Meng Xiong 2/11/14 EMA 405: HW #1 Overview A 2-dimensional model for a beam is shown in Fig. 1.

The purpose of this analysis are to determine the maximum bending stress, tip deflection with shear deformation, and accuracy between the linear and quadratic formulation associated with the BEAM 188 elements. Description of FE Model A FE model of the meshes with number of elements ranging from 1 to 5 are shown in Fig. 2 for the K3=Linear Formulation. Likewise, the K3=Quadratic Formulation uses the same mesh configuration and coordinate system as defined by Fig. 2. The model consists of 2 nodes per element, with six degrees of freedom per node. The linear formulation uses one point of integration along the length, subjecting all element solutions to be constant along the length. For the quadratic formulation, the BEAM 188 also an internal node in the interpolation, and two points of integration are utilized resulting in linear variations in the element solutions. As shown in Fig.1 for the beam cross sectional area in analyzing stress, the y and z coordinate directions are horizontal and vertical, respectively, with the positive directions being right and upward, respectively. For calculation of tip deflection, the Active CS is used where the positive y and z coordinate directions mentioned in Fig.1 are replaced with x and y, respectively as shown in Fig. 2. All nodes on the left hand of the cantilever beam are full fixed (All DOF = 0), and a downward force of 106 N is applied to the right hand side.

Fig. 1. Model of a beam using BEAM 188 elements with local coordinate system The mesh shown in Fig. 2 has BEAM 188 element numbers in the order from bottom to top mesh using manual size control with NDIV = 1,2,3,4, and 5. The same mesh is used for the linear and quadratic formulation. Due to the nature of the linear formulation, it is expected that more elements are needed for a more accurate result compared to its analytic solution. Whereas, the quadratic formulation should be sufficient with one element because it has two points of integration, and the beam loading is simple enough. For the mesh, the cross section scaling, shear stress output, and section force/strain output were set to rigid, transverse only, and at element nodes, respectively. The material for the beam is not defined, but is solved using the assumptions of linear elastic and isotropic, with elastic modulus of 200 GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.3. The FE model

is based on Timoshenko beam theory which includes shear-deformation effects. The model has a uniform width of 0.5 inches as shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 2. Finite Element Model corresponding to Fig.1 using BEAM 188 elements FE Results From our loading conditions of a point load at the right hand side of 106 N, the tip deflection for all five cases of NDIV=1,2,3,4, and 5 are shown in Fig. 3. The deflection is applicable to both the linear and quadratic formulation. For the tip deflections calculated from ANSYS, the values range from -9.55(10)-4 m to -1.16(10)-3 m from the mesh with 1 and 5 elements, respectively for the linear formulation. The quadratic formulation converged for the 1 element mesh for a vertical displacement of -1.17(10)-3 m. In the Appendix, the values obtained is compared to the analytic solutions obtained from mechanics of materials formulas, and Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain Seventh Edition. The results show that for the linear formulation the tip deflection is slowly converging to the analytic solution as the number of elements is increased for the mesh, and as expected the quadratic formulation converges with only one element for both the tip deflection and maximum stress in the Active CS x-direction.

Fig. 3. Tip deflection for FE model of beam, due to a tip load of 106 N. The undeformed geometry is shown by dotted lines.

Fig. 4. Stresses in the x-direction to tip load of 106 N. (Stress gradients for K3=Quadratic Formulation)

The tip load (106 N) produces the x-direction stresses, x, shown in Fig. 4 above. The stress distribution is for the quadratic formulation case, but note the location of the maximum stress is located on the top and bottom surfaces near the left hand side exhibiting tension, and compression, respectively. Similar results are obtained for the linear case with the exception that the stresses are of different values due to the interpolation method utilized by linear formulation summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Maximum bending stress in the x direction and tip deflection with shear deformation in the y-direction with associated percent error (Analytic solution of x = 3.6(10)7 N/m2, and y= -1.1174(10)-3 m) K3 = Linear Formulation Number of Maximum bending stress, Percent Tip deflection in yPercent elements x (N/m2) Error (%) direction, y (m) Error (%) 1 1.80E+07 -50.00 -9.55E-04 -18.68 2 2.70E+07 -25.00 -1.12E-03 -4.75 3 3.00E+07 -16.67 -1.15E-03 -2.18 4 3.15E+07 -12.50 -1.16E-03 -1.28 5 3.24E+07 -10.00 -1.16E-03 -0.86 K3 = Quadratic Formulation Number of Maximum bending stress, Percent Tip deflection in yPercent 2 elements x (N/m ) Error (%) direction, y (m) Error (%) 1 3.60E+07 0 -1.17E-03 -0.12 In Table 1, the values of x for the linear formulation varies from -50% to -10% error when using NDIV=1, and 5, respectively. A similar trend is seen in the tip deflection, as the error decreases compared to the analytic solution presented in the Appendix when the number of elements are increased. The values of the quadratic formulation converges to the same results are presented in Table 1 for every mesh, so in this case, only one element was necessary to obtain the correct results. Conclusion The location of the maximum bending stress in the x-direction, x, was verified to be located at the top and bottom surfaces of the end loaded cantilever beam. Although, the values of x were not all accurate compared to the analytic solution, its location is similar in all cases. The tip deflection in the y-direction also experienced the same phenomenon with the FE model, where it was maximum at the tip load, but results produced were more accurate as the number of elements used was increased for the linear formulation. In future studies, the quadratic formulation should be used for this type of beam calculation as it only took one element to produce the closest results compared to the analytical solutions. Despite, the quadratic formulation accuracy, there is still a -0.12% error for the tip deflection in the y-direction that could be associated with what method was used to calculate the ANSYS model and the analytical solution.

APPENDIX Using mechanics of material formulas for a tip loaded cantilever and Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain Seventh Edition (pg., 166-167,189), we obtain total = deflection +shear =

x =