Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/tws
Abstract
The application of the finite element method to thin-walled structures often requires non-
linear analysis. Whereas in linear finite element analyses errors are easily made, this is even
more so in the non-linear analyses. This paper focuses on possible sources of error in linear
and non-linear finite element solutions, and gives suggestions how to check and prevent
these errors.
2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
1. Introduction
The finite element method is a much used tool in current research. Although it is
relatively easy to get results, it requires care to guarantee good results. Table 1 gives
an overview of possible errors, which might occur during (linear and non-linear)
finite element analysis. These errors will be elaborated in this paper.
This paper is based on experiences in teaching the application of linear and non-
linear finite element method to structural engineering students. While the paper
focuses on practical aspects which may be simple and self-evident for experienced
finite-element users, it is hoped that the information given is useful for inexperienced
users. For more extensive guidelines to good finite element practice, see Refs. [1–3].
When users are unfamiliar with (non-linear) finite element analyses, it is best to
∗
Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-607-255-6366; fax: +1-607-255-4828.
E-mail address: tp26@cornell.edu (T. Peköz).
Table 1
Overview of possible errors
Reality
Idealization error
Input error
Discretization error: equilibrium approximated
Geometry error: geometry approximated
Shortcomings in element formulation
Program bugs
Solution error
Convergence error
Program bugs
Nodal displacements
Program bugs
Interpretation error: postprocessor shows something else than is expected, for instance
averaged instead of unaveraged stresses
Interpretation of results
get acquainted with the program to be used and the interpretation of results by run-
ning some simple problems for which exact (analytical) solutions are known. There-
fore, the types of errors discussed in this paper will be illustrated with very simple
examples, which provide insight in some basic issues encountered in the modelling
of thin-walled structures. In these examples, only beam and truss elements are used,
but similar results can be found when running the examples with shell elements.
The finite element method is an approximate method in which equilibrium and/or
compatibility conditions can be approximated. This paper will limit the discussions
to finite element programs in which only equilibrium is approximated.
M.C.M. Bakker, T. Peköz / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 179–189 181
2. Idealization errors
Idealization errors are caused by a faulty idealization of the real structure, loads
and supports in a mechanical model. During modelling the following aspects have
to be decided:
앫 the choice of mechanical approach describing the behaviour, e.g. beam theory,
shell theory or 3D stress theory. This choice implies how the geometry of the
structure will be described, namely as a line, a plane or a solid.
앫 assumptions that may be made regarding the magnitude of deflections, strains and
rotations. This determines what type of geometrical non-linear analysis should
be run.
앫 how the material behaviour may be modelled.
앫 whether the influence of initial stresses should be accounted for, and how these
residual stresses are distributed through the model.
앫 how accurately the geometry of the structure must be modelled in order to get
accurate results. Magnitude and distributions of deviations from the ideal
geometry (initial imperfections) must be considered.
앫 how loads and supports should be modelled.
When idealising a structure it is important to know what one wants to learn from
the mechanical model. The objective is not to describe reality as accurately as poss-
ible, but to find the simplest model resulting in a sufficiently accurate description of
reality. Unfortunately, this will often require a lot of insight in the behaviour of the
structure. In case when it is necessary to build a very sophisticated model, it is best
to start the analysis with a simple model, and use a step by step approach to increase
the complexity of the model.
The choice of the kind of mechanical model needed (corresponding to the choice
of the type of element), the appropriate modelling of material properties, as well as
initial stresses and initial imperfections are discussed in an accompanying paper by
Sarawit, Kim, Bakker and Peköz. Only the types of nonlinear analysis will be dis-
cussed here.
Table 2
Types of geometrical nonlinear analysis
due to out of plane deflections can also be described, but rotations and strains still
have to be small. A large strain analysis is the most general geometrical non-linear
analysis, in which neither strains, nor rotations or displacements need to be small.
A large strain analysis is the only type of analysis in which changes in thickness or
area are accounted for.
An eigenvalue buckling analysis is a special kind of geometrical non-linear analy-
sis. Usually it is based on a second order formulation. Using the assumption of linear
load-deformation behaviour up to the attainment of the buckling load the factor with
which the loads applied to the structure should be multiplied in order to get a non-
unique solution (the eigenvalue) can be determined. For some structures the load
determined by this analysis represents the buckling load of the structure. However,
if prebuckling deformations are not small, the load determined does not have much
physical relevance (see for instance the eigenvalue calculation in the structure where
snap-through occurs). So one should keep in mind that an eigenvalue calculation is
a mathematical trick, which can always be performed, regardless of the physical sig-
nificance.
In most cases a linear analysis will not give useful results for the analysis of cold-
formed structures, but it is good practice to start every non-linear analysis with a
linear analysis. If one wants to model the non-linear load deflection behaviour of
thin-walled structures, including post-buckling behaviour, one needs at least a large
deflection analysis or a large rotation analysis, since a second order analysis cannot
describe membrane stresses which develop due to out-of plane deflections. It is also
possible to use a large strain analysis, but in most cases it is much simpler to use
a large displacement or large rotation analysis. Note that in defining loads in a large
rotation analysis (contrary to first and second order analysis) a distinction is made
between follower forces (element loads), where the direction in which the loads act
is dependent of deformations of the structure, and nodal loads, where the direction
of the loads does not change.
M.C.M. Bakker, T. Peköz / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 179–189 183
It is the responsibility of the user to make sure that the right type of analysis is
used. A finite element program does not give warnings when displacements, rotations
or strains are so large that the assumptions on which the analysis is based are viol-
ated, but just gives unreliable results!
184 M.C.M. Bakker, T. Peköz / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 179–189
3. Input error
Input errors are errors made in the pre-processing phase, when building the finite
element model. It is best to check input errors by running a linear analysis, before
starting with the non-linear analysis.
Some simple checks on input error are to inspect a plot of the finite element mesh
and to run a linear analysis with the model loaded by unit loads. Furthermore the
material and geometry properties should be checked carefully, as well as the applied
loads and boundary conditions. For more checks see Nafems [1,2].
4. Discretization error
In the finite element method the nodal displacements and/or rotations are obtained
from nodal equilibrium equations, resulting in the best approximation of the equili-
brium conditions throughout the structure for the given finite element mesh. If the
mesh is too coarse, the equilibrium conditions are satisfied poorly. This is called a
discretization error.
A discretization error can be recognised from stress discontinuities between
elements. A discretization error may also be recognised at boundaries of the finite
element model, where it can be observed how much calculated stresses deviate from
known stresses. Furthermore, it is good practice to study the influence of mesh
refinement on the results.
When one builds a finite element model an important question is how dense the
mesh should be for sufficiently accurate results. The required mesh density depends
on the stress gradients (larger stress gradients need a finer mesh), and the question
as to whether the mesh should result in adequate stress results, or only in adequate
stiffness results. Poorly shaped quadrilateral elements may lose their accuracy, and
thus may increase the discretization error. Poorly shaped linear elements are less
shape sensitive, since both ideally shaped and poorly shaped linear element must be
able to describe constant stress states. In a physically non-linear analysis (using non-
linear material models) with shell elements, the discretization error is very much
dependent on the number of integration points used over the area of a shell element.
Due to discretization errors, the von Mises stresses in points different from the inte-
gration points may far exceed the yield stress. One should be aware, that both an
eigenvalue analysis and a physical and/or geometrical nonlinear analysis require a
finer mesh (sometimes much finer) than a linear analysis. Fig. 2 illustrates this for
a beam element.
5. Geometry error
ties over the length of the elements. Another example is the modelling of a curved
shell with flat shell elements.
A geometry error is of interest only when small changes in geometry have a large
influence on the results. For the modelling of thin walled structures, the correct
modelling of the corner radius might be an issue for some loading conditions (for
instance web crippling). In addition, one should be aware of the fact that small
changes in the shape of holes may have a large influence on the magnitude of
stress concentrations.
In general, a geometry error can only be checked by studying results for varying
mesh densities. A geometry error does not necessarily result in stress discontinuities.
186 M.C.M. Bakker, T. Peköz / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 179–189
The finite element analysis may result in a solution, which is in perfect equilibrium
(no discretization error), however a geometry error is present due to the use of a
wrong geometry!
guarantee accurate displacements (and stresses), and large residuals do not necessar-
ily imply inaccurate displacements (and stresses), see also Table 3. In linear analysis,
a well conditioned set of equations and small residuals will guarantee an accurate
solution. In nonlinear analysis, a combination of sufficiently tight residual force cri-
teria and displacement based convergence criteria will guarantee an accurate solution.
In other cases, engineering judgement will be needed to determine whether the sol-
ution is acceptable or not.
8. Rendering error
After the nodal displacements have been calculated, the displacements in the
elements, and hence the stresses and strains in the elements can be calculated. One
should be aware that the way in which a postprocessor presents these results does
not always correspond to the results according to the finite element theory. In a
postprocessor the stress distribution over an element will often be determined with
a linear interpolation between the stresses in the corner nodes, regardless of the
presence of intermediate nodes. Sometimes the stresses in the nodes are assigned
the values of the stresses in integration points. In many cases, rendering errors will
become apparent only in very coarse meshes, as may be used in simple problems
carried out in order to get accustomed to a program.
9. Interpretation error
Table 3
Influence of residuals on accuracy of solution
Program bugs may occur in any finite element program. It is good practice to
record the program version which has been used for an analysis, so that when a
program bug is reported in a newsletter, it is possible to check whether the results
of a certain analysis might have been affected by this bug.
Program bugs are more likely to be encountered in the more exotic options of a
program, for instance the application of initial stresses. Therefore when one is using
a new option for the first time, it is wise to check this option first on a simple
problem for which the exact solution is known.
12. Conclusions
The avoidance of errors and mistakes in finite element analysis requires a critical
attitude towards the obtained results. Much care should be given to checking possible
errors as discussed in this paper.
References
[1] Nafems. Guidelines to finite element practice. Glasgow, UK: Nafems, 1992.
[2] Nafems. A finite element primer. Glasgow, UK: Nafems, 1992.
[3] Hinton E. Introduction to nonlinear finite element analysis. Glasgow, UK: Nafems, 1992.
M.C.M. Bakker, T. Peköz / Thin-Walled Structures 41 (2003) 179–189 189
[4] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. Solid and fluid mechanics, dynamics and
non-linearity, 2. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, 1991.
[5] Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME. Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
[6] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Inc., 1982.