48371 Advanced Engineering Computing

Project 4: Dynamic Analysis of Frames

By
Ali Arman Khurshid 99193664
Alvin Yoliva 12702686
Alexander Tseng 98124910
WooWon (Chris) Wi 97103636
Harminder Singh 12120527
Junanto 12734164
Somanearphakdey Chen 12425500
Purushottam Thapa 12634770
Tahmim Islam 12513305
Executive Summary

All structures experience a form of loading whether its dead loads, live loads, wind loads or seismic
loads. As such, these loads need to be considered in the design structure for the safety of the building
and community. Construction material also plays a vital role in this consideration where it is
implemented in the design and analysis of the structure. It is necessary to ensure the structure is safe
and capable to withstand static and dynamic loads without the cause of deformation and failure in
structural integrity.

This report deals with a steel frame structure consists of columns 400WC270 and Beams 310UB46.2.
Dimensions and steel properties are retrieved from the design handbook OneSteel “Hot Rolled and
Structural Steel Products 4th Edition” and used in the methodology of CAD software: MATLAB,
Microstran and ANSYS. The results derived from this software are compared and analysed on their
similarities, differences and causes or possible error.

The following report encapsulates the dynamic loading of a five-storey frame structure (figure 1) using
the methodologies of Microstran, ANSYS and MATLAB. Through planning, discussing and analysing,
the following tasks have been addressed:

1. Identifying the first 5 natural frequencies and associated mode shapes of this frame structure.
2. Investigating the dynamic responses of the FGP frame structure subjected to two transient
loads shown in Figure 2 and 3 below. The transients are applied horizontally at Node A.
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Project Description............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Task 1 Description ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Task 2 Description ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Project Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Project Requirements ................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Microstran .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.2 ANSYS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Timeline......................................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 MATLAB Approach ............................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Task 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Adopted Methodology ........................................................................................................... 6
4.1.2 Challenges and Limitations .................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Task 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
4.2.1 Adopted Methodology ........................................................................................................... 8
4.2.2 Challenges and Limitations .................................................................................................... 8
5.0 Task 1 Results .................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Software Analysis (Microstran) ..................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 10
6.0 Task 2 Results .................................................................................................................................. 11
6.1 Software Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 11
6.1.1 ANSYS ................................................................................................................................... 11
6.1.2 Microstran (Static Analysis) ................................................................................................. 13
6.2 Discussion - ALEX......................................................................................................................... 14
7.0 Reflection ........................................................................................................................................ 15
8.0 Conclusion JUNANTO ...................................................................................................................... 16
9.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 17
1.0 Introduction
For our design project we are given a five-storey frame structure, in which all columns are 400WC270
and the beams are 310UB46.2. All the properties for the associated dimensions of the section was
found from the 4th edition of Hot Rolled and Structural Steel Products manual available online. We
have two main tasks that we need to complete for this project which are related to the dynamic
analysis, detailed description is provided in section 2.

2.0 Project Description

Figure 1: 5-storey Building

2.1 Task 1 Description

As it is five storeys building and there is no damping present in the system, thus our first task is to
identify the 5-natural frequency and the deformed shape of the structure (Mode Shape) at that
particular frequency. Which will help us in understanding the resonant behaviour of that structure
and we can design accordingly for ductility at the natural frequency, allowing for deformation or
yielding but not failure.

2.2 Task 2 Description

In task 2, we are assigned to find dynamic responses for the structure with the given load case 1 and
load case 2 graph. Dynamic analysis of a structure considered important since it will help us in some
ways as follows:

1. To determine the dynamic displacements, nodal acceleration, and time-history response.

2. Help the team to identify the critical areas of the structure that need to be taken care of.
3. Model the responses of the building under earthquakes, wind, or another transient load.
 Figure 2: Load Case 1

Figure 3: Load Case 2

3.0 Project Scope

3.1 Project Requirements
The project requires us to approach our given tasks using MATLAB as our main approach into solving
the problem and to choose additional software to help determine and compare the result and check
for errors and for us to present our finding to the rest of the class. Our group chose to use two
additional software to help us verify our answers: Microstran and ANSYS.

3.1.1 Microstran
Microstran is structural analysis software that our team members are familiar with which led us to
choosing it as one of our additional chosen software. It is also a common software used by others to
model problems such as these and therefore we see a benefit in trying to use this software as it is
relevant to our fields and future. We had to enable the advanced version of Microstran to access the
dynamic analysis section of the software.

3.1.2 ANSYS
Similarly, to Microstran, the reasoning for why we use it is due to our familiarity with the software and
the fact that it is a software that is used in most cases. It is also very approachable and user friendly
as we can model the shape of our structure whereas MATLAB requires us to write the shape of our
model into the code itself.
3.2 Timeline
In order to make sure that our protect gets done on time, multiple deliverables are set by our group
in order to stay on track and organise. Along the way, we are also required to give multiple
presentation but that has been adjusted from four different presentation documenting our progress
into two different ones where we provide and introduction to our problem and a final presentation
where we showcase our result and make comparison between the different software and a summary
of the project.

The deliverable set by the team is listed down below, tweaks were made from the original as our
assessment was slightly change towards the ends, but the main parts remained the same.
Figure 4: Timeline of Project Deliverables

In order to further help with organization, the team was split into two. One focuses on solving the
first task, finding the natural frequency, while the second team focuses on the solving the second
task, finding the dynamic reaction. Both teams will work with conjunction with each, helping each
other out if the other were to face a problem and making sure that things will be done in an orderly
manner.

4.0 MATLAB Approach

4.1 Task 1
4.1.1 Adopted Methodology
As the group was fairly new to coding with MATLAB and to the theory of the finite element method,
it was a unanimous decision to use the Euler-Bernoulli Beam Theory due to ;9 its simplicity as it
disregards shear deformation of the beam element.

Referring to Bang and Kwon (2001), they have derived a function which calculated the Mass and
Stiffness matrix for a single frame element or bar. That function was then heavily edited and re-coded
to derive the stiffness and mass matrix for our structure.
It is to be noted that damping was not considered when calculating the first 5 natural frequencies of
the structure. All though some sort of natural damping could affect the results in the Microstrain
model and calucations.

The following formula in MATLAB was used to derive the Stiffness Matrix at the local axis:

The formula was then multiplied with the rotational matrix to derive the stiffness matrix in the
global axis:

Similarly, the following formula in MATLAB was used to derive the consistent mass matrix

The formula was then multiplied with the rotational matrix to derive the mass matrix in the global
axis:

The following is the equation of the rotation matrix:

As the structure was not simplified and was analysed beam by beam, the size of the stiffness and mass
matrix is 120 x 120. The matrix doesn’t account for the 21 restraints due to the 7 fixed supports, the
fixed supports restraints the structure in the x-direction, y-direction and against rotation.

One of the tricky challenges of this code was to differentiate between the cross-sectional areas of the
column and beam. To tackle this issue, the node numbers and element matrices had to be assigned in
a way that we were able to insert an IF function so that MATLAB could retrieve the relevant
information for the cross-sectional area of the element.

To assemble the global stiffness and mass matrix from the local axis, the truss example in week 4 was
utilised. The only difference being that the location vector for assembling the global matrix would be
a 6x1 matrix due to the element having 6 Degrees of Freedom.

To solve for the natural frequency the following equation was used:

det{[𝑘] − 𝜆𝑛 [𝑚]} = 0
The eigenvalue function in MATLAB derives the number of natural frequencies associated with the
shape of the structure.

4.1.2 Challenges and Limitations

Due to the structure shape, it was best to assemble the mass and stiffness matrix element by element
as the structure was not symmetrical. Due to this, it could not be possible to simplify the complexity
of the calculations further.

4.2 Task 2
4.2.1 Adopted Methodology
There are several methodologies that are available to choose to do dynamic analysis for the structure
itself. However, our team agree that we are going to use ANSYS Software to determine the dynamic
responses and we will use Microstran and MATLAB to verify it further.

Using the stiffness and mass matrix derived from task 1, we had to calculate the damping matrix using
Rayleigh’s equation for damping:

[𝐶] = 𝛼[𝑀] + 𝛽[𝐾]

The values for α and β were derived from Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2003). Substituting in the values
in the equation, a 120 x 120 damping matrix was derived to complete the following equation for
motion:

P(t) = [M]ü + [C]u̇ + [K]u

Unfortunately, we were not able to get the MATLAB code to work. For this reason, we diverted to a
static analysis. We were able to obtain a MATLAB Program from the MATLAB community which
computes the settlement and structural deformation for each degree of freedom. We believe the
results derived from the static analysis will provide the extreme limits of which the structure deforms
to.

4.2.2 Challenges and Limitations

Some challenges that our team has faced during the whole processes are as follows:

1. Structure has 3 degree-of-freedoms (MDOF)

2. Sample problem that is given to us are too simplified
3. The structure shape itself are asymmetrical
 4. Challenging MATLAB coding that needed to be learnt and done

5.0 Task 1 Results

Mode Microstran Frequency (Hz) Matlab Frequency (Hz)
1 6.42 6.80
2 21.36 22.33
3 38.88 35.66
4 39.87 39.01
5 44.89 43.46

5.1 Software Analysis (Microstran)

Figure 5: Mode Shape 1

Figure 6: Mode Shape 2

Figure 7: Mode Shape 3

 Figure 8: Mode Shape 4

Figure 9: Mode Shape 5

5.2 Discussion
As it can be seen from the results, the output from Microstran and MATLAB are quite similar with
some variance in the results. This may be due to Microstran using a different methodology to
formulate the stiffness and mass matrix. Another factor may be due to the software’s ability to simplify
the structure which would return a more simplified stiffness and mass matrix, the equation to solve
for the eigenvalues would most likely remain the same.

Furthermore, the software may have also accounted for more information as it has access to all the
material data for the selected beam and column steel grades. This could mean the software could
calculate for more values which could give a different output. But given the difference between the
results, there should not be much of a difference between the calculation methods as the difference
between the calculated natural frequencies are less than 10%.

However, a 10% variance is still a big percentage of error. As the MATLAB coding was quite extensive
there may have been some errors in some of the variables. Furthermore, Microstran may have
included some sort of natural damping which the steel columns and beams may have provided which
could have further cause more dissimilarities within the calculations of MATLAB.

We have attempted to perform a convergence study using ANSYS to identify which answer is correct,
however due to our inexperience with the software we were not able to complete the study
6.0 Task 2 Results
ANSYS Microstran (Static MATLAB
Analysis)
Maximum 6.8665e-004 m 7.0000e-004m 8.577e-04 m
Deformation - Load
Case 1
Minimum -7.00855e-004 m -7.0000e-004m -8.577e-04 m
Deformation – Load
Case 1
Maximum 6.8665e-004 m 7.0000e-004m 8.577e-04 m
Deformation - Load
Case 2
Minimum 0m 0m 0m
Deformation – Load
Case 2

6.1 Software Analysis

6.1.1 ANSYS
Load Case 1
Figure 10: Load Case 1

Figure 11: Structure Deformation View Due to Load Case 1

 Figure 12: Total Deformation Graph

Figure 13: Directional Deformation Graph

Load Case 2
Figure 14: Load Case 2

Figure 15: Structure Deformation View Due to Load Case 2

Figure 16: Total Deformation Graph

6.1.2 Microstran (Static Analysis)
Figure 17: +10 kN force applied

Figure 18: +10 kN deflection

 Figure 19: -10 kN force applied

Figure 20: -10 kN deflection

6.2 Discussion
As mentioned earlier, we planned on performing a static analysis using MATLAB and used Microstran
to verify the results. There were some discrepancies with the results, this may have been due to
Microstran using a different methodology to determine the matrices associated with the structure
which yielded different results. However, for both the results it seems that the structure is within the
limits of the deformation.
In load case 1 on ANSYS, the structure experienced a deformation of 6.866e-4m and 7.085e-5m in the
opposing direction. This highlighted an interesting reaction to the load as the structure deflected in
one direction and then back, past its initial position. It also demonstrates damping effects as
noticeable deformation occurs with the first 2.5 seconds. The dynamic results of this is shown above
in figure 13 which highlights the directional deformation. Similarly, in load case 2 the structure also
deformed 6.866e-4m but its deflection managed to stay above the positive axis (figure 16) and not go
past its initial position. This is due to the load of case 2 action internally whereas load case 1 was acting
externally.

The reasoning as to why the 10kN is causing minor deformation on the structure is theorised to be
due the structure’s weight. The structure is calculated to weigh approximately 30 tonnes. Using the
equation F = MA;

M = 10kN/9.81ms2

M = 1.01T

Thus, the structure being too heavy may have been the cause for minor deformation due to 10kn
load.

7.0 Reflection
The project for this subject presented a greater challenge for our group than any other assignments
we had done before. The first part of the project was to find the natural frequencies of the given
frame. This part was done simply using Microstran model to verify the results obtained from MATLAB.
However, the second part of the project, dynamic analysis, provided the biggest challenge to the
group.

MATLAB being new to everyone in the group, we struggled with the coding for dynamic analysis.
Several resources were used for coding such as the book Finite Element Method using MATLAB,
MATLAB community support, CALFEM, etc. After several unsuccessful tries, we decide to do a static
analysis using the maximum positive and negative load for MATLAB calculations. This made the
MATLAB coding easier and the static analysis results were verified using Microstran while dynamic
analysis was also done using ANSYS.

Overall, the team found the assignment to be interesting yet challenging as none of us had worked on
dynamic loads before. Similarly, none of us were particularly well versed at any form of coding and
the MATLAB coding we did in the lecture and tutorials in the subject were very basic compared to the
assignment. Therefore, we found out that we were out of our depth at times while doing the dynamic
analysis. On the other hand, dynamic analysis using structural software was straightforward as we
found learning to use ANSYS was easier than coding in MATLAB.

If some group members were familiar with the new methodology from the lectures, It would have
made the analysis of the structure much easier. Furthermore, the verification process using FEA
Software was also quite tricky as the only software which the group was familiar with was Microstran
which is not an ideal software to conduct a dynamic analysis

The whole team agreed that the assignment was useful for developing our knowledge of dynamic
analysis and learning to use different commercial structural analysis software but found the MATLAB
coding to be very difficult. We believe we need more understanding of MATLAB to complete this
project which we were unable to fully complete in the given timeframe.
8.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, our task was to do a structural analysis on a 2D frame structure. The scope of the task
was to:

1. Solve the first 5 natural frequencies of the structure along with its mode shapes
2. Determine the dynamic response of the structure due to 2 transient loads.

While some challenges were faced when working on the task, we were able to get some output from
our MATLAB codes which were in close correlation with the analysis from the FEA software. Although
we did not get the answers which we were not looking for, we were able to understand and identify
the reason behind it. Furthermore, we also learned how to pivot to alternative methods when things
were not working and then validated the results using software.

MATLAB gave us an opportunity to learn coding which is used in multiple FEA software and also help
learn the theory behind the requirements of the assignment. The project also helped us expand our
technical skills in relevant structural analysis software such as ANSYS and Microstran which will be a
useful asset as an engineer.
 9.0 References
Chowdhury, I. and S. Dasgupta (2003), Computation of Rayleigh Damping Coefficients for Large Systems,
Int. J. Space Struct. 43: 6855-6868.
Kwon, Y. and Bang, H. (2000), The finite element method using MATLAB, 2nd ed, CRC Press