Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Interpreting Analysis Results[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: Interpreting Analysis Results
- From: "Roark Consultants" <3.sol(--nospam--at)spectranet.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:12 +0530
Yes its really fun to work on a mat foundation modeled with finite elements, but a note of caution on the following:
1) The value that you use for the spring constant (i.e. the modulus of subgrade reaction), as that defines the stiffness of the soil, & has quite an impact on the depth & reinforcement of the mat.
2) Be sure to check the joint displacement & support reactions of all the supports, as that tells you whether the mat is stiff enough to transfer forces effectively to the soil. When we design manually we assume the structure to be rigid (which is not exactly true). Opposed to that when we use FEM, the interaction between the stiffness of soil (its subgrade reaction) & the stiffness of the mat comes into play, and gives us a pretty good picture of what should be the depth of the mat foundation for proper transfer of loads to the soil (weaker the soil, the stiffer the mat has to be).
3) Be sure that you don't have sharp re-entrant corners in your mat, or you will have a lot to be baffled about.
As far as Mxy is concerned, I think in a normal situation it can be safely ignored, as that is the in-plane torsion, which for the size of the mat becomes inconsequential, unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.
- Prev by Subject: Interpreting Analysis Results
- Next by Subject: RE: Interpreting Analysis Results
- Previous by thread: RE: Interpreting Analysis Results - UPDATE
- Next by thread: Interpreting Analysis Results