I Introduction

Most likely, engineering problems are too difficult to solve by hand. Pertaining to Civil
Engineering, particularly Structural Engineering, it is required to model the structure in a
computer software to ensure the design is robust and resilient. Solving such a design task by
hand is nearly impossible. Solving certain simple mathematical model can provide ballpark
estimates of values necessary for design; however, estimating in structural engineering is never
ideal. Since Structural Engineers deal with large scale structures there is no way to model the
building in the lab to ensure stability and therefore many, if not most, structural engineers use
Finite Element software to produce reliable models of the structure in order to analyze the
building.

For the scope of this project, a sample earthquake is applied to a simply supported beam,
cantilever beam, and pinned-pinned frame. The structures will be modeled as a simply 1D model
and then as a 2D model and the refinement of a mesh will be analyzed. Refining a mesh is an
important topic to discuss because the refinement of a mesh produces more accurate results.

1
II Mathematical Model
Before ADINA was implemented to determine finite element solutions, a simple
mathematical model was defined to establish a control base model in order to compare the
ADINA Finite Element model. The geometry as well as the calculations for the frequencies and
modal masses for the simply supported and cantilever beam are simple enough to calculate to
calculate by hand. These exact calculations will be used to check whether the ADINA model is
producing accurate results. Figure 1 shows the mathematical model for the simply supported
beam and the way it will be modeled in ADINA.

2m
0.02 m x 0.02 m
` E=200x109 Pa
ρ=7850 kg/m^3

Figure 2-1: Simply Supported Beam Model

The frequencies of the first two modes were calculated in the equations displayed below. It will
be shown later that the finite element model will converge to these values.

2
The modal masses were determined for the simply supported beam by first defining the shape
functions. The shape function for the simply supported beam is shown below.

( )

The modal mass for each mode is calculated using the equation below.

∫ ∫ ( ) ∫ ( )

Since the beam is geometrically symmetric, the modal masses are equal in both modes and the
sum of the modal masses in each mode is equal to the total mass of the beam.

Figure 2 below shows the cantilever beam to be analyzed and finite element model that
represents it.

2m
0.02 m x 0.02 m
` E=200x109 Pa
ρ=7850 kg/m^3

Figure 2-2: Cantilever Beam Model

The frequencies of the cantilever beam for first two modes were calculated in a similar fashion to
the simply supported beam before. The frequencies are displayed below.

3
 √

The mode shape for the cantilever beam is given by the following equation.

( )
√ ( ) ( )

4
III Results

i) Simply Supported Beam

A simply supported beam was modeled in Adina and analyzed to determine the frequencies for
the different mode shapes. Only the first two modes were observed because only two modes are
required to pick up a significant amount of the total mass. The beam was refined by increasing
the number of subdivisions. Table 1 below shows the first two frequencies of the beam as the
number of subdivisions increases. Table 2 below shows the exact frequencies for the first two
modes of the simply supported beam. The exact frequencies were calculated using structural
dynamics methods and the calculations can be found in the Appendix. Table 1 and Figure 1 show
that the fundamental frequency converges quickly to the exact value. Table 1 and Figure 2 show
that the frequency of the second mode takes the addition of more subdivisions to converge to the
exact frequency of the second mode.

Table 3-1: Frequency of First Two Modes for Increasing Number of Subdivisions for SS Beam
Number of Subdivisions f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz)
3 11.453 46.309
4 11.447 45.949
5 11.445 45.844
6 11.444 45.805
7 11.444 45.788
8 11.444 45.781
9 11.444 45.776
10 11.444 45.777
11 11.444 45.772
15 11.444 45.770
20 11.444 45.769

Table 3-2: Exact Frequency of First Two Modes for SS Beam

f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz)
Exact Values 11.440 45.776

5
 Convergence of Fundamental Frequency of a Simply
Supported Beam
11.454
11.453
11.452
11.451
11.45
11.449
f1 (Hz)

11.448 Finite Element

11.447 Exact
11.446
11.445
11.444
11.443
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# of Subdivisions

Figure 3-1: Convergence of Fundamental Frequencies for a Simply Supported Beam

Convergence of Frequency of the 2nd Mode of a Simply

Supported Beam
46.4

46.3

46.2

46.1
f1 (Hz)

46 Finite Element
Exact
45.9

45.8

45.7
0 5 10 15 20 25
# of Subdivisions

Figure 3-2: Convergence of Frequencies for the 2nd Mode in a Simply Supported Beam

6
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 above show the convergence of the frequencies of the first two modes in a
simply supported beam. It can be seen that the fundamental mode converges quicker than the
frequency of the 2nd mode. The fundamental frequency converges at around 6 subdivisions while
the 2nd mode frequency shows an exact solution at around 9 subdivisions. For the 2nd mode, the
frequency of finite element analysis exceeds the exact solution. However, the percent error at 20
subdivisions is only 0.015% which is extremely small. Therefore, this discrepancy might be due
to a rounding error. The calculations showing the calculation of the frequency for the 2nd mode
can be found in the appendix for reference.

Figure 3-3 below shows the comparison of the mode shapes for three subdivisions versus the
mode shapes for twenty subdivisions. It is clear that the mode shape for twenty subdivisions is a
continuous shape whereas the less subdivisions you have, the more discretized the shape is. This
further demonstrates the concept that as you refine the mesh, your answers converge to the exact
solution.

Three Subdivisions

Twenty Subdivisions

Figure 3-3: First Mode Shape for Three and Twenty Subdivisions for a SS Beam

7
Figure 3-4: Finite Element vs. Exact Representation of Vibrational Modes of a SS Beam

Figure 3-4 above shows the comparison of first two mode shapes for the refined mesh with the
exact shape of the first two mode shapes of a simply supported beam. As can be seen, the two
images show the same shape for the modes. The amplitude of the mode shapes depends on
whether or not the function was normalized.

8
Response Spectrum

A sample response spectrum was applied to the structure to demonstrate the effects of an
earthquake on various structures.

Figure 3-5: Response Spectrum for Sample Earthquake

Table 3-3: Maximum Values for Displacement, Velocity, Accelerations, and Reactions for a
Simply Supported Beam

# of Divisions Max. Displacement (mm) Max. Velocity (m/s) Max. Acceleration (m/s2) Max. Reaction (N)

2 5.505 0.397 28.68 37.835

10 8.162 0.587 42.199 83.117
25 8.249 0.593 42.644 85.219
50 8.279 0.595 42.804 85.224
75 8.281 0.595 42.809 85.579
100 8.283 0.595 42.824 85.598
150 8.284 0.596 42.827 85.613
200 8.284 0.596 42.828 85.617
500 8.824 0.596 42.829 85.623
900 nodes 8.284 0.596 42.830 85.623

9
 Maximum Displacement for SS Beam
8.3

8.28
Midspan Displacement (mm)

8.26

8.24

8.22
Finite Element
8.2 Exact
8.18

8.16

8.14
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Subdivisions

Figure 3-6: Convergence of the Displacement at Midspan for a SS Beam

Maximum Velocity for SS Beam

0.597
0.596
0.595
Midspan Velocity (m/s)

0.594
0.593
0.592
0.591 Finite Element
0.59 Exact
0.589
0.588
0.587
0.586
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Subdivisions

Figure 3-7: Convergence of the Velocity at Midspan for a SS Beam

10
 Maximum Acceleration for SS Beam
42.9

42.8
Midspan Acceleration (mm)

42.7

42.6

42.5
Finite Element
42.4 Exact
42.3

42.2

42.1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Subdivisions

Figure 3-8: Convergence of the Acceleration at Midspan for a SS Beam

Percent Error for Maximum Acceleration

1.60%

1.40%
Midspan Acceleration (mm)

1.20%

1.00%

0.80%

0.60% Percent Error

0.40%

0.20%

0.00%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Subdivisions

Figure 3-9: Percent Error for Maximum Acceleration at Midspan for a SS Beam

11
 Maximum Reaction for SS Beam
86

85.5
Midspan Displacement (mm)

85

84.5

84 Finite Element
Exact
83.5

83

82.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of Subdivisions

Figure 3-10: Reactions at Supports for a SS Beam

Figures 3-6 through Figure 3-10 help visualize the convergence of values of variables
listed in Table 3-3. The simply supported beam was analyzed for the response spectrum found in
Figure 3-5 and the displacements, velocity, acceleration, and reactions were determined for the
beam. The maximum velocity was the first value to converge followed by displacement,
reactions, and then accelerations. The convergence of the acceleration was difficult to see so a
percent error graph was included to facilitate the ability to see convergence. Two subdivisions
were included in the table to show that the refinement of the mesh is necessary. The results for
two subdivisions were not included in the graphs because it was treated as an outlier and it
produced poor graphs. For a simple beam, it takes a large number of subdivisions to produce
exact convergence. However, fewer subdivisions can be used because the results are within a
small percent error of the exact solution.
A 2D simply supported beam was modeled with a coarse mesh and then refined to be
modeled with a fine mesh. Only the maximum displacements were considered to compare to the
basic 1D approximation of the beam. Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12 below show the refinement of
nodes in a 2D beam.

12
Figure 3-11: Coarse Mesh for Vertical Displacement Band Plot for a SS Beam

Figure 3-12: Vertical Displacement Band Plot for a SS Beam with 9 node elements

The band plot for displacement doesn’t change as the mesh for the beam is refined. Since the

beam is a simple model, the coarse mesh is adequate to depict the maximum displacement. The

maximum displacement for the beam is 8.286mm which is within 0.21% error of the simple 1D

model. Any option for this mesh provides reliable results.

13
ii) Cantilever Beam
A cantilever beam was modeled in Adina in a similar fashion to the simply supported beam in
order to determine frequencies for different modes. Similarly, only the first two frequencies were
examined because they pick up the majority of the total mass.

Table 3-4: Frequency of Two Modes for Increasing Number of Subdivisions for a Cantilever
Number of Subdivisions f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz)
2 4.078 25.763
3 4.077 25.630
4 4.077 25.579
5 4.077 25.559
6 4.077 25.552
7 4.077 25.550
8 4.077 25.548

Table 3-5: Exact Frequency of First Two Modes for a Cantilever Beam
f1 (Hz) f2 (Hz)
Exact Values 4.077 25.548

The frequencies for the cantilever beam converged faster than the frequencies for the
simply supported beam. The frequency for the fundamental mode of the cantilever was almost
exact for the least amount of subdivisions and converged to the exact solutions within one
refinement. The frequencies for the 2nd mode took longer to converge however, still converged
within 6 refinements which is less than the simply supported beam. The response spectrum found
in Figure 3-5 was applied to the cantilever beam as well. The maximum displacement, velocity,
acceleration, and reactions were determined for the cantilever beam and can be found in Table 3-
6 on the next page. In addition, the moment at the fixed end was also calculated.

The values for displacement, velocity, acceleration, reaction, and moment at the fixed end
converged for less subdivisions than the simply supported case. For the cantilever, the values for
the maximums occur at the free end. This is intuitive since there is no support at this end. The
beam would have to be significantly increased in size to resist the earthquake loads. However,
for purpose of control for this paper, the cross section was kept the same. This is portrayed in the
significant increase in maximum values.

14
 Table 3-6: Maximum Values for Displacement, Velocity, Accelerations, and Reactions for a
Cantilever Beam

# of Divisions Max. Disp. (mm) Max. Vel. (m/s) Max. Acc. (m/s2) Max. Reaction (N) Max. Moment (N-m)

2 110.458 2.834 75.046 173.496 257.683

10 114.225 2.930 79.078 187.452 268.145
25 114.256 2.931 79.119 187.587 268.223
50 114.258 2.931 79.122 187.595 268.227
75 114.258 2.931 79.122 187.596 268.228
100 114.258 2.931 79.122 187.596 268.228

Due to the simplicity of the structure and the fact that the analysis was already conducted
for a simply supported beam, the graphs were omitted for the cantilever beam. Only the tables of
values were included because the same convergence is produced and can be viewed in the tables.

Figure 3-13: Coarse Mesh for Vertical Displacement Band Plot for a Cantilever Beam

Figure 3-14: Fine Mesh for Vertical Displacement Band Plot for a Cantilever Beam

Once again, the band plot for displacement doesn’t change as the mesh for the beam is refined.

The maximum displacement for the beam is 114.2 mm which is within 0.05% error of the simple

1D model. Any option for this mesh provides reliable results.

15
iii) Unbraced Frame (Note: From this point on all units will be imperial)

A simple unbraced frame was modeling in ADINA to determine its response to an

earthquake load. The actual frame and its ADINA model can be seen in Figure 3-15 below. Since
a mathematical model was not completed for a frame, the number of modes to pick up the
majority of the mass is unknown. Therefore, an arbitrary value of 10 modes will be used for all
frame analysis. A sample response spectrum for a greater range of periods than the previous
spectrum was applied to the structure and can be found in Figure 3-16 below.

Figure 3-15: Pinned-Pinned Frame Model

Figure 3-16: Response Spectrum for a Sample Earthquake for a Greater Range of Periods

16
Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Bending Moment

Figure 3-17: Various Band Plots for a Coarse Mesh for Unbraced Frame (10 divisions per line)

17
 Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Bending Moment

Figure 3-18: Various Band Plots for a Finer Mesh for Unbraced Frame (50 divisions per line)

18
Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Bending Moment

Figure 3-19: Various Band Plots for a Fine Mesh for an Unbraced Frame (200 divisions per line)

19
 Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-19 show the vertical displacement, horizontal displacement,
vertical acceleration, and bending moment in the beam. The maximum vertical displacement
converges within two refinements of the mesh. It was a large jump in the number of
subdivisions: however, usually an experience professional would not start off with a small
number of subdivisions initially. The horizontal displacement is accurately portrayed even with
the small number of subdivisions. No refinement would be necessary in order to produce an
accurate horizontal displacement. The maximum acceleration converged at the same refinement
as the vertical displacement. The bending moment did not fully converge throughout these
refinements; however, the values are within a 0.06% error between refinements which is
basically an accurate result.

This same structure will be analyzed as a 2D plane stress analysis. The mesh will be
refined until similar results to the simple model are found. The 2D plane stress analysis will
produce a more accurate result but should agree with the simple model to an extent. The frame
will be modeling with coarse and fine meshes. A coarse and a fine mesh for the frame can be
found below in Figure 3-20.

Figure 3-20: Coarse and Fine Meshes for 2D Plane Stress Analysis

20
Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Stress YZ

Figure 3-21: Various Band Plots for 2D Plane Stress Analysis with a Coarse Mesh

21
 Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Stress YZ

Figure 3-22: Various Band Plots for 2D Plane Stress Analysis with a Relatively Fine Mesh

22
Z-Displacement Y-Displacement

Z-Acceleration Stress YZ

Figure 3-23: Various Band Plots for Finest Mesh Available

23
IV Conclusion
The simply supported beam was used as a sample to show a comprehensive illustration of
how changing number of subdivisions produces accurate results. This is easier to show when
subdividing lines because the refinement of the mesh (number of nodes) is linear. Therefore, the
simply supported beam was used to show how the approximation of the finite element model
asymptotical converges to the exact solutions. This is demonstrated in Figures 3-6 through
Figure 3-10. Using the most refined 2D beam in comparison to the most refined 1D beam only
increases the accuracy of the results by approximately 0.02%. For a simple structure like this, it
is adequate to use the 1D representation because it will save time and it produces reliable results.

The results for 2D plane stress analysis for the earthquake analysis defined by the
response spectrum can be found in Figure 3-21 through Figure 3-23 above. Figure 3-21 shows
the band plots for a mesh defined by one 9 node element for each surface. This is an extremely
coarse mesh and it was included to demonstrate how unreliably a coarse mesh of such caliber can
be. Since the analysis was conducted on a simple 1D model of a frame, the approximate range of
results were known and therefore it was clear instantly that the 1st mesh was not adequate for the
analysis. Figure 3-22 shows a finer mesh and the band plot is more continuous for all variables.
As the mesh gets refined, the band plot becomes more continuous and the results become more
accurate. Using the two finest meshes between the 1D frame and the 2D frame, the maximum
values were compared. The maximum values for the Z-Displacement produce a 22% percent
error which is fairly high. The maximum values for the Y-Displacement produce a 5% error and
the maximum values for the Z-Acceleration produce 17% error. The reason that the Z values
produce such a large error is due to the fact that the earthquake is defined in the vertical
direction. It is optimal to model the structure as accurately as possible if looking for accurate
results. However, if looking for a quick estimate and an accurate and reliable answer is not
required the simple model can be used to ballpark values.

The 2D plane stress model could have been refined more to achieve a more accurate
result; however, the available software is limited to 900 nodes. Most of the results converged;
however, a fine mesh using 9 node elements exceed the 900 node limit and this model would
have provided the most accurate results.

24
V References

1. Chopra, Anil K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.

2. Humar, J. L. Dynamics of Structures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC - Taylor & Francis Croup, 2012.
Print.

3. Kausel, Eduardo. Advanced Structural Dynamics. MIT Copy Tech, Print. Fall 2013.

25
VI Appendix
Simply Supported Beam

√
( )

√
( )

26
Cantilever Beam

√
( )

√
( )

27