Archive of Applied Mechanics

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 723–742

A powerful force-based approach for the limit analysis of three-dimensional frames

Original

Abstract

For the estimation of the strength of a structure, one could avoid detailed elastoplastic analysis and resort, instead, to direct limit analysis methods that are formulated within linear programming. This work describes the application of the force method to the limit analysis of three-dimensional frames. For the limit analysis of a framed structure, the force method, being an equilibrium-based approach, is better suited than the displacement method and results, generally, to faster solutions. Nevertheless, the latter has been used mostly, since it has a better potential for automation. The difficulty for the direct computerization of the force method is to automatically pick up the structure’s redundant forces. Graph theory concepts may be used to accomplish this task, and a numerical procedure was proposed for the optimal plastic design of plane frames. An analogous approach is developed herein for the limit analysis of space frames which is computationally more cumbersome than the limit analysis of plane frames. The proposed procedure results in hypersparse matrices, and in conjunction with the kinematic upper bound linear program which is solved by a sparse solver, the proposed method appears computationally very efficient. It is also proved that it is much more effective than any displacement-based formulation. The robustness and efficiency of the approach are testified by numerical examples for grillages and multi-storey frames that are included.

Keywords

Numerical methods Limit analysis Force method Graph theory Grillages Multi-storeyed frames 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Orbison J.G., McGuire W., Abel J.F.: Yield surface applications in nonlinear steel frame analysis. Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 33, 557–573 (1982)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liew J.Y.R., Chen H., Shanmugan N.E., Chen W.F.: Improved nonlinear plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures. Eng. Struct. 22, 1324–1338 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim S-E., Park M-H., Choi S-H.: Direct design of three-dimensional frames using practical advanced analysis. Eng. Struct. 23, 1491–1502 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Long H.V., Nguyen D.H.: Second-order plastic-hinge analysis of 3-D steel frames including strain hardening effects. Eng. Struct. 30, 3505–3512 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neal B.G.: The Plastic Method of Structural Analysis. Chapman & Hall, London (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohn M.Z., Ghosh S.K., Parimi S.R.: Unified approach to theory of plastic structures. Eng. Mech. (ASCE) 98, 1133–1158 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maier, G., Pastor, J., Ponter, A.R.S., Weichert, D.: Direct methods of limit and shakedown analysis. In: de Borst, R., Mang, H.A. (eds.) Comprehensive Structural Integrity—Fracture of Materials from Nano to Macro, : Numerical and Computational Methods, vol. 3, pp 637–684. Elsevier (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dantzig G.: Linear Programming and Extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1963)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karmarkar N.: A new polynomial time algorithm for linear programming. Combinatorica 4(4), 373–395 (1984)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andersen K.D., Christiansen E., Overton M.L.: Computing limit loads by minimizing a sum of norms. SIAM J. Sci. Comp. 3, 1046–1062 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pastor F., Loute E.: Solving limit analysis problems: an interior point method. Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 21, 631–642 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanderbei R.J.: Linear Programming: Foundations and Extensions. 3rd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weichert, D., Ponter, A.R.S. (eds.): Limit States of Materials and Structures. Springer, Wien (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen D.H.: CEPAO—an automatic program for rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic analysis and optimization of frame structures. Eng. Struct. 6, 33–51 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Long H.V., Nguyen D.H.: Limit and shakedown analysis of 3-D Steel frames. Eng. Struct. 30, 1895–2004 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long H.V., Nguyen D.H.: Plastic optimization of 3D steel frames under fixed or repeated loading: reduction formulation. Eng. Struct. 32, 1092–1099 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skordeli M-AA., Bisbos C.D.: Limit and shakedown analysis of 3d steel frames via approximate ellipsoidal yield surfaces. Eng. Struct. 32, 1556–1557 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    SAP2000 V-14.2.4. Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures-Basic Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaneko I., Lawo M., Thierauf G.: On computational procedures for the force method. Int. J. Numer. Methods. Eng. 18, 1469–1495 (1982)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damkilde L., Høyer O.: An efficient implementation of limit state calculations based on lower-bound solutions. Comput. Struct 49(6), 953–962 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaveh A., Koohestani K.: An efficient graph-theoretical force method for three-dimensional finite element analysis. Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 24, 1533–1551 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spiliopoulos K.V.: On the automation of the force method in the optimal plastic design of frames. Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 141, 141–156 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spiliopoulos K.V.: A fully automatic force method for the optimal shakedown design of frames. Comp. Mech. 23(4), 299–307 (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spiliopoulos K.V., Patsios T.N.: A quick estimate of the strength of uniaxially tied framed structures. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65, 1763–1775 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Henderson J.C., Maunder E.A.W.: A problem in applied topology: on the selection of cycles for the flexibility analysis of skeletal structures. J. Inst. Maths. Appl. 5, 254–269 (1969)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Henderson J.C., Bickley W.G.: Statical indeterminacy of a structure. J. Aircr Eng. 27, 400–402 (1955)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith, D.L.: Plastic limit analysis. In: Smith DL (ed.) Mathematical Programming Methods in Structural Plasticity. pp. 61–82, Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maier G.: Linear flow-laws of elastoplasticity: a unified general approach. Rendic. Acad. Naz. Lincei, Series 8 47, 266 (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trillat M., Pastor J.: Limit analysis and Gurson’s model. Eur. J. Mech. Solids 24, 800–819 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MOSEK ApS, Denmark.: the MOSEK optimization tools version 6.0 (revision 135)—user’s manual and reference (2012) Download at http://www.mosek.com
  31. 31.
    Nicholson T.A.J.: Finding the shortest route between two points in a network. Comput. J. 26, 275–280 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lau, H.T.: Algorithms on Graphs. Tab Books (1989)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heyman J.: Elements of the Theory of Structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chakrabarty J.: Theory of Plasticity. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    AISC.: Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic ResearchNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations