Principle of Virtual Work to the FE method

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Principle of Virtual Work (PVW) and its relationship to the Finite Element (FE) method, emphasizing the significance of internal and external virtual work. It highlights that when internal virtual work equals external virtual work, it leads to equilibrium equations and boundary conditions, which are fundamental to the FE method. The conversation reflects confusion about the mathematical formulation and the apparent simplicity of the critical statement regarding equilibrium. Participants express a desire for clarity on how this relationship is articulated in literature, noting that it often feels inadequately addressed. Ultimately, the discussion concludes with a realization that the concepts may have been overcomplicated.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
PVW, FE, Equilibrium Equations
(I do understand there are many ways to formulate the FE method, but I wish to understand this one.)

  1. I understand that Hamilton's Principle is just that: a principle ( a law the recapitulates the equations of motion)
  2. I also understand that the Principle of Virtual Work (PVW) is a reformulation of Hamilton's Principle to account for non-conservative forces (in bodies that are rigid)

HOWEVER

If my focus was ONLY the PVW alone, I can understand this and where it came from: both are forces acting through virtual displacements)

1650519068300.png


But the development of the FE equations give (when we apply Gauss theorem, definition of strain, etc.)

1650519013406.png


Now, I can anticipate that this new term on the right is the INTERNAL virtual work: stress and variation of strain, internal

However, it seems so ad hoc, that books get away with this.

It seems to me that this statement below is CRITICAL:

When the Internal virtual work is equal to the External Virtual work, we recover the equilibrium equation and the boundary condition.

It seems to me that this BOLD statement above is the beating heart of the FE method (from the mechanical engineering perspective), but all books give it lip service and appear to simply "tweak" the PVW and "add this term."

I am sorry to say I am not entirely sure of where my confusion lies, but it seems to be that the BOLD BLUE statement above, must rise above the development and must become a restatement of the PVW.

I do not know what I am trying to ask, but could someone comment on this post?

Maybe I am beating this, senseless.
 

Attachments

  • 1650518977417.png
    1650518977417.png
    2.2 KB · Views: 144
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don't get the math, unfortunately, but your BOLD statement seems to be the equivalent of saying the obvious. If A is equal to B then we have equilibrium and the boundary is the equal sign between them. Of course I may be oversimplifying it. But you may also be overcomplicating it.
Just a thought.
 
GramInvents51 said:
I don't get the math, unfortunately, but your BOLD statement seems to be the equivalent of saying the obvious. If A is equal to B then we have equilibrium and the boundary is the equal sign between them. Of course I may be oversimplifying it. But you may also be overcomplicating it.
Just a thought.

I now think I was overcomplicating it.

Thank you!
 
Thread 'What type of toilet do I have?'
I was enrolled in an online plumbing course at Stratford University. My plumbing textbook lists four types of residential toilets: 1# upflush toilets 2# pressure assisted toilets 3# gravity-fed, rim jet toilets and 4# gravity-fed, siphon-jet toilets. I know my toilet is not an upflush toilet because my toilet is not below the sewage line, and my toilet does not have a grinder and a pump next to it to propel waste upwards. I am about 99% sure that my toilet is not a pressure assisted...
After over 25 years of engineering, designing and analyzing bolted joints, I just learned this little fact. According to ASME B1.2, Gages and Gaging for Unified Inch Screw Threads: "The no-go gage should not pass over more than three complete turns when inserted into the internal thread of the product. " 3 turns seems like way to much. I have some really critical nuts that are of standard geometry (5/8"-11 UNC 3B) and have about 4.5 threads when you account for the chamfers on either...
Back
Top