9.

LIMIT ANALYSIS OF FRAME SYSTEMS

 EXERCISE N. 1

Find the limit load multiplier for the structure depicted in the figure below.

A failure mechanism requires 2 plastic hinges to form, being the structure 2 times redundant.
There are 3 critical sections, so the number of possible mechanisms is given by:

n!  3 3!
Cn, k   C32     3
k ! n  k !  2  2! 3  2 !

Mechanism n° 1

The relationship between and can be found by imposing the compatibility condition for
displacement

l 3 1 4
  1   2  l → 2  1  2  1
4 4 3 3

The external work is given by:

l l l l
Le   i  P0  1   i  P0  2   i  P0   1  2    i  P0  1
4 4 4 3

while, the internal work is equal to:

7
Li  M L  1  M L   1  2    M L  1
3

Thus, imposing the equality between the internal and the external work:
 l 7
 i P0 1  M L 1 1
3 3

7M L
i 
P0 l

Let condiser the bending moment distribution, in order to verify the plastic admissibility.

Since the bending moment overcomes the plastic moment , the plastic admissibility condition is
not satisfied. The limit load multiplier is thus associated (at least) to another failure mechanism,
characterized by a smaller value of the load multiplier.

Mechanism n° 2

l l
  1   2   2  21
2 4

l 
Le   ii P0    ii P0
1  l
2  at incipient collapse:  ii P0 1  4M L 1
Li  M L  1  M L  1  2   4M L  1 
2


8M L
 ii 
P0 l

Being γii > γi, certainly the plastic admissibility condition is not satisfied.
Mechanism n° 3

l 3
  2   1  l  2  31
4 4

l l
Le   iii P0 1  iii P0 2   ii P0l 1
4 4
Li  M L  1  M L  1  2   5M L  1

5M L
 iii 
P0 l

For the upper bound theorem of limit analysis, γiii is the collapse load multiplier.

As expected, the plastic admissibility condition is satisfied.

 EXERCISE N. 2

Find the limit load for a given collapse mechanism.

The displacements and the rotations can be computed by imposing the kinematic compatibility. Let
assume the rotation θI as main parameter.
The relationship between the angles and and the main parameter can be obtained by
imposing the compatibility of the displacements of points C and D.

vC  2l I  2l II  II  I

uD  3l II  6l III  II  2III

Thus,


I  

II  
 
III 
 2

It is useful to evaluate the displacements of the points B, C and D, where the external forces are
applied.

uB  3l I  3l
uD  6l  III  3l
 3 9
uC   3   l  I  l
 2 2
vC  2l  I  2l

The displacement of point C in the direction of the applied load can be evaluated as:

3 4 9 3 4 43
wC  uC sin   vC cos   uC   vC      2   l  l
5 5 2 5 5 10

Q  wC  uC  Q sin   vC  Q cos   uC  Qx  vC  Qy

The limit load can thus computed as:

 Le  P  uB  10 P  wC  P  uD  3Pl  43Pl  P3l  49 Pl

 5M i
    PL 
 Li  M i  I  I  II  II  III  III   M i  5 49l
  A C D E 
Note that the relative rotation between I and II is equal to θI+ θII, while the relative rotation between
II and III is given by θI+ θIII, as shown in the pictures below.

The bending moment diagram associated to the actual collapse load is given by:
The horizontal reaction force acting in A can indeed be computed by equilibrium as:

ML M  40 1  M 120  49 M L 71 M L
H  2 P  10 P  sin    8P  L     L  
3l 3l  49 3  l 49  3 l 147 l

Thus,

 71  22
M B  H  3l  M L    1 M L   M L
 49  49
Other possible collapse mechanisms

Since the structure is three times redundant and there are five critical section, the number of
possible complete collapse mechanisms is given by:

5!
C54  5
 5  4 !4!

5 ML
PL  
49 l

4 ML
PL  
25 l

4 ML
PL  
25 l
 1 M
PL   L
8 l

8 ML
PL  
23 l
 EXERCISE N. 3

Find the limit load for a given collapse mechanism.

4lI  4lII I  II  

6l  2l   3
 II III  III
 
3lIII  9lIV IV  

10lIV  2lV 
V  5

Li  M L  I  II   M L  II  III   M L III  M L  III  IV   M L  IV  V   M L  V 

 M L        3  3  3      5  5   24M L 

P P
Le  P  2lI  P  2lV   2l  lIII   6l  3lIV  2Pl  10 Pl  6 Pl  18Pl  36 Pl
l l

2M L
PL 
3l
 EXERCISE N. 4

The frame depicted in the figure below is composed by beams with limit moment ML in every cross
section. The applied forces H and V can vary one independently from the other. Define the
admissible domain in the plane H-V.

In order to determine the domain in the plane H-V, we need to analyze all the possible failure
mechanisms. Three different mechanisms are possible for this frame.

Mechanism 1 (beam mechanism)

l
Le  V  
2
Li  M L .  M L  2  M L    4M L  

ML V l
V  8 v 8
l ML
Mechanism 2 (panel mechanism)

Le  H  b
Li  M L       2M L

2M L Hb
H  h 2
b ML

Mechanism 3

l
Le  H  b  V  
2
Li  M L   2  2   4M L

l v
 Hb  V  4M L h 4
2 2
Consider the second and the third mechanism:

 ML
 H   
 b

M
V  2  L

 l

For α=2, the collapse can happen under one of the two mechanisms or under a combination of
them. The same limit load multiplier corresponds indeed to both mechanisms.

l
Le  H  b      V  
2
Li  M L   2      

  M L       M L  M L   4  2 
  M L   2   2M L   2 
 2
Let be the velocity of the points of application of the two loads at collapse. For the three
mechanisms previously introduced:


 Mechanism 1: sx  0 sy  0

Mechanism 2 : sx  0 sy  0
 l l
 Mechanism 3 : sx    b s y     s y  sx
 2 2b

The three mechanisms give the following three lines in the plane H-V:

 ML
Mechanism 1: V  8 l

 ML
Mechanism 2 : H  2
 b
 b ML
Mechanism 3 : V  2  l H  8  b


Superposing the plane sx , s y with the plane H-V, an orthogonality law holds.

The orthogonality condition between two lines can indeed be written as:

 y  mx  q
  mm '  1
y '  m' x  q'

For the third mechanism:

 l
 sy  sx
 2b l  2b 
  mm '     1
V   2b  H  8M L 2b  l 

 l l
 EXERCISE N. 5

Find the limit load multiplier by means of the Greenberg-Prager’s method.

Let consider the following mechanism as a try.

The displacement in C is given by:

uC  I  AC  II  FC

being:

AC  FC  I  II  
The displacement of point D can be written as:

u D  FD II  ED III  4l   2l III  III  2

Thus,

u B  BA  I  2l  

 
vG  AG  I 
x
3
2
3
l  I  l  
2
3 3
vH  l  II  l  
2 2

External and internal works:

3 3  33 3 3  26 13
Le   P  uB   P  vG   P  vH   P  2l  l  l    Pl   M L
2 2  22 22  4 4
 
Li  M P  2    2  2   7 M P
 C D E 

By imposing the equality between internal and external work, we obtain:

28
  2.154
13

The Greenberg-Prager’s method requires to determine the bending moment diagram and to verify
if the plastic admissibility condition holds. Since the mechanism is complete, only the equilibrium
equations are necessary to compute the diagram.

37 M P
M E  0  VA  6l   P  2l   3P  3l  M P  0  VA 
26 l

3 3 MP
M ABC
C  0  VA  3l  H A  3l   P  l   P  l  M P  0
2 2
 HA 
13l
 2M P M P
M ED
D 0  HE 
2l

l

47 M P
F y 0  VE  
26 l

 x  x  P x12
M  x1   VA  x1  H A  2l  1    P  1  
 3 3 2l 2
 2 85 x1 7 x12 
M  x1      2 
MP
 13 78 l 26 l 

 x   P x2
2
M  x2   VE  x2  H E  2l  2   M P  
 3 2l 2
 115 x2 7 x22 
M  x2    1   MP
 78 l 26 l 2 

In the dashed areas, the bending moment exceeds the limit value: the plastic admissibility
condition is not respected. We need to evaluate the maximum bending moment.

dM ( x1 ) M P  85 7 2 x1  x1 85 13 85
    0     2.024
dx1 l  78 26 l  l 78 7 42
8233
 M  x1   M P  1.257 M P
6552
dM ( x2 ) M P  115 7 2 x2  x2 115 13 115
    0     2.738
dx1 l  78 26 l  l 78 7 42
6673
 M  x2   M P  1.018M P
6552

For the Greenberg-Prager’s method, the lower bound for the collapse load multiplier can be
estimated as:

M
max  max
 1.257
MP

28   14112
1   2.154  1  1   1.714
13 max 8233

Thus,

1    1

1.714    2.154
A further mechanism can be obtained, by moving the plastic hinge in C near to the point Q of
maximum bending moment.

2  2    2  2

The range can thus be iteratively reduced, obtaining a better estimation for the failure multiplier. In
this case, the collapse load multiplier is given by:

2  2  2

Alternatively, the exact value can be found minimizing the function ( ), being the unknown
horizontal projection of the distance between the applied load Q and the point B, as shown in the
figure below.
I  
yQ
II  I
yF  yQ
yF  2l
III  II
2l

with:

 xQ
yQ 2l  0  xQ  3l
3
yF  6l yQ  
xQ 4l  xQ 3l  xQ  6l
 3

Thus,

 P  x P  6l  xQ
Le   P  2lI  
 2l
 xQ I Q  
 2  2l
 6l  xQ  II 
 2

 
Li  M P  I  II  II  III  III 
 
 Q D E 

Imposing and assuming , we get:

1  4 18    0    3
 ( )  
 6   4  3  12 10   3    6
 EXERCISE N. 6

Find the limit multiplier by means of the Greenberg-Prager’s method.

5 MP 5 MP
P1  P2 
2 l 3 l
M P  240 kN  m
l  10 m

The structure is two times redundant and there are 5 critical sections, so the number of possible
mechanisms is given by:

5! 5!
C53    10
 5  3!3! 2!3!
Let consider only the mechanisms characterized by positive external work.

Mechanism 1
Li  3M P  2  M P  2  M P    9M P
D EEF F

l 10
Le  1 P2    1 P2  l  1 M P
2 3
27
 1   2.7
10

Plastic admissibility:

The bending moment diagram can be obtained imposing the equilibrium by means of the Virtual
Work Principle.

1 P1  l  3M P  2  M P   M C   0 
1
M C  7 M P  1Pl
1  MC  MP
4

The plastic admissibility condition is not satisfied. Let compute the maximum violation in order to
evaluate the lower bound for the load multiplier. Writing the Principle of Virtual Work for the column
AC, we can compute .

l
1 P2    M B  2  M C 

2
M  Pl M 27 5 5
MB  C  1 2  P  MP  MP
2 4 8 40 3 4

Thus:

2.16    2.7
 Mechanism 2

Let now introduce a plastic hinge in B, eliminating that in D.

l 5
Le  2 P2   2  2 M P
2 3 12
→ 2   2.4
Li  M P  2  M P    M P    4M P   5
B E F

Plastic admissibility:

l
M C  2 P2   M P 2  0  MC  0
2

2 P1  l  M D 2  M P  0
12 5 M P 5
2 MD  l  MP  MD  MP
5 2 l 2

Since the plastic moment condition holds, 2.4 represents the collapse multiplier.
Let now consider the other possible mechanisms.

 Panel mechanism:

l 5
Le  3 P2     3 M P
2 6 18
→ 3   3.6
Li  M P    M P    M P    3M P 5
C E F

max  2  1.8    2.4  3.6

 Beam mechanism (partial mechanism)

l 5
Le  4 P2     4 M P 18
2 6 → 4   3.6
5
Li  M P   M P  2  3M P

Since the mechanism is partial, the structure is still one times redundant and the bending moment
distribution is undetermined.
Assuming :

max  3
1.2    3.6

Assuming :

max  2
1.8    3.6
 EXERCISE N. 7

Find the kinematic load multiplier associated to the mechanism shown in figure and evaluate a
lower bound for the limit load multiplier by means of the Greenberg-Prager’s method.

M P  150 kN  m
l 5 m
M
P P
l

3 
Le  3  P   2l   2  P  l   9  Pl
2 
Li  M P    4M P   2     4M P  2  M P    M P    M P    M P    25M P
A C D L E G H

25
    2.78
9
Plastic admissibility condition:

3  P  2l  4M P  2  4M P  3  M B   0 
25 M P 10
M B  20M P  3    2l  M P
9 l 3

6  P  l  M F  2  M P   3M P   0 
19
MF  MP
3

25
M B 10  25 3 5
max       9     0.833
MP 3 max 10 9 10 6
3

Thus:

0.833    2.78
It is possible to verify that the limit load multiplier is indeed associated to the following partial
mechanism:
 3
Le  2 P  l  3 Pl
2   2
Li  6M P

The structure is one time redundant, since the considered mechanism is partial. Let assume as
main unknown the moment in point N.

X 11 X  11 
  M P  4M P     4 MP  X  3M P
2 2 2 2 

Assuming X = 3Mp, the plastic admissibility condition is respected over the all frame, so λ=2 is the
collapse load multiplier.

The plastic hinges form in the sequence listed in the table below.

Choosing the moment in R as main unknown instead of the moment in N, one obtains:
For , the bending moment diagram at collapse is obtained.
 EXERCISE N. 8

Use the Greenberg-Prager’s method to find a range for the limit load multiplier (from Massonet-
Save, pg. 249)

MP
P
3l

The frame is 3 times redundant and it is characterized by 5 critical sections. As a consequence,

there are five possible complete mechanisms (a-e in figure below), plus a partial mechanism (f in
figure)

Mechanism b
 8 
Le  6 P  l   P  2l   M P  9
3  b 
4
Li  M P   2  2     6M P 


Mechanism c

3 
Le   P  2l  M P  
2  c  6
Li  4M P 


Mechanism d
 4 
Le   P  2l  6 P  l  M P  9
3  d 
2
Li  M P   2  2     6M P 


Mechanisms a-e-f

All these three mechanisms coincide with the beam mechanism, shown in figure.

Le  6 P  l  2M P  
 e  2
Li  M P   2     4M P 

For the kinematic theorem of limit analysis, λ=2 is the limit load multiplier. Let verify that the
bending moment does not exceed the limit moment in any cross section of the frame.
 4 
 M P   M P  X   M P
 3 
 M P  X  M P


In the range:

MP
 X  MP
3

it is guaranteed that the bending moment does not overcome the plastic moment in any point of the
diagram.

Note that, in general, the value of the unknown X will depend on the loading history. Only in the
case that all the plastic hinges activated at collapse have been present during the loading path and
no other plastic hinges have formed during the loading history, the value of X can be determined,
analyzing directly the redundant structure at incipient collapse as elastic. If one or more plastic
hinges has been subjected to elastic unload, a step-by-step analysis has to be perfomed, following
the activation of each plastic hinge and the history of rotation. The value of the redundant unknown
will depend on the amplitude of the rotations.
 EXERCISE N. 9

Find the failure multiplier by means of the static theorem (lower bound) of the limit analysis.

ML
P0 
l

The structure is one time redundant. Let underline the unknown X. For the lower bound theorem of
limit analysis, the limit load multiplier is such that:

  max   | M  s   M L 
X ,

 l 
 X  ML 
 4 
 3 M 
  max   X  l   L  ML 
X , 4 2
 
 X l   ML  M L 

 
 

Assuming , it is possible to draw an envelope in the plane , defined by the equations:

 x 4

3 1 
 x   1
4 2
 x   1


For the lower bound of limit analysis, the limit load multiplier is the maximum of the static
multipliers, so is given by the intersection if the lines and . Thus:

 x4 x4
 :   →  5
 x    1   5

 EXERCISE N. 10

Find the limit load multiplier by means of the static theorem of the limit analysis.

5 M 5 M
P1   P P2   P
2 l 3 l

The frame is two times redundant. Let introduce the unknowns and .
The overall bending moment distribution is given by the superposition of the three diagrams,
shown in figure, and corresponding to the effect of the external loads, of and of . Let impose
that the bending moment does not exceed the limit moment in any cross section of the frame.

  5 X1
   12 M P  2  M P

 X1  M P

  5 X1 X 2
   MP    3M P
 4 2 3
 X2  MP

  5
   6 M P  X1  X 2  M P


For the static theorem of limit analysis

  max   s
X1 , X 2 ,  
 
with:
 X 1
 1
 X 1
 2

s :  5   6 X 1  12
 
 5  2 X 1  2 X 2  12
 
 5  6 X 1  6 X 2  6


Thus:

  2.4
 EXERCISE N. 11

Find the displacement v3 and u4 at incipient collapse.

MP
P
l

It can be demonstrated that the failure mechanism is the following:

  
Li  M P  2  2   4M P 
 3 4   40
  
P 11
 l   Pl   Pl 
11
Le  
10 10 

The bending moment distribution at incipient collapse is represented in the figure below.

7
Le  M 2  2M P  M P   Pl  0  M2  MP
11
The plastic admissibility condition is indeed fulfilled.
In the condition of incipient collapse, all the plastic hinges have been activated. In order to
compute the displacements at incipient collapse, it is enough to determine the last plastic hinge to
form.

One possible way is to assume that one plastic hinge at time is the last to form and to compute the
corresponding displacement: the maximum displacement corresponds to the actual collapse
configuration.

Let compute the vertical displacement v3 .

a) Assume that the plastic hinge in 3 is the last to form.

7 18 z x
l  MP  MP l  M P  2M P
1 l dz  1 x 13 M P l 2
1 v3   z 11 11

l dz  v3 
0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ 66 EJ

b) Now consider the hypothesis that the last hinge is the hinge in 4.
 7 z z 18 z z
l M l MP l M P  M P l  M P  2M P
1 11 P l 1 1 1
1 v3   z dz   z l dz 
 z 11 l dz 
 z l dz
0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ

25 M Pl 2
 v3 
66 EJ

Thus:

25 M Pl 2
v3 
66 EJ

Now consider the horizontal displacement u4.

7 z z 18 z
l MP l MP l MP  MP
1 l dz  1 z l dz  1 z
1 u4   z 11  
11 l dz 
0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ
z
l  M P  2M P 2
1
 z l dz  u  4 M P l
4
0
2 EJ 33 EJ

In the case a)

7 z z 18 z
l MP l  M P  2M P l MP  MP 2
1 u4   1 z 11
1 1
  l dz  u  2 M Pl
0 2 0 2
l dz  z l dz  z  l 11
4
0
EJ EJ EJ 33 EJ

As expected, also the horizontal displacement in the case (a) is lower than the value computed for
case (b).
 EXERCISE N. 12

Find the displacement uB at incipient collapse for the frame structure represented in the figure.

M P  cost  P  l

The collapse mechanism is given by:

Le   P  l 
   6
Li  6M P 

The unknown X can be computed by means of the virtual work principle.

 M 0  XM *
X 0   M * d 

EJ
z  z  z  2 z 
l l l
2 z2 1 1
0
EJ 0 X l 2 dz  EJ 0 1 l  M P 1  l  dz  EJ  l  M
0
P 1    dz
 l 
l l l l 2 
0  2X   MP     M P   l 
3  2 3 2 3 
2 M M M
0 X  P  P  X P
3 6 6 2

The bending moment diagram at incipient collapse is thus given by:

To determine the displacement at incipient collapse, it is necessary to find out which is the last
plastic hinge to form.

a) Last plastic hinge in A

 2z 
 M P 1  
M  l2 2  M l2
l
1 uB  0 1 l  0   1 z  l 
dz  P   l 2   P
0
EJ EJ  2 3  6 EJ
2
M l
 uB  A  P
6 EJ

b) Last plastic hinge in B

 2z  1 3 z
l  M P 1   l M P     l2 2 2 l2 l2 
1 uB   1 z  l 
dz   1 z 2 2 l
dz  
MP
 l  
 
0
EJ 0
EJ EJ  2 3 4 2 
5 M Pl 2
 uB  B 
12 EJ
 c) Last plastic hinge in C

 z  3 z
 M P 1  
l l  M P 1    l2 l2 l2 l2 
1 uB  
z  l  dz  z  2 l MP
l EJ  l EJ
dz  
EJ
    
0 0  2 3 2 2 
M Pl 2
 u B C 
6 EJ

d) Last plastic hinge in D

 2z  1 3 z
l  M P 1   l M P     l2 2 2 l2 l2 
1 uB   1 z  l 
dz   1 z  2 2l M
dz   P  l  
 
0
EJ 0
EJ EJ  2 3 4 2 
5 M Pl 2
 uB  D 
12 EJ
 e) Last plastic hinge in E

 2z 
 M P 1  
M P  l2 2 2 
l
1 uB   1 z  l 
dz     l 
0
EJ EJ  2 3 
M Pl 2
 uB  E 
6 EJ

f) Last plastic hinge in F

 2z 
 M P 1  
M  l2 2 
l
1 uB   1 z  l 
dz   P   l 2 
0
EJ EJ  2 3 
M Pl 2
 uB  F 
6 EJ

Thus, the displacement at incipient collapse is equal to:

5 M Pl 2
uB 
12 EJ
 EXERCISE N. 13

Find the displacement uB at incipient collapse for the structure below, assuming:

 2

The bending moment diagram at incipient collapse is given by:

  4 z 17 z 5 M z
3 l
2  M P 1   l 4M P  MP 2l MP  P
 3 l 1 1
1 uB   1 z dz   z 3 l dz 
 z l 3 3 l dz
0
EJ 0
2 EJ 0
2 EJ
23 M P l 2
uB 
8 EJ

Let compare the computed value of the horizontal displacement with the values obtained
considering different sequences in the formation of the plastic hinges.

 Hinge 5

 2z   z  z
3 l  M P 1   l  M P 1  5  l MP 4  7 
2
 l  3  l 3  l 17 M Pl 2
1 uB   1 z dz   1 z dz   1  z  l  dz 
0
EJ 0
4 EJ 0
4 EJ 8 EJ

 Hinge 4

 2z 
3 l  M P 1  
2
 l  9 M Pl 2
1 uB   1 z dz 
0
EJ 8 EJ

 Hinge 3

 2z 
3 l  M P 1  
2
 l  9 M Pl 2
uB   1 z dz 
0
EJ 8 EJ
  Hinge 2

 2z 
3 l  M P 1  
2
 l  9 M Pl 2
uB   1 z dz 
0
EJ 8 EJ

 Hinge 1

 z  z  2z 
l MP 3 7  l M P  4  5  3 l  M P 1  
3  l 3  l 2
 l  7 M Pl 2
uB    z dz    z  l  dz   1 z dz  
0
4 EJ 0
4 EJ 0
EJ 8 EJ
 EXERCISE N. 14a

Kinematic theorem of limit analysis: presence of permanent loads

MP
F
l
M
g  2P
l

Mechanism a


Le  a F  l  gl    2  M P  a  1 
l
  a  3

2
Li  M P   2     4M P 


Mechanism b

Le  b F  l  b M P 

  b  4


Li  M P          4M P 

Mechanism c


Le  c Fl  c Fl  2  gl    M P  2c  1 
l
5
  c 

2
Li  M P   2  2     6M P  2


Mechanism d

l 
Le  d Fl  c Fl  2  gl    M P  0  d 
  d  

2
Li  M P   2  2     6M P 


Mechanism e

y l  2l 
  y  l   1 0 xl
2l  x x  x 


l  y   
l
2 1
x
 x 2l  x 
Le  e Fl  gx    g  2l  x      e  F  l   
2 2  assuming x  z  l
Li  M P              2M P   2  


z2
 e  4  2 z  for 0  z  1
2

e  z  0   4  b  mechanism b

5
e  z  1   c  mechanism c
2

Mechanism f

y l  2l 
  y  l   1 0  x  2l
2l  x x  x 


l
2 1
x

x 2l  x 
Le   f Fl  gx    g  2l  x       f  F  l   
2 2  assuming x  z  l
Li  M P              2M P   2  


8  4z  z2
 f 
22  z
For the kinematic theorem of limit analysis:

5
  c 
2
 EXERCISE N. 14b

Greenberg-Prager’s method: presence of permanent loads

Let consider the mechanism a) of the previous example.


 0  X 1  M P 
 X  MP  X  MP
 

        solution
 3M P  1 X  M P
  3M P  X  M P
 2M P  X  4M P 
 

Consequently, the mechanism a cannot be the failure mechanism. So:

  a

Anyway, it is possible to evaluate a lower bound for the limit load multiplier by means of the
Greenberg-Prager’s method. The bending moment distribution associated to the permanent load
only is equal to:

Assuming, for instance, that holds:

2 13
X  MP   MP
15 15
  3M P  X    
2 2  45  13  2
gl 
 15  15 34 15  3
max     2  a  a 
 2  15  2 15 17 max 2
M P    gl 2 
 15  15

 M TOT  M g 
 max  
 M P  M g 

Thus:

3
 3
2

The best approximation that can be obtained starting from this mechanism is given by:

   2   2  
  3M P  X    M P  X   M P  
 15   15  
max  min  max  ; X 0
   2   2  
X
  MP  MP  M P   M P  
   15   15  

  
 47  15 M P  2 
X 15 X
 MP
 max  min  max  ; 
X   17 13  
   

Assuming:

43
X MP
30

3 
max     2
2 max

2 3
For the other mechanisms:

5 7
M P  gl 2
68
 max 2 30 
7 23
M P  gl 2
30

23
 4
17
1.35

5

2
 EXERCISE N. 14c

Static theorem of limit analysis: presence of permanent loads.

The structure is three times redundant. Let consider the following three unknowns:

The bending moment diagrams are represented in the figure below.

   MA  M P 
  
  MB  M P 
  
  max    MC  M P 
  
 M P 
 , X1 , X 2 , X 3

  MD 
 M 
 M P 
  E

with:

M A  X1
gl 2 X 1 X
MB    X2  3
2 2 2
MC  X2
gl 2 X X
MD    Fl  1  X 2  3
2 2 2
M E  X3

Adopting a linear programming algorithm, it is possible to find the solution corresponding to the
distribution of bending moment at incipient collapse.

 MA  MP
    5 / 2 MB  MP / 2

 X1  M P
 MC  M P
X2  MP MD  MP
X3  M P

 ME  MP

5

2
 EXERCISE N. 14d

Let compute the horizontal displacement of point B at incipient collapse, being known the history of
plastic hinges formation, represented in figure.

The last plastic hinge to form is in A. In order to compute the displacement at incipient collapse, let
consider the following structure:

Writing the Principle of Virtual Work:

( )
∫
 EXERCISE N. 15

Find the limit load for the truss structure depicted in the figure.

The structure is two times redundant; a mechanism can develop if at least two truss elements
reach the limit axial force N0. Being three the number of truss elements, the number of
mechanisms is given by:

 3 3!
C32     3
 2  2! 3  2 !

Mechanism n° 1

Le  1 Pl 

  

N0 1  2 
 
Li  N 0l   2 

1
P
Mechanism n° 2

Le   2 Pl 
 
N0 1  2 
  2 

Li  N 0l   2 
  P

Mechanism n° 3

Le  3 Pl 
 2 N0
 2 2    3 
Li  N 0l    P
 2 2  


2N 0
For the kinematic theorem of limit analysis: 
P

Plastic admissibility condition:

2 2
Rx  0   N0  N0 N 0  N 0
2 2
2 2
Ry  0   N0  N0  2N 0  0  0  0
2 2
 EXERCISE N. 16

Find the limit domain in the plane H-V.

 3 3!
C32     3
 2  2! 3  2 !

Mechanism n° 1a
Mechanism n° 1b

Mechanism n° 2a

Mechanism n° 2b
Mechanism n° 3a

Mechanism n° 3b

Let assume, for simplicity:

Each mechanism gives the equation of a line in the plane h-v.

1a)

1b)

2a)
2b)

3a)

3b)