0
$\begingroup$

I've seen many videos and books where statically determined beams' hand calculations are checked using FEA. But why is it that FEA results don't match the ones obtained using hand calculations (in this case the three-moment method) when analyzing continuous beams? I presume it has something to do with the nature of the methods? If I were to analyze the beam using matrix methods (flexibility or stiffness), would the reaction forces match those of FEA or the three-moment method? Which method then would be more accurate? Thanks in advance, fellas.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Why not evaluate the FEA calculations and compare them? The theoretical methods are available. $\endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    Jun 29, 2023 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ What are you comparing? S simply supported beam vs continuously supported beam? Even the sums of loads are different - simply supported F = 4.5372 KN, and continuous F = 1.1344. Please clarify. $\endgroup$
    – r13
    Jun 29, 2023 at 20:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FEA is just a method of doing "hand calculations" on lots of little pieces. As such, your mesh ( how you divide into pieces) matters. $\endgroup$
    – Abel
    Jun 30, 2023 at 13:51

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.