MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

AE362 – AEROSPACE STRUCTURES

TERM PROJECT

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF A LONG STIFFENED

BOX BEAM

Submitted by: Rameezul Haq– ID: 2177335

Submission Date: 06/06/2018

 INTRODUCTION
In this report, we are going to use finite element approach in order to analyze a long stiffened box beam
by the use of PATRAN/NASTRAN software. The box beam has a fixed (cantilevered) support at one and
the free end is under the influence of two separate loading cases;

a) 10.0 N vertical shear load applied at each corners (stiffeners) of the box beam,
b) 14.1421 N shear load applied again at each corners (stiffeners) of the box beam but at an angle
of 45 degrees form the vertical so that they produce torsion.

The box beam provided to us has the following properties:

 Length = 2 [m]
 Width = 0.2 [m]
 Height = 0.2 [m]
 Shell Thickness = 0.001 [m]
 Stiffener Area = 0.0004 [m^2]
 Material with elastic modulus (E) = 70 [GPa]
 Poisson’s ratio (v) = 0.3.

In addition, we are going to use 40 finite elements along the spanwise direction, 5 finite elements along
the width and 5 finite elements along the height of the box beam. The stiffeners are modeled as rods
with the same length as the box beam, located at its corners. Moreover, the fixed end of the box beam
is modeled in the PATRAN Software such that it prevents all the 6 degrees of freedom, i.e. translation as
well as rotation.

During this report, we will observe how does the axial stress and shear stress changes on the walls of the
box beam with the distance along its length, specifically at half way from the fixed end i.e. at x= 1 [m],
when subjected to both of the above mentioned loading cases, separately.
a) Shear Loading from the Tip of the Box Beam
The finite element mesh is created; boundary condition at the fixed end is applied and 4 vertical shear
forces of magnitude 10 N are also applied at the nodes/corners of the free end where stiffeners are
present. The resulting box beam and its mesh are shown below:

Fig1: box beam isometric view

Fig2: Box beam top view

Fig3: Box beam Mesh

After defining the problem in PATRAN, we then make use of the NASTRAN software in order to solve the
problem and observe how does the axial stress and shear stress change along the length of box beam.
The resulting figures are shown below:

Fig4: Deformed box beam

Fig5: Axial stresses (X-component) along the length

As it is clearly visible in [Fig 5], the axial stresses change on the skin of box beam as we move further
away from the application of load. As expected, the axial stresses are compressive (due to the negative
sign) on the upper skin and tend to increase along the length going away from the application of load.
Near the application of load, the stresses maybe different as to what we have expected since the Saint
Venant’s principle is not applicable there. Moreover, the stresses on the lower skin are tensile (as
observed from its positive sign) as expected.
 i) The axial stress in lower left stiffener at x = 1 [m]

The distance x = [m] lies between the rod elements 900 and 901 as shown in the figure below:

In order to determine the axial stress at x = 1 [m], an

average of axial stresses of elements 900 and 901 will be
taken. Stresses of rod elements are obtained from “.f06”
file of results and are given below;

Average stress is then:

900

x=1m 901

Now in order to compare the above results with that obtained theoretically by hand, we first need to
determine the moment of inertia of the cross section. Keeping in mind that the Neutral Axis passes
through the centre of the box beam since it is symmetric about y axis, the moment of inertia of the cross
section can be found as:

For stiffener and skin areas:

We need to add the 4 stiffeners’ moment of inertia to the 4 skins’ moment of inertia as shown below;

First term is stiffener areas, second term is the upper and lower skins and last term is left and right
skins.

For only stiffener areas:

We can directly neglect the moment of inertia contribution by the 4 skins’ now;
Now, in order to determine the axial stress in the stiffener at x = 1[m], we can directly make use of the
symmetric beam bending formula since the cross section is symmetric hence

a) With stiffener and skin areas:

b) With only stiffener areas:

As we can clearly see from the above results that if we consider the areas of the stiffeners as well as the
box skins while calculating the moment of inertia, the axial stresses obtained are same for both by hand
calculation and by Finite Element analysis. However, if we ignore the web skin areas while calculating
the moment of inertia, we see that the axial stress obtained at x = 1 [m] by hand calculation is higher
than that obtained by Finite Element analysis. This difference comes from the fact that that ignoring the
skin areas basically means that all axial stress is carried by the stiffeners, which, we can clearly see from
the Finite Element analysis, is not the case.

ii) The Percent of the Moment Carried by the Stiffeners at x = 1 [m]

The finite element result gives us . Since there are four stiffeners, we can
calculate the moment carried by each stiffener about the centroid of the cross-section as follows:

Since there are four stiffeners, the total moment carried by all stiffeners is found as:

External moment at x = 1 [m] due to tip forces is:

Now, the percent of the moment carried by the stiffeners at x = 1 [m] is:
As it can be seen from the above result that 75% of the external moment is actually carried by the
stiffeners. This result is consistent with what we would expect, since we already know that most of the
external moments are carried by the stiffeners and very little is carried by the skins.

iii) Shear Stresses at x = 1 [m]

The shear stress distribution along the length of the box beam on its surfaces is shown in the figures
below:

Fig7a: shear stress distribution (Z1)

Fig7b: shear stress distribution (Z2)

The shear stresses at x =1 [m] are again noted down from the “.f06” file and tabulated below. Note: the
side skin elm N in the tables below represents the element N on the side skin from top to bottom, where
N goes from 1 to 5. For Z1 values, shear stresses are obtained as follows:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin 14997.27 14997.31

side skin elm 1 97013.98 97014.23
side skin elm 2 101519.40 101518.90
side skin elm 3 103019.00 103019.50
side skin elm 4 101519.40 101518.90
side skin elm 5 97013.98 97014.23

For Z2 values, shear stresses are obtained as follows:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin 15001.06 15000.94
side skin elm 1 96977.00 96976.74
side skin elm 2 101480.10 101480.50
side skin elm 3 102980.40 102979.90
side skin elm 4 101480.10 101480.50
side skin elm 5 96977.00 96976.74

Now we average the values along the side skin for Z1:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin 14997.27 14997.31
Avg side skin 100017.15 100017.15

Then we average the values along the side skin for Z2:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin 15001.06 15000.94
Avg side skin 99978.92 99978.88

Now we first average the inboard and outboard for Z1 and Z2 values separately, and then we average
the Z1 and Z2 values together. The resulting averaged stresses are given in the table below:

Top skin 14999.145 Pa 15000 Pa

Side skin 99998.025 Pa 100000 Pa
 Now we need to compare the above results with the results obtained by hand calculations. In order to
do so, we are first going to assume the idealization that the stiffeners only carry the axial load and the
skin only carry the shear load with remains constant throughout a skin (located between two stiffeners).
The diagram below shows the simplified version of a front face at any length x from the free end:

P = 10 [N] P = 10 [N]

Z axis 0.2 [m] 0.2 [m]

Y axis

P = 10 [N] P = 10 [N]

Now for this front face cross section, we write resultant equations as given below:

(1)

(2)
 (3)

Finally, isolate top left stiffener and write the equation:

Since the cross section is symmetric, hence symmetric beam bending formula can directly be used:

Using , y = 0.1 [m], F = 40 [N], x = 1 [m], in the above

equation, we reach the following form:

(4)

Simultaneous solution of equations (1), (2), (3) and (4) yields:

The above result indicates that only the side skin carry the shear load according to our assumptions. In
order to find shear stress, shear flow must be divided by thickness:

Hence the shear stress in the side skins equal;

As it can be seen from the above result that the hand calculation gives extremely accurate result as
compare to what we have observed using Finite Element analysis. This indicates that idealization is not a
very bad approach in order to simply the problem and gain an insight of its solution.

In order to find the ratio of the shear stress on the top skin elements to side web elements in finite
element analysis, we carry out the following calculation:

Top skin carries only 15% of the side panel shear stress in Finite Element analysis, whereas in idealized
hand calculation top skin does not carry any shear stress at all. However, since 85% of the shear stress is
still carried by the side skin, idealization is still a very valuable approach.
b) Pure Torsion Loading at Box Beam
In this case, we are going to load the corners of the box beam at an angle of 45 degrees from the vertical
such that it creates pure torsion. The load applied is 14.121 N at the free end on each stiffener. The box
beam and its mesh are shown in the figures below:

Fig8: box beam isometric view

Fig9: box beam Mesh

After defining the problem in PATRAN, we then make use of the NASTRAN software in order to solve the
problem and observe how shear stress changes along the length of box beam. The resulting figures are
shown below:
Fig10: Deformed box beam

Fig11a: Shear Stress distribution (Z1)

Fig11b: Shear Stress distribution (Z2)

The shear stresses at x =1 [m] are again noted down from the “.f06” file and tabulated below. Note: the
side skin elm N in the tables below represents the element N on the side skin from top to bottom, where
N goes from 1 to 5. For Z1 values, shear stresses are obtained as follows:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin -99017.84 -99018.02
side skin elm 1 -100966.10 -100965.90
side skin elm 2 -100976.60 -100976.90
side skin elm 3 -100978.90 -100978.60
side skin elm 4 -100976.60 -100976.90
side skin elm 5 -100966.10 -100965.90

For Z2 values, shear stresses are obtained as follows:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin -100966.10 -100965.90
side skin elm 1 -99017.84 -99018.02
side skin elm 2 -99016.45 -99016.16
side skin elm 3 -99014.12 -99014.41
side skin elm 4 -99016.45 -99016.16
side skin elm 5 -99017.84 -99018.02

Now we average the values along the side skin for Z1:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin -99017.84 -99018.02
Avg side skin -100972.86 -100972.84

Then we average the values along the side skin for Z2:

Inboard (Pa) Outboard (Pa)

Top skin -100966.10 -100965.90
Avg side skin -99016.54 -99016.55

Now we first average the inboard and outboard for Z1 and Z2 values separately, and then we average
the Z1 and Z2 values together. The resulting averaged stresses are given in the table below:

Top skin -99992 Pa

Side skin -99994.7 Pa
Now we have to compare the result obtained above by the Finite Element analysis with that obtained by
hand calculation. The front face is the same as for the previous case, except we now have a CCW torque
applied by using the point forces at each corner.

The perpendicular distance from the application of point force to the centroid is:

Moreover, the external torque can then be found as:

Since we assume in the idealization that if an external torque is applied only, the shear flows of each
skin remains same as compare to each other (due to free warping). Therefore, the constant shear flow
along the skin (top as well as side) can be found as:

In order to find shear stress, shear flow must be divided by the thickness:

Therefore, the constant shear flow within each skin is:

As it can be clearly seen that the result obtained by hand calculation are extremely close to the result
obtained by the Finite Element analysis. This ensures that idealization was infact not a bad approach to
begin with. Nevertheless, hand calculation results show us that the obtained shear stress remains
constant all along the spanwise direction, as well as is same for the top and side skin. However, this is
not true for Finite Element approach. The top skin and side skin shear stresses are different as already
seen previously. Moreover, the shear stress does remain constant along the spanwise direction. The
shear stress actually increases along the spanwise direction on the top skin and decreases on the side
skin if we move from the free end to the fixed support.