Abstract
This chapter explains the concern expressed in recent literature regarding the number of cubic elements required to model a steel member is not justified and the inaccuracy of one cubic element in Euler buckling analysis of a simply supported column is largely irrelevant to the second-order elastic analysis/design or advanced analysis of steel frames. It is also claimed that the plastic-zone analysis method is not as inefficient as it was previously believed. The spatial cubic element is shown to be capable of accurately accounting for the coupling among axial, flexural, and torsional deformation modes. It is concluded that for the purposes of second-order elastic analysis/design and advanced analysis of 2D and 3D steel frames, the well-documented cubic element is a versatile and efficient choice.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
