Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The direct stiffness method originated in the field of aerospace. Researchers looked at various approaches for analysis of complex airplane frames. These included elasticity theory, energy principles in structural mechanics, flexibility method and matrix stiffness method. It was through analysis of these methods that the direct stiffness method ...
The full stiffness matrix A is the sum of the element stiffness matrices. In particular, for basis functions that are only supported locally, the stiffness matrix is sparse. For many standard choices of basis functions, i.e. piecewise linear basis functions on triangles, there are simple formulas for the element stiffness matrices.
The matrix is usually referred to as the stiffness matrix, while the matrix is dubbed the mass matrix. General form of the finite element method ...
Space frames are typically designed using a rigidity matrix. The special characteristic of the stiffness matrix in an architectural space frame is the independence of the angular factors. If the joints are sufficiently rigid, the angular deflections can be neglected, simplifying the calculations.
The origin of finite method can be traced to the matrix analysis of structures [1] [2] where the concept of a displacement or stiffness matrix approach was introduced. Finite element concepts were developed based on engineering methods in 1950s.
Commercial computer software for structural analysis typically uses matrix finite-element analysis, which can be further classified into two main approaches: the displacement or stiffness method and the force or flexibility method. The stiffness method is the most popular by far thanks to its ease of implementation as well as of formulation for ...
The finite element method has been the tool of choice since civil engineer Ray W. Clough in 1940 derived the stiffness matrix of a 3-node triangular finite element (and coined the name). The precursors of FEM were elements built-up from bars ( Hrennikoff , Argyris , Turner) and a conceptual variation approach suggested by R. Courant .
For comparison purposes, the following are the results generated using a matrix method. Note that in the analysis above, the iterative process was carried to >0.01 precision. The fact that the matrix analysis results and the moment distribution analysis results match to 0.001 precision is mere coincidence.