[RM Bridge] Why the stress and internal forces do not match?

A simply supported beam has dead load, prestressing and Creep & Shrinkage (CS) at  STG1

The internal forces (STG-SUM at the end of STG1: STG1E-SUM) are as below (e.g. node 112 at element 111)

The corresponding stresses are as below (e.g. node 112 at element 111)

The section is as below

Based on the internal forces and section properties extracted from RM Bridge, the stress at bottom center can be calculated as follows

stress due to N, σN=-4275kN / 8.9e5mm2 = -4.8MPa

stress due to Mz, σMz=-3007.3kN*m * 1.333e3mm / 4.293e11mm4 = -9.3MPa

stress due to My, σMy=-26.1kN*m * 0 mm / 1.938e11mm4 = 0MPa

total stress = σN + σMz + σMy = -14.1MPa, I get similar result from other software, like LUSAS, Midas Civil and Sofistik

But RM Bridge shows -30494 (-30.494MPa)

Why?

The TCL files are attached

1.zip

Parents Reply
  • Hi Peres,

    Thank you for pointing out that the plain CS instead of updated CS (excluding duct, including tendon, grouting) is used in stress calculation by hand.

    The reason I use plain CS is because the area of the duct (0.0129 m2) is small compared to the area of the girder section (0.89 m2). 

    Therefore the stress results from plain CS and from updated CS should have small differences, this conclusion has been verified by hand calculation and other softwares as show below.

    Hand Calculation Software Calculation
    σ1 (MPa) σ3 (MPa) σ1 (MPa) σ3 (MPa)
    Midas Civil -0.35 -13.81 0 -14.6
    Lusas -0.26 -14.52 -0.5 -14.6
    RM Bridge -0.29 -14.18 2.4 -30.2
    Sofisitk -0.42 -14.18 -0.3 -12.4

    In the "Hand Calculation", plain CS are used, while in the "Software Calculation", all 4 softwares use updated CS.

    The σ1 is the top corner stress and σ2 is the bottom corner stress.

    It can been found that the stresses from plain CS is very close to those from updated CS in Midas Civil, Lusas and Sofistik.

    But RM Bridge shows very large difference.

Children