ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Non-linear analysis of unbolted base plates by the FEM

and experimental validation
J.J. del Coz Dı́aza,, P.J. Garcı́a Nietob, C. Betegón Biempicaa, G. Fernández Rougeotc
a
Department of Construction and Engineering of Production, University of Oviedo, Departamental Building no. 7, Dpcho. 7.1.02, 33204 Gijón, Spain
b
Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, C/ Calvo Sotelo s/n, 33007 Oviedo, Spain
c
ESMENA-CTE, Scientific and Technological Park of Gijón, Gijón, Spain
Received 30 September 2005; accepted 21 April 2006
Available online 23 June 2006

Abstract

Unbolted base plates are often used in civil engineering as structural connections in storage racks construction. The aim of this work is
to describe the development of a numerical model to simulate accurately the connection between columns and foundation in metallic
structures, which constitute any frame in automated storage systems. In this way, the bending stiffness of the column can be modeled in
the analysis of these structures, in order to approach the real behavior in service, and these values can be included in linear beams of
structural analysis programs, such as ESCAL3D [del Coz Diaz JJ, Ordieres Mere B, Siare Dominguez FJ, Bello Garcı́a A, Felgueros
Fernández D. J Constr Res 1998; 46:273–5]. In this study, a non-linear structural behavior of the model occurs due to the changing status
of the contact surfaces and point-to-point contacts, the geometric non-linearities of the model and the material non-linearities, such as
plasticity and surface friction. The finite element method is a general technique for numerical solution of differential and integral
equations in science and engineering. Thus the finite element approach has been carried out in two phases. Firstly, a pre-buckling analysis
has been accomplished and secondly, the above-mentioned non-linear analysis has been performed, updating the geometry of the finite
element model to the deformed configuration for the first mode buckling. A total of four load cases were analyzed, with different
compressive load and imposed lateral displacement. In order to validate the results some experimental models were tested to compare
with the numerical model, so that a good agreement and better correlations were obtained between both.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element modeling; Numerical methods; Base plates; Plasticity; Large displacements; Contact problems

1. Introduction In the case of storage racking there are specific design

Unbolted base plates and thin-walled cold-formed steel
performance are influenced by the presence of imperfec-
tions, which could be of geometrical or mechanical type,
the local or sectional instability and the interaction of these
two failure types. In the case of perforated sections these
factors are supplemented by the presence of perforations.
Due to the wide variety in size and configuration of
unbolted base plates and perforated sections, it is
impossible to provide a unified practical design procedure
to calculate the bending stiffness of the whole specimen.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: juanjo@constru.uniovi.es (J.J. del Coz Dı́az).
rules and standards such as the recommendations of the
European Federation of Materials Handling and Storage
Equipment 10.2.02-03 [1] . This code recommends experi-
mental tests to evaluate the bending stiffness of bolted and
unbolted base plates. However, testing is costly and time
consuming and, if available, numerical procedures like the
finite element method (FEM) would be preferred. In this
paper we show the basic steps performed with a general
purpose finite element software, such as ANSYS [2], in
order to find out the stresses, displacements and bending
stiffness in a unbolted base plate.
Thus, the present paper proposes a numerical simulation
in order to determine the bending stiffness of unbolted base
plates and to reproduce adequately the tests carried out on
real specimens in the Technological Center of Esmena,

0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2006.04.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
530 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541
designer and manufacturer of structural storage systems in
Gijón (Spain).
The analysis was performed through a sequence of
multiple steps. A half-symmetry three-dimensional surface
model of the assembly was initially created in SolidWorks
2001. The model was then imported to ANSYS 9.0 via
IGES file. Once in ANSYS the geometry was completed,
some details were added and, after a geometry checking,
the model was meshed. Boundary conditions were included
to suitably reproduce the laboratory tests and the load was
applied in increasing levels, from 25% to 100% the beam
ultimate load. A modal analysis was subsequently per-
formed to obtain the mode shapes and frequencies. The
first mode shape was included to the model and a non-
linear analysis was accomplished regarding the material
and geometric non-linearities. Finally, the results were
reviewed and the simulation was compared and validated
with the experimental tests. The discussion of the results
will be focused on the values obtained for the stiffness in
each model and in the failure modes.
The use of FEM [3] shows innumerable advantages of
economical and practical order due, on the one hand, to
the cost that the realization of real tests plays, and on the
other hand, to the technical difficulty, since the elements of
the present study are big in size.
In general, engineering problems are mathematical
models of physical situations. Mathematical models are
differential equations with a set of corresponding boundary
and initial conditions. The differential equations are
derived by applying the fundamental laws and principles
of nature to a system or a control volume. These governing
equations represent conservation balance of mass, force, or
energy [4].
FEM is a numerical procedure than can be used to
obtain solutions to a large class of engineering problems
involving stress analysis, heat transfer, electromagnetism,
and in our case a structural problem. The method was
introduced by engineers in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s
for the numerical solution of partial differential equations
in structural engineering (elasticity equations, plate equa-
tions, etc.). At this point the method was thought of as a
generalization of earlier methods in structural engineering
for beams, frames and plates, where the structure was
subdivided into small parts, so-called finite elements, with
known simple behavior.
The basic idea in any numerical method for a differential
equation is to discretize the given continuous problem with
infinitely many degrees of freedom to obtain a discrete
problem or system of equations with only finitely many
unknowns that may be solved using a computer. In this
case, we start from a reformulation of the given differential
equation as an equivalent variational problem. In the case of
elliptic equations this variational problem in many cases is
a minimization problem of the form: (M) find u 2 V such
that F ðuÞ
F ðvÞ for allv 2 V , where V is a given set of
admissible functions and F : V ! < is a functional (that is
F ðvÞ 2 < for all v 2 V with < denoting the set of real
numbers). The functions n in V often represent continu-
ously varying quantities such as a displacement in an
elastoplastic body, F ðvÞ is the total energy associated with v
and (M) corresponds to an equivalent characterization of
the solution of the differential equation as the function in V
that minimizes the total energy of the considered system. In
general, the dimension of V is infinite and thus in general
the problem (M) cannot be solved exactly. To obtain a
problem that can be solved on a computer the idea in the
FEM is to replace V by a set V h consisting of a simple
functions only depending on finitely many parameters.
This leads to a finite-dimensional minimization problem of
the form: (M h ) find uh 2 V h such that F ðuh Þ
F ðvÞ for
allv 2 V h .
In practical situations, the determination of suitable
basis functions for use in the Galerkin method [5] can be
extremely difficult, especially in cases for which the domain
O does not have simple shape. The FEM overcomes this
difficulty by providing a systematic means for generating
basis functions on domains of fairly arbitrary shape. What
makes the method especially attractive is the fact that these
basis functions are piecewise polynomials that are non-zero
only on a relatively small part of O, so that computations
may be carried out in a modular fashion, which is well
suited to computer-based approaches. As we know, the
family of spaces V h defined by the finite element procedure
possesses the property that V h approaches V as h
approaches zero, in an appropriate sense. This is, of
course, an indispensable property for convergence of the
Galerkin method.
2. Geometrical model
To define the geometry of a specimen is complex using
an analysis program by finite elements. For this reason, a
three-dimensional parametric design program was used. As
it was mentioned above the geometric model was initially
designed in SolidWorks 2001. Symmetry, drills, holes and
other construction details were added once the model was
imported to the finite element program.
The dimensions of the specimen are the following:
 unbolted base plate: 175 mm of width, 207 mm in length
and 8 mm thick.
 angles: 65 mm long, 40 mm of width and 3.5 mm thick.
 perforated beam section: 500 mm full-length, 112 mm of
width, 127 mm in length and 3 mm thick.
 force plate: 122 mm width, 133.5 mm large, 10 mm thick.
The assembly consists of different parts, named force plate,
perforated beam, angles and base plate, as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Mathematical model
The resolution of this problem implies the simultaneous
study of three non-linearities: (1) material non-linearity
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541 531

(normality principle). Heuristic arguments for the validity

Force Plate
of the relationship proposed have been given by various
workers in the field [5,6] and at the present the following
hypothesis appears to be generally accepted for many

p denotes the increment of plastic strain,
materials. If d~
then
Unbolted
Base Plate
qF

p ¼ l
d~ (2)
Perforated Beam Cross s
q~
Section Section of
the beam or, for any component n,

Angles
Fig. 1. Geometric model.
(plastic behavior in this case), (2) geometric non-linearity
or large displacements, and (3) contact non-linearity. We
will describe the equations that govern the behavior of
these non-linearities in the following section.
qF

n;p ¼ l
d~ . (3)
qsn
In this expression l is a proportionality constant, as yet
undetermined. The rule is known as the normality principle
because relation (2) can be interpreted as requiring the
normality of the plastic strain increment ‘vector’ to the
yield surface in the space of n stress and strain dimensions
[6].
Restrictions of the above rule can be removed by
specifying separately a plastic potential Q ¼ Qð~ s; kÞ which
defines the plastic strain increment similarly to Eq. (2), i.e,

qQ
3.1. Plasticity
p ¼ l
d~ . (4)
s
q~
‘Plastic’ behavior of solids is characterized by a non- The particular case of F ¼ Q is known as associated
unique stress–strain relationship as opposed to that of non- plasticity. When this relation is not satisfied (F aQ), the
linear elasticity. Indeed, one definition of plasticity may be plasticity is non-associated. In what follows this more
the presence of irrecoverable strains on load removal. If general form will be considered. During an infinitesimal
uniaxial behaviour of a material is considered, a non-linear increment of stress, changes of strain are assumed to be
relationship on loading alone does not determine whether divisible into elastic and plastic parts. Thus,
non-linear elastic or plastic behavior is exhibited. Unload-
ing will immediately discover the difference, with the elastic
¼ d~
d~
e þ d~

p . (5)
material following the same path and the plastic material
The elastic strain increments are related to stress incre-
showing a history-dependent, different, path.
ments by a symmetric matrix of constants D as usual. We
Many materials show an ideal plastic behavior in which
can thus write Eq. (5) incorporating the plastic relation (4)
a limiting yield stress, sy, exists at which the strains are
as
indeterminate. For all stresses below such yield a linear (or
non-linear) elasticity relationship is assumed. A further qQ
refinement of this model is one of hardening/softening
¼ D1 d~
d~ sþ l. (6)
s
q~
plastic material in which the yield stress depends on some
parameter k (such as plastic strain ~
p ). It is with such kinds When plastic loading is occurring the stresses are on the
of plasticity that it is concerned and for which much theory yield surface given by Eq. (1). Differentiating this we can
has been developed. therefore write
It is quite generally postulated, as an experimental fact,
qF qF qF
that yielding can occur only if the stresses s satisfy the dF ¼ ds1 þ ds2 þ . . . þ dk ¼ 0 (7)
general yield criterion qs1 qs2 qk

F ðs; kÞ ¼ 0, (1) or
where k is a ‘hardening’ parameter. This yield condition
T
qF
can be visualized as a surface in n-dimensional space of s  Al ¼ 0
d~
s
q~
stress with the position of the surface F (yield surface)
dependent on the instantaneous value of the state para- in which we make the substitution
meter k.
Von Mises first suggested that basic behavior defining qF 1
A¼ dk . (8)
the plastic strain increments is related to the yield surface qk l
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
532 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541

Eq. (6) and (7), can now be written in a single matrix form 1. Tresca:
as F ¼ 2s cos y  Y ðkÞ ¼ 0, (13)
2 3
1 qQ where Y ðkÞis the yield stress from uniaxial tests.

 6 D

d~
6  s7
q~ 7 d~ s 2. Huber-von Mises:
¼6 T 7 . (9) pffiffiffi
0 4 qF 5 l
A F ¼ 3s  Y ðkÞ ¼ 0. (14)
s
q~

The indeterminate constant l can now be eliminated The main difference between the problems of plasticity
(taking care not to multiply or divide by A which may be and non-linear elasticity is that there is no an explicit
zero in ideal plasticity). This results in an explicit expansion relationship equivalent to ~ s¼~sð~

Þ. Although for a given
that determines the stress changes in terms of imposed strain state, the stresses have to be on the yield surface or
strain changes with inside it, it is impossible to determine the exact value of
s ¼ Dep d~
d~
(10) each one of their components. The solution is obtained
taking into account that the tangent matrix DT ¼ Dep is
and known for a defined value of stress and the direction of the


T "
T
#1 applied forces, and that the stresses can be integrated using
qQ qF qF qQ the expression d~ s ¼ DT d~

.
Dep ¼ D  D D Aþ D .
s
q~ s
q~ s
q~ s
q~
(11) 3.2. Large displacements
The elastoplastic matrix Dep
takes the place of the elasticity
matrix DT in incremental analysis. This matrix is symmetric In many problems, it has been implicitly assumed that
only when the plasticity is associated. The non-associated both displacements and strains developed in the structure
material will present special difficulties if tangent modulus are small. In practical terms this means that geometry of
procedures other than the modified Newton–Raphson are the elements remains basically unchanged during the
used. The matrix is defined even for ideal plasticity when loading process and that first-order, infinitesimal, linear
A ¼ 0. Explicit formulation of plasticity in this form was strain approximations can be used.
first introduced by Zienkiewicz and Taylor [7]. In practice such assumptions fail frequently even though
Clearly the general procedures outlined allow determina- actual strains may be small and elastic limits of ordinary
tion of the tangent matrices for almost any field surface structural materials are not exceeded. If accurate determi-
applicable in practice. If the yield surface (and the material) nation of the displacements is needed, geometric non-
is isotropic it is convenient to express it in terms of the linearity may have to be considered in some structures.
three stress invariants. A particularly useful form of these is Conversely, it may be found that a load is reached where
given below, introducing here also the indicial notation, deflections increase more rapidly that predicted by a linear
  solution and indeed a state may be attained where load-
J1 sx þ sy þ sz sii carrying capacity decreases with continuing deformation.
sm ¼ ¼  , This classic problem is that of structural stability and
3 3 3
obviously has many practical implications. The applica-
 
1=2 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tions of such an analysis are clearly of considerable
1=2 1 2 1
s ¼ J2 ¼ sx þ s2y þ s2z þ t2xy þ t2yz þ t2zx  sij sij , importance in aerospace engineering, design of radio
2 2
telescopes, cooling towers, box girders bridges and other
(12) relatively slender structures.
pffiffiffi
In many cases very large displacements may occur
1 3 3 J3 p p without causing large strains. Typical in this context is
y ¼ arcsen  with  oyo ,
3 2 s 6 6 the classical problem of the ‘elastica’ of which an example
is a watch spring.
where
Whether the displacements (or strains) are large or small,
J 3 ¼ sx sy sz þ 2txy tyz tzx  sx t2yz  sy t2xz  sz t2xy  det ~
s equilibrium conditions between internal and external
‘forces’ have to be satisfied. Thus, if the displacements
and are prescribed in the usual manner by a finite number of
nodal parameters ~ a, we can obtain the necessary equili-
s x ¼ s x  s m ; s y ¼ s y  s m ; s z ¼ s z  sm
brium equations using the virtual work principle [6]:
or Z
T
Cð~aÞ ¼ B ~ s dV  f~ ¼ 0, (15)
dij sii V
sij ¼ sij  .
3 where C once again represents the sum of external and
The yield surfaces in metal plasticity can be given as internal generalized forces, and in which B is defined from
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541 533

the strain definition ~

as solution of the non-linear problems can in some analyses
be much more difficult than in other cases. The non-

¼ B d~
d~ a. (16)
linearity of the analysis problem is now decided by the
The bar suffix has now been added for, if displacements are contact conditions. The objective is to briefly state the
large, the strains depend non-linearly on displacement, and contact conditions in the context of a finite element
the matrix B is now dependent on ~ a. We see that it can be analysis and present a general approach for solution.
conveniently written as
B ¼ B0 þ BL ð~
aÞ (17) 3.3.1. Continuum mechanics equations
Let us consider N bodies that are in contact at time t. Let
in which B0 is the same matrix as in linear infinitesimal Stc be the complete area of contact for each body L,
strain analysis and only BL depends on the displacement. L ¼ 1,y,N; then the principle of virtual work for the N
In general, BL will be found to be a linear function of such bodies at time t gives [8]
displacements. N
Z  N
Z
X X  t
Clearly the solution of Eq. (15) will have to be t t
tij di eij dV ¼ dui f Bi dV t
approached iteratively. If, for instance, the Newton- L¼1 Vt L¼1 Vt
Raphson process is to be adopted we have to find the Z )
 t
relation between d~ a and dC. Thus taking appropriate þ dui f Si dSt
variations of Eq. (15) with respect to d~a, we have S tf
Z Z N Z
X
T T  t
dC ¼ dB ~ s dV þ B d~ s dV ¼ K T d~ a (18) þ duci f ci dS t ; ð22Þ
V V L¼1 St

s ¼ D d~
and using equation d~
and Eq. (16) we obtain where the part given in brackets corresponds to the usual
s ¼ D d~
d~ a

¼ DB d~ terms:
ttij is the Cartesian components of the Cauchy stress
and taking into account the Eq. (17), it is verified that tensor (forces per unit areas in the deformed geometry).
dB ¼ dBL . Therefore, dt eij is the strain tensor corresponding to virtual
Z
displacements.
dC ¼ dBTL ~
s dV þ K d~
a ¼ K s d~
a þ K d~
a, (19) dui are the components of virtual displacement vector
V
imposed on configuration at time t, a function of
where xtj ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . ..
Z
T xti is the Cartesian coordinates of material point at time
K¼ B DB dV ¼ K 0 þ K L
V t.
t
in which K0 represents the usual, small displacements V Bis t the volume at time t.
f i are the components of externally applied forces per
stiffness matrix and the matrix KL is due to the large
unit  Svolume
t at time t.
displacements, and are given by
Z f i are the components of externally applied surface
tractions per unit surface area at time t.
K0 ¼ BT0 DB0 dV ,
V S tf is the surface at time t on which external tractions are
Z
 T applied.
KL ¼ B0 DBL þ BTL DBL duSi is the dui evaluated on the surface Stf (the dui
V
 components are zero and corresponding to the prescribed
þ BTL DB0 dV . ð20Þ
displacements on the surface S tu ).
To summarize, Eq. (19) can be expressed globally as The last summation sign in Eq. (22) gives the contribu-
dC ¼ ðK 0 þ K s þ K L Þ d~
a ¼ K T d~
a, (21) tion of the contact forces. The contact force effect is
included as a contribution in the externally applied
where KT represents the total, tangential stiffness, matrix. tractions. The  tcomponents of the contact tractions are
Newton-type iteration can once more be applied precisely denoted as f ci and act over the areas S tc (the actual area
in order to solve the final non-linear problem. of contact for body at time t), and the components of  the
t
known externally applied tractions are denoted as f Si
3.3. Contact conditions and act over the areas S tf . It is possible to assume that the
areas S tf are not part of the areas Stc , although such an
A particularly difficult non-linear behavior to analyze is assumption is not necessary.
the contact between two or more bodies [8,9]. Contact Fig. 2 (upper-left) illustrates schematically the case of
problems range from frictionless contact in small displace- two bodies, which are now considered in greater detail. In
ments to contact with friction in general large strain this paper, the two bodies in contact are denoted as body I
inelastic conditions. Although the formulation of the and body J. Note that each body is supported such that
contact conditions is the same in all these cases, the without contact no rigid body motion is possible. Let
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
534 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541

Fig. 2. Bodies in contact at time t (upper-left) and contact elements (upper-right between angles and beam, lower-left between base plate and foundation
and lower-right between beam and base plate).

 IJ t
f~ be the vector of contact surface tractions on body I necessarily of equal size. However, the actual area
 IJ t  JI t
due to contact with body J, then f~ ¼  f~ . Hence, of contact at time t for body I is S tc of body I, and for
body J it is S tc of body J, and in each case this area is
the virtual work due to the contact tractions in (22) can be part of SIJ and SJI. It is convenient to call SIJ the
written as ‘contactor surface’ and SJI the ‘target surface’. There-
Z Z
 IJ t IJ  t JI fore, the right-hand side of (23) can be interpreted as
I
dui f i dS þ duJi f JI
i dS
S IJ
S JI the virtual work that the contact tractions produce over
Z the virtual relative displacements on the contact surface
 IJ t IJ
¼ duIJ
i fi dS , ð23Þ pair.
S IJ
n be the unit outward normal to SJI and let ~
Let ~ s be a
where duIi and duJi are the components of the virtual vector such that ~n and ~
s form a right-hand basis (Fig.
t 3). It
displacements on the contact surfaces of bodies I and J, is possible to decompose the contact tractions f IJ acting
respectively, and on SIJ into normal and tangential components correspond-
duJI I J ing to ~
n and ~s on SJI
i ¼ dui  dui . (24)
IJ JI
The pair of surfaces S and S are termed a ‘contact  IJ t
surface pair’ and note that these surfaces are not f n þ t~
¼ l~ s, (25)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541 535

Fig. 3. Definitions used in contact analysis.

Fig. 4. Interface conditions in contact analysis.

where l and t are the normal and tangential traction

components. Thus, Fig. 4 illustrates these interface conditions. The solution of
 
T  
T the contact problem in Fig. 4 therefore, entails the solution
IJ t IJ t of the virtual work Eq. (22) (specialized for bodies I and J)
l ¼ f~ n; t ¼ f~
~ ~
s (26)
subject to conditions (29) and (32).
In order to define the actual values of ~ n and ~ s that are used
in the contact calculations, consider a generic point ~ x on
SIJ and let ~ x; tÞ be the point on SJI satisfying
y  ð~ 3.3.2. Solution approach for contact problems
  n o Let w be a function of g and l such that the solutions of
~x~ x; tÞ2 ¼ min ~
y  ð~ x~ y2 . (27) w(g,l) ¼ 0 satisfy the conditions for normal contact (29),
y2S JI
~ and similarly, let v be a function of t and u_ such that the
x to SJI is then given by
The distance from ~ _ tÞ ¼ 0 satisfy the frictional conditions (32).
solutions of vðu;
Then, the contact conditions are given by
gð~
x; tÞ ¼ ð~ y  ÞT ~
x~ n , (28)
~
where n is the unit normal vector that is used at y ð~ ~
x ; tÞ wðg; lÞ ¼ 0, (33)
n , ~
(Fig. 3) and ~ s  are used in Eq. (4) corresponding to the
point ~x. The function g is the gap function for the contact _ tÞ ¼ 0.
vðu; (34)
surface pair.
With the above definitions, the conditions for normal These conditions can now be imposed on the principle of
contact can now be written as the virtual work equation using a penalty approach (PA),
Lagrange multiplier method (LMM) or augmented La-
gX0; lX0; gl ¼ 0, (29) grangian method (ALM). This work uses the technique of
where the last equation expresses the fact that if g40, then ALM for surface contacts and PA for point-to-point
we must have l ¼ 0, and vice versa. To include frictional contacts, since it proves to be more efficient from a
conditions, let us assume that Coulomb0 s law of friction numerical point of view [1,4].
holds pointwise on the contact surface and m is the The variables l and t can be considered Lagrange
coefficient of friction. This assumption means of course multipliers, and so let dl and dt be variations in these
that frictional effects are included in a very simplified quantities. Multiplying (33) by dl and (34) by dt and
manner [1,4]. integrating over SIJ (the contactor surface), we obtain the
Let us define the non-dimensional variable t given by constraint equation
t Z
t¼ , (30) _ tÞ dS IJ ¼ 0
½dlwðg; lÞ þ dtvðu; (35)
ml
S IJ
where ml is the frictional resistance, and the magnitude of
the relative tangential velocity In summary, the governing equations to be solved for the


! two-body contact problem are the usual principle of virtual
_ J


* *_ I

work Eq. (22), with the effect of the contact tractions
u_ ð~
x; tÞ ¼ u
u
~s (31)
y  ð~
~ x;tÞ ð~
x;tÞ
included through externally applied (but unknown) forces,
plus the constraint Eq. (35). The finite element solution of
corresponding to the unit tangential vector ~ y  ð~
s at ~ x; tÞ. the governing continuum mechanics equations is obtained
Hence, u_ ð~ s  is the tangential velocity at time t of the
x; tÞ~ by using the discretization procedures for the principle of
material point at ~ y  relative to the material point at ~ x. virtual work, and in addition now discretizing the contact
With these definitions Coulomb’s law of friction states conditions also.
jtjp1; In this work, in order to discretize the contact condi-
tions, we have used the CONTA174 and TARGE170
jtjo1 ) u_ ¼ 0; (32) elements for surface contacts, and CONTA178 for point-
jtj ¼ 1 ) signðu_ Þ ¼ signðtÞ: to-point contacts [10], which is shown in Fig. 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
536 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541
4. Finite element model
To solve a given differential equation approximately
using FEM, one has to go through basically the following
steps:
 variational formulation of the given problem.
 discretization using FEM: construction of the finite-
dimensional space Vh.
 solution of the discrete problem.
 implementation of the method on a computer: program-
ming.
The advantage of FEM as compared with finite
difference methods is that complicated geometry, general
boundary conditions and variable or non-linear material
properties can be handled relatively easily.
Based on the geometric model previously described, the
finite element model was built, following a four-step
process. Step one was the definition of material properties.
Step two was selecting the element types, formulations and
real constants. The model was meshed in a third step and
finally, in a fourth step, loads and boundary conditions
were applied.
4.1. Material properties
Different material properties and constitutive laws were
defined in the model for each part of the assembly. Pure
perfect isotropic elastic material behavior was assumed for
the force plate of the specimen. However, the rest of the
parts are subjected to plasticity. Thus the multilinear
kinematic hardening option was selected to describe the
material behavior and the data provided by the experi-
mental tests (in form of stress–strain curves) was curve-
fitted to a multilinear representation for beam, angles and
base plate. Fig. 5 shows the data curve-fitting employed for
the beam. Finally, for the contact pairs, a static coulomb
friction coefficient of 0.3 was adopted for the material.
Tension test
600
500
Stress [N/mm ]
2
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.005 0.010
Strain [%]
Fig. 5. Data curve-fitting for the multilinear kinematic hardening values.
4.2. Element types
The base plate, beam, force plate and angles were
modeled using SHELL181. CONTA174 and TARGE170
were utilized in different contact pairs throughout the
model, such as the frontal and lateral contact between
beam and angles or between base plate and foundation.
The frontal and lateral contact between angles and beam
(see Fig. 2 upper-right) was modeled as flexible–flexible
standard type, with beam/shell thickness effect, and ALM
as the numerical algorithm.
For the ALM and penalty method, normal and
tangential contact stiffnesses are required, so that we have
to define a normal contact stiffness factor named normal
penalty stiffness (FKN). The usual factor range is from
0.01 to 1.0. For bulk deformation the best value is 1.0 and,
if bending deformation dominates, we recommend using a
smaller value (0.1). In this study, the value of normal
penalty stiffness (FKN) used was 1.0.
For ALM it is also necessary to define a tolerance factor
to be applied in the direction of the surface normal, named
penetration tolerance (FTOLN). This factor is used to
determine if penetration compatibility is satisfied. Contact
compatibility is satisfied if penetration is within an
allowable tolerance (FTOLN times the depth of underlying
elements). The depth is defined by the average depth of
each individual contact element in the pair. If the program
detects any penetration larger than this tolerance, the
global solution is still considered unconverged, even
though the residual forces and displacement increments
have met convergence criteria. The range for this factor is
less than 1.0 (usually less than 0.2), with a default of 0.1,
and is based on the depth of the underlying solid, shell, or
beam element. In this study, the value of penetration
tolerance used was 0.1.
The contact between base plate and foundation was
modeled as rigid–flexible standard type, with beam/shell
thickness effect (see Fig. 2 lower-left), and ALM as the
numerical algorithm. The values of normal penalty stiffness
(FKN) and penetration tolerance (FTOLN) were 1 and 0.1,
respectively.
0.015
Fig. 6. Bolt and coupled degrees of freedom.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541
The contact between beam and base plate was modeled
using CONTA178. It was assumed as point-to-point
contact (see Fig. 2 lower-right), with zero-penetration
value, -Z- global direction, and pure LMM as the
numerical algorithm. The weak spring option was also
considered for preventing rigid body motion, with a
maximum tensile force of 1 N.
The 8 mm diameter bolts were modeled using
BEAM188. The nodal displacements were coupled in the
three directions (UX, UY and UZ) (Fig. 6) so that they
move accordingly to the nodes on the beam holes.
4.3. Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions should reproduce quite accu-
rately those of the experimental tests performed on the
laboratory. Therefore, X and Y displacements were
constrained in the point of application of the axial load
and rotations around the longitudinal axis of the bolts were
also constrained. The rest of the model remained un-
constrained.
5. Analysis
The analysis was carried out in two phases. Firstly, a
pre-buckling analysis was accomplished and then, a non-
linear analysis was performed updating the geometry of the
finite element model to the deformed shape for the first
mode buckling.
5.1. Pre-buckling analysis
A buckling analysis was carried out with the purpose of
determining the eventual influence of geometric imperfec-
tions in the behavior of the model. Thus a compressive
load, Nu, was applied on the force plate. The method
Fig. 7. Results of pre-buckling analysis: (a) first mode bucking—17.844; (b) second mode bucking —18.311.
537
chosen for mode extraction was Block Lanczos [11], with
10 modes.
Once the mode shapes were reviewed, the geometry of
the finite element model was updated according to the
displacement results of the previous analysis for the first
mode shape. A displacement multiplier of 2 mm was
applied.
5.2. Non-linear analysis
The following step consisted of applying on the model a
compressive solicitation and a transversal displacement, in
the direction which was important to measure the value of
the stiffness.
Firstly, four compressive loads were applied on the
specimen: 55,000, 110,000, 165,000, and 220,000 N. Next,
the imposed displacement was varied from 18 to 35 mm.
In order to avoid convergence problems the analysis was
accomplished in two load steps. Firstly, the compressive
load was applied ramped, together with a small displace-
ment of 0.001 mm. Next, in a second load step, the
corresponding displacement was imposed.
The solution controls were also adjusted to improve
convergence. Thus the parameter time was set to the value
of the maximum displacement obtained (in postprocessor),
the geometric non-linearities were activated, the inertial
effects were not included, the number of equilibrium
iterations was specified and the tolerance convergence
values of forces were delimited and so were the time step
sizes for each load step.
6. Analysis results and discussion
The analysis results were retrieved and displayed by
means of the time-history postprocessor, POST26 [2–9,11].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
538 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541

6.1. Pre-buckling analysis
The results of the buckling analysis show the mode
shapes observed in the specimens subjected to compression.
The imperfections derived from the first mode have been
reflected in the numerical model, through a factor of
imperfection of 2 mm.
As shown in Fig. 7, the multipliers for the first and the
second mode are 17.844 and 18.311, respectively.
In the numerical model, the magnitude of reactions and
displacements were obtained from the ANSYS time-history
results postprocessor. The relative displacements (d1,y,d4)
were calculated as an average value resultant from the
displacement results obtained for a set of five nodes, each
set positioned on the beam external borders, at similar
positions on which the experimental measurement is
usually performed.
The value of the ultimate moment was estimated from
the relationship

6.2. Non-linear analysis M ¼ max½M; M fy ¼ 0:02 radg. (37)

Note that the ultimate moment is set as the moment at a

The values of the moment at the beam base, MB, and the beam rotation value of 0.02 rad provided that the beam
rotation angle of it, y0, were calculated as follows [1]: failure is not achieved before. Therefore, the corresponding

design values are
F 2L 1 d1  d2 d3  d4
MB ¼ þ F 1 D; y0 ¼ þ , (36)
4 2 d 12 d 34 M
Md ¼ ; yd ¼ yfM d g. (38)
where F1 is the Applied axial force, F2 is the Resulted 1:1
reaction of the imposed lateral displacement, L/2 is the Thus the bending stiffness was calculated as
beam length, d1 ; d2 ; d3 ; d4 are relative displacements mea-
sured at the beam external borders, d12, d34 are distance Md
K¼ . (39)
between the points of measurement. D is the imposed yd
lateral displacement.
Several moment–rotation graphs were calculated for the
See Fig. 8 for a scheme of the tests performed on the
different load cases. An example is given Fig. 10.
specimen, and Fig. 9 for the whole specimen.

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of test forces and displacements.

Fig. 10. Moment–rotation of graphs.

Table 1
Simulation results obtained at different load cases

Load (kN) Design moment Bending stiffness Failure mode

(kN m) (kN m/rad)

55 3.67 339.71 Base plate turn-off

110 6.29 636.31 Base plate turn-off
165 8.22 639.35 Base plate turn-off
220 8.08 718.75 Local buckling
Fig. 9. Model tested: unbolted base plate.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541 539

Fig. 11. Displacements in the Z direction (upper) and stress plasticization ratio (lower) in the lower part of the specimen for the load value of 55,000 N.

A summary of the results obtained in the different load
cases is tabulated below provided in Table 1, where the
values of the estimated maximum design moment and
bending stiffness are displayed for each load case. Besides
the specimen’s failure mode is also shown for each load
case.
Figs. 11 and 12 display several results plots retrieved
from the analyses in different load cases.
6.3. Comparison with experimental results
The previous information was contrasted with the
experimental results obtained in the laboratory of the
Technological Center of ESMENA, located in the Scien-
tific and Technological Park of Gijón, as shown in Fig. 9.
Graphs representing both the numerical and experimen-
tal results obtained were drawn (Fig. 13) in order to get a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
540 J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541

Fig. 12. Displacements in the Z direction and stress plasticization ratio in the lower part of the specimen for the load value of 220,000 N.

good agreement for the estimated stiffness and the ultimate
moment.
7. Conclusions
The method of the finite elements (FEM) has been
shown as a suitable tool in the modeling and analysis of
singular structures, such as the analysis of the behavior of
unbolted base plates. A computational procedure has been
developed based on the general-purpose finite element code
ANSYS, for modeling and simulating the non-linear
analysis of unbolted base plates. FEM and data from
experimental tests are used for comparison purposes. The
findings of this study suggest that it may be possible to
devise a practical procedure for establishing an unbolted
base plate model by using a combined experimental/
computational approach.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.J. del Coz Dı´az et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 529–541
Fig. 13. Comparison between numerical simulation results (FEM) and
experimental data.
After examining the numerical and experimental results
obtained it can be assumed that the computer-aided
simulation constitute a reasonable approach to describe
the behavior of the system. The FE model may reproduce
quite accurately the local buckling failure forms. Moreover
the estimated bending stiffness values are similar to both
cases (10–15% deviation). However, the magnitudes of
maximum design moments provided by ANSYS are very
similar (about 1%) to those obtained in the CTE labs.
The comparison between the two methods prove the
finite element analysis as a reliable tool to get quite
accurate results in a reasonable amount of time, which
allows the designer of the assemblies to evaluate and
optimize the design prior to manufacture and prototype
testing.
For a second order boundary value problem like this
one, the space of admissible functions V consists of all
those functions in H 1 ðOÞ that satisfy the essential boundary
conditions. A Galerkin approximation uh to the solution
of this problem was obtained by constructing a finite-
541
dimensional subspace Vh of V, which was spanned by a
finite number of basic shape functions Ni, and we then pose
the problem of finding uh 2 V h that satisfies aðuh ; vh Þ ¼
hl; vh i for all vh 2 V h , being a : V  V ! < the continuous
V-elliptic bilinear form defined on V and l the continuous
linear functional on V associated with our boundary value
problem.
On the one hand, in this work we have used an extremely
fine FEM mesh, with a meshing parameter ranging from
0.002 to 0.005. On the other hand, the initial displacement
increments have been taken very small, about 0.0001 mm in
the initial time steps reaching 0.1 mm at most.
The problem was solved in a workstation computer with
a CPU Athlon 64, 4 GB RAM memory and 1 TB hard disk.
The total elapsed CPU time was 70,200 s and the total
number of iterations in order to get the convergence was
3820.
Acknowledgments
The authors express deep gratitude to Construction
Department and Department of Mathematics at Oviedo
University and Technologic Center ESMENA-CTE for
useful assistance. Helpful comments and discussion are
gratefully acknowledged. We thanks to Swanson Analysis
Inc. for the use of ANSYS University Intermediate
program.
References
[1] FEM 10.2.02-03-RV11, European Federation of Materials Handling
and Storage Equipment. Sección X. Specifiers Code for the safe
provision of racking and shelving. 1998–1999.
[2] ANSYS, Users manual: procedures, commands and elements, vols.
I–III, Swanson Analysis System, 2004.
[3] Bathe K. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall; 1996.
[4] Brenner SC, Scott LR. The mathematical theory of finite element
method. New York: Springer; 2002.
[5] Chandrupatla T, Belegundu A. Introduction to finite elements in
engineering. Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs; 1991.
[6] Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME, Witt RJ. Concepts and
applications of finite element analysis. New York: Wiley; 2001.
[7] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method: solid and
fluid mechanics and non-linearity, vol. 2. London: McGraw-Hill;
1991.
[8] Simo JC, Laursen TA. An augmented Lagrangian treatment of
contact problems including friction. Comp. Struct. 1992;42:527–634.
[9] del Coz Dı́az JJ, Garcı́a Nieto PJ, Rodrı́guez Mazón F, Suárez
Domı́nguez FJ. Design and finite element analysis of a wet cycle
cement rotary kiln. Finite Elem Anal Des 2002;39:17–42.
[10] del Coz Dı́az JJ, Ordieres Mere B, Suárez Domı́nguez FJ, Bello
Garcı́a A, Felgueros Fernández D. Aprendizaje interactivo mediante
programa de análisis estructural avanzado ESCAL3D. J Constr Res
1998;46:273–5.
[11] Moaveny S. Finite element analysis: theory and application with
ANSYS. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1999.