Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Behaviour and Stength Study On Steel Semi Rigid
Behaviour and Stength Study On Steel Semi Rigid
(HURUF BESAR)
mengaku membenarkan tesis ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan
syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut :
1. Hakmilik tesis adalah dibawah nama penulis melainkan penulisan sebagai projek bersama dan
dibiayai oleh UTM, hakmiliknya adalah kepunyaan UTM.
2. Naskah salinan di dalam bentuk kertas atau mikro hanya boleh dibuat dengan kebenaran bertulis
daripada penulis.
3. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian
mereka.
4. Tesis hanya boleh diterbitkan dengan kebenaran penulis. Bayaran royalti adalah mengikut kadar
yang dipersetujui kelak.
5.*Saya membenarkan/tidak membenarkan Perpustakaan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan
pertukaran di antara institusi pengajian tinggi.
6. **Sila tandakan (9 )
√ TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh
____________________________________ _______________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS) (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor : PM DR. SARIFFUDDIN SAAD
Date : 30 APRIL 2006
BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH STUDY ON STEEL SEMI RIGID
CONNECTION USING LUSAS
By
TAN ENG HOOI
2006
KAJIAN KELAKUAN DAN KEKUATAN
SAMBUNGAN SEPARUH TEGAR KULULI
DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN LUSAS
Oleh
TAN ENG HOOI
2006
ii
I declare that this thesis entitled “Behaviour and Strength Study on Steel Semi Rigid
Connection Using LUSAS” is the result of my own research except as cited in the
references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently
submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature : ....................................................
Name : TAN ENG HOOI
Date : 30 APRIL 2006
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, PM Dr. Sariffuddin Saad for
his advice and guidance in this research study. Thank you very much for your
support and kindness.
I would also like to thank my academic advisor, PM Ir. Dr. Ramli Nazir for
his kindness and always willing to help me throughout my study life in UTM.
Last but not least, to my family and my beloved friends for supporting and
encouraging me throughout my study.
v
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiv
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Research Objective 2
1.4 Research Scope 3
1.5 Hypothesis 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Finite Element 4
2.1.1 Introduction of Finite Element 4
2.1.2 History of Finite Element 4
2.1.3 Steps of the Finite Element Method 5
2.1.4 Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis 6
2.1.4.1 Geometry Nonlinearity 7
2.1.4.2 Boundary Nonlinearity 8
2.1.4.3 Materially Nonlinearity 8
viii
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 General 31
3.2 Experimental Test 31
3.3 Experimental Procedure 32
3.4 Basic Concept in Using LUSAS 33
3.5 Finite Element Model 34
3.5.1 Generate Structure Model Component 34
3.5.2 Element Types 36
3.5.3 Material Properties 39
3.5.4 Boundary Condition 40
3.5.5 Loading 41
REFERENCES 71
APPENDICES 73-88
x
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
π - Pi
1D - One dimensional
2D - Two dimensional
3D - Three dimensional
H - Horizontal load
V - Vertical load
M - Moment
φ - Rotation
θR - Resistance rotation
fy - Initial yield stress
E - Young’s modulus
V - Poisson’s ratio
kc - Elastic spring stiffness
MR - Resistance Moment
x - Distance from column flange to normal line of column
Ax - Horizontal displacement at point A of beam
Bx - Horizontal displacement at point B of column
Ay - Vertical displacement at point A of beam
By - Vertical displacement at point B of column
dx - Horizontal displacement of beam
dy - Vertical displacement of beam
L - Distance of applied loading from column flange
P - Loading applied in full model
F - Loading applied in half model
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
A/1 Manual 73
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The connection of steel beam to column will be modeled using finite element
software, LUSAS. The research is focused on the extended end plate connection.
The dimensions of the connection will be the same as the dimension used in the full
scale laboratory test. The analysis results were compared with the results obtained
from laboratory test.
1.5 Hypothesis
The results from the analysis of the connection model will show a smooth
moment rotation curve. This moment rotation curve will have the values close to the
result obtained from full scale laboratory test.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
method was introduced by Hrenikoff in 1941 [2]. He assumed that the plan elastic
medium as a set of bars and beams. In 1943, R.Courant introduces the piecewise-
continuous functions [2]. He used a set of triangular elements to study the St Venant
torsion problem. He had been using the Ritz method of numerical analysis and
minimization of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions to vibration
systems. The formal introduction of finite element was published in paper by
Argyris and Kelsey [3] and Turner, Clough, Martin, and Topp [3]. Clough became
the first person to use the term “finite element” in 1960 [3]. Since then, the finite
element application has been developed greatly.
In the early 70’s, the aeronautics, automotive, defense and nuclear industries
had started using the finite element application. However, this is limited to
expensive mainframe computer. Zeinkiewicz & Cheung [2] are the important person
in developing the finite element technology at that period. Later, Hinton & Crisfield
[2] carried out the finite element into modeling and solution of nonlinear problems.
There are seven steps involved in solving an engineering problem using the
finite element method:-
Step 1
Formulation of the governing equations and boundary conditions. This is to obtain
the suitable finite element solution algorithm.
6
Step 2
Divide the analysis region into suitable shape of elements. For example, rod element
is chosen for 1D problem, triangular and rectangular for 2D problem, tetrahedron and
rectangular prism for 3D problem.
Step 3
Select the appropriate interpolation functions. Normally a polynomial is chosen as
the interpolation function because it is easy to differentiate and integrate.
Step 4
Determine the element properties such as number of node point, degree of
interpolation function and other variables.
Step 5
Assemble all element properties to form a set of algebraic global equation.
Step 6
Solve the global equation. It is much easier to solve linear global equations than
nonlinear global equation. The Gauss elimination method can be used.
Step 7
Verify the accuracy of the solution. This can be known by increasing the number of
elements nodes and then check whether the solution converges to a certain value.
In a linear finite element analysis, all materials are assumed to have linear
elastic behaviour and deformations are small enough not to significantly affect the
overall behaviour of the structure. However, this analysis is limited to very few
situations in the real world, but with a few restrictions and assumptions, linear
analysis will be sufficient for the majority of engineering applications. However,
7
(i) (ii)
Figure 2.1 Examples of geometry nonlinearity behaviour [1]
8
(a) It can be used to solve any engineering problem where the governing differential
equation can be written.
(e) An engineer may develop a concept of the finite element method at different
levels. The method can be interpreted in physical terms and also in mathematical
terms.
(a) It is a complex method. The differential equation may be difficult even for a
simple physical system.
10
(b) A few complex phenomena are not accommodated by the method in current state.
A clear example is transient, unconfined seepage problems. The numerical solution
of propagation or transient problems is not satisfactory in all respects.
(c) The method can produce better results only if the coefficients or material
parameters which describe the basic phenomena are available.
(d) The most important aspects in using finite element method are the basic processes
of subdividing the continuum and generating error free input data for the computer
programme. The error of input data based on the engineer’s judgment may be
undetected and the error results may also appear acceptable. So, it is important for
the engineer to check the accuracy of the results.
2.2 LUSAS
The LUSAS system is a group of modules consist of the free-format data and
data generation system, and the database management system. The database
11
The data input for LUSAS has been designed to be compact, easy to
understand and in a free-format data to reduce the error of input system. Besides that,
the free-format input allows the system to be driven by engineering command words
in the data stream. Figure 2.3 shows the data processing stages in LUSAS.
PROBLEM
Error data can be found by the error analyst during each of the process. If
there is an error, error message will be showed up and the error node or element will
be pointed out. If there is a fatal data error, a restart point further along the data
stream will be located, and data processing is continued to check for further error.
12
All elements in LUSAS are included with a shape function. This will reduce
the coding effort and also lead to high performance elements. Besides that, all
elements in LUSAS have to pass several tests before being accepted. These tests
include the patch test for convergence, the patch test for mechanisms, convergence
rate tests and comparisons of results with extensive experimental and theoretical
results.
The LUSAS Element Library contains more than 100 element types. The
elements are classified into groups according to their function. The groups are:
- Bars
- Beams
- 2D Continuum elements
- 3D Continuum elements
- Plates
- Shells
- Membranes
- Joints
14
- Field elements
- Interface elements
(e) Isotropic elastic-plastic hardening, with exact positioning on the yield surface
using automatic sub-increment size selection
(f) Concrete with cracking control
(g) Mohr-Coulumn for geomechanics problems
(h) User supplied material, dependant on history, stresses, strains, temperature,
time etc.
LUSAS is using the Frontal method as the main solution. The Frontal
method is used mainly on the solution of the load deflection equations. This method
has been proven to be the most suitable for nowadays computer.
2.2.7 Post-processing
The data output and the post processing of LUSAS can be summarized as:-
(a) element results such as stresses and strain
(b) displacements, velocities, acceleration
18
(a) With the element library of LUSAS, all types of engineering materials such as
metal, plastics, foams and rubber can be modeled to solve engineering problem.
(b) The graphical user interface (GUI) makes the modeling and the result processing
become easier.
(c) Rapid design changes can be made to the LUSAS model, automatic meshing is
available for certain types of problem, other than that, problem can be solved to a
user specified accuracy by LUSAS. User will get a better result in less time.
(d) LUSAS can be upgraded to the LUSAS plus easily where the LUSAS plus will
include an extended element set, additional material models, Fast Iterative Solver
Technology and access to advanced analysis capabilities.
(e) Model information can be exchanged with other CAD systems using the format
such as dxf.
(f) LUSAS includes comprehensive nonlinear analysis, impact and contact analysis,
thermal analysis, dynamic analysis and also fatigue analysis.
19
2.3 Connection
(a) Comparing with construction using simple connection, semi rigid connection
significantly reduces the total steel weight to be used. This is because semi rigid
connection restraint some moment, thus reduce the moment to be carried by beam, so
beam with the smaller size can be chosen.
(b) Rigid connection has complicated joint detailing compared with semi rigid
connection. Thus, using semi rigid connection will simplified the detailing, saving
times and also the workmanship during the fabrication and erection process.
(c) From some investigations that had been carried out in some countries (North
America, France, Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg, Belgium and etc.), the cost for
building a frame structural system using semi rigid connection, including fabrication
cost of element and connections, transportation and erection on site may be reduced
about 5 to 25% compared to that using rigid connection [5].
The M-φ curve is one of the essential behaviour of the steel joints. The
earliest study on the rotational stiffness of steel beam-column connection is carried
out by Wilson and Moore in the year of 1917 [2]. All steel connections have a
unique M-φ relationship. The characteristic of the M-φ curve depends on a lot of
parameters such as the thickness of the material such as end plate, size and number
of bolts, configuration of detail material and etc. The characteristic of the M-φ curve
will represent the connection’s stiffness, strength and ductility. Figure 2.4 shows the
comparison of the M-φ curve between the three important different types of
connection. Figure 2.5 shows the M-φ curve for the various types of semi rigid
connections. Figure 2.6 shows the various types of semi rigid connections.
21
M
Rigid
Semi Rigid
Simple / Flexible
φ
Figure 2.4 Comparison between M-φ curves between rigid, semi rigid and simple or
flexible connection [6]
Figure 2.5 Comparison of the M-φ curve between different types of semi rigid
connections [5]
22
The end plate connection is widely used because of the ease in fabrication
and erection. However, if the plate is not parallel to each other during fabrication, it
will cause difficulty during erection process.
connection strength. When the length of the plate is the same as the length between
the flanges of the beam, the plate is called flush end plate. The other type of end
plate is the header plate. Figure 2.7 shows the different types of end plate connection.
A lot of parameter such as column flange and web thickness, end plate
thickness, beam depth, bolt size and grade affects the behaviour of the end plate
connection. So, these parameters should be taken into account when analysing the
end plate connection. This makes the analysing process becomes more complicated.
In recent years, Jenkins, Jenkins et al., Bose et al., Bahaari and Sherbourne, and
24
Sherbourne and Bahaari [2] have use the finite element method to analyse end plate
connection. Finite element method has been proven to be the suitable method in
analysing this type of connection.
M (kNm)
Extended end plate
Header plate
φ (rad)
Figure 2.9 M-φ curve for different end plate connection [5]
Figure 2.9 shows the comparison of M-φ curve between the three types of end
plate connection: extended end plate, flush end plate and header plate. The typical
M-φ curve is almost linear at the beginning and then yielding occurs before the strain
hardening process happened. This is because the initial elastic stiffness is affected
by the reduction of bolt preloading and the value of elastic stiffness after the
pretension of bolt has gone. The extended end plate will have greater initial stiffness
and moment capacity and can carried larger rotation. The rotational stiffness will be
increased with the increase of the thickness of plate and also by placing the bolts as
close as possible to the beam flange.
25
In this research work, the main objective was to compare the beam to column
bolted extended end plate connections analysis result between the finite element
analyse (FEA), the full scale test and the Green Book. The Green Book is a design
guide for moment resisting connection that is jointly published by the Steel
Construction Institute (SCI) and the British Constructional Steelwork Association
(BCSA) in 1995.
LUSAS FEA software was used for the finite element analysis. At the
beginning of the research a number of trial models were created. The final FEA
models use the five elements as shown in Figure 2.10. A series of five full scale tests
were completed using the self straining frame in the Heavy Structures Laboratory at
the University of Teesside. Figure 2.11 shows the typical model of the beam to
column connection. Figure 2.12 shows the LUSAS extended end plate model and
bolt enlarge FEA bolt arrangement.
Figure 2.12 LUSAS extended end plate and bolt enlarge FEA bolt arrangement
In both the FEA and the laboratory tests, it was consistently found that the
Green Book design theory underestimated the bolt forces in the top rows of the
connection and overestimated the forces in the lower rows. In spite of this the Green
Book theory with the increased connection capacities still had a reserve of
approximately 30%. Overall the finite element analysis of extended end plate
connections using LUSAS can be seen to provide advantages in terms of time and
expense over full scale testing and can produce a more complete picture of stress,
strain and force distributions.
2.4.2 “Finite Element Analysis of Unstiffened Flush End-Plate Bolted Joints” [8]
Due to the symmetry of the joint configuration and the load transmitted about
both x- and z- axes, so only a quarter of the joint was modeled. The flush end plate
joint has been model as Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14.
27
Six full scale tests with different beam sizes, connection details, bolt sizes
and column sizes were carried out. These joint were based on the details from the
standard range relating to flush end plates.
From the comparison, it was found that there was a good agreement between
experimental and LUSAS analysis results. However, there was some discrepancy in
the elastic range and in the final elastic plastic range of the curve. The experimental
curve which not linear in the elastic range due the combination of bolt tightening
effect, imperfection in the test setup, and lack of fit. In the final elastic plastic stage,
the connection failure was due to postyield column web buckling but LUSAS is
incapable of handling postyield buckling.
28
In all tests, the columns were simply-supported at both ends and consist of a
HEB240, the beams consist of an IPE240 and the endplate was 15 mm thick, all
manufactured from S275 steel. The bolts were M20, class 10.9.
The moment-rotation curves from the results of the 15 tests showed the
typical relationship between moment and rotation. The curves were almost linear at
the beginning and then the yielding occurs before the strain hardening process
happened. This is because the initial elastic stiffness is affected by the reduction of
bolt preloading and the value of elastic stiffness after the pretension of bolt had gone.
The main objective of this thesis was to determine the accuracy of the
analysis result from LUSAS of the bolted steel beam-column flush end plate
connection at the minor axis by comparing with the experimental result.
29
Some assumptions had been made by the writer in the modeling process: (a)
all beam, column, plate, bolts and connections had the characteristic of geometrical
and material non-linearitries; (b) Internal compression was caused by the pretension
and resistance force of bolts; (c) Slip might occur was because of the void between
bolt and the bolt hole. The LUSAS analysis result is then compared with the
experimental result which was taken from the project that had been carried out by
Mohd Irwan Juki [10].
From the comparison, the difference between LUSAS result and experimental
result was small between 2-8%. This small deviation might be caused by the
unknown condition of the end connection of the column. The rotation value became
larger if the capacity of the end connection of column was smaller than the applied
load. Both results show that the connections failed at the column web. This proved
that the column web was the weakest part of the connection if the beam to column
connection was on the minor axis of column. However, the shapes of the M-φ curves
were different. This may be caused by the unsuitable assumptions that being made
during modeling process.
This paper discussed the experimental test results for extended end-plate
connection connected to column flange. The experimental test results of shear and
moment were compared with the theoretical results calculated based on Eurocode 3
and BS 5950. A total of 9 tests were carried out in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
experimental moment and stiffness showed good agreement with predicted values
calculated based on Eurocode 3 and BS 5950.
METHODOLOGY
3.1 General
Finite element method is used in this research. LUSAS is chosen as the finite
element software to be used to analyse and determine the characteristic of M-φ curve
of steel beam column end plate connection. To meet the research objective which is
to find out the reliability of the LUSAS results, full scale experiment results that have
been obtained in a previous research are used as the reference, and compared with
the LUSAS analysis results.
To increase the accuracy of research, the LUSAS modeling process used the
connection dimensions as similar as possible to that of the full scale experiment
model. In this case, all the geometry and materials properties of experiment model
are applied into the LUSAS model. However, to obtain better and accurate results,
many models need to be generated before the most suitable element discretisation
can be found.
A total of nine experiments were carried out by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mahmood
Md. Tahir, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Shahrin Mohamed, M.A.Hussin and A.A.Saim [11] at
University Teknologi Malaysia laboratory. These experiments focused on the
32
In LUSAS, the geometry command is the part which is used to draw out the
structure model according to the real structure. There are four geometry feature
types in LUSAS which are points, lines, surfaces and volumes. Points define the
vertices of the finite element model; lines define the edges of the finite element
model and the combined lines define complex edges built from a series of continuous
lines; surfaces define external faces or internal construction surfaces of a model; and
volumes define simple solid components of a model. All geometry should be
ensured that they are in the same Cartesian axis system either global axis system or
local axis system.
The attribute command is the part where user can assign the properties to the
model. Assigned attributes are not lost when the geometry is edited, or the feature is
34
Taking the advantage of the symmetry of the joint configuration and the load
applied at y axes, only half of the joint was modeled. This will effectively reduce the
computational effort, time and also the model file size. The geometry and properties
of the model were made as similar as possible to that of the actual experiment
specimen. The components of the extended end-plate connections were modeled as
follows:
35
(i) End-plate
The end-plate was modeled with volume geometry.
Figure 3.2 Plate (simplified model) Figure 3.3 Plate (actual model)
(ii) Beam
The beam was modeled with the length of 1200 mm from the centre of column
flange instead of using the actual length of 1500 mm. It is because the load was
applied at the distance of 1200mm from the center of column flange. Assumption
was made that the extra 300 mm beam length after the position of the applied load
had no any effect to the connection. The beam flanges were modeled with volume
geometry. The beam web is assumed as less critical component in this connection,
therefore it is modeled with surface geometry. Figure 3.4 shows the beam model.
(iii) Column
The column was modeled with a length of 3000 mm. The column flange was
modeled using a volume geometry. Like beam web, the column web was modeled
using a surface geometry. Figure 3.5 shows the column when the bolt body was
generated using line element while Figure 3.6 shows the model of the column
containing the actual holes to accommodate the bolts.
36
Figure 3.5 Column (simplified model) Figure 3.6 Column (actual model)
(iv) Bolt
All bolts used are M20 grade 8.8. In simplified bolt model, the bolt head is modeled
using cube volume geometry and the bolt body is modeled using line geometry (see
Figure 3.7) which then was assigned with an area of 245 mm2 which is equal to the
tensile stress area. In the actual bolt model, the whole bolt was modeled using the
volume geometry with the dimensions followed those of the actual bolt.
Figure 3.7 Bolt (simplified model) Figure 3.8 Bolt (actual model)
The LUSAS element library contains ten element groups, comprising over
100 element types, enabling a wide range of engineering problems to be modeled
37
efficiently. Elements types HX8M, QTS4, BRS2 and JNT4 were chosen to model
the various components of the extended end-plate joint.
has three degree of freedom. This element was used to model the bolts in the tension
and compression zone of the joint.
Figure 3.10 shows the completed model of the joint. Figure 3.11 and Figure
3.12 show the simplified bolt model and the actual bolt model respectively.
(i) (ii)
(iii) (iv)
Figure 3.9 (i) HX8M (ii) QTS4 (iii) JNT4 (iv) BRS2 [1]
BRS2
HX8M
Figure 3.11 Meshed bolt(simplified model) Figure 3.12 Meshed bolt(actual model)
39
For bolt,
Hardening gradient, slope1 = 20000
plastic strain1 = 100
The top and bottom of column is restrained in the x, y and z directions similar
to the column end restraint in the experiment. Displacements in the x direction are
restrained along all surfaces on the centre line of the model due to symmetry. In the
simplified bolt model, it had the problem of converging during analysis due to lack
of bending resistance in the bolt BRS2 element. Therefore support restraining the Y
direction movement had to be added to the underside of end plate. However in the
actual bolt model, the restraint in Y direction was not needed.
41
Restrained in
X, Y & Z
directions
Restrained in X
direction
Restrained in X
direction
Restrained Restrained in Y
in X, Y & Z direction
directions
3.5.5 Loading
(b) Initially they have a stiff initial response which is then followed by a second
phase of much reduced stiffness.
(c) The curves are almost linear at the beginning and then the yielding occurs before
the strain hardening process happened.
(d) The resistance moment decreases if less stiff of connected members and joint are
used like smaller size of beam, column and end plate.
Experimental results are obtained from the research paper of Mahmood Md.
Tahir, Shahrin b. Mohamed, M.A.Hussin, A.A.Saim [11]. 3 specimens are chosen
and their results are summarized in Table 4.2 and the moment rotation curves are
shown in Figure 4.1.
The moment rotation curve of EEP1 is shown in Figure 4.2. The column
flange started to deform at the tension and compression zone when the applied load
reached 92.6 kN. The upper part of end plate started to bend at the load of 183.3 kN.
Significant deformation occurred at the column flange tension zone at the load of
202.6 kN. The experiment was stopped at the moment of 303.7 kNm when the
rotation reached 41.5 mrad and the failure of connection was seen clearly. Slight
bending occurred at the upper part of end plate, while the column flange deformed at
the tension and compression zone. Slip of the bolts occurred at the tension zone.
44
Moment rotation curve of EEP3 is shown in Figure 4.3. The tension zone of
the column flange deformed when the load reached 105.1 kN. The end plate started
to bend at the load of 156.3 kN. The compression zone of the column flange
deformed at the load of 195 kN. Significant deformation occurred when the applied
became 207.6 kN. The experiment was stopped at the load of 252.3 kN when the
rotation is 26.9 mrad. Deformation occurred at the tension and compression zone of
the column flange, bending of the end plate occurred at the upper part. Slip of the
bolts occurred at the tension zone.
Moment rotation curve of EEP6 is shown in Figure 4.4. When the applied
load reached 135.5 kN, the upper part of the end plate started to bend and
deformation occurred at the column flange in the tension zone. The experiment was
stopped at the load of 132.6 kN when the rotation became 41.2 mrad. Only the upper
part of the end plate bent. Deformation occurred at the tension and compression zone
of the column flange. Slip of the bolts occurred at the tension zone.
Figure 4.2 Experimental moment rotation graph of EEP1
45
Figure 4.3 Experimental moment rotation graph of EEP3
46
Figure 4.4 Experimental moment rotation graph of EEP6
47
48
The result of an analysis was saved as a new model result file while the
process of analysis was shown in a text file. Any mistake that occurred during the
analysis could be spotted easily by reviewing the text file. This text file contains the
information about the type of analysis, type of iteration, stiffness parameter of the
model at each increment of load, negative pivot and etc. All errors in the model must
be corrected to ensure smooth analysis of LUSAS.
After an analysis had completed, a model result file was produced. Different
types of results could be obtained through this file such as stresses, strains,
displacements, loadings, reactions, residuals, plastic strains and reaction stresses.
These results could be presented in the form of contours, vectors, deformed mesh and
diagrams.
The contours of stresses can be used for model checking and to spot any error
that has occurred during a modeling process. The mode of failure of the connection
can be viewed from the deformed mesh and then compared with that of the
experimental specimen.
centroidal line of the beam and the centroidal line of the column, which is shown as
point B in Figure 4.5. The values of moments were taken at the node where the point
loads were applied which is shown as point C in Figure 4.5.
loading
x 180 mm C
B A
Electronic Inclinometer
x
y
Figure 4.5 Position of node A where displacement was taken
Moment
Loading = 5kN
Moment = Loading x 1.2 m
= 5 x 1.2
= 6 kNm
180 + x + Ax - Bx
φ
Αy - By
180 + x + Ax - Bx
φ
Αy - By
Rotation
Horizontal displacement of beam, Ax = 0.01526 mm
Horizontal displacement of column, Bx = 0 mm
Distance column flange to normal line,x = 147 mm
Distance column flange to point A = 180 mm
Vertical displacement of beam, Ay = 0.08728 mm
Vertical displacement of column, By = 0 mm
Rotation, φ = tan-1 (Αy - By) / (180 + x + Ax - Bx)
= tan-1 (0.08728) / 327.01526
= 2.66877 x 10-4
= 0.266877 mrad
The results of the analyses based on the specimens EEP1, EEP3 and EEP6
using simplified bolt model and also actual bolt model are shown in Table 4.2 to
Table 4.7 and the moment rotation graphs are shown in Figure 4.8 to Figure 4.13.
51
Table 4.2 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP1 (simplified bolt model)
Loading Moment dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) dx (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.01526 327.01526 0.08728 0.26690
10000 12.000 0.03052 327.03052 0.17456 0.53378
15000 18.000 0.04578 327.04578 0.26185 0.80066
20000 24.000 0.06016 327.06016 0.35082 1.07263
25000 30.000 0.07377 327.07377 0.44124 1.34906
30000 36.000 0.08735 327.08735 0.53246 1.62789
35000 42.000 0.09703 327.09703 0.63321 1.93585
40000 48.000 0.10489 327.10489 0.74220 2.26899
45000 54.000 0.11147 327.11147 0.86182 2.63463
50000 60.000 0.11854 327.11854 0.99136 3.03057
55000 66.000 0.12063 327.12063 1.16367 3.55728
60000 72.000 0.13266 327.13266 1.36663 4.17759
65000 78.000 0.15739 327.15739 1.58799 4.85387
69519 83.422 0.18387 327.18387 1.82848 5.58850
74362 89.235 0.21940 327.21940 2.12534 6.49505
79244 95.093 0.25072 327.25072 2.45017 7.48700
83735 100.482 0.27171 327.27171 2.80475 8.56989
88431 106.117 0.28722 327.28722 3.23001 9.86872
93102 111.722 0.29608 327.29608 3.73153 11.40058
98010 117.611 0.30812 327.30812 4.33149 13.23291
102675 123.210 0.31950 327.31950 5.00655 15.29443
107734 129.281 0.34658 327.34658 5.79574 17.70336
112741 135.289 0.39686 327.39686 6.61143 20.19118
117792 141.350 0.45748 327.45748 7.45649 22.76692
122928 147.514 0.52972 327.52972 8.30063 25.33771
127948 153.538 0.60767 327.60767 9.11851 27.82644
132902 159.482 0.69660 327.69660 9.95068 30.35621
137894 165.473 0.80043 327.80043 10.82157 33.00070
142791 171.349 0.91485 327.91485 11.71080 35.69775
147672 177.206 1.04545 328.04545 12.66421 38.58590
Moment vs Rotation EEP1 (simplified bolt model)
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Moment (kNm)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.8 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP1 (simplified bolt model)
52
53
Table 4.3 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP3 (simplified bolt model)
Loading Moment dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) dx (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.01336 327.01336 0.07922 0.24226
10000 12.000 0.02672 327.02672 0.15844 0.48450
15000 18.000 0.04008 327.04008 0.23767 0.72672
20000 24.000 0.05283 327.05283 0.31803 0.97241
25000 30.000 0.06471 327.06471 0.40000 1.22301
30000 36.000 0.07657 327.07657 0.48280 1.47609
35000 42.000 0.08633 327.08633 0.57094 1.74554
40000 48.000 0.09344 327.09344 0.66570 2.03520
45000 54.000 0.09724 327.09724 0.76774 2.34713
50000 60.000 0.09944 327.09944 0.87392 2.67172
55000 66.000 0.09900 327.09900 0.99252 3.03430
60000 72.000 0.09204 327.09204 1.13386 3.46647
65000 78.000 0.08486 327.08486 1.28494 3.92844
70000 84.000 0.08091 327.08091 1.44907 4.43029
73536 88.243 0.08156 327.08156 1.57666 4.82035
77071 92.485 0.08481 327.08481 1.72052 5.26011
80607 96.728 0.09154 327.09154 1.87594 5.73515
83107 99.728 0.09800 327.09800 1.99368 6.09499
85607 102.728 0.10736 327.10736 2.11439 6.46383
88107 105.728 0.11392 327.11392 2.26081 6.91127
90607 108.728 0.12087 327.12087 2.42011 7.39807
93107 111.728 0.12973 327.12973 2.59422 7.93008
95607 114.728 0.14099 327.14099 2.78319 8.50740
98107 117.728 0.15036 327.15036 2.97868 9.10467
99874 119.849 0.15681 327.15681 3.12296 9.54548
101642 121.971 0.16186 327.16186 3.27207 10.00105
103410 124.092 0.16532 327.16532 3.42473 10.46751
105178 126.213 0.16902 327.16902 3.58355 10.95278
106945 128.335 0.17273 327.17273 3.74627 11.44992
108713 130.456 0.17828 327.17828 3.90911 11.94739
110481 132.577 0.18541 327.18541 4.07305 12.44812
111731 134.077 0.19118 327.19118 4.18993 12.80507
112981 135.577 0.19734 327.19734 4.30836 13.16671
114231 137.077 0.20388 327.20388 4.42889 13.53475
115481 138.577 0.21082 327.21082 4.55186 13.91019
116731 140.077 0.21812 327.21812 4.67838 14.29646
117981 141.577 0.22612 327.22612 4.80727 14.68993
119231 143.077 0.23481 327.23481 4.93785 15.08848
120481 144.577 0.24362 327.24362 5.07107 15.49508
121731 146.077 0.25214 327.25214 5.20694 15.90974
122981 147.577 0.26147 327.26147 5.34342 16.32623
124231 149.077 0.27119 327.27119 5.48315 16.75258
125481 150.577 0.28113 327.28113 5.62554 17.18701
126365 151.638 0.28830 327.28830 5.72629 17.49437
127249 152.698 0.29616 327.29616 5.82769 17.80368
128133 153.759 0.30491 327.30491 5.93080 18.11812
129017 154.820 0.31480 327.31480 6.03596 18.43875
129900 155.880 0.32529 327.32529 6.14219 18.76260
130784 156.941 0.33605 327.33605 6.24989 19.09086
131668 158.002 0.34701 327.34701 6.35942 19.42470
Moment vs Rotation EEP3 (simplified bolt model)
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
Moment (kNm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.9 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP3 (simplified bolt model)
54
55
Table 4.4 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP6 (simplified bolt model)
Loading Moment dx dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0.000 0.00000 302.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6.000 0.02976 302.02976 0.15147 0.50151
10000 12.000 0.05953 302.05953 0.30294 1.00293
15000 18.000 0.08873 302.08873 0.45554 1.50797
20000 24.000 0.11644 302.11644 0.61107 2.02263
25000 30.000 0.14380 302.14380 0.77154 2.55355
30000 36.000 0.17086 302.17086 0.95807 3.17062
35000 42.000 0.21478 302.21478 1.19735 3.96190
40000 48.000 0.28366 302.28366 1.49907 4.95911
45000 54.000 0.36590 302.36590 1.91536 6.33451
50000 60.000 0.47290 302.47290 2.39575 7.92039
55000 66.000 0.59822 302.59822 3.02918 10.01023
60000 72.000 0.75069 302.75069 3.87709 12.80552
65000 78.000 0.80216 302.80216 4.83755 15.97459
70000 84.000 0.89331 302.89331 6.06736 20.02867
75000 90.000 1.06026 303.06026 7.45625 24.59824
80000 96.000 1.49226 303.49226 9.38026 30.89791
86108 103.330 1.75675 303.75675 11.56592 38.05786
91108 109.329 2.00484 304.00484 13.35123 43.88961
95663 114.795 2.34041 304.34041 15.26421 50.11306
100333 120.400 2.84801 304.84801 17.73518 58.11163
105290 126.348 3.44263 305.44263 20.59228 67.31598
110633 132.760 4.07019 306.07019 23.50473 76.64479
116132 139.359 4.62855 306.62855 26.27437 85.47915
121268 145.522 5.08379 307.08379 28.71296 93.23098
126277 151.533 5.50256 307.50256 31.11466 100.84182
131372 157.646 5.89592 307.89592 33.58019 108.63409
136542 163.851 6.30844 308.30844 36.00350 116.25102
141640 169.968 6.71003 308.71003 38.35456 123.60798
146636 175.963 7.11246 309.11246 40.66321 130.79725
151629 181.955 7.53763 309.53763 43.01285 138.07419
156605 187.926 7.99310 309.99310 45.40972 145.45174
Moment vs Rotation EEP6 (simplified bolt model)
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
Moment (kNm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.10 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP6 (simplified bolt model)
56
57
Table 4.5 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP1 (actual bolt model)
Loading Moment dx dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.00966 327.00966 0.11010 0.33670
10000 12 0.01933 327.01933 0.22021 0.67338
15000 18 0.02899 327.02899 0.33031 1.01003
20000 24 0.03866 327.03866 0.44041 1.34667
25000 30 0.04832 327.04832 0.55052 1.68329
30000 36 0.05798 327.05798 0.66063 2.01993
35000 42 0.06715 327.06715 0.77188 2.35999
40000 48 0.07551 327.07551 0.88545 2.70718
45000 54 0.08409 327.08409 1.00476 3.07185
50000 60 0.09125 327.09125 1.13144 3.45910
55000 66 0.09786 327.09786 1.26825 3.87726
60000 72 0.10651 327.10651 1.42069 4.34318
65000 78 0.11744 327.11744 1.59554 4.87753
70000 84 0.12863 327.12863 1.80271 5.51066
75000 90 0.13337 327.13337 2.05556 6.28346
80000 96 0.13132 327.13132 2.36732 7.23648
85000 102 0.12016 327.12016 2.76543 8.45365
90000 108 0.10148 327.10148 3.27936 10.02517
95000 114 0.07674 327.07674 3.88142 11.86645
100000 120 0.04625 327.04625 4.56962 13.97149
105000 126 0.02987 327.02987 5.32055 16.26787
110000 132 0.02713 327.02713 6.15798 18.82795
115000 138 0.03454 327.03454 7.02311 21.47185
120000 144 0.04646 327.04646 7.89024 24.12105
125000 150 0.06541 327.06541 8.73712 26.70732
130000 156 0.08712 327.08712 9.58343 29.29094
135000 162 0.11397 327.11397 10.45527 31.95130
140000 168 0.14677 327.14677 11.34662 34.66968
145000 174 0.18235 327.18235 12.27502 37.49979
150000 180 0.21861 327.21861 13.27070 40.53384
Moment vs Rotation EEP1 (actual bolt model)
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Moment (kNm)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.11 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP1 (actual bolt model)
58
59
Table 4.6 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP3 (actual bolt model)
Loading Moment dx dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0 0.00000 327.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.00841 327.00841 0.07660 0.23425
10000 12 0.01682 327.01682 0.15320 0.46848
15000 18 0.02522 327.02522 0.22980 0.70270
20000 24 0.03363 327.03363 0.30640 0.93691
25000 30 0.04204 327.04204 0.38300 1.17111
30000 36 0.05045 327.05045 0.45960 1.40530
35000 42 0.05864 327.05864 0.53653 1.64048
40000 48 0.06588 327.06588 0.61496 1.88023
45000 54 0.07240 327.07240 0.69474 2.12411
50000 60 0.07709 327.07709 0.77743 2.37691
55000 66 0.08028 327.08028 0.86327 2.63932
60000 72 0.08240 327.08240 0.95532 2.92071
65000 78 0.08412 327.08412 1.05273 3.21853
70000 84 0.08484 327.08484 1.16100 3.54953
75000 90 0.08528 327.08528 1.28397 3.92548
80000 96 0.08331 327.08331 1.42628 4.36058
85000 102 0.07628 327.07628 1.60490 4.90676
90000 108 0.06083 327.06083 1.83082 5.59775
95000 114 0.04296 327.04296 2.11063 6.45359
100000 120 0.03826 327.03826 2.41896 7.39643
105000 126 0.04226 327.04226 2.76463 8.45324
110000 132 0.04606 327.04606 3.13096 9.57316
115000 138 0.05284 327.05284 3.51273 10.74015
120000 144 0.06708 327.06708 3.92821 12.00982
125000 150 0.08905 327.08905 4.37401 13.37173
130000 156 0.11608 327.11608 4.83832 14.78974
135000 162 0.13955 327.13955 5.34953 16.35099
140000 168 0.16246 327.16246 5.88938 17.99944
145000 174 0.18517 327.18517 6.45391 19.72299
Moment vs Rotation EEP3 (actual bolt model)
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Moment (kNm)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.12 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP3 (actual bolt model)
60
61
Table 4.7 Moments and rotations calculation for EEP6 (actual bolt model)
Loading Moment dx dx+180+147 Rotation
(N) (kNm) (mm) (mm) dy (mm) (mrad)
0 0 0.00000 302.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5000 6 0.03042 302.03042 0.12428 0.41149
10000 12 0.06084 302.06084 0.24856 0.82289
15000 18 0.09126 302.09126 0.37284 1.23421
20000 24 0.12168 302.12168 0.49713 1.64545
25000 30 0.15182 302.15182 0.62203 2.05867
30000 36 0.18047 302.18047 0.75044 2.48342
35000 42 0.20858 302.20858 0.88597 2.93163
40000 48 0.23645 302.23645 1.03328 3.41876
45000 54 0.26936 302.26936 1.19938 3.96791
50000 60 0.31419 302.31419 1.39864 4.62640
55000 66 0.36728 302.36728 1.65366 5.46899
60000 72 0.41429 302.41429 2.00280 6.62261
65000 78 0.45048 302.45048 2.52621 8.35229
70000 84 0.50003 302.50003 3.12908 10.34369
75000 90 0.55276 302.55276 3.79999 12.55911
80000 96 0.61372 302.61372 4.58672 15.15585
85000 102 0.73565 302.73565 5.48308 18.10978
90000 108 0.88766 302.88766 6.47333 21.36879
95000 114 1.07794 303.07794 7.49655 24.72970
100000 120 1.32576 303.32576 8.63600 28.46336
104295 125 1.68186 303.68186 9.87406 32.50303
Moment vs Rotation EEP6 (actual bolt model)
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
Moment (kNm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Rotation (mrad)
Figure 4.13 Moment vs rotation graph for EEP6 (actual bolt model)
62
63
The moment rotation curves from testing and LUSAS are shown in Figure 4.8
to Figure 4.13. The value of resistance moment of Table 4.8 is determined by
estimating when a “knee” formed in each of the moment rotation curves. By using
this technique, the experimental and LUSAS values of MR can be obtained. The
value of MR obtained from each graph need to be multiplied by 2 because only half
model was generated due to symmetry of the connection configuration. Further
explanation of the calculation of MR is shown in Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15.
64
Loading P
L
MR1
Loading F
L
MR2
The results from the laboratory tests have recorded that the resistance
moment of the connection is in the range of 182-240 kNm while the results from the
analysis of LUSAS show that the resistance moment is ranged from 164 kNm to 220
kNm for the simplified bolt model and 178 kNm to 238 kNm for the actual bolt
model. Overall results indicate that the experimental values of resistance moment
are greater than LUSAS analysis values. For the simplified bolt model, the
differences are in the range from 6.67% to 9.89%. The values of resistance moments
65
obtained from actual bolt model are lower than experimental results with the
differences range between 0.83% and 2.20%. Based on the differences, it is proven
that the actual bolt model can provide more accurate results compared to the
simplified bolt model.
All moment rotation curves show that the connections behave linearly in the
first phase followed by non linear behaviour in the second phase and gradually losing
the stiffness with increasing in rotation. This is typical type of graph for a semi rigid
connection. In the second phase, yielding occurred before strain hardening process
happened.
Based on Table 3.1, specimen EEP1, EEP3 and EEP6 are made up using
different size of column, beam, thickness of end plate and numbers of bolts. From the
result of analysis, specimen EEP1 with a smaller thickness of end plate gives a
smaller value of resistance moment compared to specimen EEP3. This is a logical
phenomenon in which the end plate with a higher thickness has a stronger resistance
to the applied load. This causes the specimen EEP3 to posses a higher resistance
moment. For specimen EEP6, it is a connection between smaller size of column and
beam. Only 6 bolts are used in this specimen compared to 8 bolts used in EEP1 and
EEP3. Beam and column with smaller sizes have less strength to sustain the moment
caused by applied load. Because of this reason, specimen EEP6 gives the smallest
value of resistance moment compared to others.
From the comparison of failure mode obtained from experiment and LUSAS
analysis, it shows that both results give same mode of failure which the failure occurs
on the bending of end plate, bending of column flange and deformation or slip on
bolt as shown in Figure 4.16. The failure mode at tension zone is shown in Figure
4.17. These failures show that the behaviour of the connection is considered as
ductile and can be categorized as partial strength connection.
66
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the results of analysis, several conclusions can be made such as:
5.2 Recommendations
Some problems have been encountered during the modeling process. In order
to improve the modeling process and thus get a more accurate result, these problems
need to be overcome. The problems and some recommendations will be explained
below as a reference for future research.
(b) Convergence test should be made in future analysis in order to obtain good
results using minimum elements. Convergence test can be done by
increasing or decreasing the total number of elements and then check whether
the solution converge to a certain equilibrium value.
70
(c) Data from actual tensile test that is carried out on the component of
connection should be obtained. This data is required in defining the non-
linearity behaviour of connection component such as hardening slope and
initial yield stress. With this data, the connection can be modeled more
accurately to get a good result.
REFERENCE
1. FEA. Ltd. LUSAS Modeller User Manual, Version 13. United Kingdom.
5. Jack C.McCormac (1995). Structural Steel design LRFD Method, second Edition.
Harper CollinsCollege Pubishers. 492 – 524.
8. Bishwanath Bose, Zhi Min Wang, Susanta sarkar (1997). Finite element Analysis
Of Unstiffened Flush End-Plate Bolted Joints. Journal of Structural
Engineering.1614 – 1621.
72
10. Tan Chin Thiam (2001). Pemodelan Sambungan Paksi Minor Dengan
Menggunakan Perisian Lusas. Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia. Ms.C. Thesis.
12. Md. Azman Hussin (2001). Prestasi Sambungan pada Paksi Major
Menggunakan Keratan Keluli Tempatan. Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
73
APPENDIX A/1
MANUAL
- Enter the file name as extended end plate (simplified bolt model).
- Enter the title as Analysis of Extended End Plate.
- Set the units as N mm t C s
- Select the startup template Standard from those available in the drop down list.
- Set the vertical axis as Y.
- Click the OK button.
Note. It is useful to save the model regularly as the example progresses. This allows
a previously saved model to be re-loaded if a mistake is made that cannot be
corrected
easily by a new user.
The composite plate will be modeled as a half model and symmetry boundary
conditions will be used to reduce the size of the model.
3. Extend the surface of bolts to form the surface of end plate by using sweeping.
This is to ensure the end plate and bolts are sharing the same surfaces.
4. Sweep the surfaces of bolt from the end plate’s surface to form bolt volumes.
75
5. Sweep the surface of end plate and the shared surfaces of bolt and end plate to
form end plate volume.
6. At this stage, the model of end plate together with bolts should be looked like
below when the model points are not shown.
76
7. Form the volumes of beam flanges by using sweeping from the end plate surface.
This is to ensure the beam flanges are sharing the same surface with end plate.
8. Move the model +1000mm in Z direction. This is to prevent the sharing of point
while modeling the column.
9. Copy the surface of end plate and extend it to form column flange surface by using
sweeping.
Z X
77
10. Sweep the column flange surface to form column flange volume and copy to
form column flange on the other side.
Y
X
11. Form the volume of nut by using sweeping from the surface of column flange.
The model of nut together with column flange in x direction, should be as shown
below
12. Sweep the suitable line of end plate to form the surface of beam web between the
beam flanges.
13. Sweep the suitable line of column flange to form the surface of column web
between the column flanges.
78
Y
X
14. The whole model should be as shown below. The end plate and beam are not
connected to the column.
Y
X
15. Select the end plate and beam and move -1000m in Z direction. When prompt to
ask whether to merge the point and line, select NO.
79
Y
X
16. Draw the bolt body connecting bolt and nut using line.
STEP 3 Meshing
1. Mesh the bolts and nuts with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2,
local Y division of 2 and local Z division of 1. The bolt body is meshed with line
mesh of BRS2 with the division of 4.
2. Mesh the beam flanges with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2,
local Y division of 1 and local Z division of 10.
80
3. Mesh the end plate with volume mesh HX8M with the local X division of 2, local
Y division of 2 and local division of 1. For the volume contained shared surface
between end plate and beam flanges, it is meshed with HX8m with local X division
of 2, local Y division of 1 and local division of 1. For the middle part of end plate, it
is meshed with HX8m with local X division of 2, local Y division of 10 and local
division of 1.
4. Mesh the line of end plate that contact with column flange with line mesh JNT4
with the division corresponding to the previously meshed HX8M.
5. Mesh the column flanges same as the end plate. For the part that do not contact
with the end plate, it is meshed with HX8M with the local X division of 2, local Y
division of 5 and local Z division of 1. The lines that contact with end plate are
meshed with line mesh JNT4 with the division corresponding to the previously
meshed HX8M.
81
Y
X
Z
5. The horizontal lines in the beam web are mesh with line with division of 10 and
the vertical lines are meshed with line with division corresponding to the end plate.
After that, the beam web is meshed with surface mesh QTS4 with automatic division.
6. The column web is meshed with surface mesh QTS4 with automatic division.
Y
X
Z
82
Y
X
1. Line geometric with the cross sectional area (A) of 245mm2 is assigned to the four
bolt body.
2. Surface geometric with the thickness of 6mm is assigned to the surface of column
web.
3. Surface geometric with the thickness of 5.5mm is assigned to the surface of beam
web.
2. Bolt (Isotropic)
Young’s modulus, E = 205 kN/mm2
Poisson’s ration, v = 0.3
83
2. Displacements in the x direction were restrained along all surfaces on the centre
line of the model.
Restrained at X
Restrained at X
Restrained
at X, Y & Z Y Restrained at Y
X
STEP 8 Analysis
Since this is a nonlinear problem the load incrementation strategy needs to be defined.
- From the Treeview right click on Loadcase 1 and select the Properties option.
- Define the analysis as a Nonlinear & Transient problem and click on the Set
button.
The Nonlinear & Transient dialog will appear.
- Select the Nonlinear option.
- Set Incrementation to Automatic
- Set the Starting load factor to 1
- Set the Maximum change in load factor to 1
- Set the Maximum total load factor as 40
- Change the Incremental displacement norm to 100
- Leave the Maximum number of time steps or increments as 0
- Click the OK button to return to the loadcase properties.
- Click the OK button to finish.
A LUSAS data file name of extended end plate (simplified bolt model) will be
automatically entered in the File name field.
- Ensure that the options Solve now and Load results are selected.
- Click the Save button to solve the problem.
Note. In running this nonlinear analysis 5 load increments are evaluated. This may
take up to 1 hour on older personal computers but will be significantly faster on
modern machines. An indication of the time remaining can be attained by observing
the number of the increment being evaluated.
A LUSAS Datafile will be created from the model information. The LUSAS Solver
uses this datafile to perform the analysis.
In addition, 2 files will be created in the directory where the model file resides:
- extended end plate (simplified bolt model).out
This output file contains details of model data, assigned attributes and selected
statistics of the analysis.
- extended end plate (simplified bolt model).mys
This is the LUSAS results file which is loaded automatically into the Treeview to
allow results processing to take place.
85
STEP 9 Results
Loadcase results can be seen in the Treeview. If the analysis was run from within
LUSAS Modeller the results will be loaded on top of the current model and the load
case results for the first load increment are set active by default.
If present, delete the Mesh, Geometry and Attributes layers from the Treeview.
- In the graphics window, with no features selected, click the right-hand mouse
button and select the Deformed mesh option to add the deformed mesh layer to the
Treeview.
- Click Close to accept the default properties and display the influence surface of the
current loadcase.
Select the node where the load is applied, click Utilities on the menu bar, and click
on the Graph Wizard.
- Select Time History, click the next button.
- For x dataset, , select Displacement in the dropdown menu of Entity, and select
RSLT for Component, then click the next button.
- For y dataset, select Nodal and click next button, select Loading in the dropdown
menu of Entity, and select RSLT for Component, then click the next button, then
click the finish button.
- A graph will be shown and the value of displacement and loading are stated next to
the graph.
- Displacement in different direction can be obtained by repeating the previous steps.
- Enter the file name as extended end plate (actual bolt model).
- Enter the title as Analysis of Extended End Plate.
- Set the units as N mm t C s
- Select the startup template Standard from those available in the drop down list.
- Set the vertical axis as Y.
- Click the OK button.
Note. It is useful to save the model regularly as the example progresses. This allows
a previously saved model to be re-loaded if a mistake is made that cannot be
corrected
easily by a new user.
4. Extend the surface of bolts to form the surface of end plate by using sweeping.
This is to ensure the end plate and bolts are sharing the same surfaces.
5. Sweep the surfaces of bolt head from the end plate’s surface to form bolt volumes.
87
6. The following steps are same with the feature geometry of simplified bolt model
from step 5 to step 15.
7. Sweep the bolt hole surface to the other side of bolt to form the bolt body.
STEP 3 Meshing
1. Mesh the bolt head and bolt body with volume mesh HX8M with automatic
division. All bolt line then is meshed with line of division of 2 except bolt line in z
direction which is meshed with line with division of 1.
1. Surface geometric with the thickness of 6mm is assigned to the surface of column
web.
2. Surface geometric with the thickness of 5.5mm is assigned to the surface of beam
web.
STEP 8 Analysis
1. Follow the steps in simplified bolt model.
STEP 9 Results
1. Follow the steps in simplified bolt model.