Why Caesar II does not consider friction effect for uniform loads when there is temperature?

Please find attached an example.

Regards.

Dear,

In fact, in your example it is considering it.

As you have friction at your supports, 5 of them at each side of your anchor, friction is being cancelled as there are 5 friction loads in one direction and same 5 friction loads in opposite direction (that's why in OPE you have no load).

You should have, in your load case options, the friction multiplier set to 1.

Regards.

Yes correct, load case 1 the resultant force is zero.

In all load cases the friction multiplier is set to 1.

Note that load case 2 friction is considered by the software, which is not the case of load case 3.

Any comment or explanation on the attached picture?

Dear,

I reiterate what i said in previous answer.

Note that LOAD CASE 3 IS considering friction effect.

Open your restraint summary and you will see how, for your LOAD CASE 3, the Fx in the supports is being cancelled because friction goes in opposite direction. So the load in the anchor should be F=WxU1 (W: weight = 22384.4; U1 = 0,2). That is correct and is what you are having.

Remember that, in static, ΣF=0; friction loads are opposite direction, so NO EFFECT on your anchor.

Regards,

As shown in attached image, for LOAD CASE 6 (you load case 3) red with blue is being cancelled, but friction load exists, so CAESAR is considering it.

Pablo,

My question is not exactly that.

Note that in the presence of temperature Caesar II ignore friction for uniform loads. In other words, the Fx force for load cases 2 and 3 should be the same or 14818N.

I understand that force friction caused by temperature expansion is equal to 0 at the center (load case 1); I created this symmetrical example on purpose to show that uniform load has different effect at restraints in the presence of temperature.

This topic was addressed in: "Treatment of Support Friction in Pipe Stress Analysis", Peng, PVP Vol.169 - 1989.

See attached picture.

The maximum friction load is Mu*Normal_Force. Your g-load is 0.2 while Mu is 0.3. So your case with W+U1 does not develop the full friction load. You can't really compare these results to those of a load case where the full friction load is developed, such as the case where you've also included T1.

If you need further review of this job, please open a Support Request on Smart Support and send in the job file.