QUESTON No 5

2‐NODE BEAM ELEMENT

The beam problem given in the question statement was modeled using a single 2‐Node
Beam Element. Followings are the details of different parameters used during modeling and
analysis in Ansys.

2 3

10

2
12 3
10000

0.3

Figure‐1 shows the resultant model in Ansys with loads and boundary conditions. The
deflection of the beam is shown in Figure‐2. Resultant vertical deflection (uy) and Stress (σx)
values calculated at each node are tabulated in Table‐1.

1.00
0.1 10
0.1 10

(1)
 Figure 1
2‐Node Beam Element with Loads and Boundary Conditions

Figure 2
Deflection in 2‐Node Beam Element after Application of Load

Table 1

Node No Vertical Displacement (uy) Stress (σx)

1 0 0.1 E32
2 1 0.1 E32

(2)
 4‐NODE QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT
The same problem was solved in Ansys using 4‐Node Quadrilateral Element. For
meshing purpose, the whole beam was divided into 5 elements of similar size and shape. In
Ansys, this element is named as Plane42 Element. Unit thickness was assumed. The boundary
conditions were applied. The geometry, meshing and boundary conditions are shown in
Figure‐3. After running the solution, the resultant deflection profile is shown in Figure‐4.
Resultant vertical deflection (uy) and Stress (σx) values calculated at each node are tabulated in
Table‐2. (For Node Numbers Refer Figure 5).

In the given theoretical calculations, Vc is the vertical displacement at center of the right
end of the beam. In case of 4‐Node Beam, we cannot have a node at this point so the results
exactly at this location are not calculated. However, we can find the vertical displacement at
this point by averaging out the results at Node No 2 and 7. So

1.016
2
270
10 10
10
2 2

Figure 3
Beam Analysis with 5 4‐Node Quad Elements

(3)
 Figure 4
Deflection Profile after Application of Load

Figure 5
Node Numbering for 4‐Node Quad Elements

(4)
 Table 2

Node No Vertical Displacement (uy) Stress (σx)

1 0 270
2 1.0177 30
3 5.92E‐02 240
4 0.21437 180
5 0.44172 120
6 0.71634 60
7 1.0143 ‐30
8 0 ‐270
9 0.71726 ‐60
10 0.44148 ‐120
11 0.21443 ‐180
12 5.92E‐02 ‐240

(5)
 4‐NODE QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT (POOR ASPECT RATIO)
The above problem was repeated with same element type but with badly shaped
elements. For this, during meshing, the elements were designed to have poor aspect ratio. The
resultant meshed beam with deflection profile is shown in Figure‐6. Table‐3 shows the resultant
vertical deflection (uy) and Stress (σx) values calculated at each node.

In this case also, we cannot have a node at this point so the results exactly at this
location are not calculated. So, we find the vertical displacement at this point by averaging out
the results at Node No 11 and 12. So

0.99823
2
278.09
19.047 13.333
16.19
2 2

Figure 6
Meshing with Poor Aspect Ratio

(6)
 Table 3

Node No Vertical Displacement (uy) Stress (σx)

1 0 278.09
2 1.53E‐02 254.7
3 3.55E‐02 ‐254.31
4 0 ‐275
5 0.11855 214.97
6 6.07E‐02 ‐217.54
7 0.30874 157.25
8 0.16092 ‐172.81
9 0.70453 82.459
10 0.4292 ‐95.674
11 1.0041 39.048
12 0.99236 ‐52.381

(7)
 8‐NODE QUADRILATERAL ELEMENT
In Ansys, this element is named as Plane82 Element. The same problem was solved again using
8‐Node Quadrilateral Element. For meshing purpose, the whole beam was divided into 5
elements of similar size and shape. The geometry, meshing and boundary conditions are shown
in Figure‐7. After running the solution, the resultant deflection profile is shown in Figure‐8.
Resultant vertical deflection (uy) and Stress (σx) values calculated at each node are tabulated in
Table‐4. (For Node Numbers Refer Figure‐9). Now finding out the resultant parameters from
the analysis:

1.0105
300
10

Figure 7
8‐Node Quadrilateral Element

(8)
 Figure 8
Deflection Profile of 8‐Node Quadrilateral Element

Figure 9
Node Numbering for 8‐Node Quad Element

(9)
 Table 4

Node No Vertical Displacement (uy) Stress (σx)

1 0 300
2 1.0101 5.57E‐12
3 1.76E‐02
4 6.13E‐02 240
5 0.12689
6 0.21375 180
7 0.31916
8 0.43948 120
9 0.57171
10 0.71299 60
11 0.86011
12 1.0101 ‐2.98E‐12
13 1.0105
14 0 ‐300
15 0.86011
16 0.71299 ‐60
17 0.57171
18 0.43948 ‐120
19 0.31916
20 0.21375 ‐180
21 0.12689
22 6.13E‐02 ‐240
23 1.76E‐02
25 5.65E‐02
26 0.21137
27 0.43763
28 0.712

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS FROM BEAM THEORY

From beam theory, the expression for maximum shear stress at point ‘c’ is as follows:

10

(10)
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS

Element σxx‐B ζxy‐c Vc

Type
Beam Theory Results 300 10 1.031
32 32
2‐Node Result 0.1X10 0.1X10 1.00 Erroneous values of stress
Beam Deviation from Theory Erroneous 3%
Q‐4 Result 270 10 1.016 Good results
Deviation from Theory 10% 0% 1.45%
Q‐4 Result 278.09 16.19 0.99823 Great diversity in results
(Poor A/R) Deviation from Theory 7.3% 62% 3.18%
Q‐8 Result 300 10 1.0105 Extremely good results
Deviation from Theory 0% 0% 1.99%

Discussion on Results:

A comparison of results obtained by using different types of elements and mesh shapes,
reveals following general trends: ‐

(a) Accuracy of the results increases with increasing the number of nodes in each
element.
(b) A poorly shaped mesh may give unpredictably wrong results.

With 2‐Node Beam element, we got extremely erroneous results for the stresses. The
main reason for that was the use of only one element for the meshing. As FEM approach
uses piecewise approximation to find the overall effect, using only one element and that
too with very simple assumptions enhances the probability of getting the results far
removed from the actual ones. In this case, although we got acceptable deflection
results; these results are less accurate than other two types (Q‐4 and Q‐8 elements).

The error in results shows a decreasing trend once we shift from Quad‐4 to Quad‐8
element. This is due to the increase in the number of nodes per element. More number
of nodes provides more number of calculation points. This makes the distance between
two calculation points smaller and thus chances of error reduce. Therefore, the overall
best results were obtained from 8‐Node Quadrilateral Element Mesh.

Another point to note here is that once the mesh shape was distorted while keeping all
other parameters same, the meshing resulted in poorly shaped elements with bad
aspect ratios. Using such type of mesh gives highly inaccurate results. The reason for
this is that once we use poor aspect ratios for element, we violate the basic assumptions
of that element which are based on the peculiar shape of that very element. So the
error is incorporated due to violation of shapes of element.

(11)