A Finite Element Analysis Method for Determining the Effect of Plate

Distortion on Structural Analysis

By
Michael Lee
An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
Major Subject: MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:

_________________________________________
Dr. Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Engineering Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, Connecticut
December 2012
© Copyright 2012
By
Michael R. Lee
All Rights Reserved

ii
 CONTENTS
A Finite Element Analysis Method for Determining the Effect of Plate Distortion on
Structural Analysis ........................................................................................................ i
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................. vii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
2. Problem Description & Project Background ............................................................... 2
2.1 General Behavior of Plates when Deflections are Small.................................... 3
2.2 General Behavior of Plates when Deflections are Large.................................... 4
2.3 General Behavior of Shells................................................................................. 5
2.4 Problem Discussion ............................................................................................ 6
3. Analysis Methodology & Approach ............................................................................ 7
3.1 Plate Sizes........................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Plate Material Selection ...................................................................................... 8
3.3 Finite Element Model Description ..................................................................... 8
3.4 Discussion Regarding Element Type Selection ................................................. 9
3.5 Using the von Mises Stress Criterion ............................................................... 10
3.6 Finite Element Analysis Procedure .................................................................. 10
4. Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Finite Element Analysis Results....................................................................... 12
4.2 Finite Element Analysis Results Discussion .................................................... 15
5. Future Work ............................................................................................................... 16
6. References & Relevant Literature .............................................................................. 17
7. Appendix: Finite Element Analysis Result Plots ....................................................... 18
7.1 Von Mises Stress Results ................................................................................. 18

iii
7.2 Displacement Stress Results ............................................................................. 24

iv
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Material Properties of Structural A36 Steel Alloy............................................... 8
Table 2: Finite Element Analysis Results Tabulated ....................................................... 12
Table 3: Finite Element Analysis Results - Deflection and Stress Ratios ....................... 13

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Generic Thin Plate Geometry from Reference (3) ............................................. 3
Figure 2: Finite Element Model of the Plate ...................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Deflection Ratio versus Initial Deflection ........................................................ 14
Figure 4: Actual Deflection Ratio versus Initial Deflection ............................................ 14
Figure 5: Stress Ratio versus Initial Deflection ............................................................... 15
Figure 6: Iteration 1, Initial Deflection 0.0 inches - von Mises Stress ............................ 18
Figure 7: Iteration 2, Initial Deflection 0.006163 inches - von Mises Stress .................. 19
Figure 8: Iteration 3, Initial Deflection 0.012308 inches - von Mises Stress .................. 19
Figure 9: Iteration 4, Initial Deflection 0.0184 inches - von Mises Stress ...................... 20
Figure 10: Iteration 5, Initial Deflection 0.024406 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 20
Figure 11: Iteration 6, Initial Deflection 0.030297 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 21
Figure 12: Iteration 7, Initial Deflection 0.036051 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 21
Figure 13: Iteration 8, Initial Deflection 0.041648 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 22
Figure 14: Iteration 9, Initial Deflection 0.047077 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 22
Figure 15: Iteration 10, Initial Deflection 0.05233 inches - von Mises Stress ................ 23
Figure 16: Iteration 11, Initial Deflection 0.057403 inches - von Mises Stress .............. 23
Figure 17: Iteration 12, Initial Deflection 0.062297 inches - von Mises Stress .............. 24
Figure 18: Iteration 1, Initial Deflection 0.0 inches - Deflected Shape ........................... 24
Figure 19: Iteration 2, Initial Deflection 0.006163 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 25
Figure 20: Iteration 3, Initial Deflection 0.012308 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 25
Figure 21: Iteration 4, Initial Deflection 0.0184 inches - Deflected Shape ..................... 26
Figure 22: Iteration 5, Initial Deflection 0.024406 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 26
Figure 23: Iteration 6, Initial Deflection 0.030297 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 27
Figure 24: Iteration 7, Initial Deflection 0.036051 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 27
Figure 25: Iteration 8, Initial Deflection 0.041648 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 28
Figure 26: Iteration 9, Initial Deflection 0.047077 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 28
Figure 27: Iteration 10, Initial Deflection 0.05233 inches - Deflected Shape ................. 29
Figure 28: Iteration 11, Initial Deflection 0.057403 inches - Deflected Shape ............... 29
Figure 29: Iteration 12, Initial Deflection 0.062297 inches - Deflected Shape ............... 30

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
To my family and friends, it’s been an adventure. Words simply can not express my
gratitude to you all. Thank you for your patience, love, understanding, encouragement,
and continued support in all my endeavours.

To my family, I love you all. Specifically, to my parents and sister, the words thank you
seems to fall short of the mark. I owe you three much.

To my friends, you’ve helped me along throughout this whole process in more ways than
one. For a specific few, they know who they are, thank you for answering my technical
questions throughout this endeavour.

But for all of you, “when you get the choice to sit it out or dance…. I hope you dance” –
Lee Ann Womack (I hope you dance).

So dance.

vii
 ABSTRACT
This project attempts to provide a viable method to establish the correlation between the
deflection and stress results of a shaped (distorted) plate analyzed as a thin shell when
compared to the original (flat) thin plate analytical solution. This project analyzes an
elastic loading of plates with different shapes which are obtained from the loading of the
previous (plate) iteration with less deflection. Thus, a relationship between the
increasing plate distortion and the resulting stress and deflections can be established.
Engineering calculations share a common assumption where the material being analyzed
is assumed to be perfect. Material is far from perfect in the manufacturing environment.
Manufacturing imperfection(s) that exceed out of tolerance condition(s) requires an
engineering evaluation to determine if the end, final product is technically satisfactory.
Analysis based upon (flat) thin plate, small deflection theory is invalidated when the as-
built condition would dictate the performing a new calculation using thin shell, small
deflection theory. Thin plate, small deflection theory assumes that the midplane remains
unstrained subsequent to bending. As a result of the deformation (leads to bending), the
midsurface of a shell is strained in comparison. This invalidates the (original) analysis
based on thin plate, small deflection theory. The stress in a shell will differ from the
equivalent plate as shell theory accounts for the strain at the midplane whereas plate
theory does not. There is no correlation between the expected change in stress and plate
deformation, where shell theory is the more valid analytical assumption. An exact
solution requires a new calculation by the analyst. This project is of value to an analyst,
as modeling the as-built condition and performing the calculations can be time
consuming. This can be avoided if the correlation between a given plate distortion and
the impact it has on stress and deflection is known.

viii
 1. Introduction
A common assumption in engineering analysis and calculations is where the material
being analyzed is perfect, free of material imperfections, free of residual stresses from
manufacturing and fabrication. Material is far from perfect in the manufacturing
environment. Basic tolerances are introduced into a product from the beginning of the
production cycle. The material specifications allow for variations in part due to the
tolerances that govern the technical acceptability of the ordered raw material (stock)
used in later manufacturing process or processes. The as-machined condition is further
governed by the drawing and manufacturing practice tolerances; for example,
requirements set by techniques such as geometric dimensioning and tolerancing.
Additional tolerances govern the installation or assembly of a component, affecting the
final as-built condition. Manufacturing imperfections can exceed the product’s tolerance
condition(s) which requires an engineering evaluation to ensure that the final condition
is technically acceptable. This evaluation, depending on the nature of the problem, can
be quite complex and time consuming to determine the technical acceptability of an as-
built or as-received material condition. The intent of this project is to establish a viable
method of determining an actual “tolerance” range based upon engineering analysis
versus standard design practices. This “tolerance” range is based upon a correlation
between the “imperfect” plate (both deflection and stress) and the original “perfect”
plate solution.

This analysis will examine a rectangular plate, fixed on all edges, subjected to a uniform
pressure loading. The resulting deflected shape will be used as the distorted shape for the
next iteration. The next iteration analyzes a deflected shape with no pre-existing,
residual stresses in the plate. The same loading and boundary conditions are retained
from one analysis step to the next. This process was chosen to simply the analytical
method to one (1) Finite Element Model (FEM).

1
 2. Problem Description & Project Background
The project is based on thin plate, small deflection theory. Engineering calculations,
using the equations from References (1) and (2), are often used to perform quick
verifications of a large Finite Element Analysis (FEA) or provide a technical evaluation
of a plate under the applicable boundary and loading conditions. These calculations
demonstrate in either case the technical acceptability of a given design. As-built, out of
tolerance conditions require recalculations to verify that the work accomplished meets
the design requirements. In some cases, the resulting as-built condition analysis is
performed in accordance with shell theory in lieu of the original thin plate analysis. The
intent of this project is to determine a tolerance range or a scaling factor where, in-plane
tensile and membrane stresses and forces are introduced. These “internal” stresses and
forces will skew the initial thin plate, small deflection theory, analytical results.

A plate is defined as an initially flat structural element, such as table tops, roofs, panels,
and disks. The thickness of a plate is much smaller than the other dimensions. Thin
shells are curved surface structures, such as wings, air foils, pipes, and pressure vessels.

Manufacturing imperfections are typically defined a surface cracks, dents, or notches to

a given part or component material condition. For this purposes of this project,
manufacturing imperfections are considered to be a result of distortion from fabrication
processes, such as welding, which results in the plate exceeding the flatness requirement
from the material and/or design specification(s) or extreme variations in fabrication
methods which leads to distortion of the plate, among other concerns.

The following information regarding plate and shell theory presented in Sections 2.1
through 2.4 is taken in part from Reference (3).

2
2.1 General Behavior of Plates when Deflections are Small
Figure 1 below shows a schematic representation of a typical plate. The schematic on the
t right illustrates the behavior of the midplane plate cross sections at the initial condition
(top) and after some load is applied (bottom).

Figure 1: Generic Thin Plate Geometry from Reference (3)

The four (4) fundamental assumptions of thin plate (refer to Figure 1), small deflection
theory of bending (also known as the classical [plate] theory, Kirchhoff hypotheses) are
as follows:
1. Deflection of the midplane is small compared with thickness, w << t. Therefore,
 ∂w 
the slope of the deflected surface is small  << 1 and the square if the slope is
 ∂x 

  ∂w  2 
negligible    = 0  .
  ∂x  
 
2. Midplane remains unstrained subsequent to bending.
3. Plane sections (mn, see Figure 1) initially normal to the midplane remain plane
normal after bending, therefore out of plane shear strains are zero (γ xz = γ yz = 0 ) .

Deflection is associated principally with bending strains. Out of plane normal

strain (ε z ) is also omitted.
4. Out of plane normal stress (σ z ) is neglected. Thus, the assumption is unreliable
near concentrated transverse loads.

3
Note that the midplane is parallel to the faces of the plate, dividing the thickness in half.
Plate thickness (t) is measured normal to the midplane. Flexural properties of the plate
depend upon thickness (t).

If the resulting deflections are not small, Assumptions 1 and 2 are invalid. Assumption 1
is invalid since the deflection is on the order of the plate thickness (w ≈ t). Assumption 2
would be invalid since plate bending results in midplane strains.

If the plate is thick, Assumptions 3 and 4 are invalid. Assumption 3 is invalid since shear
strains are important. Assumption 4 is invalid since out-of-plane normal stress is
important.

The one exception, where deflection can be large where the classical (Kirchhoff)
assumptions still hold true, is when a plate bends into a developable surface, such as
cones and cylinders, and the midplane can remain unstrained. There are two conditions
that govern this exception.
1. Pure bending of plate to a cylindrical surface, which occur via moments, requires
that the thickness to be much less than the radius of curvature (t << radius of
curvature).
2. Bending of a plate to a cylindrical surface by lateral load requires the deflection
to be much less than the width of the plate (w << plate dimensions other than
thickness).

2.2 General Behavior of Plates when Deflections are Large

In the case of large displacements (w ≥ t), the midplane of the plate stretches. In-plane
tensile stresses develop within the plate stiffen and add considerable load resistance to it.
Large deflection theory assumes that the resulting deflections (w) are no longer small in
comparison with the thickness (t) but are small when compared with the remaining plate
dimensions. An analytical result indicating large deflections would be recomputed to
ensure that the derived solution is indeed both mathematically and technically correct.

4
Large deflections of plates can lead to the plate forming both developable surfaces, such
as cylinders and cones, and non-developable surfaces, such as spheres and saddles. A
developable surface will recover its original flat shape and dimensions and implies the
absence of any deformation.

When a plate bends into a cylindrical geometry, tension in the midplane can only be
produced if the end supports are immovable. The requirement here is that the deflection
(w) must be less than the plate thickness (t) does not hold in cases where a simply-
supported plate bends into a developable surface. The classical formulas are still valid
for this case, at least until yielding occurs or when the deflection (w) approaches the
plate dimensions.

Otherwise, the relationship between a given load and the resulting deflection is no longer
linear for large deflections. The relationship is linear for small deflections or large
deflections that result in a developable surface. It is not possible to apply a unit load and
scale to large deflection solutions. The linear theory neglects the membrane action and is
satisfactory for cases where the resulting maximum deflection (wmax) is less than half the
 t
shell thickness  wmax <  .
 2

2.3 General Behavior of Shells

Thin shells are assumed to have a constant thickness. The shell thickness is small in
comparison to the shell dimensions in the other two directions. The shell midsurface is
the plane that bisects the shell thickness. A shell is considered thin if the thickness (t) to
t 1 
radius of curvature (r) ratio is small  ≤  . Shell theory is broken into two distinct,
 r 20 
commonly applied theories.
1. Membrane Theory: A membrane is a body with the same shape as a shell but
incapable of conveying the moments or shear forces.

5
 2. Bending (or general) theory: Includes the effect of bending. Membrane theory is
corrected where discontinuity effects are pronounced (changes in thickness, slop,
curvature).

Information relative to shell membrane stresses is usually of greater practical

significance than the knowledge of bending stresses. The membrane stresses are
considered uniform through wall thickness assuming that the shells have no abrupt
changes in thickness, slope, or curvature. Bending theory is equivalent to membrane
theory and is corrected in areas of discontinuity.

Membrane forces are independent of bending and completely definite by conditions of

static equilibrium. No material properties are used in its derivation. Therefore,
membrane theory applies to all shells made of any material.

The assumptions of shell theory, assuming small deflections, are as follows:

t 
1. Thickness (t) to radius of curvature (r) ratio is much less than 1  << 1 .
r 
2. Deflection of the midplane is small compared with thickness, w << t.
3. Plane sections normal to the midsurface remain plane and normal after bending
occurs (γ xz = 0, γ yz = 0, ε z = 0 ) .

4. Out of plane normal stress (σ z ) is negligible.

Load resisting action of a shell differs from other structural forms. In-plane forces are
developed to form a primary resistance action.

2.4 Problem Discussion

Assumption 2 from thin plate, small deflection theory is invalidated when compared to
thin shell theory. The mid-surface of a shell is strained, which differs from plate theory.
Therefore, in the original analysis performed using thin plate, small deflection theory is
invalidated when the resulting fabricated (as-built) condition would dictate the repeating
the engineering analysis utilizing thin shell, small deflection theory.

6
 3. Analysis Methodology & Approach
A Finite Element Model (FEM) will be built and is representative of a perfect, flat
rectangular plate. The FEM “plate” has fixed boundaries on all sides with a uniform
pressure loading. The software used for this investigation is Abaqus 6.10.

The FEA in this study will be an iterative process. The initial FEA result data set will
provide a baseline deflection and stress values. This first analytical iteration is the
original thin plate, small deflection solution. The resulting deflected shape will be used
as the distorted shape for the next calculation. This next calculation analyzes a deflected
shape with no pre-existing, residual stresses in the plate. The results of the following
iterations will be compared to this initial FEA solution. Load resistance from in plane
forces is developed as a result of the increasing deflections, which are accounted for in
the shell solution. As the plate deflection increases, the plate will behave more like a
shell. The FEA results will show the strained midsurface of the shell and membrane
stresses.

The FEA results will be summarized and compared against one another. The change in
stress will be compared between the different FEM and the individual iterations. FEA
results that satisfy the criterion for large deflection of plates (described in Section 2.2)
will be noted but not considered as a part of this correlation.

3.1 Plate Sizes

Initial plate sizes were generated partly from applying the equations from Table 11.4,
Section 8a from Reference (1). This was done to verify that the initial solution from the
FEA are valid within reason and to ensure that the initial condition meets the
requirements of the small deflection theory of bending (see Section 2.1). Additionally,
this provides a verification of the FEM by comparing the handbook solution (Reference
(1)) with the FEA results. The solution presented in Reference (1) is based on plate
theory where as the FEA used in this investigation is based on shell theory. The chosen
plate size to model is 12 inches long (“a” dimension in the equations from Reference

7
(1)), 6 inches wide (“b” dimension in the equations from Reference (1)), and 0.125
inches thick.

3.2 Plate Material Selection

The material chosen for this analysis is Structural A36 Steel Alloy. The relevant material
properties, from Reference (4), are summarized below in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Material Properties of Structural A36 Steel Alloy

Modulus of Elasticity (E) 29,000,000 psi

Poisson’s Ration (υ) 0.32
Yield Strength (σy) 36,000 psi
Ultimate Tensile Strength (σUTS) 58,000 psi
Density (ρ) 0.284 lbs/in3

Structural A36 Steel Alloy was chosen as it is an isotropic, linear elastic material. The
use of an isotropic, linearly elastic material is consistent with the formulae derivations
presented in engineering handbooks and design texts such as References (1), (2), and (5).

It should be noted though, that this investigation is a comparison of the initial results
case and the deflected load case. Actual material property values will influence the
behavior of the plate under loading and the acceptance criteria of a given design.

3.3 Finite Element Model Description

Each plate was modeled using quad4 shell elements at the midsurface. An image that is
representative FEM is shown in Figure 2 below.

8
 Figure 2: Finite Element Model of the Plate

All four edges of the plate were fixed, allowing no displacements or rotations in any
directions as noted previously. The thickness of the plate is entered via the cross-
sectional property assigned to the meshed plate. A 10 psi load was distributed uniformly
over the entire, topside of the plate.

3.4 Discussion Regarding Element Type Selection

The majority of the commercially available FEA software packages or codes can handle
plate, shell geometry, and in plane and out of plane loading as long as enough elements
are used to represent the physical geometry. The number of elements required is based
upon a reasonable approximation of the physical object being modeled, such as the
relationship or fit between the modeled curvatures in a FEM to the physical “part” shape
or curvature.

The typical definition of a plate is an element capable of supporting both in-plane and
lateral loads. The plate definition also includes the assumption of being flat initially. A
shell is often considered to be a plate with either two dimensional curvatures or as a
complete shell of revolution that supports both in-plane and lateral loads. For most

9
element derivations used in commercial codes, classical plate element types do not
consider the development of membrane stresses where as shell element types do. Of
course in reality, plates will develop such membrane stresses but the classical
formulations for these are not considered, in part due to the rationale discussed
previously in Section 2.

Thus, the use of plane or plate elements alone cannot be used to properly represent the
response of a shell subject to arbitrary loadings. Hence, the FEM generated for this
investigation utilizes shell elements in lieu of plate elements as the analyst may have
done in the initial, baseline analysis.

3.5 Using the von Mises Stress Criterion

The von Mises stress is used to perform the comparison of the FEA stress results. This
allows for measuring stress at one single scalar variable. Examining the principal
stresses or the stress states within different sections of the plate may provide additional
information, for example show the different layers through the plate thickness in a state
of compression or tension. Alternatively, the analysis can examine the stresses based on
Cartesian coordinates. This would however increase the number of different stress
variables (or directions) to examine and compare. Most structural evaluations are based
on using the von Mises stress criterion for a convenient comparison with the material
yield strength. Therefore, the stress results presented by this investigation are based upon
the von Mises stress.

3.6 Finite Element Analysis Procedure

The FEA results are post processed within the Abaqus software. From the “Results
Context Space” within Abaqus, a report of the iteration’s nodal displacement results are
generated. These are imported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and added to the nodal
locations from the iteration’s input deck (the “.inp” files). The next iteration’s input file
is then created from the revised, updated nodal locations. This is imported back into
Abaqus as a new FEM and submitted as a new analysis. A second method is to directly
submit the input deck to the Abaqus software utilizing the Abaqus Command Window

10
option. Regardless of methodology, the process repeats itself by opening or otherwise
opening the new results database (the “.odb” files) to generate the nodal displacements
report for the next iteration.

11
 4. Analysis Results
The information presented within this Section is derived from the FEA result plots,
showing the von Mises stress and maximum deflection results, are provided in Section 7.

This analysis takes a uniform pressure loading of plates with different shapes where the
shapes are obtained from the loading of a parent plate with less deflection. The deformed
shapes begin to exhibit the behavior of shell theory versus thin plate, small deflection
theory as the initial plate deflection increases.

4.1 Finite Element Analysis Results

This section presents the ratios between the stress and deflections in the initial condition
and as a result of the deflected shape as the (initial) plate deflection increases. Note that
the stress results presented here is the maximum stress, at the center of the long edge of
the plate (see Section 7.1). This is expected in accordance with the handbook solution
provided by Reference (1). It should be noted that the stresses at the center of the plate
increased with each iteration. This behavior was also expected.

Table 2: Finite Element Analysis Results Tabulated

Von
Initial Maximum Actual Meets Small
Mises
Iteration Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection
Stress
(inches) (inches) (inches) Theory
(psi)
1 0.0 7711 0.006163 0.006163 YES
2 0.006163 7550 0.006145 0.012308 YES
3 0.012308 7356 0.006092 0.0184 YES
4 0.0184 7135 0.006006 0.024406 YES
5 0.024406 6893 0.005891 0.030297 YES
6 0.030297 6638 0.005754 0.036051 YES
7 0.036051 6374 0.005597 0.041648 YES
8 0.041648 6110 0.005429 0.047077 YES
9 0.047077 5848 0.005253 0.05233 YES
10 0.05233 5594 0.005073 0.057403 YES
11 0.057403 5351 0.004894 0.062297 YES
12 0.062297 5119 0.004718 0.067015 NO

12
The initial deflection presented in Table 2 above is the shape of the plate at the
beginning of the analysis iteration, with 0.0 inches representing the perfectly flat
condition. The “Actual Deflection” is the summation of the initial deflection with the
resulting maximum deflection obtained from the FEA iteration results. Deflection is
based upon the nodal displacements. Note that the last iteration failed to meet small
deflection theory as discussed in Section 2.1. Any following initial deflected condition
would automatically invalidate the initial baseline analysis, in this case the first iteration.
No ratio or scaling factor can be applied to the thin plate, small deflection theory initial
results as the large deflection theory (see Section 2.2) becomes applicable.

Table 3: Finite Element Analysis Results - Deflection and Stress Ratios

Initial Deflection Deflection Actual Stress

Iteration
(inches) Ratio Deflection Ratio Ratio
1 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 0.006163 0.9971 1.9971 0.9791
3 0.012308 0.9885 2.9856 0.9540
4 0.0184 0.9745 3.9601 0.9253
5 0.024406 0.9559 4.9160 0.8939
6 0.030297 0.9336 5.8496 0.8608
7 0.036051 0.9082 6.7577 0.8266
8 0.041648 0.8809 7.6387 0.7924
9 0.047077 0.8523 8.4910 0.7584
10 0.05233 0.8231 9.3141 0.7255
11 0.057403 0.7941 10.1082 0.6939
12 0.062297 0.7655 10.8738 0.6639

Table 3 presents the correlation between the initial analysis step, Iteration 1, and the
follow on analytical steps or iterations for the FEA von Mises Stress and the nodal
displacement or deflection. The “Deflection Ratio” is based on the maximum deflection
from a given iteration versus the maximum deflection from the first iteration. The
“Actual Deflection Ratio” is similar, except it is a comparison of the “Actual Deflection”
(refer to the discussion of the results presented in Table 2) versus the maximum
deflection from the first iteration. The “Stress Ratio” is the comparison between the von
Mises stress of a given iteration versus the von Mises stress obtained by first iteration.

13
 1.20

1.00

Deflection Ratio
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Initial Deflection (inches)

Deflection Ratio

Figure 3: Deflection Ratio versus Initial Deflection

12

10
Actual Deflection Ratio

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Inital Deflection (inches)

Actual Deflection Ratio

Figure 4: Actual Deflection Ratio versus Initial Deflection

14
 1.2

0.8
Stress Ratio

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Initial Deflection

Stress Ratio

Figure 5: Stress Ratio versus Initial Deflection

The “Deflection”, “Actual Deflection”, and “Stress” ratios presented in Table 3 are
plotted in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 above respectively. The comparison with in
each figure is based on the changing plate dimensions, with respect to its increasing
curvature.

4.2 Finite Element Analysis Results Discussion

The results presented in Section 4.1 above illustrate the affect of the increasing plate
curvature or deflection on the analytical results. Due to both the size and resulting shape
of the plate, the stress and maximum deflection values obtained from the FEA decreased
over each analysis step. This is due to the resulting shape forming into the conical shape
as discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. As the plate bends, the in-plane forces are
developing and forming a primary resistance action to the pressure loading. It should be
noted that over each iteration, the stresses at the center of plate increase. Refer to Section
7.1 for the von Mises Stress plots.

15
 5. Future Work
The results from this investigation are limited to one loading condition and demonstrates
the analytical method that can be used to determine the correlation between a given plate
deformation and stress when compared to the original solution. To expedite this process,
a software code should be written to automate the process of generating the next initial
condition.

Additional work is required to address the other load cases covered by handbooks such
as “Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain” (Reference (1)). Future studies should
consider producing deformed shapes by using these different types of loading conditions
on a first iteration. The resulting deformed plate shapes should then be subjected to a
second FEA iteration under the same loading conditions. This should be repeated until
the results violate thin plate, small deflection theory.

Further analysis is required of additional plate sizes (and thicknesses) from what was
performed within this study. It should be further noted that this investigation is an
analytical in nature only. Testing of instrumented, physical specimens should be
performed as a validation and verification of the analytical results. Another variation of
this project would be the examination of the behavior but utilizing a non-isotropic
materials like composites, which for a variety of reasons, are increasingly being used in
product design. However, it should be noted that the shell and plate theories outlined in
Section 2 are in part based on isotropic materials.

16
 6. References & Relevant Literature
(1) Young, Warren C. and Budynas, Richard G.; Roark’s Formulas for Stress and
Strain, Seventh Edition; McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
(2) Timoshenko, Stephen P. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S.; Theory of Plates and
Shells, Second Edition; McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
(3) Vasko, Thomas J. and Bak, Michael; Course Notes from MANE-6200 Plates and
Shells; Fall Semester 2010.
(4) Hibbler, R. C.; Mechanics of Materials, Sixth Edition; Pearson Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, 2005.
(5) Shigley, Joseph E., Mischke, Charles R., and Budynas, Richard G.; Mechanical
Engineering Design, Seventh Edition; McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.

17
 7. Appendix: Finite Element Analysis Result Plots

7.1 Von Mises Stress Results

This section presents the FEA von Mises stress results.

Figure 6: Iteration 1, Initial Deflection 0.0 inches - von Mises Stress

18
Figure 7: Iteration 2, Initial Deflection 0.006163 inches - von Mises Stress

Figure 8: Iteration 3, Initial Deflection 0.012308 inches - von Mises Stress

19
 Figure 9: Iteration 4, Initial Deflection 0.0184 inches - von Mises Stress

Figure 10: Iteration 5, Initial Deflection 0.024406 inches - von Mises Stress

20
Figure 11: Iteration 6, Initial Deflection 0.030297 inches - von Mises Stress

Figure 12: Iteration 7, Initial Deflection 0.036051 inches - von Mises Stress

21
Figure 13: Iteration 8, Initial Deflection 0.041648 inches - von Mises Stress

Figure 14: Iteration 9, Initial Deflection 0.047077 inches - von Mises Stress

22
Figure 15: Iteration 10, Initial Deflection 0.05233 inches - von Mises Stress

Figure 16: Iteration 11, Initial Deflection 0.057403 inches - von Mises Stress

23
 Figure 17: Iteration 12, Initial Deflection 0.062297 inches - von Mises Stress

7.2 Displacement Stress Results

This section presents the FEA maximum deflection results.

Figure 18: Iteration 1, Initial Deflection 0.0 inches - Deflected Shape

24
Figure 19: Iteration 2, Initial Deflection 0.006163 inches - Deflected Shape

Figure 20: Iteration 3, Initial Deflection 0.012308 inches - Deflected Shape

25
 Figure 21: Iteration 4, Initial Deflection 0.0184 inches - Deflected Shape

Figure 22: Iteration 5, Initial Deflection 0.024406 inches - Deflected Shape

26
Figure 23: Iteration 6, Initial Deflection 0.030297 inches - Deflected Shape

Figure 24: Iteration 7, Initial Deflection 0.036051 inches - Deflected Shape

27
Figure 25: Iteration 8, Initial Deflection 0.041648 inches - Deflected Shape

Figure 26: Iteration 9, Initial Deflection 0.047077 inches - Deflected Shape

28
Figure 27: Iteration 10, Initial Deflection 0.05233 inches - Deflected Shape

Figure 28: Iteration 11, Initial Deflection 0.057403 inches - Deflected Shape

29
Figure 29: Iteration 12, Initial Deflection 0.062297 inches - Deflected Shape

30