Civil Engineering Association

Full Version: Beam formulation Plaxis and Geostudio
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
[/i]Hello!
I was wondering does anyone knows which type of beam formulation (Euler - Bernoulli or Timoshenko) does Plaxis and Geostudio uses. I tried to find out throughout manuals but there isn't any clue.
Thanks
Best regards
I find out that Geostudio uses Euler-Bernoulli beam formulation, while Plaxis uses Timoshenko beam formulation.
Hope someone else than me finds this useful.
s
Southosniks, I'm not so sure that Plaxis uses Timoshenko beam formulation. From where did you obtain that information.
Mindlin's beam theory, actually!
(10-03-2010, 07:34 PM)ynopum Wrote: [ -> ]Mindlin's beam theory, actually!

i think that Mindilin's is for plate (thick plate), just like Kirchove Love for thin plate..
Yes. The program is plane strain, and what we say that is beam represents a plate (1 m strip of it). It is written in the manual.

It is always a good idea before asking something for any program to check its documentation.

But it seems that the starter of this thread is banned for some reason, so answering was useless.
I wouldn't say that is useless. I'm also researching beam formulation for FE analysis.
Unlike southsoniks,maybe, I did take a look in Plaxis manual, but there is no word about formulation, only test functions.
Take another look in the manual :dash2: :
[Image: 38238113446960095678.png]
Ok. I see that I missread something. Btw, If you use Mindlin theory with width of beam 1m, it transforms to Timoshenko theory.
I am curious why think that the beam formulation is important, especially in ground-engineering. Usually in this field have huge error in the input data; then the geometry is not precise; then the material behavior laws are far from the reality (elasticity theory, small displacements !!), and finally the FEM errors itself. Maybe your interest is just for some theoretical comparison.
Pages: 1 2