Hi IDS.
I agree that using plate elements is the more accurate model. This exercise was mostly to make sure I understand how the model actually works before trusting it. So, I was trying to verify values with hand calcs. Now that I know where the discrepancy is coming from, I feel comfortable...
Just an update on this modeling issue.
I believe the discrepancy I've seen in the girder stresses stems from the transverse flexibility of the plate elements. Where composite beam design assumes the plates essentially stay fully rigid transversely, and act just like a girder flange, the plate...
@Bones206
Yes. I used Distance from NA to top fiber + deck thickness / 2.
That seemed to work for the generic "blob" element, because the section is defined by the neutral axis location. And when you model the element, it shows it rendered at the neutral axis.
However, with the Tapered WF...
Hi Bones206.
I tried based on the neutral axis of the non-composite steel section. (I think I also tried the composite neutral axis, which made it worse).
Based on that link that Shotzie provided, it looks like the rigid link length should be from the 1/2 depth of the beam to the 1/2 depth of...
Thanks JoshPlum.
I had seen the bit about RISAFloor doing composite, but as you noted, it has its own limitations.
Like you said, 3% isn't too far off for stress. But my concern is, if I'm 3% off for such a simple load case (point load on a simple span beam), then I'm not sure what level of...
Thanks Shotzie. I think I read that section initially, but I must not have caught the section where it explicitly states the rigid link connection points. That takes the mystery out of my rigid link length.
Hi Everybody,
I am using RISA-3D for some bridge analysis, and I am having some difficulty with modeling composite behavior. I realize that RISA does not natively support composite analysis, but I am trying to find a way to make it work using rigid offsets to connect my deck elements (plates) to...
