German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian 
Arabic 
Russian 
Japanese 
Turkish Good afternoon, Only the deformation shape under vertical loading is as in the picture. The deformation decreases towards the lower floors. It's especially noticeable in the middle beams. The loads on the beams are the same. wall loads etc. Shouldn't the displacements on all floors be close to each other? As a result, loads proceed as slab-beam-column. each floor disintegrates within itself. Do you think this form of deformation makes sense? Or am I thinking wrong. Thanks in advance.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1.4g+1.6q deformation
- Thread starter agure
- Start date
Hello there; If you were solving beams with support defined at both ends at different elevations, the difference in elevation would not affect the beam displacements. In the example you added, columns are defined at the ends of the beams; You will see that the nodal points of the columns are displaced horizontally from bottom to top with the effect of vertical loads. The displacements in the columns cause the built-in beams, which we can call fixed in the lower floors, to decrease as they go up to the upper floors. This change causes the chart you added to be created. So you thought wrong, this is the graph that should be. Best regards.
In other words, if there were rigid shears on the left and right of these beams of yours, or if the system was very rigid in terms of vertical carriers, then the displacements on the beams would be close to each other. In this case, of course, the largest displacements will occur in the upper region. Take a look at the shapes of the columns to the left and right of the red zone beams in the system.