Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

Theory and Application of Finite

Element Method (MAE1143)


Solution of the problems No s. 6 and 7 of
textbook
11/01/2010
Lecturer: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Redzuan Abdullah

Page |

Page |

Page |

Question 6 part a:

Answer:
1
=
det

23

31

12

32

13

21

32

23

13

31

21

12

1
=

1
2)

(1

Points
Coordinates
S1
S2
S3
S4

1
x
30
30
30
60

0
0
1
2

2
y
30
30
30
30

x
0
30
60
60

3
y
0
0
30
0

x
0
0
30
30

y
30
0
0
0

Page |

1
=
det

(1)

0.0333
0
0

23

31

12

32

13

21

32

23

13

31

21

12

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

2.1978
= 10 0.6593
0
5

(1)

0
0.0333
0
0.6593
2.1978
0

5.4945
0
0
0
1.9231 1.9231
0
1.9231
1.9231
5
= 10
1.6484
0.0
0.0
5.4945
1.9231
1.9231
1.6484 1.9231 1.9231

1
det

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0
0.7692

1.6484
0.0
5.4945
0.0
1.6484
5.4945

5.4945
1.92310
1.9231
1.6484
7.4176
3.5714

31

12

32

13

21

32

23

13

31

21

12

23

0
0.0333
0.0333

1.6484
1.9231
1.9231
5.4945
3.5714
7.4176

1
2
9
10
11
12

Page |

(2)

(2)

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0
0.0333
0.0333

1.9231
0
1.9231
0
5.4945 1.6484
1.9231
1.6484 7.4176
5
= 10
1.9231 5.4945 3.5714
0
1.6484 5.4945
1.9231
0
1.9231

1
=
det
(3)

(3)

0.0333
0
0.0333

0.0333
=
0
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

1.9231
0
1.9231 1
5.4945 1.6484
0
2
3.5714 5.4945 1.9231 7
7.4176 1.6484 1.9231 8
9
1.6484 5.4945
0
1.9231
0
1.9231 10

23

31

12

32

13

21

32

23

13

31

21

12

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

7.4176 3.5714 0 5.4945


3.5714 7.4176
1.6484
5.4945
= 105 5.4945 1.6484
1.9231 1.9231
0
1.9231 1.9231
0
1.6484 5.4945 1.6484

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

1.9231 1.9231 1.6484 1


1.9231 1.9231 5.4945 2
0
0
1.6484 3
1.9231 1.9231
0
4
7
1.9231 1.9231
0
0
0
5.4945 8

Page |

1
=
det
(4)

(4)

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

31

12

32

13

21

32

23

13

31

21

12

23

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0.0333

1.9231
0
1.9231
0
5.4945 1.6484
1.9231
1.6484
7.4176
5
= 10
1.9231 5.4945 3.5714
0
1.6484 5.4945
1.9231
0
1.9231

0.0333
0
0

0
0
0.0333

1.9231
0
1.9231
5.4945 1.6484
0
3.5714 5.4945 1.9231
7.4176 1.6484 1.9231
1.6484 5.4945
0
1.9231
0
1.9231

3
4
5
6
7
8

Page |

= 105
1.4835
0.3571
0.5495
0.1923
0
0

0.3846
0.3571
0
0.3571
0.5495
0.1648

0.3571 0.5495
1.4835
0.1648
0.1648
0.7418
0.1923 0.00000
0
0.1923
0
0.1923
0.3571
0.0000
1.0989 0.3571
0.3571
0
0.0000 0.0000
0.1923
0
0.1923
0

0.1923
0.0000 0.0000
0.1923
0
0
0
0.1923 0.1923
0.7418
0.1648 0.5495
0.1648
0.7418 0.3571
0.5495 0.3571 0.7418
0.3571 0.5495 0.1648
0.0000
0.1923 0.1923
0
0
0
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
=

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1.4835 0.3571 0.5495


0.3571 1.4835
0.1648
0.5495 0.1648
0.7418
0.1923 0.1923 0.00000
= 10 6
0
0
0.1923
0
0
0.1923
0.3846 0.3571
0.0000
0.3571 1.0989 0.3571

0.3846 0.3571
0
0.3571 0.5495 0.1648
0
0.1923 0.1923
0.3571 1.0989 0.3571
0
0.3571
0
0
0
0
0.3571
0
0.00000
0.0000 0.00000 0.00000
0.5495 0.1923
0
0
0
0
0.1648 0.1923
0
0
0
0
1.4835 0.3571 0.5495 0.1923 0.00000 0.00000
0.3571 1.4835
0.1648 0.1923
0
0
0.5495 0.1648
0.7418
0
0.5495 0.1648
0.1923 0.1923 0.0000
0.7418 0.1923 0.1923
0
0
0
0
0.7418 0.3571
0
0
0
0
0.3571 0.7418
=

0.1923
0.0000 0.0000
0.1923
0
0
0
0.1923 0.1923
0.7418
0.1648 0.5495
0.1648
0.7418 0.3571
0.5495 0.3571 0.7418
0.3571 0.5495 0.1648
0
0.1923 0.1923

0.3846
0.3571
0
0.3571
0.5495
0.1648
1.4835
0.3571

0.3571
1.0989
0.3571
0.0000
0.1923
0.1923
0.3571
1.4835

0
0
0
. 300
0
300
0
0

Page |

0.0012
0.0027
0.0016
0.0072
=
0.0018
0.0075
0.0013
0.0030

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(1)

(1)

(1)
1

(1)

0.0333
=
0
0

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333 .
0.0333

2
9
10
11
12

(1)

0.0333
=
0
0

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

( )

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0012
0.0027
0
0
0.0333 .
0
0
0.0333
0
0

.
(1)

(1)

2.1978
= 10 0.6593
0
( )

= .

0.6593
2.1978
0
=

(1)

0
0.4129
.
0
0
0.7692 0.9003

.
.

.
1
(2)

0
=
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

0
.
0
0.0333

2
7
8
9
10

Page |

(2)

0
=
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0333
0
0.0333

( )

.
.
.

(2)

(2)

2.1978
= 10 0.6593
0
( )

0.0333
0
0

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0012
0.0027
0
0.0013
.
0
0.0030
0.0333
0
0

= .

(2)

0
0.4408
. 0.0931
0
0.7692 0.1397

0.6593
2.1978
0
.
.

1
(3)

0.0333
=
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333 .
0

2
3
4
7
8

(3)

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

( )

0
0
0.0333

0
0
0.0333

0.0012
0.0027
0
0.0016
0.0333 .
0.0072
0
0.0013
0.0030

.
.

.
(3)

(3)

2.1978
= 10 0.6593
0
( )

= .

0.6593
2.1978
0
=

(3)

0
0.1639
. 0.0961
0
0.7692 0.3859

.
.

.
Page |

3
(4)

0
=
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0333
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0333
0
0

0
.
0
0.0333

4
5
6
7
8

(4)

0
0
0.0333

0
0.0333
0

0.0333
0
0.0333

( )

.
.

=
(4)

(4)

2.1978
= 10 0.6593
0
( )

0.0333
0
0

0
0.0333
0.0333

0.0016
0.0072
0
0.0018
.
0
0.0075
0.0333 0.0013
0.0030

= .

0.6593
2.1978
0
=

(4)

0
0.1639
. 0.0961
0
0.7692 0.3859

.
.
.

Page |

Question 6 part b:
Case 1: Analysis is done with loads and boundary conditions as specified (4 CST).

Case 2: Analysis is done as defined in Case 1 with one 4 nodded quadrilateral element in place
of each pair of triangles.

The use of four nodded quadrilateral elements, which have a higher order shape function than
the three nodded triangle, improves the results. The direct strain in any direction is still
constant but it can now vary linearly in the orthogonal direction. Notwithstanding the
improvement, the use of these moderately higher order elements still gives a solution which is
unsatisfactory
5 Using 256 CST of elements along the length and depth of the beam and re-run using 3 noded
triangles

Page |

Case 3. Re-run the analysis using the higher mesh density and 4 noded quadrilaterals with 128
CTS

Case 4: The shear stress distribution IS much improved with the USC of two elements through
the beam depth. This is due to the shape functions of the element.

Page |

Question 6 part c: Comparing the value for

of the reaction in x direction of case 1 and case 5

(4 CST and 256 CST of triangular meshing) shows that the stress in both of the point is
increasing as increase in meshing orders.
To check the rate of increase re-analysis is done with interval values and also higher value for
evaluation of results then for CST of 16, 64, 1024 and 4096 meshing is re-done.the results for
points A and C are as per below:

Point A

Point C

4 CST (Triangular)

-32.32

31.67

16 CST (Triangular)

-48.95

46.66

64 CST (Triangular)

-60.48

56.98

256 CST (Triangular)

-70.34

66.19

1024 CST (Triangular)

-81.59

76.91

4096 CST (Triangular)

-95.34

90.22

Drawing the obtained result by LUSAS shows that as the size of meshing doubled the reaction
increase but the rate of change is not linear.
100

50

0
0.00
-50

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

Point C reaction stress in X


5000.00 direction
Point A reaction stress in X
direction

-100

-150

Page |

The figures below are counter of the points A (right side) and C (in left side) with CST of 4096
that shows concentration of the compression (positive) and tension (negative) stresses at
mentioned points.

Based on The classic formula for determining the bending stress in a beam under simple
bending is:
=

That could be sketched as :

The result obtained in Case 1 is poor; the order of element being too small for the mesh density
which is being used. The element can only give constant strain: thus a large number of
elements would be required to model this problem. Results in CST be better than in the Case 1,
due to the superior element performance
Page |

Page |

Question 6 part c: From Timoshenko, the beam bending equation is:


2

After Integration and using boundry condition:


=

Bending stress is equal with:


=

There is an additional shear deflection term which in the case of long slender beams is small
enough to be disregarded but is the major deflection in short deep beams.
The equation for this term is as follows:
=
Where F is a shear factor which in this case is: 1.218

Page |

Conclusion Problem 6-1


Checking the results obtained from LUSAS analysis and calculation explained above is
summarized as below:

Print result wizard of stresses by LUSAS

Stress result with hand calculation + Mathlab

Un-averaged stress components

Hand calculation and Matlab


Page |

in global axis by LUSAS


Node
SX
SY
SXY

results

Elemen

t
1
2
2.97
2.75
-5.03
2.9688 2.7536 -5.0312
1
3
2.97
2.75
-5.03
2.9688 2.7536 -5.0312
1
6
2.97
2.75
-5.03
2.9688 2.7536 -5.0312
2
3
9.07
2.72
-6.93
9.0747 2.7224 -6.9253
2
1
9.07
2.72
-6.93
9.0747 2.7224 -6.9253
2
4
9.07
2.72
-6.93
9.0747 2.7224 -6.9253
3
6
-2.97
1.03
-2.97
-2.9688 1.0312 -2.9688
3
5
-2.97
1.03
-2.97
-2.9688 1.0312 -2.9688
3
2
-2.97
1.03
-2.97
-2.9688 1.0312 -2.9688
4
4
-9.07 -0.859 -1.07
-9.0747 -0.8594 -1.0747
4
6
-9.07 -0.859 -1.07
-9.0747 -0.8594 -1.0747
4
3
-9.07 -0.859 -1.07
-9.0747 -0.8594 -1.0747
Comparison of the results obtained from LUSAS and hand calculation +Matlab
The result calculated and compiled by Matlab are the same as results computed by LUSAS.

Page |

Question 7 part a: Evaluation of the stiffness matrix for control quadrilateral element of plane stress:

1
3

1
3

1.5849
0
0
1.5849
0.3349
0
0
5.1934
5
= 10
5.9151
0
0
5.9151
4.6651
0
0
0.8632

1.5849
1.5849
5.1934
2.1978 0.6593
0
1.5849
0
0.3349
0
5.9151
0
4.6651
0
0.3349 0.6593 2.1978

0
0
1.5849
0
5.1934
0
5.9151
0
0.8632
5.9151
0
0
0.7692
1.5849 1.5849 5.1934 0.3349 5.9151 5.9151 0.8632 4.6651
5.9151
0.8632
4.6651

4.9634
2.3898
2.3979
= 104 0.5848
1.3299
0.6403
1.2356
1.1647

2.3898
4.9634
0.3681
0.4188
0.6403
1.3299
1.3814
4.0523

2.3979
0.3681
2.4826
0.7350
0.6425
0.0986
0.7272
1.0044

0.5848 1.3299 0.6403 1.2356 1.1647


0.4188 0.6403 1.3299 1.3814 4.0523
0.7350 0.6425 0.0986
0.7272 1.0044
1.3595
0.1567 0.1122
1.1631 1.6661
0.1567
0.3564 0.1716
0.3311 0.3121
0.1122
0.1716 0.3564
0.3701 1.0858
1.1631
0.3311 0.3701
1.6318 0.1518
1.6661
0.3121 1.0858 0.1518 4.6326

The process is repeated for the remaining integration points to form the numerical integrated matrices for each. The four numerical
matrices are multiplied by their factors. As the integration is for 2 point the weight factor is 1 then summation will be multiplied by
plate thickness (5mm). the result is symmetric matrix of K:

= 1
5.2127
2.2212
1.8696
= 105 0.1349
3.3073
2.0253
0.0358
0.3308

+1

+1

2.2212
1.8696 0.1349
5.3405
0.4096
1.5634
0.4096 3.5135 1.3366
1.5634 1.3366 4.8539
2.0253 0.1946 0.3471
3.1157 0.6219 3.9736
0.6055 1.4493 1.5488
3.7882 1.5488 2.4438

+1

3.3073
2.0253
0.1946
0.3471
6.1654
2.3192
2.6636
0.0532

2.0253
3.1157
0.6219
3.9736
2.3192
6.4529
0.3280
0.6364

0.0358
0.6055
1.4493
1.5488
2.6636
0.3280
4.1487
1.2713

0.3308
3.7882
1.5488
2.4438
0.0532
0.6364
1.2713
5.5955

Page |

Page |

And matrix of F:
0
0
0
0
0
300
=
0
300
0
0
0
0
=

1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

0.0031
0.0031
0.0050
0.0096
0.0057
0.0178
=
0.0057
0.0178
0.0050
0.0096
0.0031
0.0031

Node Method 1 Method 2 LUSAS


1
0.0025
0.00289
0.004
2
-0.0027
-0.00288 -0.00371
3
0.0038
0.00461
0.0064
4
-0.0081
-0.00879 -0.0117
5
0.0042
0.00527
0.0072
6
-0.014
-0.01675 -0.0218
7
-0.004
-0.00513 -0.0072
8
-0.0135
-0.01592 -0.0218
9
-0.0038
-0.00463 -0.0064
10
-0.0078
-0.00888 -0.0117
11
-0.0025
-0.00289
-0.004
12
-0.0027
-0.00287 -0.00371
13
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
16
0
0
0

Matlab programming is done based on two different methods. The second method based on
predefined Matlab program has similar results (error less than 10%) as Method 1 (file
submitted by E-mail) far different from LUSAS outputs.

Page |

Page |

Question 7 part c: Comparison displacement at node D calculated by Matlab and LUSAS:


Point
D

DX
-0.0072

7 (DX)
-0.0057

DY
-0.0218

8 (DY)
-0.0178

Comparing results of displacement between calculation+ computing by Matlab there is a


difference of 20% X and Y direction with the LUSAS analysis outputs.
Question 7 part d:

Points
Coordinates
S1
S2
S3

1
x
20
40
60

2
y
30
30
30

x
0
20
40
=

3
y
30
30
30

x
0
20
40

4
y
0
0
0

x
20
40
60

y
0
0
0

1
1
0 = (1 )(1 ) 20 + (1 + )(1 ) 20
4
4
1
1
30 = (1 )(1 ) 30 + (1 )(1 + ) 30
4
4
=1; =-1

1
= (1 )(1 ) = 0
4

1
= (1 + )(1 ) = 0
4

1
= (1 + )(1 + ) = 0
4
Page |

0
0

1
= (1 )(1 + ) = 1
4

0
0

0 0
0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0

0 0 1
0 0 0

0
0
0.5
0
=
0
0
0 0.5

0 0 0
0 0 0

0.00289
0.00288
0
0
0.00289
0
.
=
0
1
0.00287
0
0.00289
0.00287

10 0
0
15

15 0
0
0
0 10

0
0
0
0

1 0
0 1

0
0
0 10
15 0

0 0.5 0
0 0 0
0 0 0.5
0 0 0

0.5 0
0.5 0
0 0.5
0 0.5

=
Page |

0 0
= 0 5
5 0

0 0 7.5
0 0
0
0 0
0

(0,30)

(0,30)

0
0
7.5

7.5 0
0 5
5 7.5

47.901
= 15.170
6.077

difference of y is notable

Page |

Question 7 part e:

. 3 5 303
=
=
= 11250
12
12

Page |

Similar results are obtained by analysis based on Mindlin and plane stress equations .

Page |