Simulation Mechanical Forums (Read-Only)
Welcome to Autodesk’s Simulation Mechanical Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Simulation Mechanical topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Results When Using Beam End Releases

8 REPLIES 8
Reply
Message 1 of 9
joe
Explorer
2483 Views, 8 Replies

Results When Using Beam End Releases

I am modeling a steel structure (a framework of W-beams) using beam elements in order to perform a vibration analysis (modal and frequency response).  The connections between the structural steel have been designed such that they are not moment connections, but rather have been braced as needed (knee braces etc.).  In order to model this accurately, I have used beams with end releases at their intersection (connection).  Using guidance from help files and tutorials, the beams are also split into multiple segments in order to get more nodes and more accurate results.

 

When we apply a rotational end release (release all rotational DOF, but keep the translation DOF) the beam segment that gets released always has a very large moment (much larger than the rest of the structure).  The rest of the beam (ie. the rest of the segments that the beam is composed of) behaves as it should - roughly as a simply supported beam.

 

I have tried breaking the beam up into much smaller pieces, and I continue to get the high moment results in the first segment.  I have also tried changing the End Release options, and removing them completely to troubleshoot.  When the End Releases are removed (or disabled), all of the beam segments behave correctly, including the first segment with the fixed connection.

 

When the end of the beam gets released to rotation, I don't think that there should be a moment present in the beam segment at the released end - what am I missing?

 

I am currently using AutoDesk Algor Simulation 2012 and 2011, and have included a simple test file that was made to test the situation.

Tags (2)
8 REPLIES 8
Message 2 of 9
S.LI
in reply to: joe

I think your result is all right.

One of the beam end releases (BER) is applied between element 1 and 2. Another one is between element 3 and 4.

it means the segment including elements 2,5,6,7,8,3 is a simple-supported beam now.

Under distributed loads, non-zero bending moment is all right here.

 

Also, you'll see zero local 3 moment at the joint node between element 1 and 2, which means "release".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this response answers your concern, please mark it as "solved".
Message 3 of 9
AstroJohnPE
in reply to: S.LI

I agree with S.Li that the moment diagram for a static analysis looks like I would expect. (See attached.) Perhaps we are not understanding your written description.

 

For a fixed-fixed beam with a distributed load under static stress, the moment diagram looks very similar to what I have shown. That is, there are two locations along the length where the bending moment is zero. If you make a hinge joint (end release) at those two locations, the moment diagram does not change at all! Whether a coincidence or not, that is what you have in your design.

 

Of course, the modal analysis will be different between a beam without end releases and a beam with end releases.

 

Message 4 of 9

The original problem description appears to be exactly the problem I am having.  However, when I open the file and run the analysis, the bending moment diagrams seem correct.

 

Attached is another case where I have used beam end releases at the top of two arms.  For the elements where the end release is applied, the bending moment is huge.  This is true whether the arm consists of 10 elements, or a single element.

 

If there is an end release at the end of the element, then the bending moment should go to zero as there is nothing to constrain the rotation.

 

I would appreciate feedback on this model.

 

Thank you.

Message 5 of 9

Hi Tim,

 

The results are correct in version 2013 Service Pack 2 (SP2), and presumably with the current version 2014. I suggest that you update your software from 2013 no SP. If I recall correctly, there were a number of solver bugs fixed in the first and/or second service pack. (The "read me" files on the web page for each service pack describes what changes are in each.)

 

Message 6 of 9
m.granata
in reply to: joe

I am still use pre-Autodesk, Algor software user, but it sounds like you are seekings results that a truss member and not a beam member would provide.  Basically just a member that can support axial compression and tension loads.  Truss elements may be suitable when you are seeking only pin type conditions at the nodes.  That's the approach I have used with both Algor and Ansys FEA software.  Then verify it with a few simple stress/deformation calcs.  Good Luck.

Message 7 of 9
TimDewhurst3723
in reply to: m.granata

The problem appears to be internal to the software. Updating to 2013 SP2
eliminated the problem with the beam end release.

While truss elements would be appropriate for the 2-force members, beam
elements are necessary for the multi-force arms.

Thank you for your input.

--
Dr. Tim Dewhurst, P.E.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Solar Boat Team Faculty Adviser
Cedarville University
251 N. Main Street
Cedarville, OH 45314
(937) 766-7654
dewhurst@cedarville.edu
Message 8 of 9

Thank you very much for your response.

We upgraded to 2013 SP2 and the problems have disappeared.

Thank you very much for your response.

--
Dr. Tim Dewhurst, P.E.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Solar Boat Team Faculty Adviser
Cedarville University
251 N. Main Street
Cedarville, OH 45314
(937) 766-7654
dewhurst@cedarville.edu
Message 9 of 9
m.granata
in reply to: TimDewhurst3723

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your model.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report