MAE 4700/ 5700/ 5701 HW 7

Due: December 4, 2015

Esther Koo
Chen Shen
Brian Chantrupon

Esther
Brian
Chen

efk28
cs829
bc566

Ansys & Writing

Ansys & Writing
MATLAB & Writing

Sources: None

10 hours
12 hours
12 hours

2) One quarter of the plate was taken, so the new geometry became width = 0.15 and
length = 0.5 . The quarter-plate was meshed using rectangular elements.
MeshGeometry.m
% Choose a meshing method
% "1" for mesh directly generated from Matlab "BoxGrid_2D" function
% "2" for mesh generated from Ansys and loaded from "loadFromGridFile"
% function
LoadChoice = 1;
% Plot instruction
PlotInstructions.plot_mesh
PlotInstructions.plot_node

= 'no';
= 'no';

PlotInstructions.plot_boundary = 'no';
PlotInstructions.plot_contour
PlotInstructions.plot_vector
PlotInstructions.plot_deformed
PlotInstructions.plot_fringes
nnpe = 4;

=
=
=
=

%
%
%
%
%

What to plot. For big meshes,

it is better not to plot node and
vector.
Change this information as
appropriate

'yes';
'yes';
'yes';
'yes';

% number of nodes per element.

% currently T3 and Q4 elements are supported

nsd = 2;
% number of spatial dimensions
if LoadChoice==1 % use LoadChoice =1 only when the geometry is a
% rectangular
% Set this information for each problem
xl
xr
yb
yt

=
=
=
=

0.0;
0.15;
0.0;
0.5;

nx = 12;
ny = 12;

%
%
%
%

left location of the range in the x direction

right location of the range in the x direction
bottom location of the range in the y direction
top location of the range in the y direction

% number of elements in x direction

% number of elements in y direction

For symmetry boundary conditions, the second surface (left) had no horizontal displacement
and no tangential traction. The bottom surface was broken up into two surfaces: the first
surface (bottom) and the fifth surface (crack). The first surface had symmetry conditions with
no vertical displacement and no tangential traction. The fifth surface was treated as a free
surface (no tangential or normal tractions). The only natural boundary condition entered in
InputData.m was = 30 at the third surface (top). Since the plate was thin, the plane
stress condition was used.

InputData.m
% Define the essential BCs
% boundStruct.SurfEssV = [];
boundStruct.SurfEssV = [2 1 0
1 2 0];

%
%
%
%

e.g. [4 2 20] means all nodes on surface

# 4,
degree of freedom #2 (y direction), has
a value of 20.

% Define the natural BCs

% The natural boundary condition is defined in tangential and normal
% direction (rather than global x and y direction),outer normal is
% positive.
boundStruct.SurfNat = [3 0 30e7]; % e.g. [3 10 -10] means surface # 3 has
% a constantly distributed tangential
% traction
% 10 and normal traction (pointing in)
% 10.
% Define material properties
E
=2e11; % Young's Modulus
nu
=0.35; % Poisson's Ratio
PlaneStress='yes';% 'yes' for plane stress, 'no' for plane strain

The crack was located at the last third of the bottom surface, so boundStruct was redefined
in MeshGeometry.m by giving the last third of the elements and associated nodes of the
bottom surface to the fifth surface and the remaining elements and nodes of the bottom
surface to the first surface.
MeshGeometry.m
% Use the provided box grid generator
[nCoords,elCon,boundStruct]=BoxGrid_2D(nsd,xl,xr,yb,yt,nnpe,nx,ny);
BoundaryNodes(1).Nodes = [1:2/3*nx+1];

% The first boundary (bottom)

% The fifth boundary (bottom)

BoundaryNodes(5).Nodes = [2/3*nx+1:nx+1];
% The first boundary (bottom)
BoundaryElems(1).Elems = [1:2/3*nx];
BoundaryElems(1).SurfaceIndicator = -2*ones(2/3*nx,1);
% The fifth boundary (bottom)
BoundaryElems(5).Elems = [2/3*nx+1:nx];
BoundaryElems(5).SurfaceIndicator = -2*ones(1/3*nx,1);

2
2
2 ).
The Von Mises stress for a planar plate was defined as2 (
+
+ 2
The Von Mises

scalar stress field and all stress components were plotted.

PostProcessor.m
% Calculate Von Mises stress
von_mises = sqrt(3/2*(sigma_xx.^2 + sigma_yy.^2 + 2*sigma_xy.^2));
% Plot stresses
if strcmp(PlotInstructions.plot_contour,'yes')
% Here are two options for plotting stress. Try MakePatchPlot and
% PlotContour to see which you prefer.
%
range=max(max(abs(sig)));
%
MakePatchPlot(sigma_xx,range,meshStruct, 'xx stress ');
%
MakePatchPlot(sigma_yy,range,meshStruct, 'yy stress ');
%
MakePatchPlot(sigma_xy,range,meshStruct, 'xy stress ');
plotcontour(meshStruct,sigma_xx, 'xx stress ',15,'area','on');
plotcontour(meshStruct,sigma_yy, 'yy stress ',15,'area','on');
plotcontour(meshStruct,sigma_xy, 'xy stress ',15,'area','on');
plotcontour(meshStruct,von_mises, 'Von Mises Stress ',15,'area','on');
end

Because there was a cusp between the first and fifth surfaces, stress at that node (and
therefore maximum stress) would go to infinity as the number of elements in the mesh
increased. The y displacement of the rightmost node (the free end of the crack in the quarterplate and center of the crack in the whole plate) was used to determine convergence of the
solution as seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Convergence values
Number of Elements in x-direction
12
30
90
120
240
360

Number of Elements in y-direction

12
30
90
120
240
360

Displacement (m)
1.3373e-04
1.5071e-04
1.5758e-04
1.5839e-04
1.5959e-04
1.5998e-04

At an increasing number of elements in the x and y directions, the displacement value

converged to 1.6e-04 m, so the solution overall has converged.
3) The cantilever beam was modeled using 1D, 2D, and 3D elements using a variety of
different mesh sizes in ANSYS. Displacement, DOF, and stress distributions were
determined for each combination of mesh size and type of element, and are summarized in
Table 2 and Table 3 below.
Table 2. Total degrees of freedom and displacements
Mesh
DOF (1D) v1 (1D) [m] DOF (2D) v1 (2D) [m] DOF (3D) v1 (3D) [m]
2x2x2
3
-0.005133
18 -0.0050773
81 -0.0050354
4x4x4
5
-0.005133
50 -0.0051191
375 -0.0050931
8x8x8
9
-0.005133
162 -0.0051237
2187 -0.0050996
16x16x8
17
-0.005133
578 -0.0051249
7803 -0.0051013
64x64x8
65
-0.005133
8450 -0.0051254
114075 -0.0051024
Table 3. Maximum values of xx at x = 2m and x = 0m
Mesh

2x2x2
4x4x4
8x8x8
16x16x8
64x64x8

Max xx at
x=2m (1D)
[MPa]

Max xx at
x=2m (2D)
[MPa]

Max xx at
x=2m (3D)
[MPa]

Max xx at
x=0m (1D)
[MPa]

Max xx at
x=0m (2D)
[MPa]

Max xx at
x=0m (3D)
[MPa]

2.3176
2.3176
2.3176
2.3176
2.3176

2.3863
2.3304
2.3095
2.3165
2.3176

2.292
2.3465
2.3145
2.3166
2.3176

4.6352
4.6352
4.6352
4.6352
4.6352

4.7451
4.7426
4.7727
4.9234
5.9295

4.853
4.8387
4.9219
5.308
6.9953

a) For 1D elements, 3 degrees of freedom are sufficient to achieve accuracy of three

significant digits for both displacement and stress. A 1D element is also easy to
model, and thus requires a lower number of degrees of freedom to converge. For 2D
elements, 50 degrees of freedom are needed to achieve an accurate displacement and
162 degrees of freedom are required to achieve an accurate stress value to three
rounded significant digits. Lastly, 3D elements require a minimum of 2187 degrees
of freedom for an accurate displacement and stress.
b) The following comparison is done for the 64x64x8 mesh, which is the most refined
mesh implemented on the beam. The displacement value between the 1D and 2D
elements differs by 0.15%. Between the 2D and 3D elements, the value differs by
0.45%, while the difference in the displacement between 1D and 3D elements is
greatest with a value of 0.60%. However overall, the percent difference between each
type of element is below 1% and can be considered to be very low. The values of

stress at x = 2m for all three element types are the same up to five significant digits
and thus agree very well.
c) Displacement converges faster than stress when refining the mesh because stress is a
second derivative of displacement and thus takes longer to reach an exact solution, if
it is able to reach a solution at all.
d) For 1D, 2D, and 3D elements, the displacement results display very little effects from
stress singularities because they are mainly concentrated on the fixed end. As seen in
the results, all displacement values ultimately converge at three significant digits as
the mesh is refined. Stress is calculated as force divided by area. When a beam is
loaded at one end, the four sharp corners of the fixed end of the beam and the location
of the point source can have an infinitely small area. As the mesh is refined, the area
becomes smaller, resulting in a value of stress that becomes larger. The maximum
stress at the fixed end of the beam modeled with 1D elements does not exhibit stress
singularities because the stress values stay the same as the mesh is refined. However
for 2D elements, when the mesh is refined from 16x16x8 to 64x64x8, the maximum
stress value suddenly increases by 18.5%. A similar trend is shown in 3D elements
but at an even earlier point during mesh refinement: as the mesh changes from 8x8x8
to 16x16x8, the maximum stress value increases by 7.55%; and when the mesh
changes from 16x16x8 to 64x64x8, the stress value increases by 27.4%.
Unfortunately for 2D and 3D elements, a refined mesh leads to stress singularities and
lowers the likelihood of convergence at the fixed end of the beam. The extent of
stress singularities can be seen when comparing stress values between all element
types at a refinement level of 64x64x8. 2D elements lead to a 24.5% increase in
stress value compared to 1D elements, while 3D elements lead to a 40.5% increase in
stress value from 1D elements.
e) In order to determine displacements, 3D elements provide the most accurate result.
However efficiency is decreased because at least 7803 degrees of freedom are
required to obtain a converged solution. When stresses are determined, 1D elements
are sufficient to obtain the stress within the beam and at the free end of the beam.
The stress value obtained with 1D, 2D, and 3D elements is ultimately the same,
except that 1D elements reach the solution earlier with a coarser mesh. As a result,
1D elements for calculating the stress at the free end of the beam and within the beam
are accurate and efficient. During calculation of the stress at the fixed end of the
beam, 1D elements do not exhibit stress singularities as the mesh is refined.
Although efficiency is maintained, accuracy decreases. As a result, 2D elements and
3D elements provide more detail of stress behavior at the fixed end of the beam
because the refined mesh allows for a more accurate stress value.

4)
a) The bracket was meshed in a 2D modeller as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Mesh plot of the bracket in ANSYS

b) The geometric parameters used for the initial bracket are shown below in Table 4 and
Figure 2. The initial total volume of the bracket was calculated to be 73.376 m3.
Analysis of the bracket using this initial configuration resulted in the von Mises
equivalent stress plot shown in Figure 3.
Table 4. Geometric parameters, initial conditions, and design variables employed
Parameter:

Initial Value: Lower Limit:

Upper
[m]
[m]
Limit: [m]
10-H
10
5
10
30-W
30
25
30
R1
1
0.05
5
R2
2
1.5
4.95
Though the thickness, T was also specified as a design parameter to be varied in the
initial problem, it was instead set to constant value 0.25 m (the lower limit of the given
design variable) to minimize the volume. This assumption was taken due to the fact
the thickness was constant throughout the body and would not affect the final analysis.
Additionally, due to the fact that ANSYS cannot model dimensions of 0, the
parameters for H and W where changed to 10-H and 30-W respectively, while R1 and
R2 were varied such that its values would not necessarily be zero or make any other
dependent dimensions be zero though it was close enough.

Figure 2. Bracket dimensions

Figure 3. Initial von Mises equivalent stress plot

c) The response surfaces for (10-H,R1), (10-H,R2), and (W,H) are shown in the below.
Though the response surface for (R2, T) was requested, it is not shown because T was
made to not be a varying parameter which is what was advised by the Professor.

Figure 4. 3D response surface plot of the H and R1 parameter vs. the maximum von Mises
stress

Figure 5. 3D response surface plot of the H and R2 parameter vs. the maximum von Mises
stress

Figure 6. 3D response surface plot of the W and H parameters vs. the maximum von Mises
stress

d) Using the response surfaces shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6, Ansys will
find candidate points below the maximum stress constraint that is input into the
optimization window. Figure 7 shows the candidate points generated by ANSYS
using the 3D response surfaces. The candidate point is chosen that has been verified
to be below the stress limit of 100 kPa and has minimized the volume the most. In this
case, Candidate Point 1 is the best solution, with a 10-H value of 5.7525m (meaning H
is 4.2475m), R1 value of 2.0827, R2 value of 2.4956, and 30-W value of 4.949m
(meaning W is 25.051m). The total volume of the bracket using these parameters is
50.424 m3, and the complete geometric configuration is detailed in Figure 8. Figure 9
shows the von Mises equivalent stress plot for the optimal configuration.

Figure 7. Candidate points and their verified values as generated by ANSYS optimization for the
support bracket

Figure 8. The optimized support bracket according to Candidate Point 1 parameters. The
dimensions are shown estimated to 1 significant figure.

Figure 9. Von Mises equivalent stress plot for the optimal configuration