Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 2
Rectangular Plate with Fixed Edges
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A fully fixed rectangular plate is analyzed for three load conditions. The
geometric descriptions and material properties and the load cases are the same as
those of Example 1. However, the boundary conditions are different. All edges
are fixed, as shown in Figure 2-1. To test convergence, the problem is analyzed
using three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2: 4 × 4, 8 × 8, and 12 × 12. The
plate is modeled using plate elements available in SAFE. The fixed edges are
modeled as line supports with large vertical and rotational stiffnesses. The self
weight of the plate is not included in any of the load cases. The numerical data
for this problem are given in the following section.
A theoretical solution to this problem, employing a single series (Lévy’s
solution), is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The numerically
computed deflections obtained from SAFE are compared with the theoretical
values.
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING
Plate size a×b = 360" × 240"
Plate thickness T = 8 inches
Modulus of Elasticity E = 3000 ksi
Poisson's ratio v = 0.3
Load Cases:
(UL) Uniform load q = 100 psf
(PL) Point load P = 20 kips
(LL) Live load q1 = 1 kip/ft
EXAMPLE 2 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0
(3) q1
(2) P
(1) q
a = 30 '
(3) (2) (1)
b = 20 '
q1 P
Figure 2-1 Rectangular Plate with All Edges Fixed
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED
Comparison of slab deflection with bench mark solution.
RESULTS COMPARISON
The numerical displacements obtained from SAFE are compared with those
obtained from the theoretical solution in Table 2-1. The theoretical results are
based on tabular values given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). A
comparison of deflections for the three load cases shows a fast convergence to
the theoretical values with successive mesh refinement.
EXAMPLE 2 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0
Table 2-1 Comparison of Displacements
Thin Plate Formulation
Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical
Load Displacement
Case X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)
60 60 0.0098 0.0090 0.0089
60 120 0.0168 0.0153 0.0150
UL
180 60 0.0237 0.0215 0.0210
180 120 0.0413 0.0374 0.0366 0.036036
60 60 0.0065 0.0053 0.0052
60 120 0.0111 0.0100 0.0100
PL
180 60 0.0315 0.0281 0.0272
180 120 0.0659 0.0616 0.0598 0.057453
60 60 0.0079 0.0072 0.0071
60 120 0.0177 0.0161 0.0158
LL
180 60 0.0209 0.0188 0.0184
180 120 0.0413 0.0375 0.0367
EXAMPLE 2 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0
Thick Plate Formulation
Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical
Load Displacement
Case X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)
60 60 0.0085 0.0093 0.0091
60 120 0.0147 0.0156 0.0154
UL
180 60 0.0214 0.0219 0.0215
180 120 0.0397 0.0381 0.0374 0.036036
60 60 0.0083 0.0056 0.0053
60 120 0.0169 0.0101 0.0102
PL
180 60 0.0270 0.0283 0.0278
180 120 0.0545 0.0600 0.0605 0.057453
60 60 0.0072 0.0073 0.0073
60 120 0.0149 0.0165 0.0163
LL
180 60 0.0198 0.0191 0.0188
180 120 0.0399 0.0382 0.0375
COMPUTER FILE:
S02a-Thin.FDB. S02b-Thin.FDB, S02c-Thin.FDB, S02a-Thick.FDB. S02b-
Thick.FDB, and S02c-Thick.FDB
CONCLUSION
The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 2 - 4
