  Search 

Welcome Products Support About

Product Communities

RAM | STAAD  RAM | STAAD Wiki  Sign in

[TN]
RAM Frame Wall

RAM Instability In Finite Element Analysis [TN]

Groups FAQ
RAM Instability In
Finite Element
Analysis [TN]
RAM Meshing and Product(s): RAM Elements, RAM Structural System, Ram Concept, STAAD.pro; MultiFrame; Microstran
Segmentation [TN]
RAMSS Truss Version(s): Any
Modeling And
Design [TN] Area: Analysis
Red Status Lights
for Lateral Load
Cases in RAM


Frame
RAM Structural
Instability in Finite Element Analysis
System - RAM
Modeler
A typical 3-dimensional Finite Element analysis of a structure requires that every node must be stable in all 6 degrees of freedom (TX,
TY, TX, RX, RY,RZ). This is achieved by specifying fixity conditions for the columns, beams and braces spanning to a given node or
Questions about this article, through nodal restraint. While many programs can analyze a structure using fewer degrees of freedom, for this discussion all 6 are
topic, or product? Click here.
assumed to be active.

There are many discussions related to FEA online and whole courses devoted to the topic, but the purpose of this article is merely to
show by example a few of the most common causes of instabilities in structural models. The rules apply to RAM Elements (aka RAM
Advanse), RAM Frame, RAM Concrete or STAAD.pro as well as other FEA applications. The images and examples below are taken
from RAM Elements where a light blue circle indicates a hinge, or member release, at the end of a member. A translational restraint is
depicted as a triangle on rollers and a rotational restraint is a "T".

Pinning the free end of a cantilever.

Take the case of a single member fixed at the base for all 6 DOF similar to a flagpole. This structure is stable, except that the free end of
member away from the support is hinged or released for major axis bending. As a result, node 2 can spin about the global z axis.

For some applications, this type of "nodal instability" will terminate the analysis. For other applications, a small stiffness may be
automatically assigned to the z axis rotational stiffness of the node and you may only get a warning, so long as a moment about the z
axis is not applied directly to node 2. This would cause infinite rotation of the node and should terminate any analysis.

The same situation often occurs for a beam with a cantilever, where the cantilever beam is the only member connected to the node at
the tip. In short, the free end of any member, where that member is the only member in the model connected to a particular node should
never be released.

Beam, column and brace intersections.

When multiple members frame to a single node, it is acceptable to release some, but not all of those members. If the beam, column and
brace are all released at the same node, then the problem is the same as case 1 above. At least one of those members should be fixed
ended. In most situations, it is the column top that should remain fixed to the node.

Releasing the tops of columns.

In this case we have a fixed ended beam setting on two columns, both of which are released at the top node. This case differs slightly
from Case 2 because the nodes are fixed to the beam and not themselves instable. The problem is that the beam along with both top
nodes can spin as a group on top of the columns similar to a log on water. This is an example of why it is usually better to keep the tops
of the columns fixed and release the beams.

Torsional releases
It's hard to envision a realistic connection that allows a member to spin or swivel, but most FEA application do allow member torsional
releases. A general rule is to leave the member torsion fixed except in a situation where member rotation really is free. The most
common problem occurs in a chevron brace configuration where the beam is two finite elements. If each beam half is released in
torsion, then the node at the top of the braces is instable.

2-dimensional frame in a 3-dimensional analysis

Often it is desirable to analyze a 2-dimensional frame using a 3-dimensional analysis. In some applications there is plane frame option
that can be used to ignore the deflection out of plane (e.g. z axis) or rotation about the other axes, but if not, the frame can generally be
stabilized one of two ways.

An out of plane, z axis restraint can be applied to some or all of the nodes to effectively keep the frame from falling over, or
Rotation about the in-plane axes can be restrained at the base nodes (e.g. rotation about the X axis).

The same situation often occurs in RAM Frame when no rigid diaphragm is used. This can leave the model with several, isolated, 2D
frames in space with no connection between them. If the frames are pinned at the base then they can fall over and an instability results.
Fixing the base of the frames against out-of-plane rotation is generally the solution to this problem, though connecting the frames
together with lateral members or some other simulation of a diaphragm is also possible.

Other Global stability issues

A certain number of nodal restraints are always required to keep the structure as a whole from moving. Another common case is one
where a shell or mat foundation is supported by a series of vertical springs. While that is stable in relation to vertical loads, some
mechanism must be provided to keep the mat as a whole from sliding around like a skateboard. This is generally achieved through the
use of horizontal springs in addition to the vertical springs, or by restraining the translation of a node (or line of nodes) along the edge of
the structure.

This is a common problem in Ram Concept if a vertical resistance area spring is the only support for the structure. When there are no
lateral loads, you might get away with providing an area spring with only vertical stiffness, but when there is any external load applied in
the plan directions, some resistance to sliding must be incorporated into the model. Ram Concept also has an option under Criteria - Cal
options to "Auto-stabilize structure in X and Y directions" which is another option for structures with vertical loads only.

Diaphragm stability
In most building type structures there is a horizontal diaphragm that ties the frames together and prevents in-plane deformation of the
plan. This is typically modeled using a rigid floor diaphragm. The diaphragm constraint forces the nodes of the floor to move together
preventing the plan from racking for example.
In space frame models where no rigid diaphragm is modeled (perhaps because the roof is sloped), there must be some other
mechanism to keep the plan from racking. This is generally achieved by providing diagonal members in that plane. Fixing the minor axis
of the beams in the plan is another approach. Think of this like creating a Vierendeel truss in plan. Using shell elements is another
option, though the interaction between the shells and the members is not always desirable.

Using tension-only members or compression-only springs

When a model utilizes non-linear members or springs most FEA applications iteratively solve for each load case and load combination.
On each iteration, if a tension-only member is found to go into compression, that member is thrown out of the analysis and a new
iteration is started. If too many of the members go into compression, the frame or structure as a whole can become instable.

There are a couple of ways to effectively deal with such a situation

Apply a pre-tensioning force to the braces. By putting the member into an initial tension state it is less likely to go into compression
and fall out of the analysis.
Assign some of the members to be tension and compression members. For X braced frames or other symmetric structures it is
typically acceptable to analyze the structure with a single tension + compression brace rather than a pair of tension-only braces.
This does affect the load path through the columns somewhat, however, and may require two versions of the model to capture the
worst condition. A similar option is to leave both braces in the model, but then check the braces or twice the determined force.
Applying self weight to tension only braces will cause bending moments in the members which usually is not the intent for tension-
only braces. in those cases, a zero density material is suggested.
Additionally, for X braced frames in Ram Elements, the program may be introducing a node at the intersection of the braces. This
can be prevented using Process - analyze - FE Model tab - by turning off the option to "Add intermediate nodes at member
intersections".

P-Delta effects and model instabilities

There are cases where a structure might be perfectly stable under a first-order analysis, but as the analysis incorporates P-Delta effects
the deflection is amplified and instability can result. Different applications handle P-Delta analysis in different ways, but there are usually
controls for the tolerance required for P-Delta convergence. Increasing the tolerance often leads to a solution, but some structures may
have to be stiffened in order to complete a P-Delta analysis on all load cases.

See Also
RAMSS Eigenvalue Error

RAM Frame P-Delta [TN]

Structural Product TechNotes And FAQs

STAAD.Pro Instability And Zero Stiffness

Microstran Modeling Tips

 analysis  RAM Elements  SELECTservices  RAM Frame  RAM Structural System  RAM Concept  TechNote

 RAM Advanse  Instability  Microstran  Support Solutions

Share History

Created by Seth Guthrie

When: Thu, Jul 2 2009 5:35 PM

Last revision by Seth Guthrie

When: Sun, Jan 14 2018 12:15 PM
Revisions: 30
Comments: 0

 0 comments  0 members are here

Communities Support and Services Training and Learning Social Media

Home Home Home LinkedIn

Getting Started Product Support About Bentley Institute Facebook
Community Central Downloads My Learning History Twitter
Products User Management Reference Books YouTube
Support Licensing Manager
RSS Feed
Secure File Upload
Email
Feedback

© 2018 Bentley Systems, Incorporated | Contact Us | Privacy | Terms of Use | Cookies