algorithmic modeling for Rhino
I am trying to understand the behaviour of the lateral torsional buckling calculations for beam elements in Karamba (1.3.2 build 190811)
In terms of effective length I am expecting that the lateral torsional buckling to be solely governed by BklLenLT and the calculated Mcr (as output from the Details of the Utilization component) to be the same as that calculated to NCCI: Elastic critical moment for lateral torsional buckling SN003b-EN-EU.
What I am seeing is BklLenLT is having some influence on Mcr but I am also seeing BklLenZ having a large influence on the Mcr calculated.
When BklLenZ and BklLenLT at set to the same values, the calculated Mcr is not quite what I am expecting, but that could be due to different C1 and C2 values.
Is any one able to shed some light on what is being done in these calculations?
Tags:
Hello Nick,
the influence of BklLenZ on Mcr is due to the formula in section 6.7.1 (8) in ÖNorm B 1993-1-1 which is the country specific part of EC3 for Austria.
The C++-code of Karamba3D which calculates the EC3-values can be found in the second post of the discussion 'Bending Moment Utilization' (see https://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba3d/forum/topics/bending-....).
The master's thesis of Jukka Mäenpää (see https://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba3d/forum/topics/master-o...) also deals with Karamba3d's design algorithm for steel members.
Best,
Clemens
Thanks for posting this Clemens,
I have found where my issue is coming from. The C++ calculation for M_cr doesn't follow what I was expecting based on the named inputs. My assumption was:
What looks to be the case is:
I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with the use of bklLen_Z in this way, or the definition of the value used in bklLen_LT, but the name of bklLen_LT suggested something different to me.
Background below:
M_cr is calculated by a closed form analytical solution to the lateral torsional buckling problem, i.e. it is not a code dependent expression so easy to compare between the code and other documents:
The first term in the square root term in the C++ is:
SQR(lk_z/lk_LT)*Cw/Iz
Which is the square of the ratio of minor axis buckling and lateral torsion buckling effective lengths inputs, multiplied by the ratio of the warping and minor axis bending constants of the section.
In SN003b-EN-EU (https://www.steelconstruction.info/File:SN003b.pdf) expression (1) the corresponding term is
SQR(k/k_w)*Cw/Iz
(In fact SN003b calls Cw 'Iw' but I have substituted above to aid the comparison).
Where:
So Karamba takes the input value of Bkl_LenLT to be the effective length specifically for warping of the section, as:
SQR(lk_z/lk_LT) = SQR([k*L]/[k_w*L]) = SQR(k/k_w)
(I originally thought it was the effective length for end rotation on plan.)
Apart from naming/understanding of how the inputs are used, I could only see a problem with this approach if there were a situation where the minor axis strut buckling effective length was not equal to the effective length for lateral torsional buckling. I could think of the following situations:
Neither of the two situations apply to what I am currently looking at, so now I understand how bklLen_LT is used I can work around that!
© 2019 Created by Scott Davidson. Powered by