Can You Do Finite Element Analysis by Hand PDF

7.01.2020 Can You do Finite Element Analysis by Hand?
| Enterfea
START HERE! LOG IN ENGLISH 
CATEGORIES  CHECK US OUT MESHING Course new Breakthrough FEA course get free video
Test your FEA skills! only 3 min.
Can You do Finite Element

Analysis by Hand? MOST
It’s the beginning of 2009. I’m sitting in one of the lectures of my Ph.D. POPULAR
program. Finally, we will start to learn about Finite Element Method! My
company is slowly developing, and I’m really hopeful that this will allow

me to spread my wings! And then professor says: “let’s start with basic Test your FEA skills!
matrix operations”… Quiz (2-3 min.)

You really can do Finite Element Analysis by hand. The real question is, All about Buckling
why would you?! Even with computer aid, you would be more or less Analysis
posted on August 20th, 2019
bound to linear analysis… as nonlinear stuff is actually pretty di cult to
develop. But just for giggles, let’s take a look at how this could be done! 
FEA by Hand
posted on March 9th, 2019
A fair warning: here be mathematics! While I try to avoid that at all cost,
apparently this is a popular topic. I gured I will write on it, adding my 
How Accurate is
anty-math twist to the mix! Take a look and let me know what do you
FEA?
think! posted on February 3rd, 2019

Linear vs Nonlinear
This is a long post (solid 30 min to read it all!), so I’ve made a FEA!
posted on February 20th, 2019
content list.
This Article Content List:
Simple stuff
Element sitffness matrix
Simple example
Complex example
Global stiffness matrix
Load and displacement vectors
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy
Matrix operations
with it.
Outcomes checking
Ok
https://enterfea.com/finite-element-analysis-by-hand/?fbclid=IwAR1u5ySnTouFvipGQOvHA3c3lf_1MiPISKVaT6_rYr5WftkWOwrKOQq16cg 1/22
7.01.2020 Can You do Finite Element Analysis by Hand? | Enterfea
Internal forces
Shape functions, strains and stresses Stay
newsletter
A cruel twist! updated!
Get all new posts directly
to your inbox.
Simple Stuff
Your name
I think that every “basic” FEA book or a guide starts in the same way.
Well, they are more about “how FEA works”, but it’s the same thing. Your e-mail
Usually, such guides focus on rod elements. Without much comment, the I agree to receive
beginning is usually something like this: marketing materials. Read
more…
Sign Up
SEARCH
Search ... 
There is a really good reason why that is the case. The above is the
simplest possible element: a 1 DoF “spring”. And what I mean is not only
that this is a 1D beam element (but of course this is included!). What is CATEGORIES
also important is, that our element can carry only tension or
compression. The only deformation we “see” is along the length of the
element. FEA: Basics
FEA: Intermediate
Why this is important? Well… rst of all, because such an element won’t
“see” bending nor shear. It is only carrying a normal force and nothing FEA: Advanced
more!
FEA Design Tips
This makes the problem simple, and we can easily follow the math in Benchmarks
such a case! Let’s take a look!
FEA Topics:
Firstly, a few basic equations you should easily recognize. The only thing • Linear Analysis
I did there is, that the elongation of our rod is u2-u1 based on the drawing
• Nonlinear Analysis
above. Technically, this could be de ned differently because it only
depends on what you would consider “positive”. However, the above • Meshing
setup seems to be the most “popular” (at least as far as explaining
• Boundary Conditions
goes).
• Post Processing
• Contact
• Linear Buckling
with it. Case Studies
Ok Structural Design Topics:
• Structural Steel
• Stability
• Connections
Basic Engineering Concepts
Art of Engineering
Q&A
The above shows you the basic relation between stress and strain. I also RFEM
explained how all of the parameters can be established in the case of our FEMAP
rod (Note that Young’s Modulus is a material constant).
Events
I remember well, that in the primary school I had problems in
physics class. When I had no idea how to solve a task I would just write
down all the equations I know. Then I would just substitute stuff between
them until something worked. This approach rarely failed me… so let’s try Free FEA
it here!
essentials
course!
First Name
Email
I agree to receive marketing
materials. More
Now, let’s get back for a second to our rod. We would love it to be in
Start learning FEA today!
equilibrium right? This means that the forces on both ends should have
equal values, but work in opposite directions. In such a case…
You can notice that I’ve decided to make the F1 force “negative”. One of
them had to be (for them to work in the opposing directions), and F1 just
“draw the shorter straw”. If I would do it the other way around it would
still work at the end : )
The Place Where Matrixes are Born…

We useSo far, we
cookies to played a bitwewith
ensure that give ayou
few
therelatively well-known
best experience equations.
on our website. This
If you is to use this site we will assume that you are happy
continue
not exactly what your FEA solver does, but we are getting
withcloser.
it.
Ok
It’s easy to notice, that if you would know the forces (or deformations)
you could relatively easily solve the above. It’s just a set of 2 “linked”
equation. But if there would be plenty of those (and there will be!) it’s
much more convenient to solve those in a matrix form. Well… maybe not
convenient for you, but de nitely more convenient to your computer!
I don’t want to go into matrix notation here, but if you don’t know how
vectors and matrixes interact check this out lesson from Khan
Academy!
There are also other lessons in the subject so if you need more
basics or if you want to go deeper into this check out the linear
algebra portion of what Khan Academy offers.
The above 2 equations are pretty easy to write in the matrix form. You
just take the forces and put it in one vector, and you do the same with
corresponding deformations. The rest is just matrix multiplication really:
Now you can start to notice things. First of all, if we gather up forces and
displacements into vectors there is some “stuff” left. This stuff, as you
can see above will form a matrix. The terms there, clearly correspond to
how “rigid” the model is, and this is why it’s called the stiffness matrix.
This is how your solver “knows” what cross-sections and thicknesses
you used in your model, along with correct material properties.
For now, it’s only a matrix for a single element (rod in our case), but if we
would have more elements in our example we would “bash them”
together into one big “global” stiffness matrix.
Keeping It Real
So far it’s simple I hope… normally I would test if the previous equations
“work” but the above is not a “real case”. We just assumed that we will
apply equal forces at both ends of the element to keep it stable.
with it.
Ok
Obviously, according to our assumptions, this would work. Let’s try to do

something more “real”:
As you can see, this would be the simplest static task you can have.
There is a 2m long rod loaded on one end and supported on another end.
The difference here is, that it’s actually a “solvable” task, so we can try to
use FEA to solve it, and gain some con dence that it actually works!
All I did below, is simply input the “real numbers” from the example into
the equation from the previous part. All the logic still applies, nothing
fancy happened. You just need to remember that in a place where
support is, deformations are equal to zero (hence u1=0) but there is a
force applied (reaction force)… you just don’t know how big the reaction
force is (this is why F1 is written as… F1 – we don’t know the value yet):
I’m pretty sure there is plenty of ways in which you could solve such a set
of equations. Heck, at the Uni as a student I most likely knew at least a
few myself…
… a quick google later I know that the easiest for the 2×2 matrix is to
actually write the equations 😛
This sucks, as I will have to make a bigger example to use any sort of
matrix operations (!). But there is also another “rule”. Somewhere it was
called “elimination” but I’m not too fancy with math “names” so don’t
quote me on this. Basically, if you have a “u” that is equal to “0” you can
cross out the row containing the zero, as well as the corresponding
We usecolumn. In ensure
cookies to our case,
that we canyou
we give cross out the
the best rst row
experience on (because
our website.u1 = 0)continue
If you and to use this site we will assume that you are happy
the rst column (because it is corresponding to the rst row
with it. obviously):
Ok
This way we formed a really simple equation:
We got the u2 deformation. But at this stage, we can also check if what
we are getting makes any sense at all. Since u1 = 0, u2 is the
deformation of node 2, but it will also be equal to total element
elongation. If you remember the equation, you know that this is what we
did above. But in any case you can google for it, and check what the total
elongation of our rod would be:
Since we already solved u2, we can get back and solve F1… the only
other thing that is left to solve. I got back to the original matrix equation
and “multiplied out” the rst equation (for F1):
Notice, that the value of the force is negative. When we started I

assumed that all forces “to the right” are positive, and hence, reaction
force working in the opposite direction must be negative! It seems we
can do something with FEA by hand!
Share this post with

your Friends!
 Facebook Share
 LinkedIn Share
A Bit More Complex, a Bit More Real

with it.
Ok
Ok, I will have to incredibly dumb down this example if we want to solve it
with FEA by hand. It’s just that doing more elements, or more degree of
freedom (i.e. to capture bending) is simply too much! I want this example
to be relatively easy to follow!
Imagine a steel column in a hall building with a crane. There is a roof

supported by the column at the top (loading the column with 120kN of
compression). Lower, the crane is operating and the load is 160kN at that
level. The question is: what is the maximal load at the bottom of the
column, and what is the vertical deformation on the top and crane level.
Important note!
This is extremely dmubed down! Normally you would have to include

eccentricities of the applied load, but those would create bending.
This in turn would require additional DOF per node… and the matrixes
would be too big to solve by hand in a short time!
You know… use the software when you try to solve real stuff! This is
just for demonstration/fun!
All right then! Let’s take a swing at this.
The rst step is pretty easy. Since elements are loaded at nodes I need to
have a node at every place where the load or support is applied. However,
I’ve decided to divide the 8000mm part of the column into 2 elements.
It’s not even about the length of the elements (outcomes would be the
same)… I simply wanted to make an “unloaded” node (2). This will allow
me to point out something later.
The second part requires a small description. We need to build a global

stiffness matrix!
with it.
Ok
Bashing up the Global Stiffness

Matrix
In the last example, we had a very simple case. There was only one
element, so not a lot of worries. I told you that if there are more elements,
the stiffness matrix of all elements is “bunch up” into one big global
stiffness matrix. This is something that we will have to do this time!
Last time we assumed that the “positive” direction is to the right… now
let’s assume it’s upward (I guess I’m an optimist like that). As you already
know the stiffness matrix of a single element looks like this:
We already know that it “works”, but note one important thing. We

already assumed how the nodes are numbered, and that the numbering
“increases” toward a positive direction. This is why in the column node
(1) is at the bottom, while node (4) is a the top. I could change that for
sure, but it would just make the thing more complex – let’s stick to the
basics : )
Firstly, let’s build the individual stiffness matrixes for all elements
separately. All I do is just take the “template” above, and input the
variables for each element. To make the matrixes shorter I will already
calculate values. This is a steel column so I will use E = 210GPa. Values
in the matrixes themselves are in MN/m.
As you already know, those “small” element stiffness matrixes

We usecorrespond
cookies to ensure that we give
with certain you Degrees
global the best experience on our
of Freedom. website.
(DoF). ForIfinstance,
you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy
the stiffness matrix of element A corresponds withwith it.

deformations and
Ok C corresponds
loads in nodes (1) and (2). Stiffness matrix of element
with deformations and loads in nodes (3) and (4). This can be visualized
like that (using our element B as an example):
What is cool about each FEA model is, that the nodes are connecting
elements together. As you can see above, element A and element B
“share” the node (2). This means that both elements A and B “add”
something to the “situation” in the node (2). When we will build a global
stiffness matrix it’s made from “blocks”. Since we already know that
matrixes of each element correspond to speci c DOF, we can denote
them as:
Finally, we can assemble the global stiffness matrix! Notice, that we

have 4 DOF in our system so the matrix will be 4×4.with
Since
it. we already
Ok
know which elements contribute to which Degrees of Freedom (DOF) we

can use all the above matrixes to create the global stiffness matrix:
Wow… now that was a lot of matrixes! Anyway, we know the schematic
for building the global stiffness matrix (click on the image above for a
larger version if needed). The trick is, that on the “overlaps” components
of the matrix are added together. In such a case, we create a matrix for
our task:
Yesss! We have the global stiffness matrix! How awesome is that!?
Well… on its own not too much to be honest. We still need the
deformation and load vectors and to solve the whole thing. If you are
following me from the start in one go… maybe a small break would do at
this point? I know I need one before I will write more!
Do you want to practice or learn more about the assembly of

stiffness matrix?
If so, de nitely check lecture from MIT Open Courseware by the

legendary professor K. J. Bathe.
Load and Displacement Vectors

Having the rst part of the task, we can move on. While assembling
global stiffness matrix may be a bit time consuming and overwhelming,
load and displacement vectors are super friendly! It’s been a while, so
let’s take a look at how the model really looks like, and what those
vectors are:
with it.
Ok
Let’s wonder for a second what just happened. As before I marked the
corresponding DOF in the circle. Firstly the force “F”. For (3) and (4) loads
are applied, so it’s obvious. The only “di cult” thing is, that we have to
remember that we agreed that the positive direction is upward – so the
applied load is negative! The curious thing happens in (2). Note, that
there is no load applied in node 2, so the value is 0. However, it doesn’t
mean that there is no “internal force” in the elements meeting at node 2.
It only means that we are not applying an external load in that DOF!
Just as previously, the reaction force is applied in (1). We don’t know the
value yet, so I marked it as R1.
Deformations are so much easier! We only know that at DOF (1)

deformation is 0 (this is where the support is). Other values are unknown
– we will calculate them in a second.
On a side note:
It’s good to understand that corresponding DOF number is not a node

number. Here it’s like that, but in “real” FEA problems it’s not the case!
We are solving a very specy c problem where each node has only 1
DOF (along the element). Normally beams have 6 or 7 DOF per node,
which means that rst 6 or 7 DOF’s are still at node 1!
Numbers in the circles refere to “global DOF”. This can be translation

along X in node 1 or rotation around Y in node 1 in “real” cases. Here,
since we have only 1 DOF per node the node and DOF number are the
same. I thought it’s a good idea to point this out!
Matrix Operations and All the Jazz!

with it.
Ok
This is the moment you’ve been waiting for (I’m sure!). We have all the
things needed to make this one “ nal” move! Let’s gather up all the things
we did so far… and wonder how to solve this!
Firstly, since u1 = 0 we will cross-out the rst row/column to simplify the

problem a bit:
I knew that, but I admit I double checked just in case. The matrix above is
a set of “normal” equation. This means that the normal “algebra” still
works. It’s like solving a set of equations in high school. You can multiply
on both sides, or add/subtract equations from each other. The goal is, to
have the “bottom left triangle” in matrix equal to 0 (positions {2,1}, {3,1},
and {3,2}). This is basically solved in such a form, as starting from the
last equation you just calculate each parameter per matrix row (going
upward). To do this I did some mathematical “harm” to the initial matrix.
Let’s take a look:
STEP 1: (Row 2) = (Row 2) + 0.5 (Row 1)
This allows me to get a 0 in position {2,1}
STEP 2: (Row 3) = (Row 3) + 350/743.5 (Row 2) = (Row 3) + 0.4707

(Row 2)
I already have a 0 in position {3,1}, but I need a 0 in position {3,2} as well

with it.
Ok
STEP 3: Use what you’ve got!
With the last row having {0, 0, 185.3} it’s very easy to calculate u4. There
is only one parameter in the last equation so:
Having u4, we can use the higher row to calculate u3:
Now, we have u3 and u4… so we can solve the rst row for u2. At this
stage I think it’s clear why I wanted to have zeros in the bottom left
corner of the matrix – such a state makes solving really easy:
STEP 4: Don’t forget about what you crossed out!
We already solve all deformations, but we are missing a reaction force.

I’ve crossed out the rst row, as it was quicker this way. But knowing u2
it’s time to get back to the “real” rst row of our system that contains R1:
Yes! We actually did it. I must say that I was writing this post step by step
doing the math as I went. I was wondering if this will play out right. After
all, I’ve only made a few calculation errors I had to x, and it seems this is
doable 🙂
This is how you do FEA by hand… at least part of it! Let’s see if the
outcomes have any sense!
with it.
Drumroll… Outcomes Checking! Ok
The reaction force is pretty simple. Value is positive, so reaction force is

upward, working against the applied load. No complaints there!
Total load was 280kN, the reaction I’ve got is 279.4kN. It seems I’m
missing 0.2% of the outcome. This is due to round up errors. I was only
using 3-4 digits, and those add up. No worries though, the computer uses
much more than 4 digits… I’m just lazy!
With deformations, it’s a bit more tricky, but we can check this as well.
Firstly I will calculate the shortening of the “main column”. It was

represented with elements A and B in our small FEA task. Here, there is
no need to treat those separately, as they are constantly loaded, with
constant cross-section and material. Just remember that the total
applied load to this part of the column is 120kN from the top with the
additional 160kN at the start – we need to sum those up!
The total shortening of the “main column” should be equal to

deformation downward (negative value in such case) at node 3. Our FEA
“solver” spit out -0.71mm – a spectacular success!
Shortening of the top “smaller column” alone is:
This alone isn’t helpful for checking, but the total deformation of the
column (so deformations at node 4) should be equal to the sum of the
values above:
Our solver showed displacement as -1.05mm… yet another spectacular

victory!
Internal Forces
Great! Above we’ve managed to solve displacements and reaction forces
We useofcookies
the system. Wethat
to ensure already know
we give a few
you the bestuseful things.
experience Butwebsite.
on our obviously
If younot all to use this site we will assume that you are happy
continue
with it.
of them. Now, let’s wonder how to calculate the internal forces in each
element – those can come in handy in design right? Ok
Firstly, let’s sum up what we already know. We managed to calculate the

reaction force and displacements in our system, and in the process, we
had to create the stiffness matrix for each and every element. All of the
outcomes are below:
Calculation of internal forces is actually pretty simple. We will just make

the equilibrium equation for each individual element, but instead of
active forces, we will use internal forces in the element. Since we know
the deformations already, this should work out nicely. In case you were
wondering, when I will mark an internal force in subscript there will be a
node number near which the value is “located”. In superscript the
element letter. This way we won’t get lost here : )
As you can see, nding the internal forces isn’t so bad! We are losing
some accuracy as before (in element C the force is 119kN instead of
120kN), but this is because I’m lazy and I round up numbers pretty fast!
Note, that in element C and B we did not use the applied loads. However,
the difference in internal forces, of course, is present. At node 3 element
C shows 119kN while element B shows 279.4. The difference is, that at
node 3 (think about it as “between” elements C and B) additional load of
160kN is applied!
with it.
Ok
Strains, Stresses and Shape

Functions
Strain (and resulting stress) isn’t really a nodal value. You can, of course,
provide the value in the element near the node (like we did with internal
forces) but there is a twist. For strain to appear something with “initial
length” must change its length. Nodes don’t have length at all… so strains
are associated with elements rather than nodes.
The twist is… we don’t know yet how the elements deform! I mean we
know how the beginning and the end of each element deforms, and we
are using linear elements, so it’s painfully obvious. But our solver doesn’t
know how the elements deform… and we need to do something about
this if we want to use it!
To help our precious machine we have to “explain” what is happening in

each element based on what values it has at the beginning and at the
end. This is what shape functions are for!
Since we are using a linear element, the shape functions are relatively
easy. This is how a typical element looks like:
I’m using “i” as the “beginning number” and “j” as the “ending number”.
Obviously depending on the element different DOF will be at the
beginning and end so using “real” numbers isn’t the best choice!
This is a very simple linear ramp, but we want to use coordinates in the
mix, so the solver knows where it is. Also, instead of an “equation”, I will
prepare a vector, you should use with the deformation vector. This way it
will have an option to use the deformation vector we already have! This
vector is the shape function for our element. Usually, it’s described as
“N”:
with it.
Ok
Note, that for x = xi the rst value is 1, while the second is 0. On the same
note for x = xj the rst value is 0, while the second is 1. This is because
the shape functions are always “calibrated” in such a way, that at a node,
only the value from that node impacts the outcome. It can also be seen
that regardless of the value of x, both terms in the vector will add up to 1.
Think about the shape functions, not as any physical value… it’s just a
mathematical tool to “spread out and average” nodal values to the entire
nite element.
Of course, on its own shape function is useless. But using it, we can
describe the deformation state of the entire element. Such deformation
will be a function of coordinate x because depending on the x value the
deformation in the given point on the element will vary. Let’s call the
“elemental” deformations U(x), while the nodal deformation will use
lower case u as before. In such a case:
The above looks nice and dandy, but let’s do a quick test if it is any good.
Element “B” seems to be a good candidate. It starts with node 2 (u2 =
-0.355mm) and ends with node 3 (u3 = -0.71mm). It’s pretty obvious that
in the middle of the element the deformation should be -0.533mm, Well,
let’s see if this is also obvious to our solver:
Of course, we already know the coordinates. I will use the global ones
here, assuming that x=0 is at the bottom of the column. This means that
xi, being the beginning of element B will be at xi = 4m, the xj = 8m and the
We useplace
cookies
wetowant
ensure that
(the we giveofyou
middle the
the best experience
element) x = 6m.onWith
our website. If you continue
this in mind I can to use this site we will assume that you are happy
with it.
simply solve the above:
Ok
Nice! It seems that our solver has a new trick – it knows how to
distribute displacements along nite elements. In itself, it’s not all that
fancy, but there is a neat thing going on in here. And that is strain is a
derivative of displacements! Now, since we have the displacement
function, we can actually mathematically calculate strain… nally we are
getting somewhere! Normally there would be a matrix [D] describing to
the solver which derivatives to use on which displacements (in a real 3D
problem). But here, we know that we will do a d/dx, since this is the only
coordinate we have! Regardless, the outcome is usually denoted with [B],
so let’s keep the classical notation:
Above I could “throw out” [u] from the derivative, as those are constant
values of nodal deformations. Notice, that B(x) doesn’t really depend on x
in our case! We are using elements with the linear distribution of
deformation along the length… so the resulting strains will be constant
on the entire element!
Let’s see what strain will we get:
It’s easy to see, that nally, all the operations lead to the correct one:
displacement at the end minus the displacement at the beginning divided
by length. It looks like we can calculate strains as well! Following the
same method, strain in element A is the same and in the element B, and
strain in element C is 0.011333%.
with it.
Ok Ok
Take heart! Only stresses are missing and we will call it a day!
Luckily for us, the relation between stress and strain is primitive at best.
Sure, out FEA solver should have a matrix of “potential” material
parameters but in our case, it’s obvious that we will use Young’s
modulus:
Finally, we did everything I wanted to cover here… and that was

something! Take a minute to celebrate, but if you want to learn what I
think is most important here… read on!
A Cruel Twist!
I must admit that I was surprised that I pulled this off. I never did FEA by
hand, and it took me several hours to nd materials in books to make this
work. But I did it, and I de nitely learned something new. I think that this
post contains more equations than all other posts I’ve written in the last
3 years O.o’
But being me, I want to nish in a traditional way when it comes to math:
is this useful?
The answer is: no, not really. I mean if I would be aiming at writing my
own solver than perhaps this would be the rst step. But if I would like to
design that column form the example? Don’t be ridiculous – this is not
how it’s done! Even if I would expand the example to 6 DOF to take
bending into account this would be far from “perfect”.
Here are some questions that are important in solving this problem from
a design standpoint… that has nothing to do with anything I wrote today.
Answering those is far more important than learning how to operate on
matrixes. After all, you can use a solver done by someone else (there are
plenty, even open-source), but not a single solver will answer you those
questions:
with it.
Ok
Look, I admit that this is far fetched. I know, that the above does not
cover today’s topic at all, and instead go into “steel design” much more
than into FEA. Trust me, I really know there are codes and rules to follow
in such designs, and there is speci c software that will aid you in such a
task to some degree.
I wrote it here because I see that more and more people do FEA, but have
no clue on what is going on. I mean I’m all for “FEA democratization”. For
me, FEA was a wonderful tool that greatly helped my career. I wish
everybody to be even more successful then I am.
But… this is still engineering for crying out loud! The fact that you know
how to move a matrix around does not mean that you know how to
design stuff! In fact, I would say that those are two completely different
things!
If you are just starting, please (please!) remember – FEA is like a

calculator, it only does math operations. Designing is far more complex
than that, and requires a LOT of knowledge well outside of the math
operations! You need to understand how to mesh your model, how to
load is and how to support it. Finally, you need to know what analysis is
the “right one” and how to interpret outcomes (and what to pay attention
to). There are just so many things that are important in design, that has
nothing to do with what I covered today.
I know that at Uni they mostly (if not only) talk about this stuff in a way I
did in this post… but this doesn’t mean that this is the only thing that
exists. Far from it… it’s not even the beginning. After all, I’ve been
successfully using FEA in design for a decade now… and I learned how to
solve those freaking equations a few hours ago…
Want to Learn Something Useful?

with it.
Ok

Can You Do Finite Element Analysis by Hand PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Can You Do Finite Element Analysis by Hand PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

7.01.2020 Can You do Finite Element Analysis by Hand?

START HERE! LOG IN ENGLISH 

Test your FEA skills! only 3 min.

Can You do Finite Element

This Article Content List:

Element sitffness matrix

beginning is usually something like this: marketing materials. Read

Ok Structural Design Topics:

Basic Engineering Concepts

I agree to receive marketing

The Place Where Matrixes are Born…

Obviously, according to our assumptions, this would work. Let’s try to do

This way we formed a really simple equation:

Notice, that the value of the force is negative. When we started I

Share this post with

A Bit More Complex, a Bit More Real

Imagine a steel column in a hall building with a crane. There is a roof

This is extremely dmubed down! Normally you would have to include

All right then! Let’s take a swing at this.

The second part requires a small description. We need to build a global

Bashing up the Global Stiffness

We already know that it “works”, but note one important thing. We

As you already know, those “small” element stiffness matrixes

the stiffness matrix of element A corresponds withwith it.

Finally, we can assemble the global stiffness matrix! Notice, that we

know which elements contribute to which Degrees of Freedom (DOF) we

Yesss! We have the global stiffness matrix! How awesome is that!?

Do you want to practice or learn more about the assembly of

If so, de nitely check lecture from MIT Open Courseware by the

Load and Displacement Vectors

Deformations are so much easier! We only know that at DOF (1)

It’s good to understand that corresponding DOF number is not a node

Numbers in the circles refere to “global DOF”. This can be translation

Matrix Operations and All the Jazz!

Firstly, since u1 = 0 we will cross-out the rst row/column to simplify the

STEP 1: (Row 2) = (Row 2) + 0.5 (Row 1)

This allows me to get a 0 in position {2,1}

STEP 2: (Row 3) = (Row 3) + 350/743.5 (Row 2) = (Row 3) + 0.4707

I already have a 0 in position {3,1}, but I need a 0 in position {3,2} as well

STEP 3: Use what you’ve got!

Having u4, we can use the higher row to calculate u3:

STEP 4: Don’t forget about what you crossed out!

We already solve all deformations, but we are missing a reaction force.

Drumroll… Outcomes Checking! Ok

The reaction force is pretty simple. Value is positive, so reaction force is

Firstly I will calculate the shortening of the “main column”. It was

The total shortening of the “main column” should be equal to

Shortening of the top “smaller column” alone is:

Our solver showed displacement as -1.05mm… yet another spectacular

Firstly, let’s sum up what we already know. We managed to calculate the

Calculation of internal forces is actually pretty simple. We will just make

Strains, Stresses and Shape

To help our precious machine we have to “explain” what is happening in

Let’s see what strain will we get:

Finally, we did everything I wanted to cover here… and that was

If you are just starting, please (please!) remember – FEA is like a

Want to Learn Something Useful?

Potrebbero piacerti anche