0 Suka0 Tidak suka

3 tayangan26 halamanfinite elements

Mar 10, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

finite elements

© All Rights Reserved

3 tayangan

finite elements

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Anda di halaman 1dari 26

ELEMENT METHOD

development of the finite element method as a means for solving the governing

equations of structural systems that are susceptible to instabilities. This develop-

ment, presented in Sections 20.1 and 20.2, uses principles and notation that are

not typically encountered in elementary finite element courses but are nonethe-

less of great importance as an introduction to the conventions that are typically

encountered within modern literature on the subject.

With this overview, Section 20.3 presents more practical aspects of stability

analysis by the finite element method. After providing a survey of the dominant for-

mulations behind the finite element buckling procedures employed in commercial

software, comparisons in predicted capacities are made and differences discussed.

Additionally, observations regarding the nature of the first eigenmodes (as obtained

from finite element buckling analyses) are made and their usefulness as devices for

defining seed (initial geometric) imperfections when using incremental nonlinear

finite element analysis methods to study structural stability problems is assessed.

20.1 INTRODUCTION

stability of equilibrium, takes as its point of departure the integral statement for

the governing equations of motion. While, historically, it has been more common

to employ the principles of virtual work , or equivalently stationarity in the total

potential , when developing the finite element equations for solids and structures

(Bathe, 1996; Cook et al., 2002; McGuire et al., 2000; Zienkiewicz and Taylor

2000a), this treatment focuses on the Galerkin method , as it applies to the weak

form of the governing equations in a structural problem (Reddy, 1993). This

approach is taken in order to equip the reader with concepts that will be useful

in understanding modern research advances concerning the finite element method

(Ciarlet and Lions, 1991; Chapelle and Bathe, 2003; Duarte and Oden, 1996;

Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, Sixth Edition Edited by Ronald D. Ziemian 933

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

934 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Babuska and Melenk, 1997; Melenk and Babuska, 1996; Belytschko and Black,

1997; Farhat et al., 2003) as well as enhancing an understanding of the method’s

convergence properties (Reddy, 1993; Langtangen, 2000).

It is ultimately the goal of the finite element method to idealize a continuous

system in a discrete form that preserves salient physical responses while at the

same time admitting insight into convergence properties and accuracy. With this in

mind, consider the statement of some homogeneous and continuous model problem

of the form

L (u(x )) = 0 ∀x ∈ (20.1)

problem, and is some open set defining the problem domain. In a discrete

numerical solution to the problem posed in Eq. 20.1, an approximate solution of

the form û (x ) will be obtained with1

u ≈ û = ui Ni (x ) (20.2)

subject to the Fourier requirement (Reddy, 1993; Kreyszig, 1978) that u − ûi →

0 as i → ∞. Given that û is an approximation, it is not reasonable to expect

that Eq. 20.1 will be satisfied by Eq. 20.2 In general L (û (x )) = 0, and thus it is

appropriate to define a residual for the model problem as

R = L (û (x )) (20.3)

In any discrete solution of the model problem, it can only be ensured that the

residual, R, is arbitrarily small, and it is desired that R → 0 ⇒ u − ûi → 0.

Considering now exclusively the residual , the goal is to minimize approximation

error. With Eq. 20.4 below as an alternate form of Eq. 20.3, an important observa-

tion can be made: because R varies in space, the requirement of a minimum can

only be imposed in an average or integral sense:

method , wherein the objective is to minimize the average square of the residual,

which can be expressed by

min R2 d w.r.t. ui (20.5)

Because Eq. 20.5 describes a discrete system, the minimization may be obtained

using partial derivatives:

∂ ∂R

R d = 2R

2

d =0 (20.6)

∂ui ∂ui

INTRODUCTION 935

It is actually instructive to recast the results of Eq. 20.6 into the slightly

different form

∂R

2 R d =0 (20.7)

∂ui

From Eq. 20.7, it is now more obvious that the least squares method is a type

of weighted residual method with a canonical form expressed as

wi R d = 0 (20.8)

Thus, in the case of the least squares method, Eq. 20.7 implies that

wi = 2 (∂R/∂ui ). In general, the weighting functions, wi , are somewhat arbitrary,

although they do need to satisfy certain requirements, including:

• They vanish on the part of the boundary, ∂E , where essential (Dirichlet)

boundary conditions are specified.

where Hom is the Sobolev space of order m, where 2m refers to the order of the

highest derivative present in the linear differential operator L.

applied to a simple problem. Figure 20.1 depicts a bar of length L that is loaded by

end forces and a distributed body force that takes the form of a traction over the

entire length of the member. Considering now the equilibrium of an isolated rod

segment of differential length, forces may be summed as (consistent with Fig. 20.2)

Fx = 0 = − σ dA + (σ + d σ ) dA + β dx (20.10)

A A

b

P

P

L

dx x, u

FIGURE 20.1 Rod of length L loaded by end forces P and a distributed body force β.

936 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

s

dA

s + ds

x, u

dx

dσ

A +β =0 (20.11)

dx

ε = du/dx and σ = E ε, respectively, yields the governing differential equation

(strong-form statement) of the problem,

d du

EA +β =0 (20.12)

dx dx

d du

L (u (x )) = EA +β =0 (20.13)

dx dx

This continuous problem may be discretized by replacing the unknown solution,

u (x ), with an approximation in the form of that given by Eq. 20.2. The quantities

Ni are frequently referred to as shape functions in the literature on the finite element

method or as trial functions within the context of the classical applications of the

Rayleigh–Ritz method . Given that these individual functions, Ni , satisfy compact

support (Reddy, 1993) with respect to individual finite elements, their superposition

leads to the creation of a Schauder basis (Kreyszig, 1978) that spans the Sobolev

space of dimension i . As i → ∞, the approximation space approaches the space

of continuous functions where u (x ) occurs.

Using û (x ) in L yields the residual per-unit length of prismatic bar of homo-

geneous material,

d 2 (û (x ))

L (û (x )) = EA +β =R (20.14)

dx 2

INTRODUCTION 937

Upon substituting Eq. 20.2 into Eq. 20.14, the following expression for the residual

per unit length is obtained:

R = (EA) ui Ni

(x ) + β (20.15)

The least squares method may now be used to identify a suitable weighting

function for use in a weighted residual statement (i.e., weak form) of this example

problem:

∂R ∂

wi = 2 = (2EA) ui Ni

(x ) = (2EA) Nj

(x ) (20.16)

∂uj ∂uj

Note that the multiplier of 2EA may be dropped, as it is merely a constant and

thus does not impact the linear independence or satisfaction of essential (Dirichlet)

boundary conditions.

Continuing with the discussion of the least squares method as a weighted integral

form, the goal is to minimize the residual, R, as

L

wi R d = (EA) ui Ni

(x ) + β Nj

(x ) dx = 0 (20.17)

0

The contents of Eq. 20.17 may be placed in slightly more familiar form as

L L

− EA Ni

(x ) Nj

(x ) d x ui = βNj

(x ) dx (20.18)

0 0

L

Aij = −EA Ni

(x ) Nj

(x ) d x (20.20)

0

L

βNj

(x ) dx (20.21)

0

Galerkin Method A similar approach to the foregoing replaces the least squares

method with an approach known as the Galerkin method . This latter approach is

more common in the finite element analysis of solids and structures as a result of

938 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

the usual positive definiteness and strong ellipticity (Naylor and Sell, 1982) of the

governing functionals in structural mechanics. One important benefit in using the

Galerkin method is that the required order for continuity in the shape functions,

Ni , is reduced, as will be seen below.

In the Galerkin method, the weighting functions, wi , are selected to be identical

to the shape functions, Ni , underpinning the approximate solution ûi , as outlined

in Eq. 20.2. It should be noted that the foregoing approach is sometimes referred

to as the Bubanov–Galerkin method , in contrast to the Petrov–Galerkin method ,

in which the weighting functions and shape functions are not of the same form.

This distinction is pointed out to avoid confusion when working with the finite

element literature. For the purposes of the current discussion, reference to the

Bubanov–Galerkin method will be made simply as the Galerkin method .

Reconsidering the above example problem in terms of the Galerkin method, the

following weighted integral statement (i.e., weak-form statement) is obtained:

L

d 2u

wi R d = Nj EA 2 + β dx = 0 (20.22)

0 dx

ditions:

• Loading applied to the free end, EA [du (L)/dx ] = P

1 (see Eq. 20.9), and the weighting functions wi in general, and Ni in particular,

must be admissible, stated formally as

lus may be applied to Eq. 20.22 using the following integration and substitution

formulas:

dNj d 2u du

u d v = uv − v du u = Nj du = d v = EA 2 v = EA

dx dx dx

(20.24)

leading to

L L

du L dNj du

uv − v du = Nj EA − EA dx + Nj β dx = 0 (20.25)

dx 0 0 dx dx 0

Recognizing

that Nj (0) = 0 (because Nj ∈ H0m ), Nj (L) = 1, and

EA du(L)/dx = P, it is seen that the natural (Neumann) boundary conditions

INTRODUCTION 939

L L

dNj du

P − EA dx + Nj β dx = 0 (20.26)

0 dx dx 0

The approximation described by Eq. 20.2 may now be employed within Eq.

20.26 by replacing u by û, and rearranging terms yields

L L

dNj dNi

EA ui dx = P + Nj β dx (20.27)

0 dx dx 0

The left-hand terms in Eq. 20.27 lead to the stiffness matrix, expressing the

parameters associated with the response of the structural system under external

actions. The terms on the right lead directly to the generalized force vector, express-

ing the external actions on a structural system.

The benefit of using the Galerkin method is now apparent when comparing Eqs.

20.18 and 20.27. In Eq 20.18, the approach based on the least squares method

yielded an integral statement wherein the shape functions of the approximate

solution needed to be twice differentiable, and able to satisfy both the essential

(Dirichlet) and natural (Neumann) boundary conditions. In contrast, the outcome

of the Galerkin method is that the application of integration by parts results in a

shifting of the derivative from one term to another in Eq. 20.22, thus weakening the

continuity requirements on the shape functions used in forming the approximate

solution. Furthermore, it is observed (see Eq. 20.26) that the natural (Neumann)

boundary conditions are implied within the integral statement (Eq. 20.22) of the

example problem. As a result of their implied sense, the natural boundary condi-

tions did not require overt consideration during the selection of the shape functions

used in the approximate solution, û.

The foregoing consideration of the weighted integral approach to developing

a finite element representation of a structural problem may be brought into con-

sonance with other common formulation approaches (Bathe, 1996; Cook et al.,

2002; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000a) through further consideration of the example

depicted in Fig. 20.1. When considering Eq. 20.27, the form of the so-called

strain–displacement matrix, commonly given as [B] in the finite element litera-

ture (Bathe, 1996; Belytschko et al., 2000; Cook et al., 2002; Crisfield, 1991a,b;

Hughes, 2000; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000a), may be developed as

du d ûi dNi

ε= ≈ = ui → [B] {u} (20.28)

dx dx dx

Substituting the foregoing result into Eq. 20.27 yields (in matrix form)

L L

EA [B] [B] dx {u} = P +

T

{N }T β dx (20.29)

0 0

940 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Equation 20.29 lends itself to being cast in the familiar general form of the

equilibrium statement

[K ] {u} = {F } (20.30)

where [K ] is the stiffness matrix formed through integration of the product of the

strain–displacements terms and {F } the force vector representation (in this case,

the aggregate effect of concentrated loads and distributed body forces).

Nonlinearities in structural analysis may arise from three primary sources: boundary

conditions that change during the problem solution (e.g., hard contact between

bodies); nonlinear material response (e.g., yielding of steel in a structural member);

and geometric nonlinearity (e.g., elastic column buckling). It is the last of these,

geometric nonlinearity, which is most closely aligned with the notion of quality

of equilibrium and thus is the focus of the present discussion. This is not to say

that the other two sources do not pertain to stability problems; each of these can

lead to manifestations of instability in their own right. The effects of nonlinear

material and boundary conditions, however, will not be treated herein due to space

limitations and instead reference is given to Simo and Hughes (1991), Wriggers

(2002), Bathe (1996), and Belytschko et al. (2000).

A convenient starting point to a discussion on ways of admitting geometric

nonlinearity into the finite element formulation is through a consideration of large

displacements as well as large strains. Since instability problems invariably require

the formulation of equilibrium on some deformed configuration of the structural

system being investigated, it appears as a truism that, at the very least, large dis-

placements must be admitted. In the case of the present discussion, large strains

are also included for completeness. With this in mind, a new strain measure that

is suitable for large displacement and large strain response is now introduced.

The Green–Lagrange strain is commonly encountered in treatments of the

nonlinear finite element method (Bathe, 1996; Belytschko et al., 2000; Crisfield,

1991; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000b), but important foundation theory can be

found within relevant texts on continuum mechanics (Malvern, 1969; Fung, 1994;

Ogden, 1984; Novozhilov, 1953).

In general, the Green–Lagrange strain is a second-order tensor describing the

deformation of a body and whose tensorial components are

1 dui duj duk duk

Eij = + + (20.31)

2 dxj dxi dxi dxj

the usual linear engineering strain, is its invariance under rigid-body rotations, a

critically important feature with respect to stability-related finite element analyses

that involve large displacements (rotations).

NONLINEAR ANALYSIS 941

u2

u1

45°

This example will highlight two important ideas that are at the heart of the present

discussion:

• The invariance of the Green–Lagrange strain in such cases

Clearly, a strain measure that yields nonzero terms when a body merely rotates as

a rigid body (i.e., no deformation) would prove disastrous for applications involving

geometric nonlinearity. Such a rigid-body rotation condition is depicted in Fig. 20.3,

wherein a bar that is initially aligned with the x axis of a two-dimensional Cartesian

reference frame rotates 45◦ about its left end. The displacement components of the

right end may then be given as

√ √

2 2

u1 = − L − L and u2 = L

2 2

neering strain is given by

√ √

du1 ( 2/2)L − L 2

ε= = = − 1 = 0 (20.32)

dx L 2

Clearly the strains obtained according to linear engineering strain theory (Eq.

20.32) are incorrect because there can be no deformation of the structural element

under a pure rigid-body rotation.

Consider now the Green–Lagrange strain of this problem. The components of

the tensor that measure deformation along the x axis yield

1 ∂u1 ∂u1 ∂u1 ∂u1 ∂u2 ∂u2

E11 = + + +

2 ∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x1

2 2

∂u1 1 ∂u1 1 ∂u2

= + +

∂x1 2 ∂x1 2 ∂x1

942 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

√ √ 2 √ 2

2 1 2 2

= −1 + −1 +

2 2 2 2

√

2 1 1 √ 1

= −1 + − 2+1 + =0 (20.33)

2 2 2 4

Thus, the Green–Lagrange strain remains invariant (i.e., null) during the

rigid-body rotation depicted in Fig. 20.3.

In light of the foregoing discussion on the Green–Lagrange strain, an extension

of the equilibrium relation of Eq. 20.29 to include large deformations may now be

defined. Such an extension will permit the consideration of geometric nonlinearity,

a condition that is at the heart of essentially all structural stability problems.

Toward this end, consider an extension of the notion of a strain–displacement

matrix [B] to account for geometrically nonlinear effects. Recognizing that the

first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 20.31 correspond to the usual, linear

engineering strain, a matrix designation of [B L ] can be applied to this portion of the

strain tensor. The remaining terms, which are responsible for the consideration of

large deformations, can be included in a second strain–displacement relation, [BNL ].

Using this approach, the Green–Lagrange strain tensor now may be represented

(in matrix form) as

This result may now be used to extend the equilibrium relation (Eq. 20.29),

for the example problem of Fig 20.2, for applications that include geometrically

nonlinear behavior. This extension takes the straightforward form

L L

EA [BGNL ] [BGNL ] dx {u} = P +

T

{N }T β dx (20.35)

0 0

Evaluation of the left-hand side of Eq. 20.35 results in the tangent stiffness

matrix , a linear expansion of the equilibrium path about a particular point in the

configuration space of the particular problem. The right-hand side, in this case,

embodies the loading effects related to the specific example problem. In the incre-

mental nonlinear solution of Eq. 20.35, within a Lagrangian reference frame, the

treatment of the solution of an unknown equilibrium configuration, using a previ-

ously solved-for configuration, leads naturally to the identification of the system

internal force vector that arises in order to balance applied loadings from the

right-hand side. A more detailed treatment of these concepts is provided in Chapter

6 of Bathe (1996).

To facilitate the discussion to follow, the tangent stiffness matrix is repre-

sented as

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 943

L

[Ko ] = EA [BL ]T [BL ] dx (20.37)

0

L

[Kσ ] = EA T

[BNL ] [BNL ] dx (20.38)

0

and thus all formulations take the initially undeformed configuration of the

structure as the reference frame from which to measure kinematic relations (Bathe,

1996). It is pointed out that the initial state from the total Lagrangian perspective

is used to formulate nonlinear finite element equations of motion. This initial

state has no bearing on the baseline and characteristic equilibrium states that are

subsequently introduced in the discussions pertaining to linearized eigenvalue

buckling approaches.

permits the consideration of the effects of geometric nonlinearity in structural

analysis. Oftentimes these software systems will have the capability to treat

stability problems through eigenvalue extraction routines applied to the global

system stiffness matrix, an approach often referred to as buckling, eigenvalue

buckling, or linearized eigenvalue buckling analysis.

This type of a stability analysis is attractive from the standpoint that it is not

computationally expensive. As compared with a more general incremental analy-

sis that traces the entire nonlinear equilibrium path of the structural system, the

eigenvalue buckling approach concerns itself with only one or two points on the

equilibrium path. In addition, results obtained from eigenvalue buckling analyses,

when applied to stability problems exhibiting bifurcation instability, are usually

quite accurate (Earls, 2007), and this accuracy is obtained without much interven-

tion on the part of the software user. Care must be taken, however, when applying

this technique to problem types exhibiting other manifestations of instability (e.g.,

limit point instability).

In practice, situations may arise in the design office where the application of

eigenvalue buckling may seem attractive for problems involving elastic beam

buckling (e.g., lateral–torsional buckling of a beam or planar truss) or elastic

snap-through buckling (e.g., lattice dome, arch, or shallow truss assembly). In

the domain of stability research, linearized eigenvlaue buckling is also oftentimes

attractive as a means for identifying an initial or seed imperfection for application

within a more detailed incremental nonlinear finite element analysis of a beam or

944 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

framework, for instance. In all of the foregoing, there are finite structural defor-

mations prior to the onset of instability that are additive to the governing buckling

mode (as compared to a bifurcation instability where the pre- and postbuckling

deformations may be thought of as being orthogonal to one another). This fact

creates an inconsistency with regard to assumptions made in the formulation of the

linearized eigenvalue buckling procedure itself.

The present discussion examines the underlying assumptions within the for-

mulation of the eigenvalue buckling method in order to highlight the problem

types that most readily lend themselves to solution by this method. In addition,

problems presenting responses that violate these fundamental assumptions are also

examined. In this latter case, it becomes very important to understand the nature of

the implementation of eigenvalue buckling in the given software system (example

problems, solved by MASTAN2, ADINA, ANSYS, and ABAQUS, are included

in this discussion); certain implementations will make application of eigenvalue

buckling to other than bifurcation problems extremely problematic. The present

discussion related to the various finite element buckling formulations employs a

single, standardized notation to allow for a transparent comparison of underlying

assumptions.

The literature adopts the term buckling analysis when referring to a family of finite

element techniques applied to structural systems for the identification of critical

load levels through the solution of an eigenproblem arising out of assumptions

made relative to changes in structural stiffness and associated applied loadings.

While the technique is applicable to structures that exhibit critical responses aris-

ing from the limit point as a well as bifurcation of equilibrium, the term buckling is

nonetheless universally applied. While this may seem inconsistent, since buckling

is normally associated with the condition of bifurcation in the equilibrium path

only, the nomenclature is defensible nonetheless as a result of the fact that the

eigenproblem posed within the finite element context resembles the case where the

vanishing of the determinant of the stiffness matrix is associated with a form of the

Sturm–Liouville problem (Reddy, 1993; Boyce and DiPrima, 1986). All formula-

tions within the present discussion will be presented in a standardized notation (to

facilitate comparison) that is defined subsequently.

Because the analyses considered here are strictly static, time will be used to

signify an equilibrium point within the configuration space of a given structure

corresponding to certain load level. Definitions for several left subscripts are now

introduced to facilitate subsequent discussions. A generic place holder term, ,

will be used to show the relative locations of the subscripts:

o ≡ generic quantity, , evaluated at the equilibrium configuration

associated with the trivial case of no external actions.

t ≡ generic quantity, , evaluated at an intermediate equilibrium

configuration occurring between the unloaded and critical configurations.

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 945

movement from location t to t + t on the equilibrium path.

t+t ≡ generic quantity, , evaluated at an intermediate equilibrium

configuration occurring between the unloaded and critical configurations,

that is, arbitrarily close to t .

In subsequent discussions, it will also be helpful to define three applied loading

conditions that are used to surmise an assumed characteristic change in the system

stiffness. In general, the applied loading will be denoted with P.

{Pbaseline } ≡ loading condition used to bring the structure to a point in

configuration space associated with the left subscript t.

{Pcharacteristic } ≡ loading condition used to bring the structure to a point in

configuration space associated with the left subscript t + t.

{Pcr } ≡ the critical load associated with the equilibrium configuration at

incipient instability.

Structural stiffness will be denoted by the usual quantity [K ], more specifically

defined by:

[o Ko ] ≡ linear elastic stiffness matrix whose elements are independent of the

current structural configuration.

[τ Kσ ] ≡ initial stress matrix dependent on the state of stress at an arbitrary time,

t. This matrix is populated with terms that include both linear and

quadratic dependencies on the current displacement field.

The sum of the foregoing two stiffness matrices is typically what is referred to

as the tangent stiffness matrix , and associated with a specific equilibrium point in

configuration space. Some readers may be more familiar with the notion of the tan-

gent stiffness being associated with the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion of

the internal force vector about the current configuration during the solution; while

others may recognize it as emanating from the stationarity of the total potential

functional with an internal energy term that includes the influence of finite strains.

While other options exist for the population of the tangent stiffness matrix (Wood

and Schrefler, 1978; Holzer et al., 1990; Chang and Chen, 1986), the former def-

inition has emerged as the most popular to date. In particular, the instantaneous

stiffness of the structure arrived at by retaining only the linear terms in a Tay-

lor series expansion of the load–deflection response of the structure about the

point in configuration space may be defined according to the applied loading as

follows:

[Kbaseline ] ≡ instantaneous stiffness corresponding to the applied loading

{Pbaseline }

[Kcharacteristic ] ≡ instantaneous stiffness corresponding to the applied loading

{Pcharacteristic }

Classical Formulation The initial treatment of the finite element buckling anal-

ysis appeared in the literature prior to the formal naming of the finite element

946 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

method (Gallagher et al., 1967); this earliest reference identified the approach as

being based on the discrete element procedure. In light of the foregoing, and based

on a survey of the literature, it appears that in the most commonly held defini-

tion of the classical formulation for finite element buckling analysis, the following

problem is solved (Cook et al., 2002; Holzer et al., 1990; Chang and Chen, 1986;

Brendel and Ramm, 1980):

very close to the initial configuration at time 0, but this is not a strict requirement.

The subsequent buckling load is computed as

Secant Formulation The present discussion adopts the name secant formula-

tion to describe the variation of the finite element buckling problem that is referred

to variously as the secant formulation (Bathe and Dvorkin, 1983; ADINA, 2007)

and the linear and nonlinear analysis (Holzer et al., 1990). This problem is posed as

In the following examples, comparisons of results from the two approaches to

finite element buckling analyses are considered (i.e., those involving software pack-

ages employing buckling approaches characterized by Eqs. 20.39 and 20.40 and

20.41and 20.42, respectively). In some instances the results from closed-form solu-

tions are also presented. In addition, several cases also include results from manual

implementation of the finite element buckling approaches as encapsulated in Eqs.

20.39 and 20.40.

This discussion begins by distinguishing between bifurcation and limit point

instability in a formal way. Consider the classical form of the finite element state-

ment of the incremental equilibrium equations:

where {u} are the incremental nodal displacements and {R} is the residual vector

representing the imbalance between the internal forces at time t and the desired

load levels associated with some set of external forces, {P}. It is pointed out that

this residual differs in context from the quantity sharing the same name and defined

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 947

in Eq. 20.3. The standard form of the eigenvalue problem will be used to compute

eigenvalues, ωi , and eigenvectors, {φ}i , for the tangent stiffness matrix according to

matrix

[KT ] = ωi {φ}i {φ}Ti (20.45)

i

These same eigenvectors may also be used to define a projection operator that

takes the original displacement and load vectors and projects them onto a new

vector space spanned by the eigenvectors, {φ}i , such that

{t+t u} = αi {φ}i (20.46a)

i

{t+t P} = ρi {φ}i (20.46b)

i

where {P} is the externally applied load vector on the structure and ρi = {φ}Ti {P}.

The transformations embodied in Eqs. 20.45 and 20.46 effectively diagonalize Eq.

20.43 and result in the following transformation (Pecknold et al. 1985):

ωi αi = λρi (20.47)

In an elastic structure, the first critical point occurs when the equilibrium

equations become singular or, in other words, when the tangent stiffness matrix is

no longer positive definite. Well-ordered eigenpairs result from this being one case

of the Sturm–Liouville problem, and thus it can be recognized that loss of positive

definiteness of the stiffness occurs when ω1 = 0, at which point the condition

λρ1 = 0 occurs. Based on this fact, it can be recognized that a distinction between

bifurcation and limit point instability exists (Pecknold et al., 1985). If ρ1 = 0,

then it is clear that the eigenvector is not orthogonal to the externally applied

loading vector {P}, and thus λ will have to be zero in order for λρ1 = 0 to be

true. In this case, a limit point instability condition exists (this point will become

more clear subsequently). Conversely, ρ1 = 0 when the loading is orthogonal to

the eigenmode and buckling is occurring. This may be summarized as:

1 {P} = 0

• Bifurcation instability: ω1 = 0 and {φ}T

points on the equilibrium path in configuration space, there is no increasing load,

and the eigenvector is not orthogonal to the external load vector. Conversely, if an

increase in loading is possible in the neighborhood of the critical point, and the

eigenvector is orthogonal to the load vector, then bifurcation instability is present.

948 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

considered next. In these problems, prebuckling deformations are small, and thus

the assumptions in this regard, which underlie the linearized eigenvalue buckling

approach, are preserved. The first problem considers a one-dimensional structural

idealization of a three-dimensional problem, while the second example treats a

two-dimensional idealization of a three-dimensional case.

A classical Euler column example is depicted in Fig. 20.4. This figure displays

the problem geometry, along with boundary condition, cross section, and material

response information. The well-known solution of the example problem is given by

π 2 EI

Pcr = (20.48)

L2

which for the given problem results in a theoretically “exact” answer of Pcr = 238

kips. Clearly this agrees well with both linear eigenvalue buckling solutions (also

shown in Fig. 20.4), irrespective of baseline loading, Pbaseline .

The second bifurcation instability example is given in Fig. 20.5. This

plate-buckling problem also has a well-known solution, which is given by

√

π 2E n

σcr =k (20.49)

12 1 − ν 2 (b/t)2

Fig. 20.5 yields a critical elastic stress σcr = 1.114 ksi. As might be expected,

finite element results for both buckling approaches under discussion are in close

agreement with this result.

Boundary Conditions:

Z, u3 b = 1" Free? u 1 u 2 u 3 ur 1 ur 2 ur 3

1"

L = 10"

1" I = 0.0833 roller N Y N Y N N

Y, u2 E = 29,000 ksi

pin N N N Y N N Pcr

10"

(5 ADINA Hermitian beam elements)

200 k 235 Classical

100 k 235.8 Classical

10 k 236.5 Classical

1k 236.6 Classical

200 k 235 Secant

100 k 235.8 Secant

10 k 236.5 Secant

1k 236.6 Secant

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 949

scr

rollerY

b (10 ADINA MITC4 four node shell elements

b = 10"

t = 0.1" across width)

E = 29,000 ksi

simplex

n = 0.3

free

since a > b 0.01 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical

Y, u2 and b >> t 0.04 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical

then 0.05 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical

k = 0.425 0.12 k/in NA Classical

X, u 1 0.001 k/in NA Secant

pinY h=1 0.01 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant

0.04 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant

Boundary Conditions: 0.05 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant

Free? u 1 u2 u 3 ur1 ur 2 ur 3 0.12 k/in NA Secant

rollerY Y Y N Y N N

pinY Y N N Y N N

simplex N Y N N Y N

free Y Y Y Y Y N

Based on the two simple bifurcation buckling examples presented, it may seem

as though linearized eigenvalue buckling approaches satisfactorily predict critical

loads in this type of problem. This, however, is not always the case (Earls, 2007)

and caution should be taken against merely accepting the buckling loads from

finite element software, even under the favorable conditions of bifurcation buckling.

For example, it is noted here that in the case of the ADINA two-point buckling

formulation (known as the secant formulation in the ADINA literature), it is not

possible to know what the load level of Pcharacteristic is because the information

contained in the output files are incomplete in this regard. This is considered to be

a critical shortcoming in ADINA in terms of reliance on the secant formulation for

finite element buckling analysis. As will be seen subsequently, it is not possible to

take full advantage of the secant method when using ADINA, because sufficient

information regarding the underlying solution process is not available to the user,

and thus critical judgment related to the specification of Pbaseline , or even simply

the interpretation of results, is compromised.

Limit Point Instability The remaining cases for discussion all exhibit limit point

(snap-through) instability, and thus prebuckling deformations tend to be finite.

Strictly speaking, this may be viewed as a violation of the underlying assumptions

used in the formulations of Eqs. 20.39 and 20.42. Thus, it might be reasonably con-

cluded that finite element buckling analyses are, technically, not applicable to such

instances. Engineers, however, do employ this type of approach to cases that are

950 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

not strictly in consonance with the underlying assumptions of the formulation, and

thus it is important to consider this class of problems within the present discussion.

In addition, it is not possible to escape the fact that, under certain circumstances,

accurate solutions are obtained when comparing finite element buckling results with

the results of more exact methods of analysis.

In the subsequent discussion, it will be useful to refer to a class of diagrams

known as eigenvalue plots (Brendel and Ramm, 1980; Holzer et al., 1990). As

shown in Fig. 20.6, such a plot depicts a graph of Pcritical versus Pbaseline (both

normalized by dividing by the “exact” critical load). The depiction of the eigenvlaue

plot in Fig. 20.6 is useful to consider in the case of limit point instabilities, because

it highlights the dependence of the finite element buckling solution on the selection

of a reasonable baseline loading, Pbaseline . The predicted critical loading from the

finite element buckling solution is arrived at by multiplying the eigenvalues by the

baseline loads, as described in Eqs. 20.40 and 20.42, respectively, for the classical

and secant approaches. The results presented in Fig. 20.6 are consistent with what

is expected, from the standpoint that the approximate finite element buckling loads

improve in accuracy as the magnitude of the baseline load increases.

Next, consider the truss arch shown in Fig. 20.7, with several height-to-span

ratios studied. In all cases, the span length is held constant at 20 in., and the height

is varied from 2 to 17 in. The truss arch is a particularly useful example, because

it affords the opportunity to easily obtain results using hand calculations. In the

case of the truss arch shown Fig. 20.7, with a height of 2 in. (i.e., shallow case), an

energy formulation involving the stationarity of the total potential yields a critical

load of 85.4 kips. For this particular truss arch geometry, finite element buckling

results were obtained using MASTAN2, ANSYS, and ADINA. In the case of the

first two software packages, only a very small axial force is considered in the

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

lsecant Pbaseline

0.8

0.6

0.2 Classical

Pbaseline Secant

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 951

Span = 20" Pcr Free? u1 u2 u3

Height = 2" to 17"

E = 29,000 ksi pin N N N

Y, u2 1" brace Y Y N

1"

q° X, u1

20"

formulation of the tangent stiffness matrix used in the classical approach from Eq.

20.39. These results, along with a hand calculation meant to parallel the classical

formulation, as presented in Eqs. 20.39 and 20.41, appear in Fig. 20.8. It is clear

that MASTAN2, ADINA, ANSYS, and the hand calculation all agree reasonably

well for small values of Pbaseline . As Pbaseline is increased, MASTAN2 and ANSYS

remain constant in their predictions, because their implementation of the classical

method does not admit the possibility of a varying Pbaseline . In addition, while the

hand calculations and ADINA both permit a variation in Pbaseline , their agreement at

high levels is less favorable than at low values of Pbaseline . This may be a result of

subtle differences in the way the classical formulation is implemented in ADINA;

but as an unfortunate byproduct of a lack of inclusion (within the output files of

ADINA) of intermediate values in the solution process, it is very difficult to test

any theories aimed at understanding the nature of the observed differences.

6

Base Load

3 ADINA - classical

ADINA - secant

Hand Calculation

MASTAN2

2 ANSYS

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

952 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

4.5

Base Load

4 ADINA - classical

ADINA - secant

3.5 Hand Calculation

MASTAN2

3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

In the case of the 17-in. high truss arch (i.e., deep case), we see a difference

in the trend of the response observed in the eigenvalue plots of Fig. 20.9. While

the MASTAN2 and hand calculations agree well with each other at low loads

and produce a reasonable estimate for the critical load, the same is not true for

the ADINA results. The ADINA secant results are clearly diverging from the

correct solution (13,000 kips; obtained from an incremental nonlinear finite element

analysis) while the ADINA classical result begins at a point inexplicably far away

from the other two classical implementations.

Incremental Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis

Linearized eigenvalue buckling analysis techniques are sometimes employed as a

means for obtaining a seed (initial) imperfection to the structural geometry in order

to permit a realistic incremental nonlinear finite element analysis (e.g., to facilitate

equilibrium branch switching in the study of a bifurcation problem). In such an

approach, it is the components of the eigenvector (which represent the relative

displacement values at each degree of freedom associated with all nodes) that are

scaled to define an initial displacement field that is assigned (as a perturbation) to

the ideal node locations of a mesh employed in an incremental nonlinear analysis.

Such an approach is predicated on the notion of repeatability across commercial

codes (i.e., commercial codes should all yield similar mode shapes from models

possessing identical parameters). It has been clearly illustrated, however, that each

of the dominant formulations for eigenvalue analysis solves a slightly different

eigenproblem, as seen in Eqs. 40.39 through 40.42, and thus complete uniformity

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 953

significance of this variation in formulation, eigenvector results are quantified to

facilitate comparison.

The eigenvectors computed with the secant and classical formulations for a

given model may be very similar or, unfortunately, drastically different. This dif-

ference or similarity in results can accompany minor changes in geometry and/or

loading conditions as well as changes in eigenproblem formulation. Finite element

postprocessing software most often scales any reported eigenvectors in order to

facilitate visualization of the mode shapes. This scaling can cause problems when

comparing results from different commercial programs. In order to more precisely

compare the eigenvectors from different formulations (applied to models with iden-

tical geometries and material parameters), a sampling of eigenvector values along

the centerline of two example beams (Fig. 20.10) is taken. A discrete Fourier anal-

ysis is then conducted with these data using the position along the beam as the

independent variable.

Nominal dimensions for the two cases depicted in Fig. 20.10 are presented in

Table 20.1. Twist is prevented at the ends of the beams by guiding the rectangu-

lar stiffener plates to resist out-of-plane deformation. Both beams are modeled in

ADINA and ABAQUS using shell elements. Although the shell element formula-

tions are not the same for ADINA and ABAQUS, any differences in formulation

are not significant to this comparison because the observed behavior is within the

elastic, small-strain-response region (all element meshes were of equivalent den-

sity using linear, four node shells; the meshes were also seen to be converged).

Two ADINA analyses were performed: one using the classical formulation, and the

other with the secant formulation. The ABAQUS analyses only employed a classi-

cal type of formulation because secant buckling analysis can only be approximated

through the use of a “restart” option.

954 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Case 1 Case 2

Measure in. mm in. mm

Depth, d 19.00 483 8.25 210

Flange width, bf 6 152.4 4 101.6

Web thickness, tw 1.00 25.4 0.20 5.1

Flange thickness, tf 1.00 25.4 0.25 6.4

The first example (case 1) is a steel I-beam that is loaded with a uniformly

distributed pressure on the top flange. Figure 20.11 shows that the resulting mode

shapes are very similar for both programs. The eigenvectors obtained from ADINA

and ABAQUS postprocessing have been normalized (scaled), to enable comparison,

using the relation

φi

φi = (20.50)

φmax

to the discrete nodal degree of freedom displacement components of the vector.

When using eigenvector data corresponding to the minor axis (x -direction) lat-

eral displacement component, from nodes located along the centerline of the web,

it becomes apparent (Fig. 20.12) that the first-mode eigenvectors for the different

formulations employed are only slightly different. This difference in mode shape

becomes more definable once a discrete Fourier transform of the minor axis direc-

tion eigenvector displacement data is carried out. Figure 20.12 displays the results

from this approach, highlighting that the first mode shape resulting from the ADINA

classical formulation, the ADINA secant formulation, and ABAQUS formulation

are related. They are obviously all harmonic, and their peaks occur at the same

frequency. The frequency of the Fourier transform corresponds to the number of

cycles of the harmonic function, which for this particular beam example describes

the deformation per length of the member. The peak amplitude of the ABAQUS

Fourier analysis is 8% less than that obtained using both ADINA formulations; the

LINEARIZED EIGENVALUE BUCKLING ANALYSIS 955

Normalized X-Dir. Deformation

ADINA Classical ADINA Classical

0.8 ABAQUS Classical 10 ABAQUS Classical

8

0.6

6

0.4

4

0.2 2

0 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Position (in) Frequency Content (1/ in) × 10−3

(a) (b)

FIGURE 20.12 Case 1 results: (a) eigenvector plots along web centerline; (b) discrete

Fourier transformation of these eigenvectors.

difference in peak frequency is only 1% between the ADINA classical and secant

formulation results. In the second mode the difference in Fourier peaks between

ABAQUS and ADINA results is 30%.

The second beam example (case 2, Fig. 20.10, with nominal dimensions listed in

Table 20.1) incorporates an extra stiffener plate at the center of the steel I-beam and

includes a midspan concentrated load, which is distributed linearly along the upper

edge of the center stiffener plates. The first buckling modes for this model, obtained

using ADINA and ABAQUS, are shown in Fig. 20.13. The results vary to such an

extent that the discrepancies are clearly not an artifact of magnification or scaling.

Normalized eigenvector values along the centerline nodes are plotted in Fig. 20.14.

The discrete Fourier transform of the minor axis (x -direction) component of the

eigenvector data, which is also presented in Fig. 20.14, indicates not only that

there is a difference in the peak height of the results but also that the peaks are

also located at different points along the member longitudinal axis. The secant

formulation solution has a much more pronounced harmonic displacement field

when compared to the classical formulation. In this case, the ABAQUS results are

nearly equivalent to those of the ADINA classical formulation. ADINA classical

and secant formulations differ significantly in that the major peaks do not coincide

in height or location.

956 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

1 4

Normalized X-Dir. Deformation

ADINA Two-Point

3.5 ADINA Classical

ABAQUS Classical

0.5 3

2.5

0 2

1.0

–0.5 ADINA Two-Point 1

ADINA Classical 0.5

ABAQUS Classical

–1 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Position (in) Frequency Content (1/in)

(a) (b)

FIGURE 20.14 Case 2 results: (a) eigenvector plots along web centerline; (b) discrete

Fourier transformation of these eigenvectors.

Finite element buckling analysis results should be interpreted with great care. The

results of ostensibly identical formulations (e.g., as described in theory manuals)

within various software packages frequently lead to estimates of critical loads that

vary significantly for identical structural configurations.

It seems reasonable to avoid using such finite element buckling approaches for

all but the simplest cases of bifurcation buckling, but even then care must be taken

when considering the validity of the results.

It also appears that the approach of using eignenmodes, obtained from linearized

eignevalue buckling analyses, as an imperfection seed within a more general incre-

mental nonlinear finite element analysis should be approached with caution; as

models with identical geometries and materials properties may result in very dif-

ferent imperfection fields, depending on the finite element software that is employed

and with what formulation options the analysis is carried out.

REFERENCES

Babuska, I., and Melenk, J. M. (1997), “The Partition of Unity Method,” Int. J. Numer.

Methods Eng., Vol. 40, pp. 727–758.

Bathe, K. J. (1996), Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bathe, K. J., and Dvorkin, E. N. (1983), “On the Automatic Solution of Nonlinear Finite

Element Equations,” Comput. Struct., Vol. 17, Nos. 5–6, pp. 871–879.

Belytschko, T., and Black, T. (1997), “Elastic Crack Growth in Finite Elements with Minimal

Remeshing,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., Vol. 45, pp. 601–620.

Belytschko, T., Liu, W. K., and Moran, B. (2000), Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua

and Structures, Wiley, New York.

Boyce, W. E., and DiPrima, R. R. (1986), Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary

Value Problems, 4th ed., Wiley, New York.

REFERENCES 957

Brendel, B., and Ramm, E. (1980), “Linear and Nonlinear Stability Analysis of Cylindrical

Shells,” Comput. Struct., Vol. 12, pp. 549–558

Chang, S. C., and Chen, J. J. (1986), “Effectiveness of Linear Bifurcation Analysis for

Predicting the Nonlinear Stability Limits of Structures,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.,

Vol. 23, pp. 831–846.

Chapelle, D., and Bathe, K. J. (2003), The Finite Element Analysis of Shells—Fundamentals,

Springer, New York.

Ciarlet, P. G., and Lions, J. L. (1991), Handbook of Numerical Analysis, Vol. II: Finite

Element Methods (Part 1), North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., Plesha, M. E., and Witt, R. J. (2002), Concepts and Applications

of Finite Element Analysis, 4th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Crisfield, M. A. (1991a), Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1,

Wiley, New York.

Crisfield, M.A. (1991b), Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 2,

Wiley, New York.

Duarte, C. A., and Oden, J. T. (1996), “An H-P Adaptive Method Using Clouds,” Comput.

Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 139, pp. 237–262.

Earls, C. J. (2007), “Observations on Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis Within a Finite Ele-

ment Context,” Proceedings of the Structural Stability Research Council, Annual Stability

Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Farhat, C., Harari, I., and Hetmaniuk, U. (2003), “The Discontinuous Enrichment Method

for Multiscale Analysis,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 192, pp. 3195–3209.

Fung, Y. C. (1994), A First Course in Continuum Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

Gallagher, R. H., Gellatly, R. A., Padlog, J., and Mallett, R. H. (1967), “A Discrete Element

Procedure for Thin-Shell Instability Analysis,” AIAA J., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 138–145.

Holzer, S. M., Davalos, J. F., and Huang, C. Y. (1990), “A Review of Finite Element Stability

Investigations of Spatial Wood Structures,” Bull. Int. Assoc. Shell Spatial Struct., Vol. 31,

No. 2, pp. 161–171.

Hughes, T. J. R. (2000), The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite

Element Analysis, Dover, New York.

Kreyszig, E. (1978), Introductory Functional Analysis with Applications, Wiley, New York.

Langtangen, H. P. (2000), Computational Partial Differential Equations, Springer, New

York.

Malvern, L. E. (1969), Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969.

McGuire, W., Gallagher, R. H., and Ziemian, R. D. (2000), Matrix Structural Analysis, 2nd

ed., Wiley, New York.

Melenk, J. M., and Babuska, I. (1996) “The Partition of Unity Finite Element Method: Basic

Theory and Applications,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech., Eng., Vol. 139, pp. 289–314.

Naylor, A. W., and Sell, G. R. (1982), Linear Operator Theory in Engineering and Science,

Springer. New York.

Novozhilov, V. V. (1953), Foundations of the Nonlinear Theory of Elasticity, Dover,

New York.

Ogden, R. W. (1984), Non-Linear Elastic Deformations, Dover, New York.

958 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Pecknold, D. A., Ghaboussi, J., and Healey, T. J. (1985), “Snap-Through and Bifurcation in

a Simple Structure,”. J Eng. Mech., Vol. 111, No. 7, pp. 909–922.

Reddy, B. D. (1998), Introductory Functional Analysis, Springer, New York.

Reddy, J. N. (1993), An Introduction to the Finite Element Method, McGraw-Hill,

New York.

Simo, J. C., and Hughes, T. J. R. (1991), Computational Inelasticity, Springer, New York.

Wood, R. D., and Schrefler, B. (1978), “Geometrically Non-linear Analysis—A Correlation

of Finite Element Notations,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., Vol. 12, pp. 635–642.

Wriggers, P. (2002), Computational Contact Mechanics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L. (2000a) The Finite Element Method , Vol. 1: The

Basics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK

Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L. (2000b), The Finite Element Method , Vol. 2: Solid

Mechanics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

- 13S1 FE1073 C2-Deformation of Elastic BodyDiunggah olehglenlcy
- Handout 6 - Schmertmann CPT method Example.pdfDiunggah olehArdly S Rama D
- LAB Simple TrussDiunggah olehahmadrahmati16
- a_93J7YJLX.pdfDiunggah olehAngelika Maria
- Woven Fabric EngineeringDiunggah olehbrg_shekhar
- Ch16 Linear TetrahedronDiunggah olehlittle-wing
- OpenSees&Output_final.pdfDiunggah olehJulieta Rosas
- compression-1.pdfDiunggah olehasdasasdsdfsdf
- 2015_Chandra_In Situ Assessment of the G-γ Curve for Characterizing the Nonlinear Response of Soil_Application to the Garner Valley Downhole Array and the Wildlife Liquefaction ArrayDiunggah olehPedro Troncoso Acuña
- HJM Fast IntroductionDiunggah olehAlexis Maenhout
- 126Elamy (1)Diunggah olehmghgol
- 6 Nonlinear TheoryDiunggah olehAdolfo Gálvez Villacorta
- 125760133 Buckling of Thin Metal Shells 57Diunggah olehpawkom
- Finite element analysisDiunggah olehdream4755
- Fire Resistance of Columns in Steel FramesDiunggah olehYi Zhuang
- [Measurement Science Review] Design and Analysis of a Novel Six-Component FT Sensor Based on CPM for Passive Compliant AssemblyDiunggah olehAlexandruLebada
- lec4Diunggah olehDilip Kumar
- Smtmqp Problem 9.2, 9.3Diunggah olehsteven235
- Abela 2011 Engineering-StructuresDiunggah olehJhy Mha
- Lord Kelvin, Tait P.G. - Treatise of Natural Philosophy (Vol.1) - 1912Diunggah olehmetheonlys
- Behavior of Bridge Girders With Corrugated Webs (II) Shear Strength AnddesignDiunggah olehguojie zhou
- Tensor Data AnalysisDiunggah olehkesavaero1
- Modelling and Analysis Laboratory Manual VTU.pdfDiunggah olehHareesha N G
- MA1506Diunggah olehJim Hippie
- pressuremeter testDiunggah olehShanu Singh
- Naveed IqbalDiunggah olehPedro Barata
- Walls Axially Load YuenYPKuangJSDiunggah olehDamaris Arias
- lec29Diunggah olehAshish Kumar
- Comprehensive Stability Design Steel Members Systems via Inelastic Buckling AnalysisDiunggah olehclam2014
- SDM 04 UK (Mar-14).pdfDiunggah olehhepcomotion

- Presentation_20841_autodesk-University-2016-AR20841_Dynamo for Revit Baby Steps for the Non-GeniusDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- ClassHandoutBES219753LMoreDynamoforStructureMarcelloSgambelluri.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- handout_9972_MSF9972 - AU 2015 Class Handout.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- ClassHandout_LaserScanningWorkflowwithReCapforaPowerStation_RenovationProjecctDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Wind Loading for a TENT_ close to the sea_Calculations.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Class_Handout_AS121828_Global_Parameters_Global_Control_Revit_Global_Parameters_in_Practice_Paul_Aubin.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Class Handout ES124403 3D Laser Scanning and Revit Design Workflow Luke PedersonDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Class Handout AS122882 Creating Intelligent Details in Revit Brian MackeyDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- handout_6541-Advanced_Techniques_for_Importing_CAD_Drawings_into_Revit_Projects.pdfDiunggah olehMac Nyandoro
- Handout_20841_AU 2016 Class Handout_AR20841_Dynamo for Revit Baby Steps for the Non-GeniusDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Handout_1767_MI1767 Weekend Warrior Autodesk Revit Recreational Revit for the CraftsmanDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Shouldwemovefrom2Ddetailingto3DdetailingforRCDetailingDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Presentation_detailingto3DdetailingforRCDetailing.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Urban drainage Project_Good drawing details and calcs _Ross Associates.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Drainage Rainfall Calcs _GOOD Drawings in Revit_MansWilliams Consulting.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Sachpazis_Raft Foundation Design for Typical 2 Storey House Example _BS8110_PART 1_1997Diunggah olehmushroom0320
- Raft FoundationDiunggah olehsurajoffshore
- raftfoundations LABC.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- 220024489 Concrete BasementsDiunggah olehhashim.mj
- Kennedy, Goodchild - Practical Yieldline DesignDiunggah olehandymark
- Asset Doc Loc 2521847 Apc RawDiunggah olehAnonymous iS33V5
- 2015_Puente de la Gente_Honduras_Suspended cable Bridge Design Summary and Construction.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- suspended-manual-english-volume-1-community-development_2011.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- suspended-manual-english-volume-3-part-4-maintenance_2011.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- 2015_Tucuecito_Panama_Suspended Footbridge Design Report.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- B2P Design ManualDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Car Parking Barrier plan.pdfDiunggah olehErnie Ernie
- Car Parking Barrier Standard Detail Section M8 FixingsDiunggah olehErnie Ernie

- Lectures2 p GiblinDiunggah olehNill Berrocal Redolfo
- kupdf.com_schuller39s-lectures-on-quantum-theory-1-8.pdfDiunggah olehRonald Castillo Vega
- A Note of Extended Proca Equations and SuperconductivityDiunggah olehIlieCraciun
- Tensor Decomp PresentationDiunggah olehMahbod Matt Olfat
- QC-v1Diunggah olehgmrp
- Chaotic Phenomena in Astrophysics and CosmologyDiunggah olehjosolaz
- Chapter 28Diunggah olehKarla Perera
- Electromagnetic Fields - Coordinate and Unit VectorDiunggah olehSriram
- Lecture 2Diunggah olehMahesh Gahlot
- 08032012-Ppt Strain TransformationDiunggah olehمحمد عادل خٹک
- assigment_2aDiunggah olehchelsets
- Rotations Lorentz TransformationsDiunggah olehCélio Lima
- Quantum Mechanics - The Gauge-Invariance of the Probability Current - Physics Stack ExchangeDiunggah olehGhadendra Bhandari
- Chern Simons theory and Fractional Quantum Hall effectDiunggah olehasacoMaster
- Cee235b Handout JacobianDiunggah olehNguyen Duy
- heinzDiunggah olehhamedb2
- On the Classical Limit of Quantum MechanicsDiunggah olehmkeiwua
- Statistical Mechanics - Model PaperDiunggah olehManoj Rajput
- 9795_1_2ndInterimQP(1)Diunggah olehLolo Loloo
- EE109_sen_lnt_015_May11Diunggah olehAbdullah முகமது جواهر
- Ee453 Hw2 SolDiunggah olehÜlber Onur Akın
- IC_Sol_W02D3-0Diunggah olehAnupam Majumdar
- The Einstein Summation Notation (Barr)Diunggah olehfrege6534
- Curves in SpaceDiunggah olehAndrew Nelson
- Magnetic Properties of the LanthanidesDiunggah olehAnonymous pjRBh8vXv
- Formula RioDiunggah olehGuillermo Prol Castelo
- Symmetry Ops and Elements and Pt Gps 2Diunggah olehhimel8189
- Calculus 10th Edition H. Anton Chapter 13Diunggah olehSaniat Hossain
- Statistical MechanicsDiunggah olehfarzand abdullatif
- The Jahn Teller e!Ect a Retrospective ViewDiunggah olehYolanda Smith

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.