Linear & Non-Linear Analysis of Thin Cantilever Beam

Assignment-2

Rajdip
Theory of Elasticity
An Indian Institute

I. Introduction
The classical problem of the deflection of a cantilever beam of linear elastic material, under the action of
an external vertical load at the free end and also under self weight, is analysed. The equations governing the
behaviour of this physical system is shown. An approximation of the behaviour of a cantilever beam for was
analysed in commercial softwares such as NASTRAN and PATRAN and the resullts obtained from such
analysis was compared. Finally, we compare the theoretical results with the experimental results obtained
in our Strength of Materials laboratory.

But first of all, the specifications of my Ruler which was approximated as ”Thin Cantilever Beam” is
given below:

Length 1m
Width 0.037 m
Thickness 0.0015 m
Young’s Modulus 193 GPa
Poisson’s Ratio 0.27
Density 7915 kg/m3

II. OBJECTIVE
In this analysis, objective is to examine the linear and the non-linear deviations appearing from the self
weight and tip loaded condition and to compare them against theoretical and experimental approach.

III. THEORY
A. Details about Theoretical Approach
For a tip loaded cantilever beam under geometric linearity assumptions (Euler-Bernoulli Theory), the
deflection at a section (v(x) which is mainly caused by the moment generated by the tip load) can be ex-
pressed as:

d2 v M P (L − x)
= = (1)
dx2 EI EI
L L Z LZ L
d2 v P (L − x)
Z Z
⇒ dxdx = dxdx (2)
0 0 dx2 0 0 EI
P Lx2 P x3
⇒ v(x) = − (3)
2EI 6EI

1 of 8

A
Now, during this integration it is assumed that the deflection at each point so small that it won’t affect
the stress distribution while deforming. So the key assumption in this mode of analysis is that the normal
distance between a section and the tip load is constant for a particular section ((L-x)) throughout the
analysis. In this geometrically linear setting, the equations of equilibrium are formulated in the undeformed
state and are not updated with the deformation.

But in reality, there are a number of cases where the deformation cannot be ignored. In those cases the
above scheme fails. Under a high value of loading, the deflection becomes so significant that the normal
distance between the tip load & a section keeps on reducing and hence, the equations of equilibrium should
be updated with the deformation. In this scheme, the entire force is applied in many no of steps. First, a
very small percentage of the net force is applied and using linear model all the parameters are known to get
the new orientation and then the next step of the force is applied in this new orientation. This process is
kept on repeating till the entire force is being applied.

B. Details about NASTRAN and PATRAN

NASTRAN and PATRAN uses 2 different approaches while dealing with such problems. But, as our case
is one of the simplest, both the ways nearly produces similar results. Two popular approaches are mostly
followed by this softwares to analyse the problem. After defining the geometry of the structure, we usually
specify the section and the material property, however I have done the case such that it is a two-dimensional
problem.
1. Linear Analysis In this case, a linear relation holds between applied forces and displacements. In
practice, this is applicable to structural problems where stresses remain in the linear elastic range of
the used material. In a linear static analysis the model’s stiffness matrix is constant, and the solving
process is relatively short compared to a nonlinear analysis on the same model. Therefore, for a first
estimate, the linear static analysis is often used prior to performing a full nonlinear analysis.

2. Non-Linear Analysis In this case, a nonlinear relation holds between applied forces and displace-
ments. Nonlinear effects can originate from geometrical nonlinearity’s (i.e. large deformations), mate-
rial nonlinearity’s (i.e. elasto-plastic material), and contact. These effects result in a stiffness matrix
which is not constant during the load application. This is opposed to the linear static analysis, where
the stiffness matrix remained constant. As a result, a different solving strategy is required for the
nonlinear analysis and therefore a different solver, which is embedded in NASTRAN.

In other words, Linear analysis in FEA does not consider any change in stiffness matrix but in case
of nonlinear analysis stiffness matrix change is considered (Stiffness change due to Geometry changes,
Material Changes, etc).For alittle bit of complex cases, such as where the stress strain curve is no
longer linear, we take help of non-linear analysis. We will have to specify a number of informations
before we can get results. Modern analysis software makes it possible to obtain solutions to nonlinear
problems. However, experienced skill is required to determine their validity and these analyses can
easily be inappropriate. Care should be taken to specify appropriate model and solution parameters.
Understanding the problem, the role played by these parameters and a planned and logical approach
will do much to ensure a successful solution.
A major problem with NASTRAN is that no matter how big or small the deflection is, we will get visually
the same image but with different values of displacements.

C. Details about our Experimental approach

After clamping the ruler in position, an attempt was made to note down the deflections of the beam under
self weight and tip loaded conditions. Interval was marked in 5 cms and then the deflections for each part
were roughly calculated. As fixed end condition is not ideally possible, my analysis has first 5cms clamped as
a result there is no changes in the first 5 cms part. These were in turn shown in comparison along the graphs.

2 of 8

A
 (a) Photo 1 (b) Photo 2

Figure 1: An attempt was made to capture the deflections in beams under different conditions

IV. Results and Discussions

After conducting the experiment, the data was collected and worked upon, the results were plotted in
Matlab. For tip load 160 grams or 1.5696 N is considered. The following in order are mentioned below:

Figure 2: Variation of deflections under self weight by different approaches.

As I already have discussed in previous sections that the deflections given by both NASTRAN for linear
and theoretical approach are one and same, this is because we are operating under the linear region only.
The non-linear analysis gives a very small deflection of the results in both the cases of self weight and tip
deflection. The noticeable difference in the experimental results was obtained due to many reasons. The
value of Young’s Modulus was taken to be 193 GPa which may exceed the ruler’s original Young’s Modulus.
The scale had already sustained some small amount of deflections before the experiment was done, thus
there was no chance we would have got similar results. Lastly, the clamp was not ideal, we used hand mea-

3 of 8

A
 Figure 3: Variation of deflections under tip load (1.5696N) conditions by different approaches.

surements which might have given rise to such deviations in the final outcome. Therefore, we can conclude
that theoretical approach and both linear and non-linear analysis gives nearly the same results in both the
cases.

(a) Self Weight condition (b) Tip Load Condition

Figure 4: Variation of the stress obtained by different approaches

The strain and stress values were collected from the analysis given by our software and was plotted for
linear and non-linear case. As told earlier, as we operate in the linear region, not much difference is observed.
Besides, I have already clamped first 5 cms, so there is a displacement constraint as a result of which a lot
of stress accumulates in the part just after the 5 cms. As a result of which, there is a sudden jump in the
value of stress in the graph. As we trace along the length of the beam, the highest bending moment region
slowly moves towards lowest.

4 of 8

A
 (a) Self Weight condition (b) Tip Load Condition

Figure 5: Variation of the strains obtained by different approaches

So as we are operating in the linear region strain is directly proportional to the stress experienced. So, a
similar trend in the graph is observed for strain and stress also. To prove whether or not the stress-strain is
in linear region or not, I have plotted the values also, and as seen below the graph matches almost linearly,
proving that my analysis is correct.

The plot for self weight condition obtained experimentally in lab is plotted and an equivalent curve fit
is obtained which will give us u2 as a function of x, so that on differentiating we can obtain the strain along
x. Equation obtained after the curve fitting is :

u2 = −0.5097X14 + 1.0810X13 − 0.9158X12 + 0.0473X1 − 0.0003

11 :
∂u2
= −2.0388X13 + 3.243X12 − 1.8316X1 + 0.0473
X1
1 ∂u2 2
11 = ( )
2 X1
The value at fixed end can be calculated as:

11 |x=0 = (0.04732 )/2 = 1.12 × 10−3

Since, at x=5 cm , u1 is zero, hence the value of strain obtained is1.12 ∗ 10−3 is correct. The results obtained
is comparable with the value obtained through commercial package, which is nearly 0.72 × 10−3 .

Our Packages takes the help of the following algorithm and calculates strain on the basis of the following
equations:
∂UA ∂UB ∂Ui ∂Ui
2EAB = + + (4)
∂XB ∂XA ∂XA ∂XB
The above equation represents the Green Lagrangian Finite Strain Tensor, Also software use:
∂Ui ∂Uj ∂UA ∂UA
2 ∈ij = + − (5)
∂xj ∂xi ∂xi ∂xj
The above equation represents the Finite Eulerian Strain Tensor.

5 of 8

A
 (a) Self Weight condition (b) Tip Load Condition

Figure 6: Variation of the stress vs. strain obtained by different approaches (Linear Region)

A comparison for different weights and their maximum deflection is shown. Equivalent tables using soft-
ware and experimental is provided below:

Weight in grams Weight in Newton Linear (m) Non-Linear (m) Experimental (m)
80 0.7848 0.3301 0.30113 0.39184
90 0.8829 0.343 0.311 0.4030
100 0.981 0.358 0.328 0.4165
110 1.0791 0.372 0.339 0.43368
120 1.1772 0.386 0.349 0.4395
130 1.2753 0.401 0.359 0.4630
140 1.3734 0.4138 0.369 0.4756
150 1.4715 0.428 0.379 0.4850
160 1.5696 0.4413 0.3882 0.4892

Figure 7: Variation of tip deflection using different approaches

6 of 8

A
 V. Conclusion
In this analysis, it is verified that as per as the linear region is considered the solver as well as our
theoretical analysis gives nearly the same result.And in case of non-linearity, the product term in the Green
Lagrangian Finite Strain Tensor can’t be neglected as a result if it is not analysed under linear conditions,
then there may be considerable deviation of results.

VI. Appendix

Figure 8: Snapshot of Linear Self Weight Analysis

Figure 9: Snapshot of Non Linear Self Weight Analysis

7 of 8

A
 Figure 10: Snapshot of Linear Tip Load Analysis

Figure 11: Snapshot of Non Linear Tip Load Analysis

8 of 8