International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.

817−827 (2013) Copyright © 2013 KSAE/ 073−18

DOI 10.1007/s12239−013−0090−3 pISSN 1229−9138/ eISSN 1976−3832

METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM

BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS OF BUSES AND COACHES STRUCTURES

E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA*, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO

Development, University Institute of Automobile Research of the Madrid Community, Madrid 28031, Spain

(Received 19 September 2012; Revised 2 February 2013; Accepted 12 February 2013)

ABSTRACT−The analysis of structures with finite elements methods (FEM) represents a widely spread technique. For large
tubular structures similar to the buses and coaches upper structures, beam type elements are utilized due to the fact that these
elements provide satisfactory results at relatively reduced computational performances. However the beam type elements have
a main disadvantage determined by the fact that the modeled joints have an infinite rigid behavior. This shortcoming
determines a stiffer behavior of the modeled structures which translates into an error source for the structural simulations (up
to 45%). To overcome this problem, a simple methodology was conceived and an alternative optimized equivalent beam
model obtained. The methodology studies the behavioral characteristics of beam modeled T-junctions determining their
limitations and comparing them to equivalent T-junctions modeled with shell and volume elements. This way an improved T-
junction has been obtained, in which the behavioral error was reduced to less than 5%. Furthermore the FEM obtained results
were validated with real T-junctions.

KEY WORDS : Structural optimization, Bus structural analysis, FEM (Finite Elements Methods)

1. INTRODUCTION another important characteristic that makes them preferred

In the last decades the study and improvement of structures
through Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has become
extremely important (Adams and Askenazi, 1998). This
fact has been determined by the fast evolution of
computers, along with the FEA software. Also, the
constant necessity to build better and improved products at
faster rates and with lower costs has determined the general
acceptance of the FEM in most of the industry fields.
On most of the FEA software for structural analysis
there are three main categories of elements: Beam, Shell
and Volume.
Choosing the appropriate element for a certain
simulation represents a complicated process in which it is
necessary to take into consideration a series of characteristics:
the features and complexity of structures (models), the
computational resources available, the type of simulation
and the desired quality of the results (Lee et al., 2000,
2003; Eriksson, 2001; Kim et al., 2001a, 2001b).
This process is extremely important and it is generally
determined by the experience of the analyst.
For the modeling of large tubular structures, similar to
the buses and coaches upper structure, the use of beam type
elements is very common (Gauchia et al., 2010; Lan et al.,
2004; Balázs et al., 2005; Milojevic and Pesic, 2011).
Besides the simplicity of modeling with these elements,
*Corresponding author. e-mail: Francisco.badea@upm.es
when modeling large tubular structures is given by the fact
that they do not require large amounts of computational
capabilities (processor speed, memory, etc.) which offers
engineers the possibility of creating more complex and
detailed full models for more complex simulations.
The beam type elements have a simplified formulation,
they are uniaxial elements that can be defined by two nodes
(I, J), in a tridimensional coordinate system. They are
largely utilized and accepted for modeling large tubular
structures (buses and coaches upper structures) with
satisfactory results in a variety of analysis, structural,
modal, transitory, fatigue, impact, etc. (Gauchia et al.,
2010; Balázs, 2005; Lan et al., 2004, Liang and Le, 2010).
Despite their wide spread acceptance and use, the beam
type elements have some important limitations determined
by their simple formulation. Their main disadvantage is
determined by their incapability to reproduce the characteristics
and the localized behavior at the joint level.
In fact, for any modeled junction with beam type
elements, the behavior of the joint is infinitely rigid (Badea
et al., 2010; Garcia and Vicente, 2002). This is determined
by the fact that the joint is reduced into a rigid node,
therefore when performing structural analysis this feature
introduces a series of estimations errors (Arribas et al.,
2012; García and Vicente, 2002).
By modeling tubular junctions with shell and volume
elements, more realistic models can be obtained (Adams
and Askenazi, 1998; Bosch, 2007), because the topological

817
818 E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO

characteristics of the junction at the joint level can be

reproduced more accurately. This way, the shortcoming
that the beam type elements present can be solved.
The upper buses and coaches structures have large
dimensions and are considerably complex. Modeling these
structures with shell and volume elements represents an
extremely complex and time consuming process (Zienkiewicz
and Taylor, 2002; Adams and Askenazi, 1998).
Even though the results that can be achieved with the
shell and volume type elements are more realistic than the
results that can be obtained with the beam type elements,
the complexity of the modeling process along with the vast
computational performances required, make them unattractive
for this type of structural simulations.
Hence, there is a present necessity of conceiving a
methodology to improve the behavior of tubular structures
modeled with beam type elements.
This article presents a complete methodology in which
various analysis are performed characterizing the behavior
of FEM modeled T-junctions, along with a complete
experimental validation resulting in the development and
verification of an improved alternative beam T-junction
model.
In earlier investigations, mainly conducted in the
European research project Optivirtest (TRA200914513), it
has been seen that between the beam type element
junctions compared, with the shell and volume junctions,
there are differences in rigidity that can vary between 5 to
45% (Badea et al., 2010; Arribas et al., 2012).
The level of error depends on a series of parameters on
which the most important are the dimensions of the profiles
(height, width and thickness) and the complexity of the
structures. As the structures are more complex the higher
the difference in rigidity between models are.
With the proposed alternative beam junction model an
improvement of more than 90% can be obtained, leading to
more realistic models providing improved results for
structural simulations with important applications for buses
and coaches analysis.
Figure 1. Finite element model of an urban bus.
their tridimensional coordinates and the beam element has
to be associated with these nodes.
Also the beam type elements have a great flexibility
when modifications have to be done within the models.
For example, if a certain square profile needs to be
changed, the modification can be easily done by modifying
the parameters (properties) of that profile.
Figure 1 presents the FEM of an urban bus. The upper
structure has been entirely modeled with BEAM 4
elements.
These characteristics make this type of element
attractive and widely used for analyzing large tubular
structures (buses and coaches upper structures).
2.2. Limitations of the Beam Type Elements
One of the most important disadvantages that the beam
type elements have is determined by their incapability to
reproduce the localized behavior of structures at the joint
level.
In fact, due to their simple formulation for any modeled
junction, the joint it is concentrated at a node having an
infinitely rigid behavior.
Also, with the beam modeled junction, the topological
characteristics of different joints cannot be reproduced.
Figure 2 presents a comparison between two different T-
junctions (a, b) and their corresponding unique FEM model

2. DESCRIPTION AND DETAILS OF THE

STUDIED PROBLEM

For the development of this study, the FEA software

ANSYS was used, among the variety of beam type
elements available, the beam type element named “BEAM
4” which utilizes the formulation of the Euler-Bernoulli
beam has been selected.

2.1. Advantages of the Beam Type Elements

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the main
advantage of the beam elements is related to their simple
formulation due to which big tubular models can be solved
fast without the need of large computational performances.
Also, the geometrical modeling with these elements it is Figure 2. Equivalent BEAM model (c) for two different
extremely simple. Two nodes I and J, have to be defined by simple T-junctions (a), (b).
 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS
with beam elements (c).
Between the two real T-junctions (a, b) there are
important differences at the joint level, these differences
determine important behavioral variations. Despite this
fact, the equivalent beam model is the same.
As a general characteristic, for any T-junctions, having
the same dimensional characteristics but with a different
configurations at the joint level, the equivalent FEM model
with beam type elements will always be the same (c) and
will be composed by three beam elements (1-3), sharing a
common rigid node (4).
Because all of the topological details of the joints are
reduced into the common node (4), none of the behavioral
characteristics determined by the interactions that take
place at the joint level are being taken into consideration.
Furthermore, because the common node has an infinitely
rigid behavior (unrealistic situation) the modeled
structures, with beam type elements, are considerably more
rigid than the real structures.
In earlier investigations it has been observed that the
difference in rigidity have a direct relation with the
characteristics of the tubular profiles and the complexity of
the structure, in some cases rigidity differences of up to
45% have been seen (Badea et al., 2010).
2.3. Alternatives to the Beam Type Elements
By modeling tubular structures with shell and volume type
elements, more complex models can be obtained in which
the topological characteristics of the joints are being taken
into consideration, providing more realistic results.
Although there is a clear advantage on the quality of the
results, modeling tubular structures with shell or volume
type elements represents an extremely complicated task
that also leads to models with a high number of elements
that require vast amounts of computational performances,
the shell element T-junction has at least 16 times more
elements than equivalent beam model.
Studies performed on buses and coaches upper structures
throughout FEM modeling usually require structural
modifications or simply changing a certain profile for
another. If the model is made with beam type elements, this
task is resumed to a simple modification of the structure or
the properties of certain profiles.
This is not the case with shell and volume type elements
in which the modifications are much more complicated and
time consuming. In most of the situations it is necessary to
model a complete new profile with all its adjacent connec-
tions to the main structure.
3. METHODOLOGY FOR THE ANALYSIS AND
ESTIMATION OF THE BEHAVIORAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BEAM, SHELL AND
VOLUME T-JUNCTIONS
For simplicity purposes, in the next paragraphs the T-
junction shown in Figure 2 (a) will be referenced as T1, and
819
the T-junction show in Figure 2 (b) will be references as T2.
In order to understand and characterize the behavior of
the analyzed models two main categories of simulations
were necessary.
The first category was intended to analyze and
determine if there were any differences when simple
structures (cantilever beams) were modeled with beam,
shell and volume type elements.
The second category was conceived to analyze and
quantify the behavioral differences that exist when
different T-junctions were modeled with beam, shell and
volume type elements.
3.1. Behavioral Analysis of Simple Cantilever Beams,
Modeled with Beam, Shell and Volume Type Elements
In order to evaluate if there were any significant differences
determined exclusively by the elements formulation, a
simple methodology was conceived in which simple
tubular structures were modeled with beam, shell and
volume type elements, and their results compared.
In this scope, simple cantilever beams with all of the
mentioned element types had been consecutively modeled.
For each one of these models one of the ends was
embedded and a four load cases were consecutively
applied at the free end.
Figure 3 presents the dimensional characteristics and the
load cases for the simple cantilever beam model analyzed.
Along the main axial direction (X) a total of six sections
(S1 – S6) were selected at an equal distance of 1/5 of the
total length of the cantilever beam (L).
Among the load cases defined (C1 – C4) two of them
had a flexural effect on the structure (C1-C2), one was
purely torsional (C3) and the last one had a purely traction
axial effect (C4).
For each one of the load cases the average nodal
displacements and/or average rotations at each one of the
defined sections were obtained. This way any differences
that exist between models can be quantified.
Because the embedment in all of the three cases was
completely rigid, any behavioral differences between
models were to be determined mainly by the element type
formulation.
After a series of commonly utilized rectangular and
Figure 3. Dimensional characteristics and load cases of the
simple cantilever beam model analyzed.
820 E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO
Fiugre 4. Dimensional characteristics and load cases for the
T-junctions analyzed.
square hollow profiles had been analyzed, it has been
determined that there are no significant differences in the
results.
Figure 8 presents the nodal displacements obtained
along the Y axis corresponding to the C1 load case of the
cantilever beam with a square hollow profile of 40×40×3
mm.
Figure 9 presents the nodal rotations along the Y axis
corresponding to the C2 load case of the cantilever beam
with a square hollow profile of 40×40×3 mm.
3.2. Behavioral Analysis for the Analyzed T1 and T2
Junctions Modeled with Beam, Shell and Volume Type
Elements
Once it has been determined that there are no significant
behavioral differences given by the element formulations
when simple tubular structures are modeled with beam
shell or volume type elements, an analogous methodology
was applied for the study of the T1 and T2 junctions.
The scope in this situation was to determine and quantify
the behavioral differences determined by the fact that the
beam type elements cannot reproduce the characteristics of
the joints in an accurate way.
Similar to the cantilever beam situation, a total of six
sections (S1-S6) were defined on which the nodal
displacements and/or rotations were obtained on each one
of the modeled T-junctions.
Also in order to characterize the stiffness of the joint, all
of the degrees of freedom for the T-junction, where applied
the same four load cases (C1-C4).
From the C1 and C2 load cases, two displacements (Y-
axis, Z-axis) and two rotations (Z-axis, Y-axis) can be
characterized, the C3 load case provides the rotation along
the X-axis and the C4 load case the displacements along
the X-axis, this way from the four load cases the six
degrees of freedom can be obtained.
In this case the extremities of the vertical beam were
embedded and the load cases applied at the free end of the
horizontal beam.
Figure 4 presents the T-junction model with its
dimensional characteristics and the load cases that have
been utilized.
After the T1 and T2 junctions were analyzed with a
series of different dimensional configurations for the T-
junction and the cross-section of the rectangular profile, it
was determined that in these situations there are significant
differences between the beam modeled T-junctions results
compared to those obtained with the shell and volume
models.
As was expected, the beam models have a more rigid
behavior, regardless of the load case analyzed, the junction
dimensional characteristics and the cross-sectional profile
(Figure 10).
4. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION TROUGH
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
For the evaluation of the results obtained for the T1 and T2
junctions modeled with shell and volume type elements
(reference models), a series of experimental measurements
were carried out.
These experiments were conceived in order to
reproduce, in the most accurate way possible, the
characteristics of the FEM models (Figure 4).
The square hollow profile with 40 mm by side and a
thickness of 3 mm is one of the most utilized profiles in the
construction of the upper structures for buses and coaches,
because of that, this profile was utilized for the
experimental validation.
Both of the T1 and T2 junctions were manufactured with
S235J steel, commonly utilized in the buses and coaches
upper structures. The dimensions of the junctions (Figure
4) had been selected as L1 = 1000 mm and L = 1000 mm,
with a manufacturing tolerance under of ± 0.5%.
Figure 5 presents the experimental setup for the
mechanical validation.
All of the experiments were performed on a universal t-
slotted floor plate mounted on vibration reducer polymer
Figure 5. Experimental setup for the mechanical validation
though mechanical analysis.
 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS
silent blocks (Figure 5, point 3)
The embedment of the FEM models is infinitely rigid,
because this type of embedment cannot be completely
reproduced in real life, a series of evaluations and
experiments had been carried out in order to obtain a
technical solution that would approach the infinitely rigid
embedment model in the most accurate way. The best
results were achieved utilizing a 100 × 100 × 10 mm L
profile, reinforced in the middle with a welded steel
triangle of 10 mm thickness (Figure 5, point 1).
Each one of the free ends of the transversal beam were
welded to the L profile supports.
All of the manufacturing and welding processes were
performed under laboratory conditions in order to obtain
high quality results suitable for the validation process.
The L profiles were mounted on top of two custom made
H-profile supports and bolted together with a total of four
M20 screws (Figure 5, point 2).
Each one of the H-profile supports were fixed to the t-
slotted floor plate with four M20 screws, bolted into steel
threaded blocks.
To avoid any relative movement between the supports,
all of the M20 screws were tightened to 70% of their
resistance limit. The resulting force was considerably
higher than the necessary force to restrict any relative
movement without affecting the characteristics of the
screws.
The three axial forces and the torsional moment utilized
in the FEM models, represent pure loads that are extremely
complicated to reproduce in real live.
In order to obtain load situations approaching the most to
this theoretical situation, a custom made CNC machined
device was utilized (Figure 5, point 6).
Due to the necessity of obtaining highly reliable results,
the utilization of this device had an important role in the
validation experiments, by allowing us to obtain load cases
relatively close to the theoretical ones.
Figure 6 presents a detailed image with the two
constitutive parts of the device utilized for the applications
Figure 6. Device utilized for the application of the load
cases on the mechanical validation analysis.
821
of the loads
The load cases applying device, is formed of two main
components (Figure 6, points 1, 4), that are assembled
together with four M6 screws (Figure 6, point 3).
In the center part of the first component there is a
protruding region (Figure 6, point 2), that fits tightly on the
interior of the utilized profile. Moreover, the central area of
the second component presents a machined region that
corresponds to the exterior of the utilized profile.
This way, when both of the components are mounted, in
the central region remains a gap that corresponds to the
shape of the selected profile.
Once the device is mounted on the T-junction, is secured
to the profile with four special M10 screws with
elastomeric discs at the end, providing a tight fit on the
profile without creating local deformations of the material
(Figure 6, point 5).
In order to avoid any errors that might result from
differences in the applied forces, were utilized a series of
30 kg calibrated weights that were attached to the load case
device utilizing nylon strings and two symmetrical
positioned eyebolts.
For the C1 load case (Figure 5) the calibrated weigh was
hung from a string running through the eyebolts, ensuring
that the weight was positioned in the middle of the profile.
For the C2 load case, the arrangement was similar
complemented with a pulley mounted on a custom made
support in order to obtain a lateral force. The position of the
pulley was selected utilizing an auto leveling laser level to
ensure a straight force.
The most problematic load case situation was the C3 due
to the complexity of obtaining a pure torsional moment
avoiding any flexional forces.
In order to achieve this, a custom made support with a
ball bearing mounted on the load application device was
utilized.
For the application of the torsional moment a modified
M24 key was employed, on which the calibrated weights
were hung. Once again, all of the components positioning
was done with the laser level previously mentioned.
Finally for the C4 load case, an eye bolt mounted on the
center bolt of the load case application device was used,
along with a pulley system in order to obtain an axial force.
For both of the T1 and T2 junctions and each one of the
load cases, the main interest displacements were measured
utilizing mechanical dial gauges. A total of four dial gauges
were utilized: two of them for small displacements from 0-
5 mm with a resolution of 0.001 mm and the other two for
larger displacements from 0-25 mm with a resolution of
0.01 mm.
To avoid errors due to reading or measuring problems, a
semiautomatic reading system was implemented.
Also a quality criteria was defined, in which the typical
deviation of a series of measurements had to be less than
0.005 mm for the 0.001 mm resolution gauges and less
then 0.05mm for the 0.01 mm resolution gauges.
822 E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO
Figure 7. Alternative-optimized T-junction model.
On average for each interest point 12 measurements
were performed.
Complementary, on the surrounding areas around the
junction, the displacements were measured with a digital
image correlation system. This system was utilized to
verify the gauges measurements and verify that the applied
loads were accurate (pure axial loads).
Analyzing the data it has been determined that the real
junctions have a more flexible behavior compared to the
shell and volume models with about 2-5% (Figure 10,
Figure 11).
More detailed analysis will be presented in the results
chapter.
5. ALTERNATIVE (OPTIMIZED) T-JUNCTION
MODEL
Comparing the behavioral characteristics of the beam
modeled T-junctions with more complex shell and volume
models differences in rigidity up to 40% were seen (Figure
10).
Furthermore, between the shell and volume FEM
models and the experimental validation T-junctions rigidity
differences up to 9% were observed.
Thus, the beam type element tubular structures can be up
to a significant 49% more rigid than the equivalent real
Figure 8. Displacement along the Y axis corresponding to
the C1 load case for the cantilever beam.
Figure 9. Rotations along the Y axis corresponding to the
C2 load case for the cantilever beam.
structures.
Therefore the necessity to conceive an improved model
for FEM modeled T-junctions with beam type elements
represents an important issue.
The theoretical model proposed it is presented in Figure 7.
This model is composed by three beam elements (1-3).
Two of the beam elements (1, 3) share a common node (4).
Between the last beam element (2) and the common node
(4) there are a total of six elastic elements (k1…k6).
Three of the elastic elements (k1…k3), behave like linear
springs, working on the axial directions x, y, z.
These elastic elements behavior is given by Hooke’s law,
the spring constants are determined by the Equation (1).
ki = ⎛⎝ ----i⎞⎠ ---- , i = 1…3
F N
(1)
di m
Where:
Fi –elastic element axial force corresponding to the x, y,
z directions
di – nodal displacement on the x, y, z directions.
The other three elastic elements (k4…k6), behave like
torsional springs and their constant are determined by the
Equation (2).
ki = ⎛⎝ ------i⎞⎠ -------- , i = 4…6
M Nm
(2)
ϕi rad
Where:
Mi – spring torsional moment corresponding to the x, y,
z directions
ϕi – angle of rotation.
With this optimized model it is expected that, if the
estimations of the elastic element constants (k1…k6) are
made correctly, the behavior of the modeled T-junction will
be more realistic, and most of the influences and
characteristics of the junction will be described by the six
elastic elements.
5.1. Estimation of the Elastic Element Values
For the beam, shell and volume models, the average nodal
displacements and rotations were obtained for each one of
the six sections S1-S6 (Figure 3-4). A similar procedure
 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS
has been followed in the experimental validation in which
the displacements were measured with the dial gauges in
the corresponding section.
The reference force Fi and torsional moment Mi values
had been selected taking into consideration practical issues
from the mechanical validation. The values of the axial
forces and the torsional moment have to be big enough to
produce measurable displacements in the T-junctions and
small enough to avoid the concentration of stresses above
the elasticity limit.
For the C1, C2 and C4 load cases, a force of Fi = 294.3
N (30 kg) was selected. For the C3 load case a torsional
moment Mi = 132.44 [Nm] (30 kg with a 0.45 m lever arm)
was selected.
By comparing the behavioral differences that exist
between the beam models with the shell and volume
models, the rigidity differences that exist between them can
be quantified. If these differences approximate to zero
(similar behavior between models) the values of the elastic
elements will tend to infinity. On the other hand, if the
differences in displacements and rotations tend to infinity
the elastic elements will tend to zero.
Further details on the results and characteristics of the
simulations for the cantilever beam and the T1, T2
junctions are presented in the results chapter.
6. RESULTS
In the next paragraphs the results obtained for the
cantilever beam simulations and the results obtained for the
T1 and T2 junctions through FEM simulations and
experimental validation will be presented separately.
6.1. Results Obtained for the Cantilever Beam Simulations
The cantilever beam simulations were utilized to highlight
any differences that might exist between beam, shell and
volume type elements.
Because the thickness of the selected profile was equal
to 3 mm, in order to obtain a good quality meshing
simulations utilizing two meshing dimensions equal to 3
and 1.5 mm were performed.
These dimensions are references in the presented
Fiugre 10. Displacement along the Y axis for the T1
junction corresponding to the C1 load case.
823
graphics as a suffix on the element type legend.
Figure 8 presents the displacement along the Y axis
obtained for the cantilever beam with the C1 load case.
Figure 9 presents the nodal rotations around the Y axis
obtained for the cantilever beam with the C2 load case.
The behavioral differences that have been seen for the
nodal displacements and rotations between the different
type elements were around a 0.2%.
By analyzing the influence of the meshing dimensions, it
has been determined that for element sizes smaller than the
thickness of the profile, there are no significant differences
in the results.
6.2. Results Obtained for the T1 and T2 Junctions, through
FEM Simulations and Experimental Validation
The simulation performed for the T1 and T2 junction
models had the objective of determining the differences
that exist between the beam models compared to the shell
and volume models.
For the simulated situation, the variables L and L1
(Figure 4) have been selected equal to 1000 mm.
Figure 10 presents the results obtained for the
displacements along the Y axis corresponding to the T1
junction and the C1 load case.
On all of the mechanical experiments the relative
displacements of the embedment system had been
measured and taken into consideration, this way all of the
presented results for the experimental validation represent
the isolated behavior of the T-junctions.
As was expected, the beam type element model has a
considerably more rigid behavior compared to the real T-
junction. For this particular configuration and direction, the
beam model is 27 % more rigid than the real T-junction.
Furthermore, by being able to reproduce the topological
characteristics of the joint, the shell and volume models are
able to provide more realistic results, in this situation they
are 9% more rigid than the real T-junction.
Figure 11 presents the results obtained for the
displacements along the Y axis corresponding to the T1
junction and the C1 load case.
The T1 and T2 junctions have different topologies at the
joint level, by analyzing a wide variety of profiles
Figure 11. Displacements along the Y axis for the T2
junctions corresponding to the C1 load case.
824 E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO

Table 1. Elastic element values corresponding to the

alternative (optimized) T-junction that adapts to the T1
junction characteristics.
Real Shell
Nr Type Axis Unit
junction model
1 Linear X 86515323 92037578 N/m
2 Linear Y 6971415 7416398 N/m
3 Linear Z 3076332 3272693 N/m
4 Torsional X 278242 296002 N.m/rad
5 Torsional Y 623586 663389 N.m/rad
Figure 12. Rotations about the Z axis for the T1 junction
corresponding to the C1 load case. 6 Torsional Z 112385 119559 N.m/rad

Table 2. Elastic element values corresponding to the

combinations for the junctions, was observed that generally alternative (optimized) T-junction that adapts to the T2
the T2 junction has a more rigid behavior than the T1 junction characteristics.
junction. These differences present a wide variation
Real Shell
depending on the sections of the profiles and the load case Nr Type Axis
junction model
Unit
situation.
Particularly, for the C1 load case, on the shell and 1 Linear X 15145173 14539366 N/m
volume models, there are rigidity differences of about 14%, 2 Linear Y 7416399 7119743 N/m
and about 16% for the real T-junctions. 3 Linear Z 5075966 4872927 N/m
The beam model has similar behavioral characteristics to
the T2 shell and volume models for this particular 4 Torsional X 72737 69827 N.m/rad
configuration and load case. Even then, these models are 5 Torsional Y 1013641 973095 N.m/rad
considerably more rigid than the real junction. 6 Torsional Z 3167989 3041269 N.m/rad
These characteristics repeat for the rest of analyzed load
cases, on all of the situations the FEM models have a more
rigid behavior than the real T-junctions. seen that for the alternative beam model there are
Figure 12 presents the rotations along the Z axis for the significant rigidity differences between the adaptation to
T1 junction corresponding to the C1 load case. the T1 and T2 junctions, particularly the value of the
Similar to the displacements results, the beam model has torsional Z-axis torsional elastic element for the T2
a more rigid behavior (21%), also there are no significant junction is 25 times more rigid than the corresponding one
differences between the shell and volume models and the for the T1 junction.
real T-junction present a less rigid behavior. Figure 13 presents the nodal displacements along the Y-
On each of the studied load cases, differences exist on axis for the T1 junction corresponding to the C1 load case,
the rigidity between the T1 and T2 junctions modeled with with the improved beam model.
shell or volume type elements similar to the experimental Fiugre 14 presents the rotations along the Z-axis for the
analysis. T1 junction along with the optimized T-junction model. In
By utilizing the alternative optimized T-junction model
presented in , the rigidity characteristics of the junction can
be adapted to a reference model by modifying the elastic
element rigidity values.
Therefore, the adaptation of the alternative beam
modeled T-junction can be made to either the shell and
volume models or to the real T-junctions.
Table 1 presents the values obtained for the elastic
elements that reproduce the behavioral characteristics of
the T1 junction adapted to the shell/volume models and to
the real junction behavior.
Table 2 presents the values obtained for the elastic
elements that reproduce the behavioral characteristics of
the T2 junction adapted to the shell/volume models and the Fiugre 13. Displacements along the Y axis for the T1
real junction behavior. junctions with the alternative optimized beam T-junction
Analyzing the results presented in tables 1, 2 it can be for the C1 load case.
 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS
Fiugre 14. Rotations along the Z axis for the T1 junction
with the alternative optimized beam T-junction for the C1
load case.
order to evaluate the computational cost derived from the
implementations of the six elastic elements at the joint
level, multiple simulations were performed.
6.3. Comparative Analysis for the Modeling Alternatives
With the methodology proposed, there are two main
alternatives for the estimation of the elastic element values.
The fist one is based on mechanical experiments with real
T-junctions, and the second one is based on FEM modeling
with more detailed shell models.
By estimating the elastic element values utilizing
mechanical experiments more accurate results than those
provided by the more complex shell or volume models can
be obtained. The utilization of mechanical experiments
require considerable amounts of time and high costs which
make them unattractive as a widely utilized methodology.
By utilizing the shell or volume models, the regular beam
T-junctions can still be importantly improved, this process
requires significantly less time and costs.
Adapting the alternative beam model to the more
detailed shell models presents a series of advantages
compared to the option of modeling the buses and coaches
upper structures entirely with shell elements. In order to
evaluate these advantages it is necessary to take into
consideration the time and cost of a series of processes
during the analysis of these structures: modeling (1),
meshing (2), simulation-postrocesing (3) and modification
of the models (4).
The modeling process of tubular structures (1) with shell
type elements compared to the beam elements, presents a
series of inconveniences due to the fact that it requires
modeling the complete topology and adjacent connections
for every modeled junction. Also, taking into consideration
the fact that on the buses and coaches upper structures can
be found on average 520 junctions, the amount of
necessary work multiplies significantly.
Related to the meshing (2) and simulation aspects, an
important factor is given by the number of elements that
result from modeling these structures with shell elements.
Table 3 presents a comparison between the numbers of
825
Table 3. Numbers of elements obtained for a 1 m beam
profile with beam and shell elements.
Profile Mesh size 10 [mm] 5 [mm]
40×40×3 Beam 100 200
[mm] Shell 1600 6400
elements obtained for a 1 m beam profile modeled with
beam and shell elements.
On average the upper structure of an urban bus modeled
entirely with shell type elements would have around
912000 elements with a 10 mm meshing and 3648000
elements with a 5 mm meshing. In contrast to the 57000
elements for a 10 mm meshing, and 114000 elements for a
5 mm meshing resulting from the beam type elements.
Although it is possible to utilize meshing techniques
allowing concentration of elements around the junctions
and regions of interest and larger elements elsewhere, the
resulting models still have large numbers of elements,
affecting the utilization of these models. Also the utilization
of these meshing techniques require supplementary efforts.
On the other hand, with the beam type elements meshing
techniques with one or a few elements per modeled beam
can be utilized, which will drastically reduce the total
number of elements without compromising the result.
The simulation and postprocesing (3) aspects are closely
related to the number of elements that the models have.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the solution times for a T-
junction modeled with shell, regular beam and the
alternative beam elements
The simulation time required for the T-junction modeled
with shell elements is 53 times higher than the required
time for beam model.
Utilizing the alternative beam element implies a 17%
increase on the simulation time. This time increase
represents a minor shortcoming compared to the potential
benefits that can be obtained from the alternative optimized
beam model.
When optimizing buses and coaches upper structures,
the analysis commonly requires the modification (4) of
certain profiles in order to evaluate various characteristics
and configurations of the structures. When the structures
are modeled with shell type elements these modification
are more complex and time consuming to perform.
The implementation of the alternative beam model for
buses and coaches upper structures allows the creations of
Table 4. Solving time comparison between the shell,
regular beam and alternative optimized beam T1 junctions
for all of the C1-C4 load cases.
Reg. Alt. Beam
Shell
beam beam
Shell Beam
Alt Beam
[s] Diff [%]
[s] [s] Diff [%]
76.12 12.04 14.10 532 17
826 E. ALCALÁ, F. BADEA, Á. MARTIN and F. APARICIO
Figure 15. Block diagram of the semi-automated process
for the estimation of the elastic element values.
a database with different profile configurations. The
automation of the process presents multiple advantages and
can be easily done by parameterizing the dimensional
characteristics of the T-junctions and implementing a series
of routines. Block diagram of the semi-automated process
for the estimation of the elastic element values. Figure 15
presents the block diagram for the estimation of the elastic
element values with an automated process.
The authors are currently working on the characteriza-
tion of the behavioral characteristics for the commonly
utilized profiles in the buses and coaches upper structures.
The final intention being the development of a
mathematical model for the elastic elements based on the
dimensional characteristics of the profiles. This way the
elastic element values will be obtained without the
necessity of utilizing modeling techniques.
7. CONCLUSION
Modeling large tubular structures with beam type elements
represents an extremely utilized methodology among FEM
analyst mainly determined by the simplicity of the
modeling processes along with the reduced computational
performances for relatively large models.
Analyzing the results obtained for the cantilever beam and
the T1 and T2 junctions, it has been concluded that the
behavioral differences that appear between the beam model
and the equivalent shell and volume models, are determined
by the rigid behavior of the joint on the beam models
altogether with incapability of the beam models to reproduce
the characteristics of the joints.
Also, from the experiments and simulations performed it
has been observed that volume and shell elements have the
possibility to reproduce the topology and behavioral
characteristics of T-junctions in a more realistic way.
Still, the use of these elements as an alternative for the
modeling of tubular structures implies a series of important
shortcoming mainly determined by the complexity of the
modeling processes and the high computational resources
required.
By adapting the alternative beam model to the real T-
junctions, a realistic and accurate model can be obtained,
although the complexity and the derived costs of the
mechanical experiments make this methodology unfeasible,
especially considering that there are a wide variety of square
and rectangular hollow profiles available, commonly utilized
in the buses and coaches fabrication industry.
However, adapting the alternative beam T-junctions to
the shell and volume models represents a more feasible
situation, in which a beam model with a more realistic
behavior at a relatively reduced cost can be obtained.
Although the adaptation to the shell and volume models
still presents some shortcomings compared to the real
models, it provides an important improvement for the
simplified beam junctions, for some configurations these
rigidity differences proven to be as high as 40%.
Another important advantage derived from the
utilization of the shell and volume type elements is
determined by the simplicity of automating the process
which will offer the possibility of obtaining a database for
the alternative beam T-junctions.
The implementation of the optimized junctions on an
already existing beam modeled structure can be easily done
by a semi-automate process, in which the node of a
determined junction is replaced by a group of six elastic
elements. This process does not require a topological
modification of the existing model, therefore can be
completed in a reduced amount of time.
Finally, it can be concluded that this methodology
represents an acceptable alternative to obtain better and
improved models for large tubular structures.
Obtaining a better or worse equivalent optimized beam
T-junction model depends entirely in the quality and
capacity of the estimation for the six elastic elements.
For the estimation of the values of the elastic elements
other methodologies can be utilized.
For future applications the estimations of the elastic
elements will be performed through modal vibration
analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT−To the “Consejería de Educación y
Empleo” of the Community of Madrid for all of their support and
involvement in the development of all of the research activities
that lead to the development of this article. To the European
 METHODOLOGY FOR THE ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FEM BEAM TYPE T-JUNCTIONS
Research Project OPTIVIRTEST (TRA200914513) for the
support among the research activities of this article.
REFERENCES
Adams, V. and Askenazi, A. (1998). Building Better
Products with Finite Element Analysis. OnWord Press
Santa Fe. ISBN 1-56690-160X.
Arribas, D., Badea, F. and Pérez, J. (2012). Análisis y
optimización estructural de autobuses mediante modelos
matemáticos. X Congreso de Ingeniería del Transporte.
ISBN 978-84-338-5402-5.
Badea, F., Alcalá, E., Grimaldi, R. and Aparicio, F. (2010).
Optimización de uniones y estructuras de autobuses.
XVII Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Mecánica, ISSN
0212-2072.
Balázs, G. (2005). Dynamic analysis of a bus body frame:
Determination of the loads and stresses. Vehicle System
Dynamics 43, 11, 807−822.
Bosch R. GmbH (2007). Automotive Handbook. 7th edn.
Bentley Publishers Massachusets. ISBN 978-0-8376-
1540-0.
Dezso, S. and Sandor, P. (2010). Stress calculation and
estimation of bus structure in case of transient
displacement excitation. FISITA World Automotive
Cong. 2010, Budapest, Hungary.
Eriksson, P. (2001). Optimization of a bus body structure.
Heavy Vehicle Systems 8, 1, 1−16.
García, A. and Vicente, T. (2002). Caracterización e Influencia
de las Uniones Semi-rígidas en el Comportamiento
Estructural de Autobuses y Autocares. Cádiz. ISBN 84 607
6264.
Gauchia, A., Diaz, V., Boada, L. and Boada, B. (2010).
Torsional stiffness and weight optimization of a real bus
827
structure. Int. J. Automotive Technology 11, 1, 41−47.
Kim, H., Hwang, Y. and Yoon, H. (2001). Dynamic Stress
Analysis of a Bus Systems. Commercial Vehicle
Engineering & Research Center Hyundai Motor
Company.
Kim, M., Suh, H. and Bae, D. (2001) Development of an
optimum design technique for the bus window pillar.
Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, Part D: J. Automotive
Engineering 215, 1, 11−20.
Lan, F., Chen, J. and J. Lin (2004). Comparative analysis
for bus side structures and lightweight optimization.
Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, Part D: J. Automotive
Engineering, 218, 1067−1075.
Lee, S., Baik, B. and Yim, S. (2003) Optimal reliability
design for thin-walled beam of vehicle structure
considering vibration. Int. J. Automotive Technology 4,
3, 135−140.
Lee, M., Pine, T. and Jones, T. (2000). Automotive box
section design under torsion. Part 1: Nite element
modelling strategy. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, Part D: J.
Automotive Engineering 214, 4, 347−359.
Liang, C. and Le, G. (2010). Analysis of bus rollover
protection under legislated standards using LS-DYNA
software simulation techniques. Int. J. Automotive
Technology 11, 4, 495−506.
Milojevic, S. and Pesic, R. (2011). Theoretical and
experimental analysis of a CNG cylinder rack connection
to a bus roof. Int. J. Automotive Technology 13, 3, 497−
503.
Zienkiewicz, C. and Taylor, L. (2002). The Finite Element
Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics. Butterworth-
heinemann. New York. ISBN 0-7506-6321-9.