' RHS
.815 FORMAT( 'JI, RHS
1 tELEM NODE X-OISPLACEMENTS Y-DISPLACF.MENTS Z-DISPLACFMENTS RHS
10X-DISPLACEMENTS OY-DISPLACEMENTS Ol-OISPLACEMENTS') RHS
42 FORMAT(lH ,214,6EI60 8) RHS
00 21 LL=l,NELEM RHS
REAO (13) RHS
1 C li 6* J- 3 , K) ,C 1 ( 6* J- 2 , KI, C 1 ( 6 li: J -1 , K, ,C 1 ( 6:ri: J , K) ) , K = l , N COL N , , J :: l , 3 , RH S
21 WRITE(6,42) RHS
1 C l( 6* J- 3 , K) ,C 1 ( 6 * J - 2 , K) ,C l{ 6 * J - l , KJ ,C 1 ( J , K' , , K = 1 , N COL N' , J = l , 3 , R H S
WRITE (6,625' RHS
WRITE (6,635' RHS
DO 22 LL=1,NELEM RHS
READ(2) LL, (NOD(LL,J) ,J=I,3),ORX,ORY, OZT(I,J,,I=1,3),(A3(I,J', RHS
lI=1,3',J=1,NCOLN), RHS
1 l L, (NOD (L L, J ) ,J= 1,3) ,ORX, 0 RY, ( (Dl B( 1 , J ) ,1 = 1,3' , (A2 ( l, J " RHS
11 = l , 3 , , J= l, NC DL N ) R HS
DO 22 J=l,NCOLN RHS
WRITE(6,31' RHS
1 LL, (NOD(LL,KI ,K=I,3"ORX,ORY, OlT{ I,J' ,1=1,3), (A3( I,J), RHS
11=1,3) RHS
2'2 WRITE(6,3U RHS
1 LL, (NOO(LL,K) ,K=1 ,3) ,ORX,ORY, OlB( l ,J) rI=1,3), (A2( I,J), RHS
11=1,3
WRITE (6,626) RHS
WRITE (6,627' RHS
DO 23 LL=l,NELEM RHS
REA 0 ( 4' L L, (N 0 0 ( L L, J , , J = l , 3 l , R X, 0 R Y, ( ( 0 S Z T ( l ,J , , 1 = l , 3 ) , J = l , N C DL \l , RH S
1 , L L, (N 0 0 ( L L, J l t J = l , 3 ) ,OP X , R y, 0 S lB (l , J ) , 1 = l , 3 , , J = l , Ne 0 LN' RH S
DO 23 J=I,NCOLN RHS
WRITE(6,3U RHS
1 LL,(NOO(LL,Kl,K=1,3),ORX,ORY,OSlT(I,J',I=I,3 RHS
23 WRITE(6,3U RHS
1 LL, (NOD(LL,KI ,K=1,3),ORX,ORY, OSlB(I ,J) rI=l,3' l RHS
31 FOR MAT (' l, 1 4 , 2 1 7 , 1 6, F 1 20 4 v F 1 01) 4 , 5 E 120 5 , F 70 2 ) RH S
33 FORMAT( lHP,5El205) RHS
R ETURN RHS
END RHS
O
.. :
154
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
B78
879
8B:!
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
8BB
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
. SUBROUTINE PRIN(DB,A, f\COLN,
THIS COMPUTES THE PRINCIPAL STRESSES A(3,NCOLN' GIVEN THE
CARTESIAN STRESSES OB(3,NCOLN' FOR NCOLN LOADING SYSTEMS
DIMENSION DBC3,6),A(6,61
DO 100 J=1,NCOLN
Tl=(DB( l,J' + DB(2,J' )/20

T3=( OB( 3, J, )**2
T4=2o*OBC3,J'/CDBCl,J)-OB(2,J"
.A(1,J'=T1 + SQRT(T2+T3'
A(2,J' = Tl - SQRT(T2+T3'
THA=005*ATAN(T4'
THB=THA + 005*3014159
SIG = + SQRT(T3'*SIN(2o*THA'
IF(A( l,J'-SIG' 1,2,1
2 A(3,JI=THA*1800 130 14l59
GO TO 100
A13,J'=THB*180o/3014159
CONTINUE
1
100
RETURN
END
155
RHS 900
RHS 901
RHS 902
RHS 903
RHS 904
RHS 905
RHS 906
RHS 907
RHS 908
RHS 909
RHS 910
RHS 911
RHS 912
RHS 913
RHS 914
RHS 915
RHS 916
RHS 917
RHS 918
RHS 919
RHS 920
RHS 921
156
APPENDIX V
RESULTS OF TENSILE COUPON TESTS
YIELD STRESS ULTIMATE STRESS
YOUNG'S MODULUS (KSI) X 10
3
COUPON
KSI KSI Huggenberger AutoIDatic Recorder
Al
39.45 63.8 28.8 30.9
A
2
39.1 62.8 28.8 30.9
Bl
39.25 64.4 29.4 32.9
B2
39.9 63.3 29.3 30.1
Cl
33.5 66.2 30.5 -
C2
35.0 64.7 30.5 -
Dl
44.2 64.6 28.2
-
D2
44.0 66.4 29.2
-
El
38.3 65.2 28.2
-
E2
44.8 67.0 28.95
-
Table V.l Coupon Test Results
Notation:
Al First Coupon frOID 4" x 4" x 1/4" RHS
A
2
Second Coupon frOID 4" x 4" x 1/4" RHS
Bl First Coupon frOID 3 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 1/4" RHS
B2 Second Coupon frOID 3 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 1/4" RHS
Cl First Coupon frOID 4" x 4" x 1/4" RHS
C2 Second Coupon frOID 4" x 4" x 1/4" RHS
Dl First Coupon frOID 8" x 8" x 1/4" RHS
D2 Second Coupon frOID 8" x 8" x l / l ~ RHS
El First Coupon frOID 12" x 8" x 1/4" RHS
E2 Second Coupon frOID 12" x 8" x 1/4" RHS