FEM Modelling of Lateral-Torsional Buckling Using Shell and Solid Elements

Valeš, Jan; Stan, Tudor-Cristian

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.365

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The random variability of R can either be identified on the basis of physical experiments performed in the laboratory, or these experiments can be simulated on a computer using a stochastic computational model with consideration to the effects of all important in-itial imperfections (see, e.g. Vales & Stan, 2017;Jönsson & Stand, 2017;Liu, He, Yhenyu, & Yuan, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantile-Oriented Global Sensitivity Analysis of Design Resistance

Kala

2019

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article investigates the application of a new type of global quantile-oriented sensitivity analysis (called QSA in the article) and contrasts it with established Sobol’ sensitivity analysis (SSA). Comparison of QSA of the resistance design value (0.1 percentile) with SSA is performed on an example of the analysis of the resistance of a steel IPN 200 beam, which is subjected to lateral-torsional buckling. The resistance is approximated using higher order polynomial metamodels created from advanced non-linear FE models. The main, higher order and total effects are calculated using the Latin Hypercube Sampling method. Noticeable differences between the two methods are found, with QSA apparently revealing higher sensitivity of the resistance design value to random input second and higher order interactions (compared to SSA). SSA cannot identify certain reliability aspects of structural design as comprehensively as QSA, particularly in relation to higher order interactions effects of input imperfections. In order to better understand the reasons for the differences between QSA and SSA, two simple examples are presented, where QSA (median) and SSA show a general agreement in the calculation of certain sensitivity indices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantile-Oriented Global Sensitivity Analysis of Design Resistance

Kala

2019

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e 2D is known to provide efficient analysis that is less accurate as compared to 3D that gives to a certain extent a real solution. Some FEA commercial software used for modeling 2D and 3D models for buckling stability analysis includes ABAQUS, ANSYS, ADINA, FUSION 360, SOL-IDWORKS, COLBEAM, and PROKON [4,55,56]. e choice of software for application generally depends on availability, type of stability analysis to be performed, structural elements to be analyzed, and the level of accuracy needed ([4]:1033; [47]).…”

Section: Numerical Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Factors That Influence Out-of-Plane Lateral-Torsional Buckling on Freestanding Circular Arches

Tebo

Masu

Nziu

2020

Journal of Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the effects of the several factors that influence lateral-torsional buckling on freestanding circular arches. The studied factors that attribute to the effects of lateral-torsional buckling include cross section type, included angle, slender ratio, imperfection, loading, and boundary conditions. From the reviewed studies, the misrepresentation of these factors to a certain extent may yield inaccurate results. Several studies and design codes have proposed different solutions to account for these factors in designs against lateral-torsional buckling for some structural elements. However, there were no studies reported on the out-of-plane lateral-torsional buckling of fixed circular arches made of structural aluminum channel sections subjected to central concentrated load. Therefore, there is a need for further research on the lateral-torsional buckling real behavior of fixed circular arches of structural aluminum channels.

show abstract

“…A linear geometric order shell element, SR4 with three-dimensional, four-node, quadrilateral, stress/displacement doubly curved general-purpose shell element with six degrees of freedom at all nodes was used for the FE model. This SR4 shell element was selected since it provides accurate analysis results for thin-walled members and is suitable for analyses that involve finite membrane strains and large rotations (Valeš & Stan 2017). Through mesh convergence, a global mesh size of 2 mm was adopted throughout the study.…”

Section: The Meshing Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Elastic and Inelastic Lateral Torsional Buckling Load on Circular Fixed Channel Section Arches under Transverse Point Load

Tebo¹,

Masu²,

Nziu³

2020

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) investigation on the elastic and inelastic prebuckling behaviour and Lateral-Torsional Buckling (LTB) loads on circular fixed ends arches of 6061-T6 aluminium alloy channel sections subjected to a transverse point load at the shear centre. The software package Abaqus was used to study a total of 110 arch models from three separate channel sections with an additional 16 arch models for validation. From the channel arches, 66 were developed at a constant length, while the remaining 44 arches were formed at constant slender ratios using 11 discrete included angles. The analytical and FEA prebuckling results showed good agreement, indicating that the FE models were reliable, efficient, and accurate. From this comparison, the elastic axial compressive forces were found to be higher than those of inelastic prebuckling ones and the opposite was true for the bending moments. For arches developed at constant span length, the maximum elastic LTB load overestimated the real LTB load by over 48 percent and decreases as the web to flange width ratio increases. Furthermore, the maximum elastic LTB load for arches developed constant slender ratio, ⁄ = 60 overestimated its inelastic counterpart by 38.8 percent. While at ⁄ = 90, the elastic LTB load overestimated its inelastic counterpart by only 14.1 percent. It was also found that as the slender ratio increased, the difference between the elastic and inelastic LTB loads drops and vice versa.

show abstract

FEM Modelling of Lateral-Torsional Buckling Using Shell and Solid Elements

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

Quantile-Oriented Global Sensitivity Analysis of Design Resistance

Quantile-Oriented Global Sensitivity Analysis of Design Resistance

Effects of Factors That Influence Out-of-Plane Lateral-Torsional Buckling on Freestanding Circular Arches

Comparison between Elastic and Inelastic Lateral Torsional Buckling Load on Circular Fixed Channel Section Arches under Transverse Point Load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About