RYERSON UNIVERSITY

MEC626 APPLIED FINITE ELEMENTS

LAB PROJECT No. 4

Rigid Frame

Program: Mechanical Engineering

Section 3

Due Date: March 27, 2008

Prepared for:

Dr. D.C.D. Oguamanam

NAME Student ID Signature

Kalashnikov, Andrey 052098084

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

Introduction
A rigid frame is a structural framework or skeleton consisting of straight and
curved members that is designed to resist loads. Members are mostly interconnected with
rigid connections. They can take bending moments as well as shear and axial loads [1].
The rigid connections of the skeleton are designed so that the angles between them do not
change with loads [2].
These types of structures can often have large amount of members, which makes
it complicated to analyze. That’s when engineers have to use finite-element analysis
method. It allows solving complicated indeterminant beam problems.
In this case study, the rigid frame was given to be analyzed in the finite-element
software ANSYS. The schematics of the frame can be seen on Figure 1. The structural
load at C produces the axial load of 120 kip in member ED. The cross-sectional area of
all the members is 4 in 2 . The Modulus of elasticity is given as 30 × 10 6 psi and the
principal moment of inertia is 0.04 in 4 .

Figure 1 – The schematics of original design

The objective of this lab project was to evaluate the given rigid frame and then
present the improved design that would decrease the load in member ED by at least 10%.
The improved design was allowed to feature added or deleted structural members and
increased cross-sectional area. The single restriction was that the member ED and its
cross section were to be left unchanged.
Design Methodology

This project consisted of two parts. First analysis of given rigid frame was
completed. After that the improved design of the skeleton was presented and it was
analyzed in ANSYS software to insure the improvements in the loading of member ED.
Firstly, the given rigid frame was drawn out in ANSYS and all the constants such
as Young’s Modulus of elasticity, cross sectional area were inputted. After that the
displacement of node A in all directions and the displacement of node F in x direction
were set to zero. Then, the total structural load was applied at point C. The goal was to
achieve the loading in member ED to be around 120 kip. Since the cross-sectional area of
ED was 4 in 2 , the axial stress to be achieved was 30 ksi. Through trial and error, the
structural load of 66,500 pounds at the point C was found to produce the stress of just
below 30 ksi (29,971 psi).
Various design changes were considered and brain-stormed. The most ideas that
seemed the most likely to produce were tested out on ANSYS. Most of the design
changes produced no or little change in the loading of member ED. It was found that
eliminating of members AE, BE and BD didn’t affect the loading of member ED. The
final design was inspired by idea that the larger amount of smaller triangles inside of
skeleton of the frame would help carry the load and redistribute some of the loading away
from member ED. Testing this design in ANSYS proved that indeed the improvement in
stress and loadings was achieved.
Calculations and FEM model

Load ED 120kip
Axial _ stress ED = = = 30ksi
Cross − sec tional _ Area ED 4in 2

Figure 1 – The original design deformation schematics

 Figure 2 – The original design stress distribution chart

Table 1 – Displacements at nodes 1-6 for original design

Node UX (inches) UY (inches) USUM(inches)
1 0 0 0
2 2.49E-03 -3.27E-03 4.11E-03
3 7.48E-03 -5.35E-02 5.40E-02
4 -9.59E-03 -2.14E-02 2.35E-02
5 -4.36E-03 -3.27E-03 5.45E-03
6 0.00E+00 -3.33E-03 3.33E-03
Table 2 – X and Y components of loads for elements of original design
FX FY
Element Node (pounds) (pounds)
1 99750 0
1 2 -99750 0
2 99750 0
2 3 -99750 0
3 99750 66500
3 4 -99750 -66500
5 99750 66500
4 6 -99750 -66500
6 0 66500
5 1 0 -66500
1 -5.82E-11 6.55E-11
6 5 5.82E-11 -6.55E-11
5 0 1.16E-10
7 2 0 -1.16E-10
2 -1.75E-10 8.73E-11
8 4 1.75E-10 -8.73E-11
4 99750 66500
9 5 -99750 -66500

Table 3 – X and Y components of reaction forces

FX FY
NODE (pounds) (pounds)
1 -99750 66500
6 99750 0

Load EB = Load 9 = FX 92 + FY92 = 99750 2 + 66500 2

Load EB = 119,885kip
 Figure 3 – The improved design with loads applied

Figure 4 – The improved design deformation schematics

 Figure 5 – The improved design stress distribution chart

Table 4 – Displacements at nodes 1-13 for improved design

Node UX (inches) UY (inches) USUM (inches)
1 0 0 0
2 1.07E-03 -2.41E-03 2.64E-03
3 2.58E-03 -5.34E-03 5.93E-03
4 5.38E-03 -1.78E-02 1.86E-02
5 7.87E-03 -4.31E-02 4.38E-02
6 -4.60E-03 -1.79E-02 1.85E-02
7 -2.89E-03 -4.60E-03 5.44E-03
8 -3.63E-03 -3.88E-03 5.31E-03
9 0 -2.82E-03 2.82E-03
10 -3.87E-03 -1.71E-03 4.23E-03
11 -3.97E-03 -2.74E-01 4.82E-03
12 -2.42E-03 -2.43E-03 3.43E-03
13 -2.07E-03 -3.22E-03 2.21E-03
 Table 5 – X and Y components of loads for elements of improved design
FX FY FX FY
Element Node (pounds) (pounds) Element Node (pounds) (pounds)
1 85656 0 11 27623 0
1 2 -85656 0 16 8 -27623 0
2 1.21E+05 0 8 -12553 16737
2 3 -1.21E+05 0 17 12 12553 -16737
3 1.12E+05 0 12 0 -17632
3 4 -1.12E+05 0 18 11 0 17632
5 -99750 0 11 -11453 15270
4 4 99750 0 19 13 11453 -15270
5 99750 66500 13 0 -55158
5 6 -99750 -66500 20 10 0 55158
6 0 8098.8 10 8506.6 11342
6 4 0 -8098.8 21 12 -8506.6 -11342
4 12148 8098.8 12 -37725 0
7 7 -12148 -8098.8 22 7 37725 0
7 -68202 0 7 24676 32902
8 6 68202 0 23 11 -24676 -32902
6 -28027 18685 12 28492 0
9 3 28027 -18685 24 13 -28492 0
3 0 44391 13 0 47709
10 7 0 -44391 25 1 0 -47709
11 7 0 43521 1 14094 -18791
8 0 -43521 26 12 -14094 18791
12 8 59575 -39716 2 -17040 -22720
6 -59575 39716 27 13 17040 22720
13 8 99750 66500 2 0 -1212.9
9 -99750 -66500 28 12 0 1212.9
14 9 0 66500 2 -17949 23933
10 0 -66500 29 7 17949 -23933
15 10 -8506.6 0 3 -19280 -25706
11 8506.6 0 30 12 19280 25706

Table 6 – X and Y components of reaction forces

FX FY
NODE (pounds) (pounds)
1 -99750 66500
9 99750 0

Load EB = Load 12 = FX 122 + FY122 = 59575 2 + 39716 2

Load EB = 71,600kip
Comparison
Member EB corresponds to member #9 in the original design and to member #12
in the improved version of the rigid frame. Percentage increase of safety factor can be
calculated as follows:
119885 − 71600
%improvement _ safety _ factor = × 100% = 40.3%
119885
That means that the goal of this project has been accomplished and safety factor
gain is considerably higher than minimum requirement of 10%.
Comparing the displacements of the nodes of EB, it is evident that displacements
decreased. They went from 0.0235 inches to 0.0185 inches at one node and from 0.00545
inches to 0.00531 inches at the other node. This was expected since stress is proportional
to strain (or displacements) and Young’s modulus of elasticity stayed the same because
the material wasn’t changed.
At the same time it can be noted that the stress and loads in the top members (AB
and BC went up. The increase can be explained by the fact that the additional members
redistributed some of the loading away from member EB (as was desired) and therefore
loads increased in the other members.
As expected the reaction forces at A and F haven’t changed. There is no way to
change those forces unless new fixed points were introduced or load was applied at
different location.
As was mentioned before, in original design elimination of members AE, BE and
BD didn’t affect the load at EB. Taking closer look at loading in those members it is
evident that they are redundant because of the fact that the loads they carry is extremely
close to zero. On the other hand in improved design, all members sustain forces of
several thousands pounds.
Conclusion

This project can be considered successful as the objective has been accomplished.
The stresses, levels of forces and displacements have of member EB decreased and safety
factor has increased by 40.3%. This was done without increase of the cross-sectional
area, which can be beneficial, because the same type of material can be used to produce
all the members. It was also found that although load has considerably decreased in the
member EB, it has increased in the members AB and BC. This shows that design is
always a compromise.

References
[1] Rigid Frame. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from Wikipedia Web site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_frame
[2] Rigid Frame. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from Answers.com Web site:
http://www.answers.com/rigid+frame?cat=technology&gwp=13