ConbeamU Update Update

Following some comments from 4Step on the last ConbeamU update, and a thorough check of results against Strand7 results, I have posted a new version that fixes a number of issues with the previous one.  The new version number is 4.01, and it may be downloaded from:

ConBeamU.zip

The file is a free download, and includes full open-source code.

The download zip file also contains a summary of the check runs performed with the Strand7 finite element software. In Strand7 I have set up a model with 15 separate continuous beams, with the same loading but different support conditions, ranging from a single cantilever to a 3 span beam with cantilevers at both ends. These beams have been analysed in Strand7 and ConbeamU with different restraints applied at each support, and the results are compared in the Check Conbeam spreadsheet included in the zip file. The results show near exact agreement in all cases.

Continuous beams model in Strand7

ConbeamU4-1

Strand7 Results

ConbeamU4-2

Strand7 and ConbeamU results compared in Check Conbeam.xlsb

ConbeamU4-3

Posted in Beam Bending, Excel, Frame Analysis, Newton, Strand7, UDFs, VBA | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

ConbeamU Update; defined support deflections

As promised in a recent post, I have updated the ConBeamU spreadsheet to allow defined deflections to be specified at any support.

The new spreadsheet (including full open-source code), can be downloaded from ConBeamU.zip

In addition to the support deflections the new spreadsheet has the following changes:

  • In addition to providing a list of output point positions it is now possible to specify the number of points required for each span.
  • At support positions output is now provided for the shear and moment on either side of the support.
  • VBA routines are now provided to simplify the entry or re-sizing of array functions.
  • Behind the scenes, the VBA code has been re-arranged to allow many of the functions to be used in the frame analysis spreadsheets, reducing duplication of code.

Defined support displacements and the new input of output points is shown below:

ConbeamU3-1
The output from this data is similar to the previous version, except that output X values are included in the output:

ConbeamU3-2

The output points may also be defined from a list as in the previous version:
ConbeamU3-3

ConbeamU3-4

Note that where the same output point is defined twice, at a support or point load position, the output now returns the shear force and moments immediately to the left of the point, followed by the values immediately to the right.

The array entry routines are illustrated below.  Any of the functions may be entered in a single cell:

ConbeamU3-5

Then press Ctrl-Shift-S, and the full array will be returned automatically:

ConbeamU3-6

The array range may also automatically be reduced in size.  Select the required output range and press Ctrl-Shift-R:

ConbeamU3-7

More details of the array entry routines are provided on the spreadsheet:
ConbeamU3-8

 

Posted in Arrays, Beam Bending, Excel, Frame Analysis, Newton, UDFs, VBA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Falling Faster

A recent paper by  Alexander Klotz of McGill University, Montreal, has stirred a bit of interest in the pop-science press.  The paper looks at the old question of the time taken to fall through a hole passing through the centre of the Earth, and back up to the surface at the opposite point on the Earth’s surface.  This calculation makes the usual assumptions of a perfect vacuum, and zero friction, but instead of the usual simplification of assuming the Earth to be of constant density, it allows for the actual estimated varying density along the length of the hole, and finds that the transit time would be reduced from 44 minutes to just over 38 minutes.

There is a good article on the paper at How long would it take you to fall through Earth?, and a rather more excitable one at How Long Would It Take To Fall Through The Center Of The Earth?

The latter article suggests that “Klotz went where no physicist has gone before”.  I suppose that is possible, but I know that at least one engineer has looked at the question before, I have on this very blog:

The hole through the middle of the Earth – revised transit time

I came up with a time of 38 minutes and 57 seconds, compared with 38 minutes and 11 seconds found by Klotz.

Another surprising finding was that if a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 is assumed all the way to the centre, then -9.81 m/s2 all the way back up to the surface, the transit time is only reduced to 38 minutes.  The graph below shows what is happening; the effect of increasing density is that the acceleration does remain close to constant over much of the journey, and it is only in the final stages that the velocity assuming constant acceleration becomes significantly faster than the velocity based on the actual (estimated) density.

CofEarth

More links on the topic of holes through the middle of the Earth:

The hole through the middle of the Earth – moved to the Equator

The hole through the middle of the Earth – filled with air

Elegant solutions, Column buckling, and the hole through the middle of the Earth

Posted in Excel, Maths, Newton | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Little Pics

Little Pics is my daughter’s video production company:

We make dynamic online content.

Videos that explore your brand, product or history for any size company, big or small.

We care about the people behind the company and the stories behind the product. How you came to be, what makes you different and capturing the bigger picture in one video.

For high quality video production at a reasonable cost, see more at Little Pics

 

Posted in Bach, Films | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Getting concrete shrinkage right

At the end of last year, very quietly, the commentary to the Australian Concrete Structures Code (AS 3600) was published.  The commentary provides a wide range of explanatory and background information to the requirements in the main code, including some aspects that are neither obvious nor widely known.

Download Reinforced Concrete Design Functions for free open source Excel functions, including the shrinkage calculation described below.

An example is the calculation of design shrinkage strain from the standard 56 day test value.  The total design shrinkage for any concrete mix consists of two components:

  • The chemical (or autogenous) shrinkage, which is a property of the mix, and is specified in the code dependent on the concrete compressive strength.
  • The drying shrinkage, which is affected by the mix and also the environment and concrete section dimensions.

To find the design drying shrinkage the basic drying shrinkage is factored depending on environmental conditions, section thickness, and time since completion of curing.  Standard values are provided for the basic drying shrinkage (depending on location), but this value may also be derived from test data, using the standard 56 day shrinkage test to AS 1012.13.  Calculation of the basic drying shrinkage from the test value requires the following steps:

  1.  Find the Test Drying Shrinkage by deducting the part of the chemical shrinkage that occurred between completion of wet curing (7 days) and completion of the test (56 days).
  2. Find the code K1 and K4 factors.  For the standard test K1 = 1.446 and K4 = 0.7.
  3. The Basic Drying Shrinkage is then given by:
    (Test drying shrinkage) / (K1 * K4 * (1 – 0.008 * fc))

VBA code performing this calculation is shown below:

Function BDS(fc As Double, Testshrink As Double, Optional CureDays As Double = 7, Optional TestDays As Double = 56, _
            Optional HypeThick As Double = 37.5, Optional K_4 As Double = 0.7, Optional Out1 As Long) As Variant
    Dim Alpha As Double, ResA(1 To 6, 1 To 1) As Double, TestDShrink As Double
    Dim AFShrink As Double, AShrinkS As Double, AShrinkE As Double, BDShrink As Double, Alpha1 As Double, K_1 As Double, DShrink As Double, TShrink As Double
    Dim BetaRH As Double, Alphads1 As Double, Alphads2 As Double, Kh As Double, Betads As Double, TotalDays As Double

    AFShrink = (0.06 * fc - 1) * 50
    AShrinkS = AFShrink * (1 - Exp(-CureDays / 10))
    AShrinkE = AFShrink * (1 - Exp(-TestDays / 10))
    TestDShrink = Testshrink - (AShrinkE - AShrinkS)
    Alpha1 = 0.8 + 1.2 * Exp(-HypeThick * 0.005)
    K_1 = Alpha1 * TestDays ^ 0.8 / (TestDays ^ 0.8 + 0.15 * HypeThick)
    BDShrink = TestDShrink / (K_1 * K_4 * (1 - 0.008 * fc))

    ResA(1, 1) = BDShrink
    ResA(2, 1) = AShrinkS
    ResA(3, 1) = AShrinkE
    ResA(4, 1) = TestDShrink
    ResA(5, 1) = Alpha1
    ResA(6, 1) = K_1

    If Out1 = 0 Then
        BDS = ResA
    Else
        BDS = ResA(Out1, 1)
    End If

End Function

An example of the use of the function is shown in the screen shot below. Note that:

  •  For the standard 56 day test the only input required is the concrete grade and the test shrinkage value (in microstrain).
  • The function returns a column array of six values (as shown).  To display all six values enter as an array function.
  • The first value returned is the Basic Drying Shrinkage.  This must be factored as detailed in the code to find the design drying shrinkage, then add the chemical (autogenous) shrinkage to find the final Design Shrinkage.
  • The spreadsheet Shrink() function will return the Design Shrinkage after any given period, for specified Basic Drying Shrinkage, concrete grade, hypothetical thickness, and K4 values.

BDShrink

Posted in Concrete, Excel, Newton, UDFs, VBA | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment