Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shell and Membrance Compare

    Uploaded by

    mjnasar khan jamal
    7 views5 pages
    The document summarizes 4 models that were analyzed with the same geometry and loading data, where the only difference was how the slab was defined. Model 1 defined the slab as a membrane, Models 2 and 4 used shell elements with automatic meshing, Model 3 used shell elements with a fine 20x20 mesh. The results showed that the membrane and fine shell mesh models had nearly identical right side bending moments of 9.2 kN-m and 9.16 kN-m, respectively, while the other shell models differed slightly at 8.75 kN-m and 7.017 kN-m. The conclusion is that the membrane and fine shell mesh analyses produce similar results for beam design.

    Original Description:

    structural notes - shell element and membrane element

    Original Title

    Shell And Membrance compare

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes 4 models that were analyzed with the same geometry and loading data, where the only difference was how the slab was defined. Model 1 defined the slab as a membrane, Models 2 and 4 used shell elements with automatic meshing, Model 3 used shell elements with a fine 20x20 mesh. The results showed that the membrane and fine shell mesh models had nearly identical right side bending moments of 9.2 kN-m and 9.16 kN-m, respectively, while the other shell models differed slightly at 8.75 kN-m and 7.017 kN-m. The conclusion is that the membrane and fine shell mesh analyses produce similar results for beam design.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views5 pages

    Shell and Membrance Compare

    Uploaded by

    mjnasar khan jamal
    The document summarizes 4 models that were analyzed with the same geometry and loading data, where the only difference was how the slab was defined. Model 1 defined the slab as a membrane, Models 2 and 4 used shell elements with automatic meshing, Model 3 used shell elements with a fine 20x20 mesh. The results showed that the membrane and fine shell mesh models had nearly identical right side bending moments of 9.2 kN-m and 9.16 kN-m, respectively, while the other shell models differed slightly at 8.75 kN-m and 7.017 kN-m. The conclusion is that the membrane and fine shell mesh analyses produce similar results for beam design.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    There are 4 model consider with same geometry and same loading data only slab define as

    1) Membrane

    2) shell with auto mesh

    3) Shell with fine mesh20x20

    4) Shell with auto mesh and bending and membrane all are 0.001

    The Details results are in next page

    1) Membrane 2) shell with 3) Shell with 4) Shell with auto


    auto mesh fine mesh and bending
    mesh25x25 and membrane all
    are 0.001
    Load pattern Tributary area 3 point load 19 point load 3 point load
    method
    Right side Mb 9.20 kN-m 8.75 kN-m 9.16 kN-m 7.017 kN-m
    Moment

    Conclusion: 1) Membrane and fine shell results nearly match. 2) During beam design, shell and
    membrane both method beam is rectangular, so beam design method will follow in both condition
    as a similar because beam parameter and loading parameter is similar steel always same, if any
    loading deference then only reinforcement change possible

    Details sketch refer in 2nd to 5th page


    1) Membrane
    2) shell with auto mesh
    3) Shell with fine mesh 20x20
    4) Shell with auto mesh and bending and membrane all are 0.001

    You might also like