Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Zahit Mecitolu
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
Analysis
Experiment
Evaluation
No
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
!
mathematical model
aproximations
method of solution
engineering problem
results
!
aproximations
!
Experimental model
aproximations
measurements
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
=P
(1.1)
with the boundary conditions for the clamped end dw w= = 0 at x = 0 dx and for the free end
7
d 2w dx 2 d 3w dx3
= 0 at x = 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
3
= =
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
d 2w
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
(ii) Approximate Solution: Application of the Ritz method to Eq. (1.2) as a approximate solution method. A trial function can be chosen as
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 2 0 0
L L
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
(iii) Numerical Solution: Application of the FEA as a numerical solution method. We discretize the beam with two beam elements, Fig. 1.5. The unknown nodal parameters are the deflections and the slopes. After the application of the FE procedure we reduce the problem to the following linear algebraic equation system.
w1
w2
w3 3
L/2
2 L
L/2
Figure 1.5 Finite element model of the clamped beam. 0 12 3L w 24 12 2 2 2 1 0 2 L 3L 2 L 2 PL 8 EI 0 = 3 12 3L 12 3L w3 24 6 L 3L 1 L2 3L L2 L 2 3 Then, the nodal displacement are obtained
9
w2 0.044271L 3 0.14583 2 PL = w3 EI 0.125 L 1.666667 3
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.
Learning about the problem Preparing mathematical models Discretizing the model Having the computer do calculations
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.
Figure 1.6 Finite element model of a stair (from ANSYS presentation). Discretization introduces another approximation. Relative to reality, two sources of error have now been introduced: modeling error and discretization error. Modeling error can be reduced by improving the model; discretization error can be reduced by using more elements. Numerical error is due to finite precision to represent data and the results manipulation.
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
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.