8.2 Strusoft example

Results

My

This summary diagram shows My values for all calculations.

• Boundary condition spring settings 1E+07 / 1E+06 / 1E+05.

• Transversal flexural stiffness factor 1,0 / 0,1 / 0,01.

With boundary condition setting 1E+07 and transversal flexural stiffness factor 1,0 the moment in the beam is just 56% (185 / 332) of the actual moment, and thus critically underdimensioned.

Reduction of the transversal flexural stiffness factor to 0,1 reduces the mismatch to 86% (286 / 332), while a further reduction to 0,01 gets the result correct by 96%.

On the other side, changing the boundary condition to 1E+06 increases the values just to 59%. A further boundary condition change to 1E+05 will get the result up to 61%

A change to panel in the calculation while keeping boundary conditions at 1E+07 will give results that match the theoretical values by 85%.

Changing both values or doing a panel calculation with 1E+05 boundary conditions will give results close to the theoretical values (ca. 99%).

The most critical factor by far in this example therefore is the transversal flexural stiffness factor.

Displacement

Displacement values range from 27mm to 49mm in this example, the lowest values corresponding with the lowest My values.

Eigenfrequencies

There is little to no effect of the transversal flexural stiffness factor to the 1. and 2. eigenfrequencies. The effect of calculation as panel is also quite limited in this test example.

Download