Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fea Chapter1
Fea Chapter1
Finit
e
Finite
Element
Analysis
in Structures
Zahit Mecitolu
Finite
Element
Analysis
in Structures
Zahit Mecitolu
stanbul Technical University
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Maslak, Istanbul
January 2008
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Finite element analysis is introduced in this chapter. The advantages of the method
over the other analysis methods are explained. The application steps of the method and
software usage are discussed. The cautions which must be taken care about are denoted.
Recognation of need
Definition of problem
Determination of
design constraints
Design modifications
Structural design
Analysis
Experiment
Evaluation
No
Does design
satisfy all design
constraints
Yes
Presentation
5
loads without failure. There are two ways to ensure design constraints: Analysis and
experiment.
Experimental way is based on the trial-and-error approach and for the large
structures with expensive components the cost for a trial-and-error experiment approach
is severe. Furthermore, test of some systems can be dangerous. Therefore it is desirable
to develop a theory that will adequately predict failure analyze the particular design
using this theory. The advantage of this method is that the engineer can predict failure
of his design without having to actually construct and test it.
A diagram for the solution process of engineering problems is shown in Figure 1.3.
An analysis is applied to a model problem rather than to an actual physical problem.
Even laboratory experiments use models unless the actual physical structure is tested.
The shortcomings of the both methods are the approximations during the modeling and
solution/measurement phases.
In the structural design, analysis and experiment should both be viewed as
dispensable in the design process. In practice, at first the analyses are used to improve
the design. Thus the number of experiments is decreased and the stupidly accidents
during the experiments are prevented.
!
aproximations
method of
solution
mathematical
model
aproximations
results
engineering
problem
!
aproximations
!
Experimental
model
measurements
aproximations
Example 1.1 Consider a beam with length L as shown in Fig. 1.4. The modulus of
elasticity of beam is E, and the moment of inertia is I. When a vertical distributed load P
is applied, the beam deforms by w from the original horizontal line. Mathematical
model of the beam in differential equation form is
P
EI
EI
d 4w
dx 4
=P
(1.1)
7
d 2w
dx 2
d 3w
dx3
= 0 at x = L
L
d 2w
dx
dx 2
Pwdx
0
0
L
(1.2)
Here is the mechanical potential energy of the beam with deflection w under applied
distributed force P. A solution of this problem statement can be obtained by minimizing
the potential energy.
Solution:
(i) Analytical Solution: Application of the integration method to Eq. (1.1) as an
analytical solution method..
d 3w
dx
d 2w
1
Px + C1
EI
1
Px 2 + C1 x + C2
2
EI
dx
1
dw
=
Px3 + C1 x 2 + C2 x + C3
dx 6 EI
1
w=
Px 4 + C1x3 + C2 x 2 + C3 x + C4
24 EI
2
The integration constants are obtained by applying the B.C.s and the exact solution is
found as follows
Px 2 2
w=
x 4 Lx + 6 L2
24 EI
w( x) = x 2 (a1 + a2 x + a3 x 2 + L)
If we take only two terms, and substitute the approximate solution into the potential
energy expression Eq. (1.2) we obtain
=
EI
2
2
3
( 2a1 + 6a2 x ) dx P a1x + a2 x dx
0
8
The potential energy is minimized by equating to zero its first derivatives with respect
to unknown constants. After performing the integrations, the following equations are
obtained.
PL2
= 0 2a1 + 3La2 =
a1
6 EI
PL2
= 0 a1 + 2 La2 =
a2
24 EI
Solving the equations, the constants are determined as
a1 =
5PL2
24 EI
a2 =
PL2
12 EIL
PL
5 x 2 L 2 x3
24 EI
w1
w2
w3
3
L/2
L/2
L
Figure 1.5 Finite element model of the clamped beam.
0
12 3L w
24
12
2
2
2
1
2 L 3L 2 L 2 PL 0
8 EI 0
=
L3 12 3L 12 3L w3 24 6
L
3L 1 L2 3L L2 3
2
9
w2
0.044271L
3 0.14583
2 PL
w3 EI 0.125 L
3
1.666667
The numerical values at the middle span of the beam and the free beam are given at the
Table 1.1
Table 1.1 The numerical values obtained from the different solution techniques.
Solution Techniques
Analytical
Approximate
Numerical
w2 (PL4/EI)
-0.044271
-0.041667
-0.044271
w3 (PL4/EI)
-0.125
-0.125
-0.125
Versatility: FEA is applicable to any field problem, such as heat transfer, stress
analysis, magnetic fields, and so on.
There is no geometric restriction: It can be applied the body or region with any
shape.
Boundary conditions and loading are not restricted (boundary conditions and
loads may be applied to any portion of the body)
Material properties may be change from one element to another (even within an
element) and the material anisotropy is allowed.
Different elements (behavior and mathematical descriptions) can be combined in
a single FE model.
An FE structure closely resembles the actual body or region to be analyzed.
The approximation is easily improved by grading the mesh (mesh refinement).
In industry FEA is mostly used in the analysis and optimization phase to reduce the
amount of prototype testing and to simulate designs that are not suitable for prototype
testing. Computer simulation allows multiple what-if scenarios to be tested quickly
and effectively. The example for the second reason is surgical implants, such as an
artificial knee. On the other hand, the other reasons for preference of the FEM are cost
savings, time savings, reducing time to market, creating more reliable and better-quality
designs.
10
Checking results
You must decide to do a nonlinear analysis if stresses are high enough to produce
yielding. You must decide to perform a buckling analysis if the thin sections carry
compressive load.
1.3.2 Preparing Mathematical Models
FEA is applied to the mathematical model. FEA is simulation, not reality. Even very
accurate FEA may not match with physical reality if the mathematical model is
inappropriate or inadequate.
Devise a model problem for analysis,
Understanding the physical nature of the problem. Because a model for analysis
can be devised after the physical nature of the problem has been understood.
Excluding superfluous detail but including all essential features. Unnecessary
detail can be omitted. This must enable that the analysis of the model is not
unnecessarily complicated. Decide what features are important to the purpose at
hand. This provides us to obtain the results with sufficient accuracy.
A geometric model becomes a mathematical model when its behavior is
described, or approximated, by selected differential equations and boundary
conditions.
11
Thus, we may ignore geometric irregularities, regard some loads as concentrated, say
that some supports are fixed and idealize material as homogeneous, isotropic, and
linearly elastic.
What theory or mathematical formulation describes behavior? Depending on the
dimensions, loading, and boundary conditions of this idealization we may decide that
behavior is described by beam theory, plate-bending theory, equations of plane
elasticity, or some other analysis theory
Modeling decisions are influenced by what information is sought, what accuracy is
required, the anticipated expense of FEA, and its capabilities and limitations. Initial
modeling decisions are provisional. It is likely that results of the first FEA will suggest
refinements, in geometry, in applicable theory, and so on.
1.3.3 Preliminary Analysis
Before going from a mathematical model to FEA, at least one preliminary solution
should be obtained. We may use whatever means are conveniently available simple
analytical calculations, handbook formulas, trusted previous solutions, or experiment.
Evaluation of the preliminary analysis results may require a better mathematical model.
1.3.4 Discretization
A mathematical model is discretized by dividing it into a mesh of finite elements. Thus
a fully continuous field is represented by a piecewise continuous field. A continuum
problem is one with an infinite number of unknowns. The FE discretization procedures
reduce the problem to one of finite number of unknowns, Figs. 1.6.
12
The FEA is an approximation based on piecewise interpolation of field quantity. By
means of this FE method [3,4],
Solution region is divided into a finite number of subregions (elements) of
simple geometry (triangles, rectangles )
Key points are selected on the elements to serve as nodes. The nodes share
values of the field quantity and may also share its one or more derivatives. The
nodes are also locations where loads are applied and boundary conditions are
imposed. The nodes usually lie on the element boundaries, but some elements
have a few interior nodes.
The unknown field variable is expressed in terms of interpolation functions
within each element. The interpolation functions approximate (represent) the
field variable in terms of the d.o.f. over a finite element. Polynomials are usually
chosen as interpolation functions because differentiation and integration is easy
with polynomials. The degree of polynomial depends on the number of
unknowns at each node and certain compatibility and continuity requirements.
Often functions are chosen so that the field variable and its derivatives are
continuous across adjoining element boundaries.
Degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) are independent quantities that govern the spatial
variation of a field. In this way, the problem is stated in terms of these nodal
values as new unknowns.
Now, we can formulate the solution for individual elements. There are four
different approaches to formulate the properties of individual elements: Direct
approach, variational approach, weighted residuals approach, and energy
balance approach.
Stiffness and equivalent nodal loads for a typical element are determined using
the mentioned above.
The element properties are assembled to obtain the system equations.
The equations are modified to account for the boundary conditions of the
problem.
The nodal displacements are obtained solving this simultaneous linear algebraic
equation system. Once the nodal values (unknowns) are found, the interpolation
functions define the field variable through the assemblage of elements. The
nature of solution and the degree of approximation depend on the size and
number of elements, and interpolation functions.
Support reactions are determined at restrained nodes.
13
must be satisfactorily resolved by repair of the mathematical model and/or the FE
model.
After another analysis cycle, the discretization may be judged inadequate, perhaps
being too coarse in some places. Then mesh revision is required, followed by another
analysis.
Do not forget:
Software has limitations and almost contains errors.
Yet the engineer, not to software provider, is legally responsible for results
obtained.
1.4 USAGE OF A FEA SOFTWARE
There are three stages which describe the use of any existing finite element program:
Preprocessing, solution and postprocessing. Before entering the programs preprocessor,
the user should have planned the model and gathered necessary data [5].
14
15
Case number
16
Hardware error
Software error
User error
Other causes
7
13
30
2
User error was usually associated with poor modeling, and with poor understanding of
software limitations and input data formats.
References:
[1] R., Szilard, Theory and Analysis of Plates, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1974.
[2] R.D. Cook, D.S. Malkus, M.E. Plesha and R.J. Witt, Concepts and Applications
of Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley and sons, Inc., USA, 2002.
[3] W. Weaver, Jr. and P. R. Johnston, Finite Elements for Structural Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
[4] T.J.R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method Linear Static and Dynamic Finite
Element Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc., NJ, 1987.
[5] C.E. Knight, Jr., The Finite Element Method in Mechanical Design, PSW-KENT
Publishing Co., Boston,1993.
[6] Computer Misuse Are We Dealing with a Time Bomb? Who is to Blame and
What are We Doing About It? A Panel Discussion, in Forensic Engineering,
Proceedings of the First Congress, K.L. Rens (ed.), American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, 1997, pp. 285-336.