Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space
<p>In this paper, we develop two alternative formulations for the rotational constraint between the tangents to connected beams with large deformations in 3-D space. Such a formulation is useful for modeling bonded/welded connections between beams. The first formulation is derived by consis...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2018-11-01
|
Series: | Mechanical Sciences |
Online Access: | https://www.mech-sci.net/9/373/2018/ms-9-373-2018.pdf |
id |
doaj-259a58f693f5482c973cbe91ec2162e7 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-259a58f693f5482c973cbe91ec2162e72020-11-25T00:35:08ZengCopernicus PublicationsMechanical Sciences2191-91512191-916X2018-11-01937338710.5194/ms-9-373-2018Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D SpaceH. R. Motamedian0A. Kulachenko1Department of Solid Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 10044 Stockholm, SwedenDepartment of Solid Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 10044 Stockholm, Sweden<p>In this paper, we develop two alternative formulations for the rotational constraint between the tangents to connected beams with large deformations in 3-D space. Such a formulation is useful for modeling bonded/welded connections between beams. The first formulation is derived by consistently linearizing the variation of the strain energy and by assuming linear shape functions for the beam elements. This formulation can be used with both the Lagrange multiplier and the penalty stiffness method. The second non-consistent formulation assumes that the contact normal is independent of the nodal displacements at each iteration, and is updated consistently between iterations. In other words, we ignore the contribution due to the change of the contact normal in the linearization of the contact gap function. This assumption yields simpler equations and requires no specific assumption regarding the shape functions for the underlying beam elements. However, it is limited to the penalty method. We demonstrate the performance of the presented formulations in solving problems using implicit time integration. We also present a case showing the implications of ignoring this rotational constraint in modeling a network of beams.</p>https://www.mech-sci.net/9/373/2018/ms-9-373-2018.pdf |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
H. R. Motamedian A. Kulachenko |
spellingShingle |
H. R. Motamedian A. Kulachenko Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space Mechanical Sciences |
author_facet |
H. R. Motamedian A. Kulachenko |
author_sort |
H. R. Motamedian |
title |
Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space |
title_short |
Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space |
title_full |
Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space |
title_fullStr |
Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space |
title_full_unstemmed |
Rotational Constraint between Beams in 3-D Space |
title_sort |
rotational constraint between beams in 3-d space |
publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
series |
Mechanical Sciences |
issn |
2191-9151 2191-916X |
publishDate |
2018-11-01 |
description |
<p>In this paper, we develop two alternative formulations for the rotational
constraint between the tangents to connected beams with large deformations in
3-D space. Such a formulation is useful for modeling bonded/welded
connections between beams. The first formulation is derived by consistently
linearizing the variation of the strain energy and by assuming linear shape
functions for the beam elements. This formulation can be used with both the
Lagrange multiplier and the penalty stiffness method. The second
non-consistent formulation assumes that the contact normal is independent of
the nodal displacements at each iteration, and is updated consistently
between iterations. In other words, we ignore the contribution due to the
change of the contact normal in the linearization of the contact gap
function. This assumption yields simpler equations and requires no specific
assumption regarding the shape functions for the underlying beam elements.
However, it is limited to the penalty method. We demonstrate the performance
of the presented formulations in solving problems using implicit time
integration. We also present a case showing the implications of ignoring this
rotational constraint in modeling a network of beams.</p> |
url |
https://www.mech-sci.net/9/373/2018/ms-9-373-2018.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT hrmotamedian rotationalconstraintbetweenbeamsin3dspace AT akulachenko rotationalconstraintbetweenbeamsin3dspace |
_version_ |
1725310129693261824 |