I have to admit that I have done this a time or two in the past, for
"complex" geometries, only to find that simple hand methods are about as
accurate--AS LONG AS you can provide sufficient boundary elements. If you
have a weird situation where you don't have nice, rectangular tributary
areas, you might have to think about it.
The converse of your argument is then "why use some gross simplifying
assumptions that might leave you out of the ballpark, when it's so easy to
throw together a computer model to handle a situation you're not really sure
William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
From: Paul Feather [mailto:pfeather(--nospam--at)san.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: computer modeling of diaphragms
I do not understand the desire to build a complicated computer model to
analyze simple structural behavior.
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org