You are on page 1of 17

# FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

## DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

COURSEWORK SUBMISSION

Course code:
H300

## Title: MECH3004 APPLIED MECHANICS

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING ASYSMENT

## STUDENT NAME: Loc Nguyen

DEGREE AND YEAR: BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING YEAR 3 (2015)
DATE COURSEWORK DUE FOR SUBMISSION: 20/11/2015
LECTURER: DR BELE

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)

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

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

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

1. Introduction
This report aims to demonstrate the following:

## Finite element method based solution for a cantilever beam with

notches and shoulder fillets subjected to a moment at its end.
Such geometry and boundary conditions is created in ANSYS and
the solution of stress concentration factors from ANSYS would be
compared with those obtained from Roarks formulae for stress and
strain
During the analysis using ANSYS, the convergence of principal and
Von Mises stresses with finer mesh sizes is also studied
The important of understanding of elasticity theory including St
Venants principle during interpreting results.

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
of forces produce the same stresses on the same area. [1]

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

The ratios of length in this assignment were chosen to fit this principle,
give the same result.

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
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)

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

4. Result
Stress concentration factor calculated by using Roarks
formula:
Location

## Stress concentration factors,

Kt
2.16
1.76

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

## Fig 2: Stress concentration on global size at bottom shoulder

From appendix C, it can be said that the stress concentration difference at
the notches can not reach higher than 20%, however the stress
concentration at the shoulders converge to the theoretical value as the
mesh size decreases.
It is also observed that the maximum value of von-Mises stresses at point
1 and 2 are really close to each other. Same can be applied for stresses at
point 3 and 4. This can be said due to the symmetry along the axis of the
bar
The chosen mesh global size is 0.3 (about half of radius r value) to
achieve a balance between percentage difference in both notches and
shoulders. To achieve faster convergence, Smart Size is used to create
better mesh near the notches and shoulders which would help to achieve
a better result.
Convergence study on Smart Size numerical result can be
found in appendix D

6

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

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:

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

Following are 2 pictures showing the mesh at the top notch with initial
mesh size and the final chosen mesh size:

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

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

between top and bottom notches. For the shoulders, the stress in the
bottom is greater than the top, which means that the compression at the
bottom is higher than the tension at the top. However, its difference is
very small which is reasonable as the material should behave the same
with tension or compression. [4]
Comparing result with Roark table
Location
ANSYS Kt
Roark Kt
Notch
1.6
2.16
Shoulder
1.77
1.76
Table 3: comparing result between Ansys and Roarks

% difference
25%
<1%

## It can be seen that there is less than 1% difference in shoulder stress

concentration factor however in the notch, the minimum percentage
difference possible is 23%. This shows a limitation in ANSYS in recreating
valid results for stress concentration.
There are two types of errors can occur in FEA analysis: computational
errors, due to round-off errors in floating point calculations and
discretisation errors due to limitations of how certain geometries can be
represented with the given element type.
6. Conclusion
The results of this report proved that the results obtained from FEA
analysis done in ANSYS are close to the experimental results from Roarks
formula with a few limitations in some cases. Finding the correct mesh is a
crucial step in this analysis to get a balance in accuracy and constant of
computational time. Using the minimum possible mesh size will not help
to achieve the best result.
7. Reference:
[1] P.P. Benham, R.Crawford, and C.G Armstrong, Mechanics of Engineering
Materials. Pearson Edcuation Limited, 2nd ed., 1996
[2] ANSYS, Mechanical apdl element reference, Southpointe 275
Technology Drive, Canonsburg PA 15317, Release 14 2011
[3] ANSYS, Modeling and meshing guide, Southpointe 275 Technology
Drive, Canonsburg PA 15317, Release 14 2011
[4] J.M. Gere, Mechanics of Materials. Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning, 6th
ed., 2004
[5] W.C.Young and R.G.Budynas, Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain.
United States: McGraw Hill, 7th ed., 2002

10

Geometry:

## Fig 5: geometry of the beam

Where:
D=
h
=0.15
10
D
h=
1.5
h
=2
r=
r
0.75
L = 15 Dimension L is obtained from the relationship of L and
D in Roarks Formula for Stress and Strain, case 5B:
L
0.8
>
D [ r / ( D2 h ) ] 1 /4
L
0.8
>
10 [ 0.75/ ( 103 ) ]1 / 4
L = 15 > 13.98

11

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

Moments:

Linearly varying pressure is set along right end of the bar to stimulate the
moment applied on the right end

## Fig 6: linearly varying pressure

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

## K tn=3.7387.334 ( 0.3 ) +7.88 ( 0.3 ) 3.2845 ( 0.3 ) =2.16

For the shoulders with

h
=2
r

and
2

h
=0.15
D
3

12

stress by:
Kt=

max max
=
nom Pmax

Mesh
Size

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

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

0.3

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

## von- Mises stress

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

## von- Mises stress

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

## von- Mises stress

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

## FEA analysis mech3004 Loc Nguyen

0.2

307
89.698
Table 7: ANSYS result at top shoulder
Mesh size
0.3
0.3

Node

## von- Mises stress

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