Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Using structural shell elements in finite element analyses saves computational time when analyzing thin-walled parts and
structures. But engineers and analysts require experience to best utilize the output. Unlike solid elements, where stresses are
typically straightforward to understand, the analyst must be even more careful and be mindful of several questions when
Two questions any engineer should answer when post-processing FEA are:
But you can’t stop there when you’re using shells. There are more details that need to be considered:
Figure 1 illustrates a shell model of a local connection, used to address all of these questions.
Figure 2:
Depending upon the plotting method deployed, a wide range of results can be created. Two extreme results are illustrated in
Figure 2. The peak stress in the left image is almost double the peak stress on the right. These are identical models, yet
Both stress plots illustrated in Figure 2 are an approximation. Shell models at the intersection between plates create a singular
condition. Stresses are approximate due to the mid-plane node sharing and plate overlapping. The overlap effect presents an
Sometimes this effect can be reduced by offsetting the shell nodes so that they are located at the shell top or bottom surface
instead of the mid-plane. The stress singularity issue will still remain, however.
In Figure 2, the stresses on the left represent stresses that are independently plotted on both the top and bottom surfaces of
the shell elements. These stresses represent a calculation consistent with the independent plate geometries. On the right,
nodal stress averaging is done between plates of different thicknesses and directions, where the surface stresses of each plate
The results on the right are garbage! When plotting shell stresses, isolating plates independently is preferred to avoid non-
physical averaging. It is also important to account for whether the plot is illustrating the top and bottom (shown with the 3D
If the loading is not cyclic and the analysis goal is to compute plate/slab ultimate capacity, then nominal stresses might be a
preferred output. Nominal stresses can often be evaluated using element centroid stresses to reduce the singular stress
Since centroidal stress averaging only occurs between the individual element integration points, the entire connection can be
plotted without the fear of non-physical averaging. It should be noted that top and bottom surfaces are typically evaluated
If fatigue life is an issue, then accurate stress results are required. If the peak stress is at a casting or machined joint, then a 3D
brick model with fillet radii should be used to predict the true stress concentration. Shell-to-solid sub-modeling is often used
for this type of simulation. Figure 4 illustrates filleted plate interfaces where local detailed stresses are calculated.
If the plate assembly is welded or is a bolted connection, then designing is often better achieved by extracting local forces and
moments rather than using stress data. Figure 5 illustrates forces extracted from the end of the thicker plate at the joint
connection.
In many structural design codes, stress data is not needed anywhere. Forces and moments are required code input. Generally,
the preferred format is in-plane forces and out-of-plane moments, typically defined as force or moment per unit length. Each
plate is isolated independently to capture these forces and moments at the element centroids as illustrated in Figure 6.
So, take advantage of the computational efficiency of shell modeling, but be careful about extracting the best results to best
ENGINEERING.com.manages consulting engineering services and software training. With over 30 years of experience in
thermal-structural nonlinear and dynamic analysis applications using the finite element method, Peter's structural
All opinions are Peter R. Barrett’s and are not necessarily those of ENGINEERING.com