Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
STRUCTURES
CASE STUDY
Group 10 Maria Luisa Rosales
Rob Smeekens
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INPUT....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Material Properties..................................................................................................................................... 3
Element Properties..................................................................................................................................... 3
Element Dimensions............................................................................................................................... 3
Finite Element Mesh................................................................................................................................ 3
Boundary Conditions.................................................................................................................................. 4
Constraints (at the bottom).................................................................................................................... 4
Constraints (at the top)........................................................................................................................... 4
Applied Loads......................................................................................................................................... 4
Prescribed Displacements....................................................................................................................... 5
2. ANALYSIS RESULTS................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Structural Linear Analysis............................................................................................................. 6
Reaction Forces....................................................................................................................................... 6
Displacements (Y direction, deformed shape)......................................................................................... 6
Displacements (Z direction, deformed shape)........................................................................................ 6
Stresses SZZ (outer face, deformed shape)............................................................................................ 6
Stresses SZZ (inner face, deformed shape)............................................................................................ 7
Strains EZZ (outer face, deformed shape).............................................................................................. 7
Strains EZZ (inner face, deformed shape).............................................................................................. 7
2.2. Non-Linear Analysis........................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1. Physical Nonlinearity........................................................................................................................ 8
Displacements (Z direction, deformed shape)........................................................................................ 9
Displacements (Y direction, deformed shape)......................................................................................... 9
Stresses SZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)........................................................................................... 9
Stresses SZZ (inner face, Deformed Shape).........................................................................................10
Strains EZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)........................................................................................... 10
Strains EZZ (Inner face, Deformed Shape)............................................................................................10
2.2.2. Physical + Geometrical Nonlinearity.............................................................................................. 11
1
Displacements (Z direction, deformed shape)......................................................................................12
Displacements (Y direction, deformed shape).......................................................................................12
Stresses SZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)......................................................................................... 12
Stresses SZZ (Inner face, Deformed Shape).........................................................................................13
Strains SZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)...........................................................................................13
Strains SZZ (Inner face, Deformed Shape)............................................................................................ 13
2.2.3. Physical + Geometrical Nonlinearity (with point loads)..................................................................14
Displacements (Z direction, deformed shape)......................................................................................15
Displacements (Y direction, deformed shape).......................................................................................15
Stresses SZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)......................................................................................... 16
Stresses SZZ (Inner face, Deformed Shape).........................................................................................16
Strains SZZ (outer face, Deformed Shape)...........................................................................................16
Strains SZZ (Inner face, Deformed Shape)............................................................................................ 17
3. COMMENTS AND CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................... 18
3.1. Hand Calculations............................................................................................................................. 18
3.2. Comments......................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 24
2
1. INPUT
Dimension (Quadrilateral)
Assumed 2D (Plane
Stress Field Stress)
ELEMENT DIMENSIONS
As shown in the model Sketch.
Fig. 1.1 Model Sketch
The objective is to model a compression test that was done on FINITE ELEMENT MESH
an aluminium extrusion with an imperfection on its center.
In order to have the same mesh size for all the
element, we chose a size of 5 mm.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Name Aluminium
Type Isotropic
Elastic Modulus 70000 N/mm2
Poissons Ratio 0.33
Model Type Von Mises
Initial Yield 200 N/mm2
Stress
ELEMENT PROPERTIES
Name ext
Data Name ext
Type Curved Shell
(Hyperbolic)
DIANA Element CQ40S
Type
Nodes 8
Degrees of 5x 8 Nodes = 40 D.O.F.
Freedom (Displacements and
Rotations)
Integration 2 x 2 x 3 = 12
Scheme Integration
points
Type of Numerically
Integration Integrated
Type of 2th order
Interpolation (quadratical)
Shape 3D (Curved) Fig. 1.3 Finite Element Mesh Size = 5 mm
Dimension
Topological 2D
3
4
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Doing a preliminary linear analysis with a random
load we can interpolate the load required to get
CONSTRAINTS (AT THE BOTTOM) such displacement. From this analysis we get a
distributed load qa=0.038 N/mm2
For surfaces normal to the X Axis: UX, UZ, RX, RY,
RZ for each node. It is important to take into account that in this
For surfaces normal to the Y Axis: UY, UZ, RX, RY, preliminary analysis we have to set a constraint
RZ for each node. UZ for the top part of the extrusion. This is
because the prescribed displacements that are
going to be applied in the analysis constraint the
extrusion in this zone for this direction (putting a
constraint in Z is the same as putting a
displacement with a value of zero in the model,
which is the initial step for the nonlinear analysis)
APPLIED LOADS
To simulate an imperfection at the center of the
element, we apply a distributed outward area
load qa over an area of 40x40 mm in order to
have a displacement of 0.1 mm.
5
Fig. 1.7 Resulting Displacement for qa=0.038 N/mm2
6
PRESCRIBED DISPLACEMENTS Fig. 1.8 Prescribed Displacement
7
2. ANALYSIS RESULTS
2.1. STRUCTURAL LINEAR ANALYSIS
Since there are no load steps on the linear
analysis, we apply both the imperfection load qa
and the prescribed displacement in the same
Load Case.
REACTION FORCES
Total Reaction Force on top= 121737.7
8
Fig. 2.1.2 Displacements DyY(V) ; mm Fig. 2.1.4 Stresses SZZ Outer Face ; N/mm2
9
Fig. 2.1.7 Strains EZZ Outer Face ; N/mm2
10
2.2. NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
Fig. 2.2.1.5 Stresses SZZ Outer Face for steps 3,10,25,40,60; N/mm 2
Fig. 2.2.1.7 Strains EZZ Outer Face for steps 3,10,25,40,60; N/mm 2
Fig. 2.2.1.8 Strains EZZ Inner Face for steps 3,10,25,40,60; N/mm 2
30000
Material additional Properties for Non-linear
Analysis Reaction Force N 20000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement mm
Fig. 2.2.2.5 Stresses SZZ Outer Face for steps 2,4,8,20,60; N/mm 2
50000
40000
30000
Reaction Force N
20000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement mm
In order to show properly the behaviour of the extrusion in the different steps of the analysis, we show the
output of it in the following steps:
40000
30000
Reaction Force N
20000
10000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement mm
Fig. 2.2.3.8 Stresses SZZ Inner Face for steps 2,4,8,20,60; N/mm 2
From the geometrical properties of the section we can calculate the Elastic Moment and the Plastic
moment. The elastic moment is the moment due to the applied force that causes a displacement of 0.1
mm, which can be calculated with elastic theory. After that we calculate the elastic moment using
equilibrium.
192EI
F= 3
L
FL
M el=
8
z0 5,56 mm
zb 19,44 mm +
h 25,00 mm
I1 3216 mm4
I2 10020 mm4 +
I 13236 mm4
u 0,1 mm
u*192EI/
Fhor 659 N L3
On the other hand, the plastic moment can be calculated using plastic theory. We can also calculate the
applied force necessary to reach this plastic moment, as this happens when all the fibers of the section
reach the yield strenght of the material.
F pl =f y A
M pl=f yW pl
Plastic cross section
(Full)
z0 1,58 mm *A/b
zb 23,43 mm h-zo
h 25 mm zo+zb
S1 99 mm3 *b*zo2
A1 92 mm
z1 11,93 mm
S2 1097 mm3
A2 34 mm
A1 + A2 126 mm
z2 0,21 mm
S3 7 mm3
S1+S2+S
Wpl;u;d 1204 mm3
3
24071 Wpl;u;d *
Mpl;u;d Nmm
0 fu;d
Fpl;u;d 50400 N A * fu;d
This is the situation that is modeled in the first analysis (just physical nonlinearity). However, due to the
results of the modeling compared to the ones of the experiment (see section 3.2.), we also need to include
geometrical nonlinearity effects.
In order to do this, we gradually increase the elastic moment and the supports by increasing it with the
effect of the load eccentricity due to the displacement in the center of the extrusion, until it reaches the
yield strenght (elastic limit).
After that, we find a force F vert that generates a moment at the supports that is equal to the plastic
moment of a reduced cross section. Such cross section is the cross section of the extrusion, excluding the
area bearing the axial force of the force F vert and the area bearing the shear force due to the horizontal load
applied in the center of the extrusion.
A 1= A 2
We can calculate the buckling load using eulers formula with a buckling length L buc=0.5L=150 mm (under
the assumption of double clamping).
2 EI
Fbuc =
Lbuc2
n
uend = u
n1 0
With n=Fbuc/Fvert.
Elastic Plastic
N,
40641 40641 40641 40641 40641 4757 4757 4755 4755 4755
Fbuc 406417 Lbuc = 150 2EI/Lbuc2
7 7 7 7 7 0 0 9 9 9
mm
4756 4756 4755 4753 4719
Fvert 0 10000 20000 30000 39631 47570 N
7 3 9 7 5
n 1 40,64 20,32 13,55 10,26 8,54 Fbuc/Fvert
n/(n-
1 1,03 1,05 1,08 1,11 1,13
1)
uo 0 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 0,100 mm
uend 0 0,103 0,105 0,108 0,111 0,113 0,115 0,117 0,119 0,130 0,300 mm n/(n-1)*uo
2470 2470 2470 2470 2470
Mo 24707 24707 24707 24707 24707 24707 Nmm
7 7 7 7 7
2744 2749 2753 2779 3178 Mo+*uend*F
Mend 24707 25732 26811 27946 29098 27401 Nmm
2 0 7 7 6 vert
Load/displacement top
60000
47570
40000 39631
Load Fvert [N] 30000
20000 20000
10000
0 0
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000
wvert [mm]
Geometric non-linearity
60000
50000
47195
40000
30000
Load Fvert [N]
20000
10000
0
0.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.350
With this calculations we find the limit for the elastic capacity at F=39631 N with a prescribed
displacement of 0.674 mm, and a limit for the plastic capacity at F=47570 N with a prescribed
displacement of 0.809 mm.
3.2. COMMENTS
First we are going to compare the results of the linear analysis and the first two nonlinear analysis, against
the hand calculations for the Geometrical nonlinearity.
60000
50000
40000
Physical Nonlinearity
30000 Phyisical +
Reaction Force N
Geometrical
20000 Nonlinearity
Linear
10000
Hand Calculations
0
0 1 2
Displacement mm
From this we can see that geometrical nonlinearity must be used in order to obtain an output for the
extrusion that is closer to its real behaviour. Without the geometrical nonlinearity the extrusion can keep
deforming undefinitely over a constant load, which is not the case of the experiment since the extrusion
clearly reaches a failure after which the load decreases under a increasing displacement.
Taking into account the geometrical effects, we get a curve that is very close to the one obtained in the
experiment, which confirms that the selection of the boundary conditions was appropiate for this model.
The maximum load is basically the same to the one obtained in the experiment, but the softening part of
the curve is slightly lower than the one from the experiment (in the experiment the load tends to stabilize
at 30 KN while in the model it keeps going down).
It must be taken into account as well that the deformed shape of the model is very similar to the final
shape of the extrusion after the experiment, which also confirms that the model output is very close to the
real behaviour of the extrusion.
From the hand calculations we obtain a plastic limit that is about 4 KN higher (47,57 vs. 43,83 kN = ~ 9
%) then the one derived from the experiment and from the model. This can be declared with the fact that
the n/(n-1) method is a elastic method to calculate the second order displacements according to buckling
and bending. In the quasi-linear part of the experiment, the strains (and displacements) are not linear any
more with the loads and the load-displacement line will become curved and more flat.
To evaluate the effects of the imperfection in the behaviour of the extrusion, we compare the results
between the model with an distributed load (applied in the web) that generates a displacement of 0.1 mm,
and a point load (applied in the flanges) that generates the same displacement.
It must be taken into account that with the area load we get a 0.1 mm displacement just in the mid point
of the web while with the point load we get a displacement of 0.1 in a line over the center of the web (see
output above). Hence the total load applied in the first case (0.038x40x40=608 N) is much lower than the
one applied in the second case (260x2=520 N).
50000
40000
30000
Reaction Force N
20000 Area Loading
Point Loading
10000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement mm
From this graph we conclude that, even though both applied loads are different, the behaviour of the
extrusion tends to be similar. The slight difference between the maximum load can be explained with the
difference between the values of the two applied loads. But apart from that, the imperfection does not
seem to have a big influence in the capacity and behaviour of the extrusion. This can be confirmed by
running a new analysis without applying any loads to simulate imperfections.
50000
40000
30000
0
0 1 2
Displacement mm
Fig. 3.2.2. Comparison, with and without imperfection
3.3 CONCLUSIONS
-This is a satisfactory modeling of the experiment because the maximum load and the prescribed
displacement corresponding to that load are very similar between the model and the experiment. There is
a slight difference in the behaviour of the model after reaching that peak (softening) compared to the
experiment, which may be due to other material and element properties that cannot be taken into account
for the modeling. But in terms of getting the actual capacity of the extrusion, the experiment was properly
modeled.
-To perform the hand calculations, it is correct to idealize this experiment as a double clamped column.
However, it is not possible to take into account other factors that greatly affect the behaviour of the
element (such as local stiffness) which is why the results vary between the calculations and the model (for
example, the load needed to get a 0.1 mm dislacement varies from 659 N for the hand calculations to 520
N for the model). But doing hand calculations is still a good approach to understand the behaviour of the
extrusion and to detect possible mistakes done in the modeling.
-From Figure 3.2.2. we can conclude that, even though both applied loads are different, the behaviour of
the extrusion tends to be similar. The slight difference between the maximum load can be explained with
the difference between the values of the two loads. But apart from that, the imperfection does not seem to
have a big influence in the behaviour of the extrusion. This can be confirmed by running a new analysis
without applying any loads to simulate imperfections. We can say that due to the short length of the
extrusion and its geometrical properties, the geometrical nonlinear effects due to the imperfection are not
relevant in the whole behavior of the extrusion. However, geometrical nonlinear effects due to other
factors (i.e. local buckling of the web and flanges) must be taken into account in order to be able to model
the experiment properly, even though these effects cannot be hand calculated.
-In order for the nonlinear analysis to converge (especially when taking into account geometrical nonlinear
effects) we have to select the right analysis and iteration parameters. For example, using smaller load
steps and increasing the maximum number of iterations can increase significantly the computation time,
but must be done due to the complex behavior of the extrusion in the nonlinear range.