RYERSON UNIVERSITY

MEC626 APPLIED FINITE ELEMENTS LAB PROJECT No. 4 Rigid Frame
Program: Mechanical Engineering Section 3 Due Date: March 27, 2008 Prepared for: Dr. D.C.D. Oguamanam

NAME Kalashnikov, Andrey

Student ID 052098084

Signature

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

Introduction
A rigid frame is a structural framework or skeleton consisting of straight and curved members that is designed to resist loads. Members are mostly interconnected with rigid connections. They can take bending moments as well as shear and axial loads [1]. The rigid connections of the skeleton are designed so that the angles between them do not change with loads [2]. These types of structures can often have large amount of members, which makes it complicated to analyze. That’s when engineers have to use finite-element analysis method. It allows solving complicated indeterminant beam problems. In this case study, the rigid frame was given to be analyzed in the finite-element software ANSYS. The schematics of the frame can be seen on Figure 1. The structural load at C produces the axial load of 120 kip in member ED. The cross-sectional area of all the members is 4 in 2 . The Modulus of elasticity is given as 30 × 10 6 psi and the principal moment of inertia is 0.04 in 4 .

Figure 1 – The schematics of original design

The objective of this lab project was to evaluate the given rigid frame and then present the improved design that would decrease the load in member ED by at least 10%. The improved design was allowed to feature added or deleted structural members and increased cross-sectional area. The single restriction was that the member ED and its cross section were to be left unchanged.

Design Methodology
This project consisted of two parts. First analysis of given rigid frame was completed. After that the improved design of the skeleton was presented and it was analyzed in ANSYS software to insure the improvements in the loading of member ED. Firstly, the given rigid frame was drawn out in ANSYS and all the constants such as Young’s Modulus of elasticity, cross sectional area were inputted. After that the displacement of node A in all directions and the displacement of node F in x direction were set to zero. Then, the total structural load was applied at point C. The goal was to achieve the loading in member ED to be around 120 kip. Since the cross-sectional area of ED was 4 in 2 , the axial stress to be achieved was 30 ksi. Through trial and error, the structural load of 66,500 pounds at the point C was found to produce the stress of just below 30 ksi (29,971 psi). Various design changes were considered and brain-stormed. The most ideas that seemed the most likely to produce were tested out on ANSYS. Most of the design changes produced no or little change in the loading of member ED. It was found that eliminating of members AE, BE and BD didn’t affect the loading of member ED. The final design was inspired by idea that the larger amount of smaller triangles inside of skeleton of the frame would help carry the load and redistribute some of the loading away from member ED. Testing this design in ANSYS proved that indeed the improvement in stress and loadings was achieved.

Calculations and FEM model
Axial _ stress ED = Load ED 120kip = = 30ksi Cross − sec tional _ Area ED 4in 2

Figure 1 – The original design deformation schematics

Figure 2 – The original design stress distribution chart

Table 1 – Displacements at nodes 1-6 for original design Node UX (inches) UY (inches) USUM(inches) 1 0 0 0 2 2.49E-03 -3.27E-03 4.11E-03 3 7.48E-03 -5.35E-02 5.40E-02 4 -9.59E-03 -2.14E-02 2.35E-02 5 -4.36E-03 -3.27E-03 5.45E-03 6 0.00E+00 -3.33E-03 3.33E-03

Table 2 – X and Y components of loads for elements of original design FX FY Element Node (pounds) (pounds) 1 99750 0 1 2 -99750 0 2 99750 0 2 3 -99750 0 3 99750 66500 3 4 -99750 -66500 5 99750 66500 4 6 -99750 -66500 6 0 66500 5 1 0 -66500 1 -5.82E-11 6.55E-11 6 5 5.82E-11 -6.55E-11 5 0 1.16E-10 7 2 0 -1.16E-10 2 -1.75E-10 8.73E-11 8 4 1.75E-10 -8.73E-11 4 99750 66500 9 5 -99750 -66500

Table 3 – X and Y components of reaction forces FX FY NODE (pounds) (pounds) 1 6 -99750 99750 66500 0

Load EB = Load 9 = FX 92 + FY92 = 99750 2 + 66500 2 Load EB = 119,885kip

Figure 3 – The improved design with loads applied

Figure 4 – The improved design deformation schematics

Figure 5 – The improved design stress distribution chart

Node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Table 4 – Displacements at nodes 1-13 for improved design UX (inches) UY (inches) USUM (inches)

0 1.07E-03 2.58E-03 5.38E-03 7.87E-03 -4.60E-03 -2.89E-03 -3.63E-03 0 -3.87E-03 -3.97E-03 -2.42E-03 -2.07E-03

0 -2.41E-03 -5.34E-03 -1.78E-02 -4.31E-02 -1.79E-02 -4.60E-03 -3.88E-03 -2.82E-03 -1.71E-03 -2.74E-01 -2.43E-03 -3.22E-03

0 2.64E-03 5.93E-03 1.86E-02 4.38E-02 1.85E-02 5.44E-03 5.31E-03 2.82E-03 4.23E-03 4.82E-03 3.43E-03 2.21E-03

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Table 5 – X and Y components of loads for elements of improved design FX FY FX Node (pounds) (pounds) Element Node (pounds) 1 85656 0 11 27623 2 -85656 0 16 8 -27623 2 1.21E+05 0 8 -12553 3 -1.21E+05 0 17 12 12553 3 1.12E+05 0 12 0 4 -1.12E+05 0 18 11 0 5 -99750 0 11 -11453 4 99750 0 19 13 11453 5 99750 66500 13 0 6 -99750 -66500 20 10 0 6 0 8098.8 10 8506.6 4 0 -8098.8 21 12 -8506.6 4 12148 8098.8 12 -37725 7 -12148 -8098.8 22 7 37725 7 -68202 0 7 24676 6 68202 0 23 11 -24676 6 -28027 18685 12 28492 3 28027 -18685 24 13 -28492 3 0 44391 13 0 7 0 -44391 25 1 0 7 0 43521 1 14094 8 0 -43521 26 12 -14094 8 59575 -39716 2 -17040 6 -59575 39716 27 13 17040 8 99750 66500 2 0 9 -99750 -66500 28 12 0 9 0 66500 2 -17949 10 0 -66500 29 7 17949 10 -8506.6 0 3 -19280 11 8506.6 0 30 12 19280

FY (pounds) 0 0 16737 -16737 -17632 17632 15270 -15270 -55158 55158 11342 -11342 0 0 32902 -32902 0 0 47709 -47709 -18791 18791 -22720 22720 -1212.9 1212.9 23933 -23933 -25706 25706

Table 6 – X and Y components of reaction forces FX FY NODE (pounds) (pounds) 1 9 -99750 99750 66500 0

2 2 Load EB = Load 12 = FX 12 + FY12 = 59575 2 + 39716 2

Load EB = 71,600kip

Comparison
Member EB corresponds to member #9 in the original design and to member #12 in the improved version of the rigid frame. Percentage increase of safety factor can be calculated as follows: %improvement _ safety _ factor = 119885 − 71600 × 100% = 40.3% 119885

That means that the goal of this project has been accomplished and safety factor gain is considerably higher than minimum requirement of 10%. Comparing the displacements of the nodes of EB, it is evident that displacements decreased. They went from 0.0235 inches to 0.0185 inches at one node and from 0.00545 inches to 0.00531 inches at the other node. This was expected since stress is proportional to strain (or displacements) and Young’s modulus of elasticity stayed the same because the material wasn’t changed. At the same time it can be noted that the stress and loads in the top members (AB and BC went up. The increase can be explained by the fact that the additional members redistributed some of the loading away from member EB (as was desired) and therefore loads increased in the other members. As expected the reaction forces at A and F haven’t changed. There is no way to change those forces unless new fixed points were introduced or load was applied at different location. As was mentioned before, in original design elimination of members AE, BE and BD didn’t affect the load at EB. Taking closer look at loading in those members it is evident that they are redundant because of the fact that the loads they carry is extremely close to zero. On the other hand in improved design, all members sustain forces of several thousands pounds.

Conclusion
This project can be considered successful as the objective has been accomplished. The stresses, levels of forces and displacements have of member EB decreased and safety factor has increased by 40.3%. This was done without increase of the cross-sectional area, which can be beneficial, because the same type of material can be used to produce all the members. It was also found that although load has considerably decreased in the member EB, it has increased in the members AB and BC. This shows that design is always a compromise.

References

[1] Rigid Frame. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from Wikipedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_frame [2] Rigid Frame. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from Answers.com Web site: http://www.answers.com/rigid+frame?cat=technology&gwp=13

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.