<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.imechanica.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>iMechanica - Simple beam bending FEM vs. theory comparison error - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.imechanica.org/node/3594</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Simple beam bending FEM vs. theory comparison error&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Ray,


 


You might want</title>
 <link>http://www.imechanica.org/node/3594#comment-8730</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Ray,
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
You might want to use a beam element with Vlasov corrections. It is known that for thin-walled open-section beams, the constrained warping effects become important. It is not a surprise that 3D elements will give you the right results.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Wenbin
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:03:34 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Wenbin Yu</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 8730 at http://www.imechanica.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Simple beam bending FEM vs. theory comparison error</title>
 <link>http://www.imechanica.org/node/3594</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I am having some trouble getting accurate values for max. stress and max. deflection for an FEM model of a simply supported I-beam in bending. I am using I-DEAS 12 NX to solve the model. I&amp;#39;m pretty new to finite element analysis as a whole, but I know that getting any more&lt;br /&gt;
than 10% error (relative to Euler beam theory) in max deflection or stress for a 60x10x8 in. should not happen. Strangely enough, using the same boundary conditions and meshing techniques for a 60x10x8 in. rectangular solid, I find the results I was expecting. Here are some more details:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-For each geometry, there are 3 models. One uses&lt;br /&gt;
beam elements, one uses solid (hexa) elements, and one uses shell&lt;br /&gt;
(quad) elements.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-The boundary conditions (pin on one side,&lt;br /&gt;
roller on the other) are applied to the mesh, using constraint elements&lt;br /&gt;
on each face, with the node in the middle of the face being the&lt;br /&gt;
independent node (where the b.c.&amp;#39;s are applied). Similarly, the applied&lt;br /&gt;
force of 1000 lbs was modeled as a series of point forces applied along&lt;br /&gt;
the neutral axis of the beam at its center.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-As for mesh&lt;br /&gt;
density, I modeled the rectangular prism using an element size of about&lt;br /&gt;
2.5 in x 2.5 in x 2 in for the hex elements, just to give an idea. The&lt;br /&gt;
I-beam model required a finer mesh for model &amp;quot;convergence&amp;quot; (there seem&lt;br /&gt;
to be singularities at the b.c.&amp;#39;s and loads for the I-beam,&lt;br /&gt;
regardless), so we&amp;#39;re talking element sizes of about 1 in x .5 in x .5&lt;br /&gt;
in.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any thoughts on what I (or possibly I-DEAS) is doing wrong?&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#39;m thinking Saint-Venant&amp;#39;s principle, but the magnitude of the max&lt;br /&gt;
stress error and max deflection error in the I-beam model is much&lt;br /&gt;
bigger than the errors in the rectangular prism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hope this wasn&amp;#39;t too ridiculous to read.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Raymond C. Singh&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br class=&quot;clear&quot; /&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.imechanica.org/node/3594#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.imechanica.org/taxonomy/term/109">Ask iMechanica</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:56:32 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Raymond C. Singh</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">3594 at http://www.imechanica.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
