Computational

engineering
P2 Report - Euler-Bernoulli Beam
Mster Enginyeria Aeronutica
22/05/2016

Author:
Ruben Mart
David San Romn

Content
1.

OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.

RESULTS OBTAINED ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.

CASE A .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1.

2 beam elements ................................................................................................................ 1

2.1.2.

32 beam elements .............................................................................................................. 2

2.1.3.

Conclusions case A.............................................................................................................. 4

2.2.

CASE B .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1.

2 beam elements ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.2.

32 beam elements .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2.3.

Conclusions case B .............................................................................................................. 7

2.3.

CASE C .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.1.

2 beam elements ................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.2.

32 beam elements .............................................................................................................. 9

2.3.3.

Conclusions case C ............................................................................................................ 10

Figure 1: Loading cases proposed ................................................................................................. 1

Figure 2: Bending moment 2 divisions .......................................................................................... 1
Figure 3: Shear 2 divisions ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 4: Vertical deflection 2 divisions ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 5: Bending moment 32 divisions ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 6: Shear 32 divisions ........................................................................................................... 3
Figure 7: Vertical deflection 32 divisions ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 8: Bending 2 divisions ......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 9: Shear 2 divisions ............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 10: Vertical deflection 2 divisions ...................................................................................... 6
Figure 11: Bending 32 divisions ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 12: Shear 32 divisions ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 13: Vertical deflection 32 divisions .................................................................................... 7
Figure 14: Bending 2 divisions ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 15: Shear 2 divisions ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 16: Vertical deflection 2 divisions ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 17: Bending 32 divisions ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 18: Shear 32 divisions ......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 19: Vertical deflection 32 divisions .................................................................................... 9

Computational engineering

1. Objective
The objective of this exercise is to analyse the behaviour of the beam element (Euler-Bernoulli
beam theory) subjected to different loading conditions. The recommended procedure is to
compare the numerical results, obtained using the beam element, with the analytical ones, for
different loading cases. The following loading cases are proposed:

Figure 1: Loading cases proposed

In each case, the internal shear force, the bending moment and the corresponding deflection
curve should be obtained. Use 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 beam elements.

2. Results obtained
2.1.Case A
2.1.1. 2 beam elements

Figure 2: Bending moment 2 divisions

Computational engineering

Figure 3: Shear 2 divisions

Figure 4: Vertical deflection 2 divisions

2.1.2. 32 beam elements

Computational engineering

Figure 5: Bending moment 32 divisions

Figure 6: Shear 32 divisions

Computational engineering

Figure 7: Vertical deflection 32 divisions

2.1.3. Conclusions case A

As it is seen on the results, the numerical results obtained match with the analytical results, as
the shear force presents a linear profile and the bending moment parabolic profile. These
relation is clearly seen in the cases where more beam divisions are used, as the results obtained
are more accurated. If we compare the results obtained taking into account 2 and 32 divisions
and the analytical results, it is seen that the numerical results in the nodes are almost equal. The
main problem arises when comparing the values between 2 nodes. In the case of 32 divisions,
the lineal approximation applied gives us a good approximation because of the small divisions
applied. On the other hand, in the 2 divisions case, the lineal approximation between 2 nodes
isnt enough to assure good results.
For providing a good result when using FEM, it is really important to use an optimal
discretization, with the aim of obtaining accurate results but without using a lot of
computational time (to optimize economical computation costs).

Computational engineering

2.2.Case B
2.2.1. 2 beam elements

Figure 8: Bending 2 divisions

Figure 9: Shear 2 divisions

Computational engineering

Figure 10: Vertical deflection 2 divisions

2.2.2. 32 beam elements

Figure 11: Bending 32 divisions

Figure 12: Shear 32 divisions

Computational engineering

Figure 13: Vertical deflection 32 divisions

2.2.3. Conclusions case B

As it is seen on the results, the numerical results obtained also match with the analytical results,
as seen in the first case. If we compare the accuracy of using less beam divisions, it is seen that
in the case B the results are less accurated than in the case A. In the case B, for the 2 divisions
study, neither the nodes coincide with the analytical solution. So, in this problem, the addition
of more beam divisions is more important than in the 1st case. The results obtained are coherent,
as the applied moment decreases alongside the beam.

2.3.Case C
2.3.1. 2 beam elements

Figure 14: Bending 2 divisions

Computational engineering

Figure 15: Shear 2 divisions

Figure 16: Vertical deflection 2 divisions

Computational engineering

2.3.2. 32 beam elements

Figure 17: Bending 32 divisions

Figure 18: Shear 32 divisions

Figure 19: Vertical deflection 32 divisions

Computational engineering

2.3.3. Conclusions case C

As it is seen on the results, the numerical results obtained in this case are quite similar than the
case before, as the distributed moment profile is quite identical. The obtained results really
match with the analytical forms obtained, confirming the validity of the program. If comparing
the results with the B case, it is seen that the values on the strains in the case C are higher, as
they are more concentrated in the fixed part of the beam. In terms of beam divisions, it happens
the same than in the B case where, for lower beam divisions, the results are inaccurate.

10