0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

9 Ansichten14 SeitenBetoni visokih marki

Nov 09, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Betoni visokih marki

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

9 Ansichten14 SeitenBetoni visokih marki

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221990417

ARTICLE in COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES JULY 1996

Impact Factor: 2.13 DOI: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00380-0

CITATIONS

READS

23

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Mario Fafard

Laval University

159 PUBLICATIONS 616 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 30 October 2015

Pergamon

00457949(95)003wo

EXACT

STABILITY

MODEL

S. Ammart&

TDepartment

Department

of Civil Engineering,

of Mechanical

Copyright J; 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0045-7949196 $15.00 + 0.00

OF SPACE

FRAMES

Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot,

GlK 7P4, Canada

Engineering,

INSA-Rouen,

Lava1 University,

Quebec,

St-Aignan,

France

Abstract-The

buckling loads are, in general, those for which 1K1= 0, where K is the stiffness matrix. In

this case, K is a transcendental

function of the buckling load 1. The Wittrick and Williams algorithm

consists of finding how many buckling loads have been exceeded at each iteration. Coupled with the

bisection method, this algorithm is infallible, but sometimes the convergence rate is slow. To accelerate

the convergence,

a new method for computing

the buckling loads is presented.

This method can be

considered as an improvement

on the bisection method of Wittrick and Williams algorithm.

An exact

geometric matrix which is a function of the buckling load I is derived. The stiffness and geometric matrices

are used to perform a linearized eigenproblem

combined with the Wittrick and Williams method.

Copyright

0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

NOTATION

algebraic eigenvalue problem. The rigidity and geometrical matrices are obtained by assembling the

corresponding elementary matrices. In order to obtain a precise buckling load 1 and corresponding

modes, each space column and beam is often represented by a number of elements leading to a large

size problem. An alternative is to construct the

stability model using the exact stiffness approach

leading to an algebraic eigenvalue problem which is

nonlinear in 1. Several works have been completed in

dynamic analysis using exact dynamic matrices in

order to obtain a precise estimate of frequencies [l-8].

However the application of this approach for stability

analysis has been very limited [9, lo].

In this study, we give a finite element representation on the exact stability model to include thick

and thin beam elements. A numerical method to

calculate the buckling loads and modes for the nonlinear eigenvalue model is presented as well. A number of examples are presented to demonstrate the

efficiency of the exact model and they are compared

with linear classical models.

stiffness matrix

element of the stiffness matrix K at row i and

column j

determinant

of the stiffness matrix

upper triangle matrix obtained

from K by Gauss

elimination

geometric matrix

element of geometric matrix K; at row i and column j

nodals variables, (II) = (u, w, /I, ur w, &)

axial displacement

transversal

displacement

rotation

residue {R} = [K]{u}

constant axial load in compression (+) or in traction

(-)

trial buckling coefficient or eigenvalue

correction

of the trial eigenvalue 2:

length of an element

membrane

rigidity (H, = EA)

flexural rigidity (H, = EI)

shear rigidity (H, = GA)

stability

shear coefficient;

q = 1 -H.

I

I/I = 2 J

number of critical load factors

zero and trial value

value of J if constraints are

stability

coefficient:

IN,

.

qEI

of a structure

between

2. MATHEMATICAL

MODEL

displacement

sign count of matrix K

rough convergence

tolerance

required convergence

tolerance

A space frame is composed of different types of

beamcolumn

elements interconnected at the end

points or nodes. The physical laws governing the

behavior of space frame are:

(a) For each member;

(i) force equilibrium relations,

(ii) strain-displacement

relation,

(iii) constitutive relation.

1. INTRODUCTION

method is employed to obtain the classical linear

$To whom all correspondence

should

be addressed.

59

S. Ammar

60

expressions.

The finite

element approach leads to a representation

of these

laws in an algebraic form defined by elementary

matrices and nodal variables.

(b) For each node;

(i) force equilibrium,

(ii) kinematic continuity.

The assembling of elementary matrices to obtain

the global matrix is based on the satisfaction of nodal

force equilibrium and kinematic continuity.

The construction

of a linear stability model of

space frame is composed of two parts:

(a) Linear static model [l 1, 14, 151;

for a given load distribution,

we solve the classical

linear static problem in order to obtain distribution

of axial forces NO in each member or element;

(b) linear stability model [ll, 121;

by supposing that the axial forces vary linearly with

load level 1, we obtain a linear expression of physical

laws for a structure with an initial stress distribution

of ANO. At each element level, the stability model is

defined by a homogeneous

differential

equation

which is linear in i. However the finite element

representation

leads to geometrical stiffness which is

nonlinear in 1. using an exact stiffness approach.

et al.

with eqn (1) is (only two-dimensional

considered for simplicity)

H,,, 2

form associated

space frame is

- w*Av dx

(2)

The global model is obtained by

W=CW=O,

(3)

coordinate

system. The

membrane-bending

coupling is introduced

at this

level. The finite element representation

of eqns (2)

and (3) are

For each element, the linear static model for thin

beam in local coordinate

system, is given by [II]

w=~We=(Un*>({~~-[~l~~j)

e

H,,,$l.=O

H,, 2

= (U,*){R)

=o,

(4)

variables. The resolution

of eqn

evaluation of N,, for each element

-f;. = 0

(4) leads to an

Hm$+fu=O.

N,=H,$.

The endpoint equilibrium and displacement

continuity are to be satisfied as well.

The variable II is the axial displacement, v and w are

the transverse displacement.

H,,, , H,, are the constant

bending stiffnesses and H,,, the axial stiffness.

N,,,, M,., M,, T, and Tz are the internal generalised

axial force, the moment and the shear acting at

endpoints (Fig. 1).

The construction

of a

essentially the element level.

the element to the global

assembling

process which

model. For a thin element

z

\

w\

/

The transformation

from

level is defined by an

is similar to the static

using Bernoulli approxi-

61

mation (normal sections remain normal), the stability

model at the element level is

H$=O,

(5)

eqn (4). The end-point equilibrium and displacement

continuity are to be satisfied as well.

The weak form associated with eqn (5) is

where

and (9) are identical by choosing an approximation

for w* and u* which satisfies

d4w*

T+a

,d2w*

-=

dx2

d2u *

-0

dx2+$&

Hmgx

dx.

(6)

>

The admissible approximation is C for (w, w*)

and Co for (u, u*).

The main idea of exact stability model lies in the

choice of approximation for (w, w*). The classical

finite element approximation is

w = V)(a);

(10)

and we obtain

model

the expression

u = V>{b>

+a

,dw*

dx

>I

w 0

with

(P)=(l

x2

x3);

(P,)=(l

x)

or in nodal form

The approximations

w = <W{w,);

u = W,){U),

(7)

w* = (P(x)){a*};

of w* and u* are

u*=(l-; ;){;i}

w* = (1 x (1 - cos(ax))

pression of the form

eigenvalue

(ax - sin(ax)))

ex-

(8)

form, which includes the nodal variables (using integration by parts):

2 d2w*

w-$H,,,u

dx2

approximation

of eqn (6). Using eqn (12) we

obtain the discretized approximation of eqn (11) in

the form

dx

I

(9)

-KY,

(1 -W,)-alY,

1 -W,

cry,

where

a2

a3 s&al)

a3

- a 3 cos(al)

V, = cos(al),

The expression

9, = sin(al).

for F(a)] is

F(a)1=

(13c)

k22

sym.

_k*3

k3)

where

k =--zI

I

41c/3cot($) )

I3 1 - + cot($)

*;=:( H,

k==- Hf _

12(

and

The assembled

W=c

We=(CJ;)[K(i)]{U,)={O}

or

kml=; [

(14)

, ;]

(W> = (WI 8,

w2

e,>, e = -wyy

Y=

we obtain

and a, N,, H, are different for each element.

For the case of clamped<lamped

element

{w;} = 0), the critical load is given by

H,<w~Xk(~)l{w,I

- a*k,]).

The nodal matrix [P] is

r

-1

-1

Iw,+I=

0

cL(ai)

1a sin(al)

iPnl{a*)

det[P,]

0

al - sin(&)

= 0

2( 1 - cos(al)) - al sin(al) = 0

0

a(1 - cos(al))

(i.e.

al = 2nn

4nGl*

ANo=--Hf

[2

n=1,2,...

(15)

63

2.4. Linear stability model for thick element

Equation

(18a) gives

on Mindlin approximation

(plane section remain

plane) is given by (for a plane frame)

dw*

=+a

W,,S,:x - K(B*

s0

+ HAP,: +

a2=0.

AN

?4

The approximation

(19) are

eqn

+ wf))8

w*

(1

sin(ax)

1 - cos(ax)

w,:,)wl dx

- W,:H,P + HAP* +

ax - sin(ax)){a*}

v,:>wlk

(17)

a cos(ax)

/?* = -rj (0

where

a sin(ax)

a(1 -cos(ax)+m)){a*},

q=,-_B23

and

HC

ci2=-.

ANo

where

H,

m=!-z

By choosing approximations

for /I * and w * which

satisfy

H,(/?* + VW,:) = Cst = -_rla$ H,

p,:X - E2w,t = -?a:

Pnl=

and

-rla

- qam

sin(al)

1 - cos(al)

-_?a cos(al)

--_?a sin(al)

a3* a

a2 1) >

1 - cos(aZ) + m)

I

/?:

w:

PTA

{wn*l =

[P,l{a*I

(20)

model

KU

dx

aI - sin(a[)

-?a(

W;= HA<w:XWNw,I).

W=H

a:?.!

(w,*)=(wf

exact stability

(a*)=

(W

we obtain

(19)

where

(16)

One may write this expression

in an equivalent

form with endpoint terms

w; =

*dw*

==a$,

(18b)

1o

k=.-?

k22=H/

1

w

Y

-249~ytan(lL)]i

The expression

where

S. Ammar et al.

64

3.1. Incremental

where

linearized form

The incremental

Newton-Raphson

linearization

The determinant

det(P,)

of the matrix

= -(~c()~[(l

- co~(a/))~(l + m)

- sin(ctl)(al

- sin(ctl)) + m sin(al)].

For a double-clamped

element

critical load is given by

4n2H,

(21)

4lSH,

I+=

AI = (0)

form becomes

M~?l - W&G)ll{W

I1

[K,GN = dl

(22)

The elementary

(25)

= (0)

with

8K

~NO=~

The iterative

Z (01

[P,] is given by

by

matrix

l=i,

[k,(n)] is given by

(26)

are

The classical

linear stability

model is given by

k

UK1 - nr~gll{~I

g1

= 101,

(23)

and positive definite and

[Kg] is symmetrical.

One may obtain the solution of this problem by

inverse

iteration

method [l 11, subspace

iteration

method [ 121 or by more efficient Lanczos method [ 131.

However, the eigenvalue problem for exact formulation is nonlinear

= 0

k22 = 3

21L2(2+ cos(2$ )) - 3ti sin(2$)

8

41 [

($ cos($) - sinGi+))

k23 = -N,

6

-[ 4

2 sin2($) - $-

r(/ sin($)cos($)

2

1 - + cot($)

K(A)I{V

= (0).

1

1

-- cot(*)

r,G

(24)

+ ICI

- $ SW+Ws(+ 1

Equation (23) is a special case of eqn (24).

Some works [7,8] were done to improve the original Wittrick and Williams algorithm to solve this

nonlinear

eigenproblem.

We present here a new

method for computing

a set of eigenvalues

and

corresponding

eigenvectors

based on the bisection

method

of Wittrick

and Williams

method [l],

coupled with inverse iteration [ 1 I].

(+ cos(lc,

1- sin(ti )I2

2

1 - +!Icot($)

ti * - ti sin($ kos(lc,1

+ (+ cos(ti1- sin(J/)I21

--

1

sin2(+)

(27)

Exact stability

and for a Mindlin

(26) are

of the matrix

k=O

g

65

different element of the exact geometric matrix in eqn

(28) leads to

+36N,(l

k22

e = $$

+2(1 -@)(n

+ 20~ + 120~~)

301(1 + 12rp)2

tan(*)

2@r] + (1 + @) see($) - ti

(

[

>

kjj+4NcJ2(1 + 1% + 90~~)

%

30&l + 12rp)2

-?)I

3N,l

k2

g -*301(1+

-g

4Y2

r#/

2Q

+(l+@)

tan(*)

sec2(ti) - 4+

(

+$

kr=$$

k3

g

>I

tan(*)

(l+@)sec2(+)+(l-@)---

1247)2

30/(1 + 12l$J)2

the linear geometric matrix is obtained.

The inverse iteration method associated

(25) is

=- cp -+O),

with eqn

ALi+,

- cot(ti))(l -

tan2(1L)))

W+XW)I{U+~

(29a)

(V+)[K,(L)](U+}

(2W

+(l

+a)

The shifted inverse iteration

as follows:

2& sec2($)cot($)

k: = g

- seti

For an approximate

;i; 0, calculate K(X), K,(X)

and triangularize

K(x). Choose A& = 0

Iterate: iter = 1, matiter;

Solve [K(i;)]{ U} = [K,(X)]{ D};

tan2W)))

Convergence

is presented

tan(* 1

- JI

>I

- cot(tiN(l +

algorithm

2r]+ sec2($)cot($)

- set($)

tan041

Update { 0) = {U};

Update A& = AL;

GoTo Iterate

end if

- -

J/

test

)I

(28)

X=T+M.

y = -tan(ll/1

rl3

which is presented in previous works [9, lo], the exact

geometric matrix F,(n)] with or without shear effect,

has never been presented before in literature.

and eigenvectors

for the nonlinear

problem.

It is

based on the bisection scheme proposed by Wittrick

and Williams and shifted inverse scheme of the

preceeding section. The general algorithm of bisection is as follows:

. choose a trial value 1: between the previous

values 1p and nip 1.: < 1: < iip;

. compute the stiffness matrix K(1:) and triangularize it in the form

]K(A:)l=

[Ll[DIWTl;

S. Ammar

66

l

count the

represented

by s[K*(E.b)] and obtain

et al.

Different aspects of general algorithm using bisection and shifted inverse iteration is as follows:

. evaluate a set of eigenvalues of linear problem

of [D]

eigenvalues

of each double-clamped

member

which are less than ib

J,=Cf(i

e

l

if we are seeking

if J(ib)

otherwise

repeat

iteration

algorithm

with

Gram-Schmidt

orthogonalization

[l I] or Lanczos method [13] to obtain an estimate of the

eigenvalues

</I;,;

1=A Ir2r

j. ,,, >fnr

1.

. improve the estimate of A{, Ai,

, If,, by using

the bisection scheme for i = 1,2,.

, m with a

rough convergence tolerance,

qth eigenvalue

2 q

~K,fotlfW = 101

R_t/l

A: = Y

2

1 +/IP

1: = 9.

2

_ i:(oid)1is small,

until 11,lCnew)

Assemble

and decompose

[K(X;)]

J(X:,) = .s(Ka)

Compute

JiYes

Assemble

[K(Xi)]

II-Perform

& [X,(X:)]

Fig. 2. Algorithm

of update

of:

trial eigenvalues.

67

Description

of ends

Pinned-Pinned

Number

of

elements

Exact

method

(WWO)

__

Inverse

iteration

(CEP)

9.869

12.000

9.944

9.869

17.75%

7.4 x 1O-2

3.0 x 1oa4

30.000

32.70%

2.50%

9.9 x 1o-5

(PP)

2

8

-lClamped-Pinned

El

(CP)

.P

-lClamped-Clamped

El

LP

(CC)

-IEI

20.709

20.193

2

8

Clamped-Free

20.191

1t

2

8

39.478

2.467

(CF)

P

2

8

-l-

Difference

and

KEP)

(WWQ)

Proposed

method

(EEP)

9.869

20.191

39.77s

39.478

7.4 x IO-

0.0%

2.486

2.469

2.467

7.6 x 10-l

5.3 x 1o-4

0.0%

39.478

2.467

tWith the classical eigenvalue problem (CEP), the critical load cannot be found with only one element because the matrix

is singular, due to the constraints imposed to nullify all nodal displacement. The WWQ and proposed method EEP compute

this critical load using the equation of the determinant of the matrix [P] (15) or (21).

perform shifted inverse iteration for each eigenvalue using the algorithm of section 3.1. Obtain

the eigenvector as well.

The algorithm

4.

is summarized

NUMERICAL

in Fig. 2.

The procedure

presented

in this paper will be

numerically

evaluated through the analysis of two

examples.

The results obtained

herein with exact

eigenvalue problem (EEP) will be compared

with

solutions obtained by classical eigenvalue problem

(CEP) and the Wittrick and Williams algorithm with

quadratic interpolation

(WWQ).

All examples are computed

with REFLEX finite

element programme [ 1 I], where we modify some routines to implement the Wittrick and Williams algorithm and the procedure

presented.

The required

tolerance is fixed to 1.0 x IO- for all problems. The

resolution of these examples was performed on HP

station.

4.1. Beam-column

in compression

(first buckling load) of a beam-column

with different

gives the error estimates of the classic method with

only one finite element discretization.

For the WWQ

and EEP method, only one element per beam is

used, but for the CEP method the beam is discretized

by one, two or eight elements. The WWQ is considered as an exact method and is employed

as

reference.

We consider four kinds of beam end condition as

pinned-pinned

beam (PP), clamped-pinned

beam

(CP), clamped-clamped

beam (CC) and clampedfree beam (CF). Each beam is submitted to an axial

load P and has a unit length I and unit flexural

rigidity EI. The results given by all methods are

presented in Table 1.

In the pinned-pinned

beam (PP) and clampedpinned

(CP) cases, the difference

between

the

eigenvalue

obtained

by CEP and WWQ varies

from 17.75% in the first case to 32.70% in the

second case. These results are obtained

for a

beam with only one finite element discretization.

The proposed

procedure

EEP gives exactly the

same eigenvalue that gives the Wittrick and Williams

algorithm

with less computing

time. This two

cases are the unfavourable

configuration,

that

means that only one element is not able to give

eigenvalues

with

the

CEP

algorithm.

good

The proposed procedure EEP gives the exact eigenvalue, as the WWQ does in this unfavourable

configuration.

(PV

case I

case 2

case 3

0.98696 x 10

0.98347 x IO1

0.94054 X 10

Km

0.20191 x IOr

0.20031 x IO2

0.18175 x 102

(CC)

0.39478 x IO2

0.38925 x 10

0.32971 x IO2

(W

0.24674 x lo1

0.24652 x 10

0.24373 x IO

68

S. Ammar et al.

34444444444444

1444444444444l

a) Lateral displacementpermitted

c) bracedframe

b) Lateral displacementnotpermitted

Fig. 3. Six floor structure.

In the clamped-free

beam case (CF), the results

given by CEP are good compared with those obtained

by WWQ or obtained by our procedure.

In these

cases (where the lateral displacement is permitted, i.e.

favourable

configuration)

the procedure

presented

converges and the computing time is the same as the

reference method WWQ.

From these examples, we conclude that the EEP

method developed here, is very good for problems

where the lateral displacement

is not permitted, and

is cheaper than all other methods. In other cases, the

method converges well and the computing

time is

similar to the WWQ algorithm.

In these cases. a

classical eigenvalue problem CEP is sufficient to give

good results, even with only one element discretization. In all cases, if we take a large number of element

Mode I

converge to the exact value given by WWQ and our

procedure EEP too, but the computing time became

very large.

If the shear effect is taken into account, the results

are given in the Table 2. In the first case, G the shear

modulus of elasticity is taken to have the same effect

of the previous study (column without shear effect).

In the second case G is taken as

G=-

E

2(1 + v)

G is taken for a composite column as presented in

Ref. [ 111where G = EjSOk (k is a factor to correct the

Mode 2

Mode 3

Mode 4

Fig. 4. Frame with permitted displacement.

Mode 5

Exact stability

Table

3. Material

data

2.75 x 1OkN m-* and

Members

A (m2)

1, (m)

Columns

Beams

Braces

0.175

0.226

0.226

8.29 x 1O-4

6.09 x 1O-4

8.29 x 1O-4

For the second example, we apply our algorithm to

a six floor structure with distributed load at each floor

(50 kN m-) and two concentrated

loads (1000 kN) at

top nodes as shown in Fig. 3. The geometric data of

the beams and columns are presented in the Table 3.

element is used per beam or column. However, for the

CEP method one or four classical elements are used

per beam or column. The WWQ method is used as

reference. In this example, the first five buckling loads

are computed.

First, we permit the lateral displacement

(cf. Fig.

3a). In this case, results given by CEP are not so bad,

but those given by the proposed

method are best

compared to the exact results given by WWQ. The

computing time for CEP is 40% of the time for WWQ

algorithm

and the EEP method sensibly take the

same time as WWQ. The results are printed in

Table 4.

If the lateral displacement is not permitted, (cf. Fig.

3b), the situation is completely reversed. In fact, the

method proposed herein gives the exact results for all

critical load with only 60% computing time, but the

results obtained by the CEP with only one element

are not correct. To have acceptable results with CEP,

I

2

3

4

5

W.W.Q.

0.46724

0.61257

0.82451

0.11212

0.14769

x

x

x

x

x

IO

IO

10

102

lo2

Table

Cr. load

1

2

3

4

5

5. Critical

E.E.P.

0.23806 x IO2

0.29378 x IO*

0.29554 x IO2

0.35836 x IO*

0.37284 x IO*

1

2

3

4

5

W.W.Q.

0.16626

0.17058

0.17872

0.19319

0.21022

x

x

x

x

x

10

10

10

IO2

IO*

0.31035

0.39937

0.42407

0.53817

0.55557

rotation

0.23806

0.29378

0.29554

0.35836

0.37284

x

x

x

x

x

C.E.P.

E.E.P.

IO2

10

IO2

102

I02

0.16626

0.17058

0.17872

0.19319

0.21022

x

x

x

X

x

Iti

10

IO2

102

102

Table 7. Critical

Cr. load

1

2

3

4

5

W.W.Q.

0.35348

0.42494

0.42844

0.48370

0.51974

x

x

x

X

x

E.E.P.

IO

10

10

LO

IO

0.35348

0.42494

0.42844

0.48370

0.51974

x

x

x

x

X

IO

IO

10

10

IO

x

x

x

x

x

displacement

C.E.P.

0.17039

0.17085

0.18108

0.19575

0.2I300

is allowed

(1 ele)

0.46756

0.61403

0.83029

0.11388

0.15072

IO

10

IO

102

10

W.W.Q.

Table 6. Critical

Cr. load

x

x

x

x

x

displacement

C.E.P.

E.E.P.

0.46724

0.61257

0.82451

0.11212

0.14769

is equal to

E

G=----.

2(1 + v)

nonuniform

stress of cross-sectional

shapes). For a

rectangular section, k is equal to 5/6.

In Ref. [14], the critical load for a pinned-pinned

column is presented when the shear effect is taken

into account, and the results presented in Table 2 fit

very well with this formula.

As pointed

in this

reference, shear has no significant effect on reducing

column strength and may be safely neglected. The

shear effect should not, however, be neglected for

composite material where the ratio E/G is large, as

shown in Table 2.

Cr. load

69

C.E.P.

0.46724

0.61259

0.82456

0.11214

0.14761

(4 ele)

x

x

x

x

x

10

IO

IO

IO2

10

is not allowed

(1 ele)

x

x

x

x

x

diff.

30.4%

35.9%

43.5%

50.2%

49.0%

102

IO

IO2

IO2

102

C.E.P.

0.23823

0.29334

0.29587

0.36322

0.36731

(4 ele)

x

x

x

x

x

IO*

10

IO

10

10

is not allowed

(1 ele)

x

x

x

x

x

10

IO2

IO2

IO2

lo2

frame

C.E.P.

(1 ele)

0.52396

0.67711

0.78252

0.91234

0.91356

diff.

0.1%

0.2%

0.7%

1.7%

2.1%

10

10

10

IO*

IO2

x

x

x

x

x

10

IO

10

10

IO

diff.

C.E.P.

2.5%

0.2%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

0.16682

0.17017

0.17881

0.19329

0.21033

diff.

C.E.P.

48.2%

59.3%

82.6%

88.6%

75.8%

0.35421

0.42817

0.42677

0.48579

0.51948

(4 ele)

x

x

x

x

x

lo2

IO

IO

IO2

IO*

(4 ele)

x

x

x

X

x

IO

10

10

IO

101

S. Ammar

70

et al.

11 1

jl

Mode1

Fig. 5. Frame

with non-permitted

displacement

-i

ModeI

Mode 2

Made I

Mode 2

with non-permitted

frame

Mode5

rotation.

Mode 4

Mode 3

Fig. 7. Braced

Mode 4

Mode 3

Fig. 6. Frame

Mode5

Mode 4

Mode 3

Mode 2

Mode 5

we increase the number of elements to four. In this

case the computing

time became 650%, compared

with the reference computing

time. The results are

listed in Table 5.

In the third case, the rotation of all nodes is not

permitted.

In this case, the difference between CEP

with only one element and the exact results is not

large (cf. Table 6) and computing time is only 45%.

Our procedure

gives the exact values for all five

buckling loads using about the same computing time

as the reference method. The CEP method can give

better results if four elements are used per beam/

column, but the CPU time is about 700%.

To prevent lateral displacement,

braces are placed

in the frame with large area and moment of inertia as

presented in Table 3. One more time the methods

presented herein converge to the exact solution with

only 65% of the computing time needed by the WWQ

algorithm.

The CEP method with only one element gives

completely false results (cf. Table 7). If four elements

are used per beamcolumn,

the results are better, but

not exact, and the CPU time is about 800% more

than the WWQ method.

The five buckling modes are presented in Figs 47.

5. CONCLUSION

nonlinear problem is presented. This method may be

considered

as an improvement

on the bisection

method of Wittrick and Williams. The exact stability

model is developed

based on the finite element

method for Bernoulli and Mindlin cases. The main

advantage of this model is that we can use only one

element per member. This method is very attractive,

especially when the lateral displacement

of the frame

is not permitted (by limit condition or by braces).

Exact buckling loads are obtained with the proposed

method, with less computing time compared to the

reference method (Witrick and Williams method), or

classical eigenproblem

method with more than one

classical element. With this method, the user is sure

to obtain the exact critical load with only one element

per beam/column,

using less computing

time than

other methods.

71

Acknowledgemenr-The

authors gratefully thank the

National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada

support.

REFERENCES

Math.. XXIV. 263-284

..

(1971)._

2. F. W. Williams and W. H. Wittrick, An automatic

computation

procedure for calculating natural frequencies of skeletal structures. Inr. J. mech. Sci. 12, 78 1-79 I

(1970).

3. F. W. Williams and W. H. Wittrick, Exact buckling and

frequency calculations

surveyed. J. struct. Engng ASCE

109, 169-187 (1983).

4. R. Lundin and B. A. Akesson, Damped second-order

Rayleigh-Timoshenko

beam vibration in space-an

exact complex dynamic member stiffness matrix. Inf. J.

numer. Meth. Engng 19, 431449 (1983).

5. A. Simpson, On the solution of S(w)x = 0 by Newtonian procedure.

J. Sound Vibr. 97, 153-164 (1984).

6. J. H. SaIlstrom and B. A. Akesson, Fluid-conveying

damped Rayleigh-Timoshenko

beam in transverse vibration analysed by use of an exact finite element. Part

I: theory. J. Fluid Struct. 4, 561-572 (1990).

algorithm

for

7. A. Frid, A modified Wittrick-Williams

eigenvalue analysis of fluid vibration in piping systems.

Letter to the editor, J. Sound Vibr. 141.3555358 (1990).

.Rehable use of

8. F. W. Williams and D. Kennedy,

determinant

to solve nonlinear

structural

eigenvlaue

problems

efficiently. Inf. J. numer. Mefh. Engng 26,

1825-1841 (1988).

and frame stab9. F. W. Williams, Stability functions

ility-a

fresh approach.

Inr. J. mech. Sci. 23, 715-722

(1981).

10. P. Z. Baiant and L. Cedolin, Stability of Structures:

Elastic,

Inelastic,

Fracture and Damage

Theories.

Oxford University Press, New York (1991).

11. J. L. Batoz and Ci. Dhatt, Modeiisarion des Structures

Par Eiemenrs Finis. Les Presses de lUniversit6 Lava],

Quebec (1991).

D. Beauheu and G. Dhatt, Buckling of

12. M. Fafard,

thin-walled members by finite element. Comput. Sfrucf.

25, 183-190 (1987).

The Lanczos algorithm for solution of

13. B. Nour-Omid,

large generalised eigenproblem.

In: The Finite Elemenr

Method (Edited by T. J. R. Hughes).

Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1987).

Steel Sfrucrures,

14. C. G. Salmon and J. E. Johnson,

Design and Behavior, Emphasing Load and Resistance

Factor Des&n. 3rd Edn. Haroer and Row. New York

(1990).

Caicui des Charpentes

15. A. Picard and D. Beaulieu,

DAcier, 1st Edn. Institut canadien de la construction

en

acier (199I).