Fea Done
Fea Done
Fea Done
I confirm that this is all my own work (if submitted electronically, submission will be taken
as confirmation that this is your own work, and will also act as student signature)
Table of content
1.
Introduction page 3
2.
Theory page 3
3.
Methodology page 4
4.
Results page 5-7
5.
Discussion page 7-8
6.
Conclusion page 8
7.
Reference page 8
8.
Appendix page 9- 14
WORD COUNT: 1497 excluding figures and tables
1. Introduction
This report aims to demonstrate the following:
2. Theory
Finite element analysis (FEA)
FEA is widely used today in industry to solve complex problems in
structure analysis. It operates by dividing the complex structure into a
series of smaller parts, such part is called element and nodes in between.
From the theory, it can be said that with more elements - finer mesh size,
it would be better to solve the problem. In this assignment, a studying of
effects of mesh size to the consistency in computational solving time and
accuracy of results comparing to the theoretical solutions is done to show
the characteristic of mesh size.
Stress concentration
When a large stress gradient exists at a localise area of a structure, it is
called stress concentration. The localised stress exceeds the average or
nominal stress in a material. In our report, the nominal stress is replaced
by the maximum value of applied pressure at the end of the beam and the
stress concentration factor Kf is defined as:
Kf =
SEQV (stress)
P max
St Venants Principle
St Venants principle states that at sections distant from the surface of
loading, the localised effect is negligible and statically equivalent systems
of forces produce the same stresses on the same area. [1]
3. Methodology
ANSYS setup:
A model of cantilever beam (presented in appendix A) is created in ANSYS
Mechanical. The beam is then constrained its displacement on the left end
to be 0 and a moment is applied on the right end by defining a varying
pressure gradient.
The element type is chosen as Quad 8 Node Plane183 with element
behaviour K3 set to Plane Stress with thickness and the thickness is set
to be 1. The material is chosen as a linear, elastic, isotropic material with
= 1 and = 0.3.
To analyse the beam, the U-notches are called point 1,2 and the shoulders
are called point 3 and 4.
Convergence study with mesh sizes and comparison with
Roarks Formula
The beam was meshed with a random Global Size of 5 and no Smart Size
chosen at first. It is clear shown that the mesh at notches and shoulder
are coarse with large element size so the solution would not have the
required accuracy.
A convergence study is then conducted by improving the mesh
decreasing the mesh Global Size then using the Smart Size mesh to
determine the effects on the von-Mises stress. Once the correct mesh is
found, maximum von-Mises stress at notches and shoulders would be
obtained to calculate stress concentration factor. The convergence of the
stress results as the mesh size gets fine would be validated and discussed
later.
The calculated stress concentration factor will be compared with the
theoretical result from Roarks Formula. (formulae are shown in appendix
B)
4. Result
Stress concentration factor calculated by using Roarks
formula:
Location
Notches
Shoulde
rs
Table 1: result of theoretical stress concentration factor
Convergence study on global size numerical result can be
found in appendix C
The effect of gradually decreasing of the mesh Global Size on the stress
concentration factor are shown below in following graphs:
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Global Size
From the above graph, it can be seen that using global size of 0.2, the
value of Kt converged to 1.59 immediately.
However, by using the mesh global size of 0.3 with smart size 4, it would
give the closest stress concentration factor to the theoretical ones. So it
would be chose as the final mesh size
Point
1
2
3
4
Mesh size
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Smart Size
4
4
4
4
SEQV
80.139
80.461
88.642
87.134
KT
1.60278
1.60922
1.77284
1.74268
% DIFFERENCE
25.80
25.50
-0.73
0.98
Table 2: final mesh size and its % difference to the theoretical values:
Fig 4: Mesh size 1 compared with Mesh size 0.3 smart size 4
Extra study on varied value of pressure and length of the
bar:
As the pressure and length of the bar changes, it would give no effect on
the stress concentration factors. Study was done with pressure of 50 and
500, the ratio between maximum von-Mises stress and pressure would
keep the stress concentration factor the same.
As the length L of the rectangle bar increases from 15 to 30, there were
also no significant effects on the stress concentration factor.
5. Discussion on results:
Convergence study:
It can be assumed that the choice of element type Plane183 would
provide a faster convergence, as this element has 8-node comparing to 4node of Plane182. Plane183 is capable of representing deformations more
accurately even at a coarser mesh while Plane182 is incapable of creating
a degenerated triangular element. [2]
Smart Size option also gives faster convergence due to the fact that the
greatest difference using different global mesh size is at the curvature of
the notches. The curvatures are better drawn with Smart Size option,
because this created smaller mesh elements than the global size near the
arc of the shoulder and the notch. [3]
FEA analysis
The maximum stress appears at the predicted points. For the notches, as
for different mesh size, the location of maximum stress alternates
% difference
25%
<1%
10
Geometry:
11
Moments:
Linearly varying pressure is set along right end of the bar to stimulate the
moment applied on the right end
Material properties:
Youngs Modulus EX = 1
Poissons Ratio PRXY = 0.3
Appendix B Theoretical stress concentration factor [5]
h
=2
r
and
2
h
=0.15
D
3
h
=2
r
and
2
h
=0.15
D
3
12
max max
=
nom Pmax
Point and
node
Point 1
(214)
Point 2
(54)
Point 3
(44)
Point 4
(98)
Point 1
(272)
Point 2
(72)
Point 3
(184)
Point 4
(156)
Point 1
(410)
Point 2
(106)
Point 3
(338)
Point 4
(190)
Point 1
(506)
Point 2
(132)
Point 3
(416)
Point 4
(234)
0.75
0.5
0.4
von-Mises
SEQV stress
Stress
concentration
factor Kt
% Difference to
Roark Kt
74.488
1.48976
30.98
75.38
1.5076
30.16
71.485
1.4297
18.73
71.82
1.4364
18.35
79.383
1.58766
26.45
77.654
1.55308
28.05
74.558
1.49116
15.24
75.013
1.50026
14.72
81.094
1.62188
24.86
82.676
1.65352
23.40
81.476
1.62952
7.377
79.907
1.59814
9.161
82.458
1.64916
23.60
82.099
1.64198
23.93
80.259
1.60518
8.761
82.96
1.6592
5.690
13
Point 1
(672)
Point 2
(176)
Point 3
(554)
Point 4
(310)
Point 1
(1000)
Point 2
(260)
Point 3
(826)
Point 4
(458)
Table 4: result from
79.762
1.59524
26.10
80.821
1.61642
25.12
86.794
1.73588
1.331
88.461
1.76922
-0.563
79.411
1.58822
26.42
79.533
1.59066
26.31
89.801
1.79602
-2.086
88.91
ANSYS
1.7782
-1.073
0.2
As the node global size gets lower than 0.19, the computation time takes
longer and the limitation of node prevents the study to go further.
Appendix D - Convergence study with smart size
Mesh size
Node
Kt
% difference
0.3
Smart
size
4
20
80.139
25.79
0.3
20
77.526
0.3
20
78.221
Mesh size
Node
0.25
Smart
size
4
1.6027
8
1.5505
2
1.5644
2
Kt
20
80.459
0.25
20
79.882
0.25
20
79.222
Mesh size
0.2
0.2
0.2
Table 5:
Smart
Node vonsize
4
20
3
20
2
20
ANSYS result at top notch
Mises stress
79.7
79.7
79.7
28.21
27.57
% difference
1.6091
8
1.5976
4
1.5844
4
Kt
25.50
% difference
1.594
1.594
1.594
26.20
26.20
26.20
26.03
26.64
14
Mesh size
0.3
Smart
size
4
0.3
0.3
Mesh size
Smart
size
4
0.25
0.25
0.25
Mesh size
Node
19
80.461
19
19
77.838
Node
77.838
von- Mises stress
19
78.707
19
19
78.954
3
2
0.2
Smart
size
4
0.2
0.2
Node
79.328
von- Mises stress
19
79.429
19
79.429
19
79.429
Table 6: ANSYS result at bottom notch
Mesh size
0.3
0.3
0.3
Mesh size
Smart
size
4
Node
211
88.642
215
84.126
215
Node
84.126
von- Mises stress
3
2
0.25
Smart
size
4
0.25
0.25
Mesh size
0.2
2
Smart
size
4
0.2
249
89.307
249
253
Node
87.612
88.26
von- Mises stress
307
89.698
307
89.698
Kt
1.6092
2
1.5567
6
1.5567
6
Kt
1.5741
4
1.5790
8
1.5865
6
Kt
1.5885
8
1.5885
8
1.5885
8
Kt
1.7728
4
1.6825
2
1.6825
2
Kt
1.7861
4
1.7522
4
1.7652
Kt
1.7939
6
1.7939
6
% difference
25.50
27.93
27.93
% difference
27.12
26.89
26.55
% difference
26.45
26.45
26.45
% difference
-0.73
4.40
4.40
% difference
-1.49
0.44
-0.30
% difference
-1.93
-1.93
15
307
89.698
Table 7: ANSYS result at top shoulder
Mesh size
0.3
0.3
Node
543
87.134
547
750
Node
85.576
85.65
von- Mises stress
892
892
88.762
88.09
896
Node
86.162
von- Mises stress
0.3
Mesh size
0.25
0.25
0.25
2
Smart
size
4
3
2
Mesh size
0.2
0.2
0.2
Table 8:
Smart
size
4
Smart
size
4
1112
89.13
3
1112
89.13
2
1112
89.13
ANSYS result at bottom shoulder
1.7939
6
-1.93
Kt
% difference
1.7426
8
1.7115
2
1.713
Kt
0.98
2.75
2.67
% difference
1.7752
4
1.7618
1.7232
4
Kt
2.09
% difference
1.7826
1.7826
1.7826
-1.28
-1.28
-1.28
-0.87
-0.10
16
17