You are on page 1of 13

# This Case Study report covers

## the Simulation Details of

WALKWAYS under a statically

Analysis of
Kansas
City
Walkways
Talha Yousuf

Table
Of
Conte
nt

DESCRIPTION:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
1.1
1.2

ORIGINAL DESIGN:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
FABRICATED DESIGN:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

MODEL INFORMATION:

----------------------------------3

METHODOLOGY:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

STUDY PROPERTIES:----------------------------------------------------------------------------4

UNITS:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

6.1 BRIDGE SUPPORTING DESIGN:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
6.2 MODEL USED FOR SIMULATION:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
6.4 MESHING:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
6.5 SIMULATION RESULTS:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
6.5.1 Stress analysis:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
6.5.2 displacement analysis:------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
6.5.3 strain analysis:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

MATERIAL PROPERTIES:-----------------------------------------------------------------------9

## MESH CONDITIONS FOR SIMULATION:---------------------------------------------------10

10

MESH RESULTS:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

11

## FINAL TABULATED RESULS FROM SIMULATION:---------------------------------------11

11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5

FORCES:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
MOMENTS:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
STRESSES:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
DISPLACEMENTS:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
STRAINS:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

1 DESCRIPTION:

## wo Kansas City Overhead Walkways collapsed owing to a

serious structural failure. Based on the case study report of
that incident, is produced a model of a portion of that bridge
and is simulated in the Solidworks.

## The suspended walkways in the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City

collapsed because a contractor fabricated the connections for the
walkways in a manner different from the original design.
These were suspension type walkways, vertically connected via 24ft
long threaded rods. Second and Fourth walkways collapsed in the
accident.

## 1.1 ORIGINAL DESIGN:

In the original design, walkways at the second and fourth floors were
hung from the same set of 24-ft-long threaded rods that would carry
their weights and loads to a roof truss.

## 1.2 FABRICATED DESIGN:

The fabricator was unable to procure threaded rods sufficiently long to
suspend the second-floor walkway from the roof truss, so instead, he
hung it from the fourth-floor walkway using shorter rods.
Both of the cases are figured below in Figure I

FIGURE I

2 MODEL INFORMATION:

Solid Bodies
Part Name

Treated As

dimensions)

Material Used

Lower beam

Solid Body

Length:300 mm
Mass:0.22 kg
Weight:2.20 N

Solid Body

Length:300 mm
Mass:0.22 kg
Weight:2.20 N

Solid Body

Length:110 mm
Mass:0.0120 kg
Weight:0.118 N

upper beam

Suspension rods

## ASTM A-36 Steel

& for the defected
Rod, material is
Wrought SS

3 METHODOLOGY:
In the original accident, there was a wrongly designed link in the beam
which was real cause of failure so to keep model simple, as an analogy
to this, three suspension rods of A-36 material are used while
as a symbol of DEFECTED PIECE, the

th

suspension rod is

## made of WROUGHT Stainless Steel.

Simulation is meant to show, how failure would have started?

4 STUDY PROPERTIES:
Following table tabulates, which features were included in simulation.
Analysis type
Mesh type
Thermal Effect:
Thermal option
Zero strain temperature
Fluid pressure effects
Solver type
Large displacement
Compute free body forces
Friction

Static
Solid Mesh
Yes
298 Kelvin
No
FFEPlus
Yes
Yes
No
No

NITS:
Unit system:
Length/Displacement
Temperature
Angular velocity
Pressure/Stress

SI (MKS)
mm
Kelvin
N/m^2

## 6 VISUAL INFORAMTION ABOUT MODEL:

6.1 BRIDGE SUPPORTING DESIGN:
FIGURE II

5
U

## 6.2 MODEL USED FOR SIMULATION:

As beams are main subject of concern so simulation was performed for
beams:
FIGURE III MODEL USED FOR SIMULATION

Force on each beam= 50kN
The suspension rods are fixed at theTOP.

6.4 MESHING:
FIGURE V-AFTER MESHING

## 6.5 SIMULATION RESULTS:

There are three types of results, being:
o Stress analysis.(showing stress distribution)
o Displacement analysis.(showing the displacement from original
point)
o Strain analysis.(showing strain distribution)

6.5.1

STRESS

ANALYSIS:

The wrong

The
breaking
probably

## FIGURE VI-STRESS ANALYSIS @ 50KN APPLIED ON EACH BEAM

This gives the idea, how the bridge beam would likely to have failed.
Although in the real disaster, the wrongly designed link failed thus
causing the whole system to collapse.

6.5.2

DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS:

## FIGURE VII-DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS

6.5.3

STRAIN ANALYSIS:

FIGURE VIII-STRAIN
ANALYSIS

7 MATERIAL PROPERTIES:
Model Reference

Properties
Name:
Model type:
Default failure
criterion:
Yield strength:
Tensile strength:
Elastic modulus:
Poisson's ratio:
Mass density:
Shear modulus:

Name:
Model type:
Default failure
criterion:
Yield strength:
Tensile strength:
Elastic modulus:
Poisson's ratio:
Mass density:
Shear modulus:
Thermal
expansion
coefficient:

Components
ASTM A36 Steel
Linear Elastic
Isotropic
Max von Mises
Stress
2.5e+8 N/m^2
4e+8 N/m^2
2e+11 N/m^2
0.26
7850 kg/m^3
7.93e+10 N/m^2

Upper Beam
Lower Beam
Two bottom suspension
rods
One of the top
suspension rod

Wrought
Stainless Steel
Linear Elastic
Isotropic
Max von Mises
Stress
2.07e+8 N/m^2
5.17e+8 N/m^2
2e+11 N/m^2
0.26
8000 kg/m^3
7.9e+10 N/m^2
1.1e-5 /Kelvin

## One of the top

suspension rod

Fixture
name

Fixture Image

Fixture Details
Entities:
Type:

2 Faces
Fixed Geometry

Faces to
remain
static
(fixed)

name

Entities:
Force:
Direction:

Vertical
Force

2 faces
Apply normal force
50kN
, Perpendicular to
face

## 9 MESH CONDITIONS FOR SIMULATION:

Mesh type
Mesher Used:
Automatic Transition:
Include Mesh Auto Loops:
Jacobian points
Element Size
Tolerance
Mesh Quality
Remesh failed parts with
incompatible mesh

Solid Mesh
Standard mesh
Off
Off
4 Points
3.41836 mm
0.170918 mm
High
Off

10 MESH RESULTS:
Total Nodes
Total Elements
Maximum Aspect Ratio
% of elements with Aspect Ratio <
3
% of elements with Aspect Ratio >
10
% of distorted elements(Jacobian)

38066
19242
10.125
97.9
0.0052
0

## 11 FINAL TABULATED RESULS FROM

SIMULATION:
11.1 FORCES:
Selectio
n set

Units

Sum X

Sum Y

Sum Z

Resultant

Entire Model

0.00416565

99982

0.00146484

99982

11.2 MOMENTS:
Selectio
n set

Units

Sum X

Sum Y

Sum Z

Resultant

Entire Model

N.m

11.3 STRESSES:
From Figure VI-stress analysis @ 50kN applied on each beam
Name

Type

Stress

Min

Max

## 1.85 e+10 N/m^2

11.4 DISPLACEMENTS:
Name

Type

Displacement

Resultant Displacement

Min

Max

0 mm

27.98 mm

11.5 STRAINS:
From Figure VIII-strain
Name
Strain

End
Of
Repor
t

analysis

Type

Min

Max

Equivalent Strain

2.23 e-5

0.059