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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: H. R. Motamedian, A. Kulachenko
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