Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by rocky j

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig 5. Eigen value of (a) finest mesh model (b) coarsest mesh model Fig 0. Element size vs accuracy for Eigen value By comparing buckling analysis given in table 3 and fig 6, following observations were made (1)Critical buckling load increases with increase in the mesh size due to stress concentrations in element

Figure 5 Eigen value of (a) finest mesh model (b) coarsest mesh model Fig 0. Element size vs accuracy for Eigen value By comparing buckling analysis given in table 3 and fig 6, following observations were made (1)Critical buckling load increases with increase in the mesh size due to stress concentrations in element

Related Figures (5)

Model under study is a structure made up of steel plates, which is selected from one of the bulk material handling machine. The overall dimensions of model are 2080 mm X 600 mm X 500 mm. Material properties of the steel are listed in Table 1. Amount of load and constraint applied on model are actual loads acting on the structure selected. At two points at the bottom, model was fully constrained, and load of 972 KN along Z-axis, 1960KN along Y -axis and 144KN along X-axis anplied at a point at ton of model as shown in Fig 1.
Model under study is a structure made up of steel plates, which is selected from one of the bulk material handling machine. The overall dimensions of model are 2080 mm X 600 mm X 500 mm. Material properties of the steel are listed in Table 1. Amount of load and constraint applied on model are actual loads acting on the structure selected. At two points at the bottom, model was fully constrained, and load of 972 KN along Z-axis, 1960KN along Y -axis and 144KN along X-axis anplied at a point at ton of model as shown in Fig 1.
A series of FE models were generated for structure with mesh size 5 mm and variation from 10 mm to 100 mm with intermediate step of 10 mm using quad shell elements with automatic mesh technique. Fig 2 shows stress distribution of (a) finest mesh model, (b) coarsest mesh model. Fig 6 (a) and (b) shows deformation of coarsest mesh model and deformation of finest mesh model respectively. Von Mises stress and deformation yielded from each model were calculated and compared to study the influence of element size on the static analysis results. Static analysis results and comparisons are listed in Table 2. It is assumed that the FE model with the finest mesh generate the most accurate results and percentage approximate errors were calculated by comparing other results to the most accurate one. Fig 2. Stress distribution of (a) finest mesh model (b) coarsest mesh model
A series of FE models were generated for structure with mesh size 5 mm and variation from 10 mm to 100 mm with intermediate step of 10 mm using quad shell elements with automatic mesh technique. Fig 2 shows stress distribution of (a) finest mesh model, (b) coarsest mesh model. Fig 6 (a) and (b) shows deformation of coarsest mesh model and deformation of finest mesh model respectively. Von Mises stress and deformation yielded from each model were calculated and compared to study the influence of element size on the static analysis results. Static analysis results and comparisons are listed in Table 2. It is assumed that the FE model with the finest mesh generate the most accurate results and percentage approximate errors were calculated by comparing other results to the most accurate one. Fig 2. Stress distribution of (a) finest mesh model (b) coarsest mesh model
Fig 4. Deformation of (a) coarsest mesh model (b) finest mesh model
Fig 4. Deformation of (a) coarsest mesh model (b) finest mesh model
Table 3. Buckling analysis results and comparisons Critical load (buckling load) factor that is Eigen values were computed for each FE model and compared in Table 3, where the approximate error was calculated based on comparing each result to the results yielded from the finest-meshed model. The effects of elements size on the accuracy of buckling analysis results are plotted. Fig 5 shows Eigen value of (a) finest mesh model, (b) coarsest mesh model. uaav_— ere rer i —_eee After static analysis, bucking analyses were carried out on same series of FE models as that of created for static analysis. In buckling analysis we solve for the Eigen values which are scale factors that multiply the applied load in order to produce the critical buckling load. In general, only the lowest buckling load is of interest, since the structure will fail before reaching any of the higher-order buckling loads. Therefore, usually only the lowest Eigen value needs to be computed. The set value is the Eigen value and critical buckling factor for a buckling analysis. The model would buckle at a load value of Eigen value times higher than the applied load.
Table 3. Buckling analysis results and comparisons Critical load (buckling load) factor that is Eigen values were computed for each FE model and compared in Table 3, where the approximate error was calculated based on comparing each result to the results yielded from the finest-meshed model. The effects of elements size on the accuracy of buckling analysis results are plotted. Fig 5 shows Eigen value of (a) finest mesh model, (b) coarsest mesh model. uaav_— ere rer i —_eee After static analysis, bucking analyses were carried out on same series of FE models as that of created for static analysis. In buckling analysis we solve for the Eigen values which are scale factors that multiply the applied load in order to produce the critical buckling load. In general, only the lowest buckling load is of interest, since the structure will fail before reaching any of the higher-order buckling loads. Therefore, usually only the lowest Eigen value needs to be computed. The set value is the Eigen value and critical buckling factor for a buckling analysis. The model would buckle at a load value of Eigen value times higher than the applied load.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved