Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

EXAMPLE 1
Simply Supported Rectangular Plate PROBLEM DESCRIPTION A simply supported, rectangular plate is analyzed for three load conditions: uniformly distributed load over the slab (UL), a concentrated point load at the center of the slab (PL), and a line load along a centerline of the slab (LL). To test convergence, the problem is analyzed employing three mesh sizes, 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12, as shown in Figure 1-2. The slab is modeled using thick plate elements in SAFE. The simply supported edges are modeled as line supports with a large vertical stiffness. Three load cases are considered. Self weight is not included in these analyses. To obtain design moments, the plate is divided into three strips two edge strips and one middle strip each way, based on the ACI 318-95 definition of design strip widths for a two-way slab system as shown in Figure 1-3. For comparison with the theoretical results, load factors of unity are used and each load case is processed as a separate load combination. Closed form solutions to this problem are given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959) employing a double Fourier Series (Naviers solution) or a single series (Lvys solution). The numerically computed deflections, local moments, average strip moments, local shears, and average strip shears obtained from SAFE are compared with the corresponding closed form solutions. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size, ab Plate thickness T Modulus of elasticity E Poisson's ratio v Load Cases: (UL) Uniform load (PL) Point load (LL) Line load

= = = =

360 in 240 in 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3

q P q1

= 100 psf = 20 kips = 1 kip/ft

EXAMPLE 1 - 1

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

(3) (2) (1)

q1 P q a = 30 '

(3)

(2)

(1)

q1

b = 20 '

Figure 1-1 Simply Supported Rectangular Plate

EXAMPLE 1 - 2

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

5'

2 @ 10'

5'

4 @ 5'

4x4 Mesh

2 @ 2.5'

4 @ 5' 2 @ 2.5'

8 @ 2.5'

8x8 Mesh

3 @ 20"

6 @ 40"

3 @ 20"

12 @ 20"

12x12 Mesh

Figure 1-2 SAFE Meshes for Rectangular Plate

EXAMPLE 1 - 3

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0
Y

b = 20'

X a = 30' Y Edge Strip b/4 = 5' 10' b/4 = 5' Middle Strip X

X Strips
Y 5' b/4 20' 5' b/4

Middle Strip

Edge Strip

Y Strips
Figure 1-3 SAFE Definition of Design Strips

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Deflection of slab at various mesh refinements.

EXAMPLE 1 - 4

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1-1 shows the deflections of four different points for three different mesh refinements for the three load cases. The theoretical solutions based on Naviers formulations also are shown for comparison. It can be observed from Table 1-1 that the deflection obtained from SAFE converges monotonically to the theoretical solution with mesh refinement. Moreover, the agreement is good even for the coarse mesh (4 4). Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 show the comparison of the numerically obtained localmoments and local-shears at critical points with that of the theoretical values. SAFE results also include the shear deformation and therefore discrepancies are noted between in Shears for SAFE results and analytical results based on thin plate formulation. A noticeable discrepancy, however, occurs for the case of the point load (load case PL) in the region close to the application of the point load, where the theoretical model has a singularity. Table 1-4 shows the comparison of the average strip-moments for the load cases with the theoretical average strip-moments, where excellent agreement can be observed. It should be noted that in calculating the theoretical solution, a sufficient number of terms from the series is taken into account to achieve the accuracy of the theoretical solutions.

EXAMPLE 1 - 5

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

Table 1-1 Comparison of Displacements

Location Load Case X (in) 60 60 UL 180 180 60 60 PL 180 180 60 60 LL 180 180 60 120 0.0719 0.1060 0.0710 0.1053 0.0703 0.1044 0.0691282 0.1024610 60 120 60 120 0.0864 0.1288 0.0387 0.0583 0.0829 0.1298 0.0380 0.0578 0.0821 0.1293 0.0378 0.0574 0.0800715 0.1255747 0.0370825 0.0562849 60 120 60 120 0.089 0.1250 0.0383 0.0555 0.0919 0.1284 0.0334 0.0474 0.0917 0.1281 0.0330 0.0469 0.0906034 0.1265195 0.0320818 0.0458716 Y (in) 60 120 44 Mesh 0.0486 0.0679 SAFE Displacement (in) 88 Mesh 0.0499 0.0694 1212 Mesh 0.0501 0.0694 Theoretical Displacement (in) 0.0492961 0.0684443

EXAMPLE 1 - 6

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

Table 1-2 Comparison of Local Moments

Moment (kip-in/in) Location Load Case SAFE 88 0.38 1.20 1.75 2.03 0.43 1.13 1.84 2.42 0.23 0.80 1.32 1.78 Mx Analytical (Navier) 0.45 1.18 1.69 1.95 0.37 1.13 1.90 2.41 0.26 0.77 1.25 1.68 SAFE 88 0.75 2.01 2.79 3.16 0.41 1.15 2.25 3.80 0.35 1.11 1.99 2.94 My Analytical (Navier) 0.81 2.02 2.77 3.12 0.36 1.14 2.20 3.75 0.34 1.08 1.92 3.03 SAFE 88 0.29 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.50 0.49 0.67 0.44 0.23 0.20 0.14 0.05 Mxy Analytical (Navier) 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.06 0.47 0.51 0.59 0.47 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.05

X (in) 150 150

Y (in) 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105

UL 150 150 150 150 PL 150 150 150 150 LL 150 150

EXAMPLE 1 - 7

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

Table 1-3 Comparison of Local Shears

Shears (103 kip/in) Location Load Case SAFE (88) 21.3 7.1 2.7 1.6 4.5 5.0 5.7 12.4 7.7 1.7 1.7 0.9 Vx Analytical (Navier) 35.2 21.2 10.5 3.0 8.7 9.8 13.1 11.2 15.7 13.0 7.6 2.2 SAFE (88) 24.7 6.5 29.8 48.4 17.6 2.1 17.6 64.7 19.7 5.0 23.5 38.8 Vy Analytical (Navier) 7.6 21.0 33.4 40.7 2.6 8.3 19.2 43.0 5.7 16.2 26.5 32.4

X (in) 15 45

Y (in) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

UL 90 150 15 45 PL 90 150 15 45 LL 90 150

EXAMPLE 1 - 8

Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:

SAFE 0

Table 1-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

SAFE Average Strip Moments (kip-in/in) Load Case Moment Direction Strip Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle 44 Mesh 0.715 1.757 1.005 2.68 0.970 2.480 0.509 3.149 0.489 1.561 1.254 2.840 88 Mesh 0.781 1.861 0.965 2.809 0.922 3.960 0.537 3.378 0.555 1.524 1.355 3.212 1212 Mesh 0.799 1.832 0.983 2.806 1.043 3.781 0.533 3.375 0.517 1.493 1.355 3.233 Theoretical Average Strip Moments (kip-in/in) 0.810 1.820 0.994 2.792 0.901 3.950 0.548 3.307 0.519 1.475 1.432 3.200

Mx
x = 180" UL

My
y = 120"

Mx
x = 180" PL

My
y = 120"

Mx
x = 180" LL

My
y = 120"

COMPUTER FILE: S01a.FDB, S01b.FDB and S01c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

EXAMPLE 1 - 9