Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Report

The amount of detail contained in an FEA Stress Report can vary depending on the project,
consultant, and contractual requirements. A comprehensive report allows the reader the ability to
evaluate and critique the analysis and assess the accuracy of the results to some degree. While
receiving a comprehensive report may be considered ideal, the level of effort and costs associated
with producing such a report may be beyond the project’s budget. As such, the documentation of the
FEA may vary from a handful of stress plots and summary tables to a detailed report discussing every
aspect of the analysis, results, and evaluation.

The goal of this article is not to describe how to perform a finite element analysis, but rather assist a
pressure vessel fabricator in understanding the significance of the types of information contained in
a typical FEA report.

The usual procedure for performing a finite element analysis is

Define material properties

Create or import geometry

Create finite element mesh

Apply loads and boundary conditions

Define analysis type, options, and then solve

Review and evaluate the results

Other than the most basic of reports, a typical FEA stress report will discuss all of the above topics in
some detail.

Material Properties

The material properties required to perform a stress analysis include density, modulus of elasticity,
and Poisson’s Ratio. If thermal effects are to be evaluated the coefficient of thermal expansion will
also be defined. Heat transfer properties such as thermal conductivity and specific heat will be
required if a thermal analysis was performed to determine thermal gradients. If the pressure vessel is
subjected to temperature changes or a thermal gradient, temperature dependent material
properties should have been used in the analysis.

Geometry

The report should discuss which components of the pressure vessel have been included in the
model, those that have not, and any simplifications that have been made. The appropriateness of
these inclusions, exclusions, and simplifications should be considered in reviewing the report.

The Finite Element Model

A discussion of the finite element model will usually be presented. This may include a description of
the types of elements used in creating the model and should include some plots of the finite element
mesh. The details of the finite element mesh are important in accurately predicting stresses. A poor
mesh can under-predict the magnitude of the stresses giving erroneous results. Three-dimensional
finite element models will be meshed with either solid or shell elements. With solid elements, one or
more of the following types will be used: hexagonal (brick), tetrahedral, pyramidal, or prism
elements. While some analysts have a preference for or bias against certain element types, they are
all capable of producing accurate results if the quality of the mesh is good. Element shape and size
are the greatest factors in getting a good mesh and accurate results. The ideal element shape for
solid elements is one where all of the faces are regular polygons of the same size. As the faces
become more warped and interior angles become excessively large or small, the accuracy of the
results will be affected. Tetrahedral and other non-hexagonal elements have a greater tolerance for
less than ideal shapes than hexagonal elements. These elements are often used in areas of complex
geometry where meshing with hexagonal elements can be difficult. However, meshing with non-
hexagonal element types often require a significantly larger number of elements compared to
hexagonal elements which results in longer computer run times. Another aspect of meshing that can
affect the accuracy of the results is how fast the size of elements changes from one region of the
finite element model to another. Stress gradients are more significant in areas of structural
discontinuities requiring a more refined mesh to accurately predict the results in these areas. If the
model transitions from a refined mesh to a coarser mesh too quickly in these areas, the magnitude
of the stresses may be under-predicted. Another consideration when evaluating the finite element
mesh of a model of a pressure vessel created using solid elements is the number of elements
through the thickness of the shell and nozzles. Bending stresses occur at structural discontinuities.
An inadequate number of elements through the thickness of the components at these locations will
under-predict the bending stresses.

The report may also reference whether the elements are linear or quadratic. Linear elements have
nodes located only at the corners of the element. Quadratic elements have an additional node mid-
way between each of the corners. This is sometimes referred to as the elements having mid-side
nodes. The additional nodes and the formulation behind these element types will give more accurate
results than linear elements of the same type and size. The use of quadratic elements, however, will
result in longer computational run times compared to linear elements when solving the analysis
since the results at the additional nodes will have to be calculated.

An FEA report should include several plots showing the finite element mesh so one can assess the
quality of the mesh. This can sometimes be overlooked in producing an FEA report, especially when
FEA is an add-on to a CAD package that may not show the element mesh unless specifically
requested.

Loads and Boundary Conditions

The FEA report should provide enough information to confirm the proper loading scenarios have
been analyzed and evaluated. A report will also typically provide information on the boundary
conditions of the finite element model. Boundary conditions are how the model is constrained
against translation and rotation at its extents. The behavior of components that may or may not
come into contact with each other, such as at flanged connections, may also be discussed if
applicable. While the definition of boundary conditions for analyzing pressure vessels is often
straight-forward, it is important to know that boundary conditions can have a significant impact on
the results. An example of how boundary conditions can affect results is evident when comparing
beam equations. The deflections, bending moment, and stresses in a beam under load are
significantly different if the beam is simply-supported or has fixed ends. Therefore, the
appropriateness of the boundary conditions that have been defined for the analysis should be
considered carefully.
Analysis Type and Options

In general, there are not a lot of options specific to stress analyses that are pertinent to analyzing
pressure vessels. Outside of options related to solution convergence controls, the most common
option that is sometimes used is including non-linear geometric effects. This can be important when
small displacement theory is not applicable due to large deformations of the vessel when subjected
to loading. Most pressure vessel analyses, however, do not typically require including non-linear
(large deflection) effects.

Results and Evaluation

The most important part of the FEA report is the documentation of the results and their evaluation.
Typical results will be displacements and stresses. Assuming an elastic-stress analysis has been
performed, the stresses will be compared to allowable stress limits. In reviewing the results the
following questions should be asked:

Do the results make sense? The displacements and stresses should seem reasonable.

Do the stresses away from structural discontinuities due to internal pressure agree with hand
calculations?

Do the reactions make sense based on the weight and loading?

Are the areas of highest stress evaluated?

Are there any areas that are discounted in the evaluation? why?

If you have any questions, ask. Do not assume that just because the results meet the acceptance
criteria that they are correct.10014