Analytical verification example

The system consists of a 0.18 m thick concrete slab measuring 6.0 x 12.0 m. The slab is supported on all four sides so that it cannot move vertically (soft support).The first six natural frequencies and modes of the plate under its own weight are to be determined.SystemL x W = 12 m x 6 mCross-sectiond = 0.18 mModulus of elasticityE = 30 × 103 MPaTransverse contraction ratio= 0.2ElvesG = 25.0 kN/m3

Standards-based verification example

D1.1Task descriptionThe support examined here corresponds to Example 10 from [1] and is already covered by EvaDAT: .The load-bearing capacity is now to be verified in accordance with the General Method for Normal Temperatures (geometrically and materially non-linear calculation) as set out in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA:2015-12 and DIN EN 1990/NA:2012-12.In order to limit the large variations in the design results initially observed to those actually attributable to the method, comparing the deformations determined in the GZT with a given reinforcement scheme and focusing on two load combinations…

Standards-based verification example

D1.1Task descriptionThe terms of reference have been issued [1] Example 4: Based on a point-supported plate.The flat slab of an office building with lightweight partition walls that are prone to cracking is to be assessed.The following are being examined: the central, edge and corner sections. The columns and the flat slab are monolithically connected. Perimeter and corner columns are positioned flush with the edge of the slab. The column axes form a square grid. This is a non-displaceable system (a building reinforced by wall panels).The office building comprises five storeys, each with a…

Standards-based verification example

D1.1Task descriptionHere is the problem from the DBV collection of examples [1], Example 4: Based on a point-supported slab. The slab internal forces and the required longitudinal reinforcement are covered in EvaDAT Example 0036. For this reason, a detailed problem statement and a repeat of the boundary conditions for the FEM analysis are omitted here; please refer to Example 0036 in this regard: In this example, the punching point on the B/2 axis is examined.The punching shear analysis is carried out, on the one hand, using the load calculated manually from the load application areas from [1]…

Standards-based verification example

The verification example for the fire safety assessment corresponds in principle to Example 10 in [1, S. 10-18 ff.]. For the in-situ concrete edge column of a closed hall (Abb. D1-1) Proof of fire safety measures must be provided:(a) in accordance with the general calculation method [2] Section 4.3, or(b) in accordance with the simplified calculation method set out in [2] Section 4.2 in conjunction with the zoning method described in Annex B.2.It is to be determined which fire resistance class the cantilever support falls into in accordance with the two standards set out in [2] can be…

Standards-based verification example

The verification example corresponds to Example 10 in [1, S. 10-1 ff.]. The following section therefore largely omits details and background information. Only the relevant input values for the design are given.D1.1Task descriptionA reinforced concrete cantilever support must be designed at normal temperature in accordance with the GZT (German Design Guidelines) as per DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA:2013-04. [2] based on DIN EN 1990/NA:2010-12 [3].D1.2Theoretical foundationsThe design shall be carried out in accordance with the method using nominal radii as set out in DIN EN 1992-1-1, Section 5.8.8, taking…

Numerical verification example

Various finite element methods are designed solely for the standard Euler-Bernoulli beam, which does not take shear deformations into account. However, there are also methods for the Mindlin beam or hybrid methods that take shear deformations into account according to Timoshenko’s theory. A beam is fixed at both ends and is loaded in two load cases: with a single load at the centre and at the quarter-point. The solution at the centre (a) is trivial; the problem at hand is the offset load at the quarter-point (b).As this is a statically indeterminate system, the stiffness in case (b) also…

Analytical verification example

The two-dimensional frame system is subjected to a point load at A. As the point load increases, the system deforms progressively until stability problems arise. The aim of this example is to calculate the load-deflection behaviour of the system until the buckling point is reached. Deflections are only possible in the XY plane.Material: linearly elastic; modulus of elasticity = 71,740 MPa; coefficient of elasticity = 0.0Support conditions: ux = uy = 0 at B and CLoad: P = 1.0 kN

Analytical verification example

The problem of a truss is a fundamental test for geometrically non-linear effects. A slightly over-cambered system comprising two truss members is subjected to a transverse load. There is an initial buckling load and pronounced post-buckling behaviour.In one symmetrical half, one end of an inclined truss member is fixed. At the other end, the node can move freely in the direction of the load.The particular challenge arises in a load-controlled analysis.The parameters are:ParameterE [MPa]H [mm]L [mm]A [mm²]Value500,000252,500100

Analytical verification example

The system consists of a thin cylindrical shell which is subjected to two individual forces directed radially in opposite directions at its centre. It is supported exclusively at the ends of the cylinder on a rigid circular disc (not shown), which allows the diaphragm to move. In the radial direction, the displacements are thus constrained at both ends of the cylinder. There is no restriction on rotation. The deflection at the centre of the cylinder under one of the two radial loads is investigated for various finite element meshes. This example allows the suitability of the software for…