RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Application of the Finite

Element Method to
Deflection in a Cantilever
Beam
MANE 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements
Jos DeFaria
5/14/2015
 DeFaria 2

Abstract

A cantilever beam was modeled as a 1D, 2D, and 3D model in Abaqus using various element types to
determine its deflection. A mesh refinement study was conducted and the results compared to the exact
values to compare and contrast the accuracy of the various element types. Overall, it was determined
that quadratic elements are more accurate than linear elements, and traditional integration elements
are more accurate than reduced integration elements. Despite these generalized findings, the most
accurate element type at convergence was a linear, reduced integration element in 2D.
 DeFaria 3

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Finite Element Theory -- The Importance of Basis Functions .................................................................. 5
Abaqus Element Types .............................................................................................................................. 6
Model Construction .................................................................................................................................. 7
1D .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
2D .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
3D .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
1D .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2D ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
3D ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
1D, 2D, 3D Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 13
References .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix Result Tables ........................................................................................................................ 15
1D ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
2D ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
3D ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
 DeFaria 4

Introduction

Finite element analysis is a method of numerical analysis to approximate solutions to problems which
would be difficult to obtain using traditional analysis methods. Although variational calculus has existed
for centuries, the concept of using finite elements to solve difficult problems has taken new meaning in
the era of computers.

As computational strength increases, the effective cost of finite element analysis decreases. This has
increased the adoption of finite element analysis throughout industry as a method to determine
acceptability of a design.

Although finite element analysis is widely used, one must remember it is a method of approximation.
Different methods and inputs will affect the accuracy of the approximation.

This study will examine one of the classic problems in engineering: the cantilever beam. The cantilever
beam is a well-defined problem with specific formulas to determine its deflection based on the length
and section of the beam and the magnitude and location of the load. Because the cantilever beam is
well-defined, the exact value of its deflection can be determined and compared to the analysis results.
Analysis will be conducted on a 1D, 2D, and 3D model of the cantilever beam, using different mesh sizes
and element types to determine the relationship between element type/geometry and accuracy.

In a cantilever beam with a concentrated load at the free end, the maximum deflection occurs at the
free end. The maximum deflection is found by:

=
3

For the purposes of this study, a cantilever beam 12 inches in length, 2 inches wide, and 1 inch tall
(I=0.166667 in4), will be considered to be constructed of steel (E=30,000,000 psi, v=0.3). A load of
500 lbs will be applied to the free end. Using these values, the exact solution of the maximum deflection
is:

(500 )(12 )
= = = 0.0576
3 3(30,000,000 )(0.166667 )
 DeFaria 5

Finite Element Theory -- The Importance of Basis Functions

The success of finite element analysis depends heavily on the selection of a test function. This test
function is determined by the collection of the finite element basis functions. This study uses two
different orders of elements: first-order elements (P1 or linear) and second-order elements (P2 or
quadratic). The graphs of sample linear and quadratic basis functions are presented below for an
interval divided into two elements.

Linear Basis Function Quadratic Basis Function

In the linear example above, the interval is divided into two elements. Each element has one node at
each end for a total of three nodes. Each node has its own basis functions, which are assembled into the
global basis function for each element. The global basis functions for both elements are plotted above.

In the quadratic basis function above, the interval is also divided into two elements, but each element
has a node in the center of the element in addition to the nodes at each end. This results in a total of
five nodes. Each node has its own basis functions, which are assembled into the global basis function for
each element. The global basis functions for both elements are plotted above. The quadratic basis
functions are much more detailed since they are of second-order and they introduce additional nodes;
therefore, quadratic elements are expected to be more accurate than linear elements.
 DeFaria 6

Abaqus Element Types

Although it is unknown what particular test functions the Abaqus software uses, the concepts presented
above are the same. Elements can be linear or quadratic. Quadratic elements introduce additional
nodes compared to linear elements. This can be observed for 1D, 2D, and 3D elements below.

1D 2D 3D
Linear 2 nodes 4 nodes 8 nodes

Quadratic 3 nodes 8 nodes 20 nodes

In addition to the element types above, Abaqus also offers a reduced integration option which is on by
default in 2D and 3D analysis. When this method is off, the software uses Simpsons rule, a method of
numerical analysis of definite integrals where the interval is broken into fixed intervals for evaluation.
When the reduced integration option is turned on, a different method called Gaussian Quadrature is
used. This does not use fixed intervals and can often reach the same approximation as Simpsons rule
with less coordinates and therefore is less computationally expensive. This reduced integration method
can be prone to hourglassing in certain applications.

Geometry Element Type Description

Order # of Nodes Integration
1D B21 Linear 2
B22 Quadratic 3
2D S4 Linear 4
S4R Linear 4 Reduced
S8R Quadratic 8 Reduced
3D C3D8 Linear 8
C3D8R Linear 8 Reduced
C3D20 Quadratic 20
C3D20R Quadratic 20 Reduced
 DeFaria 7

Model Construction

1D
The 1D model was created by creating a wire part twelve inches long. The steel material properties were
defined in the property module and the cross-section was defined in the create profile tab. In the load
module, the left end of the beam was considered fixed (encastre) and a 500 pound load was placed on
the right end. The beam was meshed with an increasing number of elements. For B21 elements (linear),
the number of elements was increased from 1 through 20 and the deflection in the y-direction was
recorded using each mesh. For B22 elements (quadratic) the number of elements was increased from 1
through 10. At that point, it was determined the results had already converged, and the mesh
refinement was terminated. It should be noted that Abaqus automatically added additional nodes to the
1D model. This was not observed with the 2D or 3D models.

2D
The 2D model was created by creating a planar shell twelve inches long and 2 inches wide. The steel
material properties were defined in the property module and the thickness of 1 inch was applied in the
section properties. In the load module, the left end of the beam was considered fixed (encastre) and a
500 pound load was placed at the center of the beam on the right end. The beam was meshed with
quadrilateral elements. For S4, S4R, and S8R elements, the mesh was created by creating a single
lengthwise element. The model was solved and the deflection in the y-direction was recorded. The mesh
was then refined by doubling the number of elements and the new deflection was recorded. This
process was repeated up to 1024 lengthwise elements. Some hourglassing was observed with 1028 S8R
elements
 DeFaria 8

3D
The 3D model was created by creating a solid extrusion twelve inches long, 2 inches wide, and 1 inch
deep. The steel material properties were defined in the property module. In the load module, the left
face of the beam was considered fixed (encastre) and a 500 pound load was placed in the center of the
right face. The beam was meshed with hexahedral elements. For C3D8, C3D8R, C3D20, and C3D20R
elements, the mesh was created by creating a single lengthwise element. The model was solves and the
deflection in the y-direction was recorded. The mesh was then refined by doubling the number of
elements and the new deflection was recorded. This process was repeated up to 512 lengthwise
elements. Some hourglassing was observed at 512 reduced integration elements.
 DeFaria 9

Results

The recorded deflections were noted in Microsoft Excel, and graphed as a function of the number of
lengthwise elements. In each case below, the horizontal axis is logarithmic.

1D

1D Mesh Refinement
Exact B21 B22

0.0585

0.058

0.0575

0.057
Deflection (inches)

0.0565

0.056

0.0555

0.055

0.0545

0.054
1 2 4 8 16
Number of (Lengthwise) Elements

As shown in the graph above, both the linear (B21) and quadratic (B22) elements converged to a value
which was within 0.5% of the actual value. Although better accuracy was noted with some of the other
models presented later, this accuracy is impressive considering the minimal resources necessary to
evaluate a simple one-dimensional system.

The graph above also highlights the accuracy difference between linear and quadratic elements. Using
only a single quadratic element, the model was within 0.5% of the exact value, whereas using a single
linear element the displacement was within 5.5% of the exact value. This is an order of magnitude in
precision.
 DeFaria 10

2D

2D Mesh Refinement
Actual S4 S4R S8R

0.06

0.055
Deflection (inches)

0.05

0.045

0.04
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024
Number of (Lengthwise) Elements

Similar to what was observed in the 1D case, the quadratic elements (S8R) were far more accurate at
the beginning than the linear elements (S4, S4R). With a single quadratic element, the deflection was
found to be within 1.5% of the actual value, while a single linear element was only within 25% of the
actual value. As the number of S8R elements increased, the accuracy increased, until approximately 512
elements, when minor hourglassing was observed. It should be noted there is no option for a quadratic
element without reduced integration to compare these values with.

The linear elements can be used to compare the results of reduced integration. The reduced integration
elements (S4R) were more accurate than the traditional elements (S4) throughout all of the evaluated
meshes. Using 1024 elements, the traditional elements resulted in a deflection that was within 0.14% of
the actual value, and the reduced integration elements resulted in a deflection that was within 0.06%
the actual value. The reduced integration elements (S4R) resulted in the highest accuracy of all element
types evaluated in this study.
 DeFaria 11

3D

3D Mesh Refinement
Actual C3D8 C3D8R C3D20 C3D20R

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06
Deflection (inches)

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512
Number of (Lengthwise) Elements

The three-dimensional model provided the only opportunity to compare both linear and quadratic
elements with both reduced and traditional integration.

The reduced integration elements were both more accurate than the traditional elements initially. The
linear reduced integration element (C3D8R) was within 0.1% of the actual value, while the quadratic
integration element (C3D20R) was within about 4%. These accuracies are much better than the
traditional linear element (C3D8, 98%) and the traditional quadratic (C3D20, 26%). As the mesh was
refined the C3D20R element became more accurate, until 512 elements were used and minor
hourglassing was experienced; however, the C3D8R elements continued to become more inaccurate,
and never truly converged compared to the other element types.

In comparison between linear and quadratic elements, the quadratic elements were much more
accurate. The values that the quadratic elements converged upon were within 0.5% and 1.5% of the
actual value. In this case, the traditional quadratic element was more accurate than the reduced
integration element due to the hourglassing discussed above.
 DeFaria 12

1D, 2D, 3D Comparison

Linear Element Comparison by Geometry

Actual B21 S4 C3D8

0.07

0.06

0.05
Deflection (inches)

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024
Number of (Lengthwise) Elements

The graph above compares traditional linear elements in each of the three geometries. Minor
differences in how the software interprets boundary conditions in loads in 1D/2D/3D may affect the
convergence value. However, the left-hand side of the graph, depicting the low-element count results
paints a clear picture: reducing the degrees of freedom increases the accuracy of the analysis. With only
a single element, the 1D, 2D, and 3D models were within 0.5%, 26%, and 98% of the actual value,
respectively. Mesh refinement greatly reduces these gaps, but a simpler model is solved more
accurately by the software.
 DeFaria 13

Conclusion

This study evaluated a cantilever beam as a 1D, 2D, and 3D model and compared linear and quadratic
elements in all three model spaces, as well as reduced integration elements with traditional elements.
The table below lists all the element types evaluated and presents the final variance from the actual
value at the maximum number of elements (20 for 1D, 1028 for 2D, 512 for 3D).

Geometry Element Description Variance from

Type Order # of Integration Actual Value at
Nodes Max # of Elements
1D B21 Linear 2 + 00.5163 %
B22 Quadratic 3 + 00.5311 %
2D S4 Linear 4 - 00.1358 %
S4R Linear 4 Reduced + 00.0623 %
S8R Quadratic 8 Reduced + 00.9789 %
3D C3D8 Linear 8 + 07.7670 %
C3D8R Linear 8 Reduced + 44.3150 %
C3D20 Quadratic 20 - 00.4698 %
C3D20R Quadratic 20 Reduced + 01.6653 %

In respect to model geometry, generally speaking, reducing the number of nodes and degrees of
freedom also reduces the computational cost and increases the accuracy of the model. In practical
applications, engineers should simplify models if possible to generate and accurate, reliable, and cost-
effective solution.

In respect to linear versus quadratic elements, quadratic elements are nearly always more accurate
which agrees with the theory. Quadratic elements were more accurate in both 3D cases, and the values
were nearly identical in the 1D case. In the 2D case the linear element was more accurate than the
quadratic, but this is due to minor hourglassing due to the use of reduced integration elements. A
quadratic element without reduced integration is not an option in Abaqus for 2D models.

In respect to reduced integration elements, they are always more accurate than traditional elements
when a low number of elements is used; however, as the mesh is refined, they are nearly always less
accurate. This failure with a high number of elements is due to hourglassing. Use of reduced integration
elements is likely acceptable when a quick evaluation is needed, or for preliminary runs of the model to
determine baseline acceptance. When a higher degree of accuracy is required, reduced integration
elements should not be selected.

This study also highlighted the importance of mesh refinement. Without mesh refinement, an engineer
is simply accepting any random point along the line as the answer. However, in some situations, the
answer received with a course mesh is significantly different than that with a fine mesh. The S4R
element was the most accurate overall, but with using only 1 S4R element, the result was within 24% of
the actual value. Refining the mesh to ensure the values are heading towards convergence is an
important step in developing confidence in the results of finite element analysis.
 DeFaria 14

References

American Forest & Paper Association. (2007). Beam Design Formulas with Shear and Moment Diagrams.
National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Washington, DC: American Wood Council.

American Institute of Steel Construction. (2005). Steel Construction Manual. American Institute of Steel
Construction.

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp. (2013). Abaqus/CAE User's Guide. Abaqus 6.13. Providence, Rhode
Island.

Dunn, D. J. (n.d.). Mechanics of Solids - Beams Tutorial 3, The Deflection of Beams. Retrieved May 02,
2015, from FreeStudy: http://www.freestudy.co.uk/statics/beams/beam%20tut3.pdf

Gutierrez-Miravete, E. (2015, May 11). Index. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from Introduction to Finite
Elements: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/S2015/IFEM/

The Welding Institute. (2015). FAQ: What is reduced integration in the context of finite element analysis?
Retrieved April 30, 2015, from The Welding Institute: http://www.twi-global.com/technical-
knowledge/faqs/structural-integrity-faqs/faq-what-is-reduced-integration-in-the-context-of-
finite-element-analysis/

Timoshenko, S., & Goodier, J. N. (1951). Chapter 3, Two-Dimensional Problems in Rectangular

Coordinates. In Theory of Elasticity (pp. 29-44). McGraw-Hill Book Company.
 DeFaria 15

Appendix Result Tables

1D

# of B21 B22
Elements Deflection (in) % of actual Deflection (in) % of actual
1 0.05451765 94.6487% 0.05790616 100.5315%
2 0.05705882 99.0605% 0.05790595 100.5312%
3 0.05752941 99.8774% 0.05790591 100.5311%
4 0.05769412 100.1634% 0.05790590 100.5311%
5 0.05777035 100.2957% 0.05790589 100.5311%
6 0.05781176 100.3676% 0.05790589 100.5311%
7 0.05783673 100.4110% 0.05790589 100.5311%
8 0.05785294 100.4391% 0.05790589 100.5311%
9 0.05786405 100.4584% 0.05790589 100.5311%
10 0.05787200 100.4722% 0.05790589 100.5311%
11 0.05787788 100.4824% 0.05790589 100.5311%
12 0.05788235 100.4902% 0.05790589 100.5311%
13 0.05788583 100.4962% 0.05790589 100.5311%
14 0.05788860 100.5010% 0.05790589 100.5311%
15 0.05789082 100.5049% 0.05790589 100.5311%
16 0.05789265 100.5081% 0.05790589 100.5311%
17 0.05789416 100.5107% 0.05790589 100.5311%
18 0.05789543 100.5129% 0.05790589 100.5311%
19 0.05789649 100.5147% 0.05790589 100.5311%
20 0.05789741 100.5163% 0.05790589 100.5311%

2D

# of S4 S4R S8R
Elements Deflection (in) % of actual Deflection (in) % of actual Deflection (in) % of actual
1 0.04257879 73.9215% 0.04358575 75.6697% 0.05678657 98.5878%
2 0.05227075 90.7478% 0.05369245 93.2161% 0.05705557 99.0548%
4 0.05585212 96.9655% 0.05652184 98.1282% 0.05729967 99.4786%
8 0.05699317 98.9465% 0.05729374 99.4683% 0.05739415 99.6426%
16 0.05736917 99.5993% 0.05753655 99.8898% 0.05743768 99.7182%
32 0.05743067 99.7060% 0.05748225 99.7956% 0.05747188 99.7776%
64 0.05751153 99.8464% 0.05762911 100.0505% 0.05751752 99.8568%
128 0.05751923 99.8598% 0.05763422 100.0594% 0.05757328 99.9536%
256 0.05752116 99.8631% 0.05763550 100.0616% 0.05766518 100.1132%
512 0.05752165 99.8640% 0.05763583 100.0622% 0.05783490 100.4078%
1024 0.05752177 99.8642% 0.05763590 100.0623% 0.05816386 100.9789%
 DeFaria 16

3D

# of C3D8 C3D8R
Elements Deflection (in) % of actual Deflection (in) % of actual
1 0.00103100 1.7899% 0.05748955 99.8082%
2 0.00391180 6.7913% 0.07096117 123.1965%
4 0.01312751 22.7908% 0.07508980 130.3642%
8 0.03206815 55.6739% 0.07627323 132.4188%
16 0.05026453 87.2648% 0.07682697 133.3802%
24 0.05619560 97.5618% 0.07713806 133.9202%
32 0.05862415 101.7780% 0.07740237 134.3791%
64 0.06118198 106.2187% 0.07835814 136.0384%
128 0.06185892 107.3940% 0.08021381 139.2601%
256 0.06203071 107.6922% 0.08398886 145.8140%
512 0.06207382 107.7670% 0.08312544 144.3150%

# of C3D20 C3D20R
Elements Deflection (in) % of actual Deflection (in) % of actual
1 0.04245245 73.7022% 0.05521088 95.8522%
2 0.05230047 90.7994% 0.05609409 97.3856%
4 0.05560777 96.5413% 0.05670690 98.4495%
8 0.05666790 98.3818% 0.05700196 98.9617%
16 0.05705437 99.0527% 0.05718949 99.2873%
24 0.05716575 99.2461% 0.05727248 99.4314%
32 0.05721729 99.3356% 0.05732628 99.5248%
64 0.05728694 99.4565% 0.05746246 99.7612%
128 0.05731603 99.5070% 0.05764943 100.0858%
256 0.05732640 99.5250% 0.05796485 100.6334%
512 0.05732942 99.5302% 0.05855921 101.6653%