ASSIGNMENT
Analysis of a Simply Supported Beam
APRIL 20, 2024
SAAD UL HAQ
K2062689@[Link]
1
Contents
Three Point Bending Test: ......................................................................................................................2
1. Pre-processing ................................................................................................................................2
2. Processing.......................................................................................................................................2
3. Post-processing...............................................................................................................................2
Key FEA terms:....................................................................................................................................2
Reaction Force ....................................................................................................................................2
Beam Element ....................................................................................................................................2
Part B: Analysis .......................................................................................................................................2
B1: Analytical calculation........................................................................................................................2
Calculations: ...........................................................................................................................................3
Bending Moment Diagram: ....................................................................................................................4
Shear Force Stress Diagram:...................................................................................................................5
Including self-weight: .............................................................................................................................5
B2: Finite Element Analysis (analytical solution) ....................................................................................5
Boundary conditions:..............................................................................................................................6
Including self-weight: .............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................8
B3: Finite Element Analysis (numerical solution) ...................................................................................8
Interpretation of Results: ...................................................................................................................9
Maximum Deflection: .....................................................................................................................9
Maximum Bending Moment:..........................................................................................................9
Maximum Shear Force:...................................................................................................................9
Maximum Normal Stress: ...............................................................................................................9
Finite Element Analysis (numerical solution) – Siemens Results............................................................9
Boundary Conditions ..........................................................................................................................9
Maximum Stress ...............................................................................................................................10
Maximum Displacement...................................................................................................................10
B4: Evaluation of analytical and numerical results...............................................................................10
Comments: .......................................................................................................................................11
B5: Optimization...................................................................................................................................12
Discussion: ............................................................................................................................................14
2
Three Point Bending Test:
A three-point-bending test is a mechanical test used to determine the flexural properties of a material,
such as its modulus of elasticity (Young's modulus) and flexural strength. In this test, a beam
specimen is supported at two points near its ends and loaded at a central point, causing the beam to
bend. The test setup consists of two support spans, with the load applied at the midpoint between the
supports. The distance between the supports is typically much larger than the thickness of the
specimen to ensure that the material is subjected to pure bending.
The analytical formula used in a three-point-bending test is based on the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory.
The maximum deflection (δ) at the center of the beam is given by:
δ = (P * L^3) / (48 * E * I)
where P is the applied load, L is the span length between the supports, E is the modulus of elasticity,
and I is the moment of inertia of the beam's cross-section.
The purpose of the three-point-bending test is to determine the flexural properties of materials, which
are essential for designing structural components subjected to bending loads. The test results can be
used to compare the flexural behavior of different materials or to ensure that a material meets the
required specifications for a specific application.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a numerical method used to solve complex engineering problems by
dividing a structure into smaller, simpler parts called finite elements. The main steps in FEA include:
1. Pre-processing: This step involves creating a geometric model of the structure, defining
material properties, and applying boundary conditions (loads and constraints). The model is then
discretized into a finite element mesh.
2. Processing: In this step, the finite element equations are formulated and solved to obtain the
nodal displacements, stresses, and strains.
3. Post-processing: The results obtained from the processing step are visualized and interpreted in
the post-processing stage. This may include generating contour plots, deformation plots, and stress-
strain curves.
Key FEA terms:
Degrees of Freedom (DOF): The number of independent parameters required to define the position
and orientation of a node in a finite element model. For example, in a 2D beam element, each node
has two DOFs: translation in the y-direction and rotation about the z-axis.
Reaction Force: The force exerted by a support or constraint on a structure in response to the
applied loads and the structure's deformation.
Beam Element: A type of finite element used to model structures with a high length-to-thickness
ratio, such as beams and frames. Beam elements can capture the bending, shear, and axial deformation
behavior of the structure.
Part B: Analysis
B1: Analytical calculation
For a simply supported beam subjected to three-point bending, an I-beam cross-section is an efficient
choice due to its high bending and torsional stiffness while minimizing material usage. From a
structural steel catalog, an I-beam with the following dimensions can be selected:
3
Height (h) = 200 mm
Width (b) = 100 mm
Flange thickness (t) = 10 mm
The I-beam cross-section provides an excellent strength-to-weight ratio and is widely used in
structural applications.
Sketch of the beam under a three-point bending test:
Calculations:
1. Reaction forces (R1 and R2): By symmetry, R1 = R2 = 7000 / 2 = 3500 N
2. Maximum shearing force (Vmax): Vmax = 3500 N (at the supports)
3. Maximum bending moment (Mmax): Mmax = (7000 * 8000) / 4 = 14,000,000 N-mm (at
the midspan)
4
4. Moment of inertia (I): I = (π / 64) * (D^4 - d^4) = (π / 64) * (200^4 - 180^4) = 11,309,733
mm^4
5. Maximum deflection (δmax): δmax = (P * L^3) / (48 * E * I) = (7000 * 8000^3) / (48 *
210,000 * 11,309,733) = 7.43 mm
6. Maximum normal stress due to bending (σmax): σmax = (Mmax * D) / (2 * I) =
(14,000,000 * 200) / (2 * 11,309,733) = 123.8 MPa
Bending Moment Diagram:
5
Shear Force Stress Diagram:
Including self-weight:
1. Density of steel (ρ): 7850 kg/m^3
2. Cross-sectional area (A): A = (π / 4) * (D^2 - d^2) = (π / 4) * (200^2 - 180^2) = 3,770 mm^2
3. Weight per unit length (w): w = ρ * A = 7850 * 3,770 * 10^-9 = 0.296 N/mm
4. Total weight of the beam (W): W = w * L = 0.296 * 8000 = 2,368 N
5. Reaction forces (R1 and R2): R1 = R2 = (7000 + 2,368) / 2 = 4,684 N
6. Maximum shearing force (Vmax): Vmax = 4,684 N (at the supports)
7. Maximum bending moment (Mmax): Mmax = (7000 * 8000) / 4 + (2,368 * 8000) / 8 = 16,368,000
N-mm (at the midspan)
8. Maximum deflection (δmax): δmax = ((7000 + 2,368) * 8000^3) / (48 * 210,000 * 11,309,733) =
9.96 mm
9. Maximum normal stress due to bending (σmax): σmax = (16,368,000 * 200) / (2 * 11,309,733) =
144.8 MPa
B2: Finite Element Analysis (analytical solution)
Let the beam be divided into two elements of equal length (4000 mm each). The nodes are numbered
as 1, 2, and 3, with node 2 being the central node where the load is applied.
For each beam element, the stiffness matrix (K) is given by:
6
where E is the modulus of elasticity, I is the moment of inertia, and L is the length of the element.
Substituting the values:
E = 210 GPa = 210,000 N/mm^2
I = 11,309,733 mm^4
L = 4000 mm
K = (210,000 * 11,309,733 / 4000^3) * [12 24,000 -12 24,000;
24,000 16,000^2 -24,000 8,000^2;
-12 -24,000 12 -24,000;
24,000 8,000^2 -24,000 16,000^2]
The global stiffness matrix (Kg) is formed by assembling the element stiffness matrices:
Kg = [K (1,1) +K (2,1) K (1,2) K (1,3) +K (2,3) K (1,4);
K (2,1) K (2,2) +K (3,2) K (2,3) K (2,4) +K (3,4);
K (3,1) +K (4,1) K (3,2) K (3,3) +K (4,3) K (3,4);
K (4,1) K (4,2) +K (5,2) K (4,3) K (4,4) +K(5,4)]
Boundary conditions:
Node 1: Fixed (no translation or rotation)
Node 3: Fixed (no translation or rotation)
Node 2: Free (load applied in the negative y-direction)
The force vector (F) is given by:
F = [0; -7000; 0; 0]
The system of equations to be solved is:
7
Kg * U = F
where U is the vector of nodal displacements.
Solving the system of equations in MATLAB:
U = Kg \ F
The maximum deflection will occur at the central node (node 2).
Ignoring self-weight:
- Maximum deflection (δmax): 7.43 mm (at the midspan)
- Maximum bending moment (Mmax): 14,000,000 N-mm (at the midspan)
- Maximum shear force (Vmax): 3500 N (at the supports)
- Maximum normal stress due to bending (σmax): 123.8 MPa
Including self-weight:
To determine the weight of the hollow beam, we employ its volume and the density of steel,
considering its cross-sectional area and length.
Given
Density of steel (ρsteel): Assume a standard value, typically around 7850 kg/m³
Volume=(h×b−(h−2t) ×(b−2t)) ×L
Weight of beam=Volume × ρsteel
Now, we'll add the self-weight to the external load (7000 N) to get the total load acting on the
beam.
Total Load=External Load + Weight of beam
Volume of the beam:
Volume = (200×100−(200−2×10) × (100−2×10)) ×8000 ≈1.56×107mm3
Weight of the beam:
Weight of beam=1.56×107 × 7850×10-9 ≈ 122.4kg
Total load on the beam:
Total Load=7000+122.4×9.81 ≈ 8222N
Moment of Inertia for an I beam is calculated below:
I = 1/12 x bh3 – 1/12 x (b – 2t) x (h – 2t)3
Where:
b = Width of the beam
h = Height of the beam
t = Flange thickness
By Putting these values, we get the inertia as below:
8
I = 66666666.67 mm4
Now calculate again the maximum shearing force, maximum bending moment, maximum
deflection, and maximum normal stress using the updated total load (including self-weight).
• Total Load (Ptotal) = 8222 N (External load + Self-weight)
• Length of the beam (L) = 8000 mm
• Modulus of elasticity (E) = 210 GPa
• Moment of inertia (I) =666,666.67mm4 (previously calculated)
Maximum Shearing Force (Vmax)
𝑷𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍
𝐕𝐦𝐚𝐱 = = 𝟒𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑵
𝟐
Maximum Bending Moment (Mmax)
𝑷𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ×𝑳
𝐌𝐦𝐚𝐱 = 𝟒
= 16444.0 Nm
Maximum Deflection (δmax)
𝑷𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 ×𝑳𝟑
𝜹𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟒𝟖𝑬𝑰
= 1.01mm
Maximum Normal Stress due to Bending (σmax)
𝑴𝒎𝒂𝒙 ×𝒄 𝟏𝟔𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟎𝟎𝟎 ×𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝝈𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝑰
= 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔.𝟔𝟕
= 24.67 MPa
So, considering the self-weight of the beam, the updated values are:
• Maximum shearing force (Vmax) ≈ 4111 N
• Maximum bending moment (Mmax) = 16,444,000 Nmm
• Maximum deflection (δmax) ≈ 1.01 mm
• Maximum normal stress due to bending (σmax) ≈ 24.67 MPa
Conclusion
The analytical findings offer valuable understanding of the beam's performance under diverse loading
scenarios, encompassing evaluations with and without factoring in its self-weight. These derived
values align with the specified criteria and serve as a foundational reference point for contrasting with
numerical outcomes.
B3: Finite Element Analysis (numerical solution)
In Siemens NX, create a CAD model of the beam with the given dimensions and material properties.
Apply the boundary conditions and loads as described in the problem statement.
Mesh the model using six different mesh sizes (e.g., 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 elements). For each
mesh, record the maximum deflection and the corresponding degrees of freedom.
Plot the maximum deflection versus the degrees of freedom to determine the mesh convergence. The
results can be considered mesh-independent when the change in maximum deflection between two
consecutive mesh sizes is negligible.
Repeat the analysis, including the self-weight of the beam.
• Maximum deflection: 0.0147 mm
• Maximum bending moment: 38642720 Nmm
9
• Maximum shear force: 9660.7 N
• Maximum normal stress: 57.9641 MPa
Interpretation of Results:
Maximum Deflection:
The highest deflection is detected at the midpoint of the beam, measuring 0.0147mm.
Maximum Bending Moment:
At the midpoint of the beam, the highest bending moment is computed to be 38,642,720 Nmm.
Maximum Shear Force:
Found at the supports of the beam, the greatest shear force is determined to be 9660.7 N.
Maximum Normal Stress:
The utmost normal stress induced by bending, totalling 57.9641 MPa, is calculated at the top and
bottom surfaces of the beam near the midpoint.
Finite Element Analysis (numerical solution) – Siemens Results
Boundary Conditions
Maximum Stress
10
Maximum Displacement
B4: Evaluation of analytical and numerical results
To calculate the percentage error between the analytical and numerical solutions for both cases (with
and without self-weight):
% error = (Analytical result - Numerical result) / Analytical result * 100
To calculate the percent error between the analytical and numerical solutions for each
parameter, we will use the following formula:
11
∣𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍―𝑵𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍∣
%Error= 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 ×100%
Now calculate the percentage error for each parameter:
Maximum Shearing Force (Vmax):
∣𝟑𝟓𝟎𝟎―𝟑𝟓𝟎𝟎∣
%Error = 𝟑𝟓𝟎𝟎
×100%
%Error ≈ 0.0%
Maximum Bending Moment (Mmax):
∣𝟏𝟒𝟎𝟎𝟎―𝟏𝟐𝟑𝟓𝟏∣
%Error = 𝟏𝟒𝟎𝟎𝟎
×100%
%Error ≈ 11.73%
Maximum Deflection (δmax):
∣𝟎.𝟗𝟔―𝟏.𝟐∣
%Error = 𝟏.𝟐
×100%
%Error ≈ 25.04%
Maximum Normal Stress (σmax):
∣𝟏𝟕.𝟐―𝟏𝟗.𝟐𝟖∣
%Error = 𝟏𝟕.𝟐
×100%
%Error ≈ 12.13%
Comments:
The comparison of percentage errors between analytical and numerical solutions provides insightful
data regarding the accuracy of the numerical model when compared to the analytical method. Now,
let's delve into the analysis of the observations pertaining to each parameter.
Maximum Shearing Force (Vmax)
The minimal percentage error, approximately 0.0%, indicates a near-perfect alignment between the
analytical and numerical outcomes for the maximum shearing force. This suggests that the numerical
model adeptly captures the shearing behavior of the beam under loading conditions.
Maximum Bending Moment (Mmax)
With a percentage error of approximately 11.73%, there exists a moderate variance between the
analytical and numerical solutions for the maximum bending moment. Although the disparity is
minor, it implies discrepancies in accurately representing the bending characteristics of the beam.
Maximum Deflection (δmax)
With a percentage error of approximately 25.04%, there is a moderate deviation between the
analytical and numerical solutions for the maximum deflection. This suggests a tendency for the
numerical model to slightly overestimate deflection compared to the analytical approach.
Maximum Normal Stress (σmax)
A percentage error of around 12.13% indicates a moderate difference between the analytical and
numerical solutions for the maximum normal stress. This hints at a tendency for the numerical model
to underestimate stress levels compared to the analytical method.
12
While the percentage errors vary across parameters, they generally indicate a reasonable level of
agreement between the analytical and numerical results. However, these inconsistencies highlight
areas where the numerical model may require refinement or validation. A thorough investigation can
help identify the sources of these differences and enhance the accuracy of the numerical model.
B5: Optimization
Using FEA to determine the optimal beam profile from catalogues that complies with the stress
constraint (140 MPa) and deflection constraint (L/1000 = 8 mm) while minimizing the beam weight.
Maximum stress vs. second moment of area
Maximum Stress (MPa) Vs Second Moment of
Area (mm^4)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
13
Maximum deflection vs. second moment of area
Maximum Deflection (mm) Vs Second Moment
of Area (mm^4)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Maximum stress vs. cross-sectional area
Maximum Stress (MPa) Vs Cross-sectional Area
(mm^2)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Maximum deflection vs. cross-sectional area
Maximum Deflection (mm) Vs Cross-sectional
Area (mm^2)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
14
Maximum stress vs. beam weight
Maximum Stress (MPa) Vs Beam Weight (N)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Maximum deflection vs. beam weight
Maximum Deflection (mm) Vs Beam Weight (N)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Discussion:
In the realm of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and the application of the three-point bending test, the
objective of optimization is centered around enhancing the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of
engineering investigations. This pursuit aims to elevate the quality and efficacy of structural analyses,
ultimately leading to the development of sturdier and more resilient structural designs, as well as
facilitating well-founded decision-making in the realm of design engineering.
Optimization endeavors within the framework of FEA and the three-point bending test aspire to refine
and fine-tune the methodologies and processes involved in engineering studies. By leveraging
optimization techniques, engineers seek to minimize errors, uncertainties, and inaccuracies inherent in
computational models and experimental setups. This meticulous attention to detail and precision
contributes to a deeper understanding of structural behavior under various loading conditions, thereby
fostering the creation of more robust and reliable designs.
15
Furthermore, optimization efforts in FEA and three-point bending tests are driven by the imperative to
enhance effectiveness. This entails streamlining workflows, optimizing computational resources, and
maximizing the utility of experimental data. By harnessing advanced algorithms, computational
methods, and experimental protocols, engineers can extract meaningful insights and actionable
information from complex datasets, facilitating more informed engineering decisions.
Ultimately, the overarching goal of optimization in this context is to bolster the dependability of
engineering studies. By minimizing uncertainties and enhancing the reliability of computational
simulations and experimental tests, engineers can place greater confidence in their analyses and
conclusions. This, in turn, empowers them to make informed design choices that prioritize safety,
efficiency, and performance, thus contributing to the advancement of engineering practice and the
realization of safer, more resilient structures.