Fea on single plate element-image attached

  • Thread starter Thread starter chandran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fea Plate
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around modeling a single square plate in Nastran and analyzing stress distribution under applied forces. The user observed discrepancies in stress values at the plate's nodes, with two nodes showing 1.90 and two showing 2.03 instead of the expected uniform stress of 2. The differences are attributed to stress interpolation and the nature of finite element analysis (FEM), suggesting that checking stress at integration points may yield more accurate results. The user also attempted to calculate stress using classical mechanics for beams, resulting in a significantly different value of 600, which highlights the need to compare uniaxial stress with von Mises stress. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how FEM outputs relate to classical theories and the specific conditions of the model.
chandran
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
I just modeled a single square plate of size 50x50 and thick 1 and applied a force on two nodes(total force is hence 100). The software i used is nastran. The force vector is shown as arrow in the image.

My doubt is all the points in the plate should have the stress=100/area=100/(50*1)=2. But in the four nodes, two have a stress of 1.90 and two others have 2.03. Any body can explain this?
 

Attachments

  • platefea.jpg
    platefea.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 482
Engineering news on Phys.org
Sounds like a somewhat typical difference arising from stress interpolation, from your point loading contrary to smooth boundary traction and overall accuracy of the FEM solution is typically worth a percent or two ... you got a bilinear element and the other end is fixed right? Check stress values at integration points, they are most accurate at those locations and should be closer to your reference.
 
yes, perennial the other end is fixed. But then why this? how to find the integration point?
 
I don't use Nastran myself but in FE codes you can typically specify from which location you want your output extracted. Usually the options are nodes, element centroids and integration points. So requestion, via some output option, a listed (numerical) output such that the location of the output is integration points should give you the specific results. I'll be interesting to see how much difference there is.

In bilinear isoparametric plates if you're using reduced 1*1 integration you've your single point at point (0,0) (the center of your element), alternatively you may have (and probably have) used a 2*2 grid integration scheme, where the points are located symmetrically at 1/\sqrt{3} (symmetrically with respect to both coordinates axes, 4 points in total).
 
perennial,
I have modeled a single plate element with 50x50 dimensions and thickness of 1. I fix the two nodes at one side and apply 50 force at each node at the other side. After running the static test
the result of von mises stress for that element is 288.


Manually if i consider the plate as a beam and apply the classical mechanics formula of stress=moment*y/moment of inertia(where y is 0.5(half the thk) in this case) i get the result for the stress as 600. Where I have gone wrong


Note:
moment=50(distance)*(50+50)=5000
y=0.5
moment of inertia=4.16


I have attached the image
 

Attachments

  • untitled.gif
    untitled.gif
    49.9 KB · Views: 508
First make sure you've comparable stresses, the beam theory estimate you've calculated compares to the uniaxial stress component of the plate rather than the von Mises stress. Then we can compare it to analytical plate theory reference using both biaxial plane stress components.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Back
Top