National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (SMME)
Open Ended Lab Report
Finite Element Analysis of Truss Structures
Name Muhammad Abdullah Zafar Ghauri
CMS ID 405642
Class ME-14(C)
Due Date of Submission 2nd October 2025
Subject Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Subject Code ME-411
Supervisor:
Dr. Sana Zulfiqar/ Engr. Ehsan Ali
An assignment submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
National University of Sciences and Technology for the degree of
Bachelor’s of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Date: 1st October 2025
Finite Element Analysis of Truss Structures
Muhammad Abdullah Zafar Ghauria∗
a
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (SMME), National University of
Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), H-12, 44000, Pakistan
∗
Corresponding author: Muhmammad Abdullah Zafar Ghauri; mghauri.ug22smme@[Link]
1st October 2025
Abstract
This open end lab aims at analyzing a truss structures subjected to distributive and point loads
of certain values and analyzing the influence of increasing the mesh elements on the refinement of
computational results. The lab also emphasizes on understanding the presence of a zero-force member
and how it influences the overall structure dynamics
Keywords: COMSOL Multiphysics, 2D truss, 3D space struss
1 Problem Statement
As a mechanical engineer, I have been assigned a task to determine the implications of stresses and strains on
truss structure corresponding to distributive and point loads and how zero force members influence the overall
structure dynamics.
Problem 1: Solve the given structure using COMSOL Truss Interface and generate the plot shown below
by changing the number of elements from one to eight where number of elements in each solution are doubled
than the previous solution.
Figure 1: Distributed load truss member
Where Young’s Modulus (E)=30× 106 psi, Cross Sectional Area (A)=2 in2 and Length (L)=60 in
Problem 2: Solve the given structure using COMSOL Truss Interface by considering symmetry in the structure
and without symmetry. Assume appropriate values for L, A, E and applied load P. Determine the displacement
and force results.
1
Figure 2: 2D Space Truss
2 Analysis of Problem Statement 1
2.1 Geometry
Figure 3: Truss geometry
The geometry corresponding to Figure 1 was devised in COMSOL Multiphyiscs 6.3 Interface where a line segment
of 60 inches was sketched as a curve. The space dimension for the geometry was 2, with 0 number of domains, 1
boundary and 2 vertices.
2.2 Material Specification
Specific material properties were assigned to the truss structure. The material specification was customary,
however similar to that of AISI 4340. Table 1 elucidates the certain materialistic specifications provided to the
structure.
Quantity Value Unit
Density 7850 kgm-3
Young’s Modulus 205 GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.28 -
Table 1: Material specification of AISI 4320 Steel
2
Figure 4: Material specification to the truss geometry
2.3 Specification of Distribution Force
According to Figure 1, a distributive force, expressed as F = −10 × x is acting on the truss where x is the
displacement (length of the truss). It was necessary to define the function initially prior to further proceeding in
order to ensure that the analysis was consistent.
Figure 5: Distributive force function
2.4 Truss
2.4.1 Specification of Linear Elastic Material Properties
Considering the linear elastic material, the values of Young’s modulus, density and Poisson’s ratio were construed
from the materialistic properties as defined in Table 1. The governing equations behind the said model are as
follows
dU
N = Ninel + EA − ϵinel (1)
dx
Ninel = NO + Next + Nq (2)
ϵinel = ϵo + ϵth + ϵhs + ϵpl (3)
3
2.4.2 Cross-Sectional Data
The truss was taken as a slender member with an effective length factor of 1, while the cross sectional area of the
truss was evaluated as 0.0012903 m2 . The governing equations are as follows
F
σn = (4)
A
π 2 EImin
Fc = (5)
(KIbar )2
(6)
2.4.3 Application of Boundary Conditions
In correspondence with Figure ??, the specification of boundary conditions is necessary for solving the problem on
said solver. Therefore, boundary conditions in terms of prescribed displacements were defined for further analysis.
Figure 6: Prescribed displacement(i)
By the application of Figure 6, the movement of truss was restricted both in the x-axis and the y-xis while
it was allowed to move in z-direction (not necessary here since the analysis is two-dimensional). The governing
equations are
ux = uox (7)
uy = uoy (8)
(9)
Figure 7: Prescribed Displacement (ii)
By the application of Figure 7, the movement of truss was restricted in the y-xis while it was allowed to move
in x-direction
uy = uoy (10)
4
Figure 8: Edge Load
An edge load corresponding to the pre-defined function in Figure 5 was applied as 17.857967322834646 ∗ an1(703.0695796391593 ∗ x)
where an1 was the distributive function. The governing equation for the edge load is defined as
Z
δWI = [f · δu]dL (11)
L
2.4.4 Meshing of structure
The structure was meshed in normal configuration (physics-controlled mesh) to save computational power. The
mesh data is elucidated as follows
Table 2: Mesh data
Parameter Value
Mesh vertices 9
Edge elements 8
Minimum and average element quality 1
Element length ratio 0.018
Mesh edge length 13.66 m
Maximum element size 4.02
Minimum element size 0.018
Curvature factor 0.3
Maximum element growth rate 1.3
Mesh edge length 60 in
Figure 9: Mesh corresponding to the geometry
5
2.5 Contours Corresponding to Element Quality
2.5.1 Single Element
(a) Single mesh element contour for von Mises stress (b) Single mesh element line graph for displacement field
Figure 10: Single mesh element line graph and von Mises Contour
Figure 10 shows the plot devised for the truss subjected to a distributed load F = −10x. The von Mises stress
contour, explained in 10(a) shows s stress value of approximately 3.77 × 107 N/m, indicating that the coarse mesh,
consisting of single element, fails to capture any variation in stress along the truss length due to its inability to
resolve the linearly varying load. The displacement field line graph for the x-component, depicts a linear increase
in displacement from 0 to approximately -0.011 inches, which aligns with the distributed load , but the practicality
in accuracy is compromised due to the coarse mesh’s inability to capture local deformations. The flat stress profile
in the line graph highlights the limitations of using a single mesh element, as a refined mesh would reveal a linear
stress increase with the load, peaking at the end where the load is highest. Hence it can be concluded that single
element discretizations results in oversimplification of data, jeopardizing the results.
2.5.2 Two Element
(a) Double mesh element contour for von Mises stress (b) Double mesh element line graph for displacement field
Figure 11: Double mesh element line graph and von Mises Contour
Figure 11 illustrates the results of a double mesh element analysis in COMSOL for a truss. From 11 (a), it is
evident that stress distribution ranges from approximately 1 × 107 N/m² at one end to 6 × 107 N/m² at the other,
a significant improvement from Figure 10. On the other hand, Figure 11 (b) indicates a double mesh element line
graph for von Mises stress, which consistently aligns closely with the expected stress rise due to the distributed
load increasing from 0 to -600 lb/in. However, it is important to mention that the double mesh provides a coarse
approximation that captures the trend yet full resolution of local variations is still not possible. The two element
6
representation of the stress gradient indicates that the finer discretizations reflect the structural response more
accurately.
2.5.3 Four Element
(a) Four mesh element contour for von Mises stress (b) Four mesh element line graph for displacement field
Figure 12: Four mesh element line graph and von Mises Contour
Figure 12 demonstrates the results of a four mesh element analysis, where in Figure 12(a) the von Mises stress
is detailed, with stress ranging from approximately 1 × 107 N/m² to 8 × 107 N/m² across the truss length,
with finer mesh resolution and (b) detailing a line graph for von Mises stress. The use of four mesh elements
significantly enhances the ability to capture the stress gradient and displacement variations compared to single
or double mesh analyses, showcasing a more simplistic yet realistic structural response, with further room for
improvement through further mesh refinement.
2.5.4 Eight Element
(a) Eight mesh element contour for von Mises stress (b) Eight mesh element line graph for displacement field
Figure 13: Eight mesh element line graph and von Mises Contour
Figure 13 illustrates the von Mises stress and displacement field curves for eight mesh elements, where Figure
13(a) shows the von Mises stress contour with more profound stress distribution ranging from approximately 2 ×
107 N/m² to 9 × 107 N/m², with a high refined resolution of the linearly varying load in comparison with previous
cases. It is evident from the color transition in the contour implying the effective capturing of stress gradient
by the eight-element mesh, with stress increasing progressively as the load increases, while the displacement
graph’s smooth curve indicates a consistent deformation pattern. This finer discretizations significantly improves
the accuracy of both stress and displacement profiles compared to previous cases, providing a more reliable
representation of the structural response.
7
2.6 Results and Discussions
Concerning the problem 1, the mesh refinement procedures demonstrate a clear progression in the accuracy and
detail of the von Mises stress and displacement profiles as the number of elements increases from one to eight.
The stress and displacement variation is effectively captured through recurring discretizations, here progressively
increased from single element to eight elements, with overall stress varying consistently between 10-90 MPa.
In the single-element case, the von Mises stress contour exhibits a uniform value of approximately 3.77 × 107
N/m², showing no variation in stress distribution and the corresponding line graph shows a flat stress profile at
0 N/m², highlighting significant oversimplification, while the displacement increases linearly to -0.011 inches. As
the element number is increased, the stress distribution improves, ranging from about 1 × 107 N/m² to 5 × 107
N/m², with the line graph showing a nearly linear stress increase, better aligning with the load gradient from 0
to -600 lb/in. The four-element analysis further refines the distribution, with stress ranging from 1 × 107 N/m²
to 8 × 107 N/m² and a smoother displacement curve, capturing more realistic variations and the eight-element
mesh provides the most detailed resolution, with stress from 2 × 107 N/m² to 9 × 107 N/m² and a progressive
gradient. As a whole, increasing the mesh elements reduces discretization errors, improves load-induced gradients
variation capturing, with convergence toward more precise structural responses, signifying the importance of mesh
convergence in finite element analysis for reliable predictions of stress and deformation in truss structures under
distributed loads.
2.7 Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis of the truss under the distributed load signifies that mesh refinement is critical for
obtaining accurate computational results. Coarse meshes result in oversimplification of stress and displacement
profiles which do not reflect the linear load variation, resulting in underestimation of peak stresses and defor-
mations. As the number of elements increase, the simulations progressively improve in resolution and accuracy,
progressing toward a realistic representation of the truss’s behavior. This study emphasizes that despite finer
meshes demand more computational resources, they are necessary for engineering applications where precise
stress distribution is necessary.
8
3 Analysis of Problem Statement 2
3.1 Geometry
Figure 14: Space truss geometry
The geometry of the said two-dimensional space truss was devised in COMSOL Multiphysics 6.3 interface where
a square was sketched from the origin O(0,0) and provided side length of 2 m (which corresponded to the height
of truss). The geometry was later rotated by an angle of 45°to result in a diamond-shaped truss. The internal
truss members were added as line segments sketched from the starting and ending points of the vertices. The
resultant geometry was devised comprising of a union of 3 curve objects. Where the union had 8 boundaries, 5
vertices, and 4 finite voids.
3.2 Material Specification
Specific material properties were assigned to the truss structure. The material specification was customary,
however similar to that of AISI 4340. Table 3 elucidates the certain materialistic specifications provided to the
structure.
Quantity Value Unit
Density 7850 kgm-3
Young’s Modulus 205 GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.28 -
Table 3: Material specification of AISI 4320 Steel
Figure 15: Material specification to the truss geometry
9
3.3 Truss
3.3.1 Specification of Linear Elastic Material Properties
Considering the linear elastic material, the values of Young’s modulus, density and Poisson’s ratio were construed
from the materialistic properties as defined in 3. The governing equations behind the said model are as follows
dU
N = Ninel + EA − ϵinel (12)
dx
Ninel = NO + Next + Nq (13)
ϵinel = ϵo + ϵth + ϵhs + ϵpl (14)
3.3.2 Cross-Sectional Data
Each member involved in the geometry was considered having a circular diameter of 0.05 m with an effective
length factor of 1. The governing equations are as follows
F
σn = (15)
A
π 2 EImin
Fc = (16)
(KIbar )2
Imin = min(Iyy , Izz ) (17)
π
A = d2o (18)
4
π 4
Izz = do (19)
64
Iyy = Izz (20)
3.3.3 Application of Boundary Conditions
In correspondence with Figure 2, the specification of boundary conditions is necessary for solving the problem on
said solver.
Figure 16: Application of pinning boundary condition
Figure 2 specifies pinning at point 1 and 5 which restrict the movement of truss in either directions. Here
16 shows the implementation of Figure 2. The equation which corresponds to the pinning boundary condition is
given as
u=0 (21)
10
Figure 17: Application of point load boundary condition
Figure 2 specifies point loading at point 4. Here 17 shows the implementation of Figure 2. The point load is
applied at point 2 (the diagram shows point 4 however the load transmission is symmetric throughout the entire
length) The equation governing the point load boundary condition is
X
σWI = Fp · δup (22)
p
Point load of 20000 N was hence applied in negative y-direction.
3.3.4 Meshing of structure
The structure was meshed in normal configuration (physics-controlled mesh) to save computational power. The
mesh data is elucidated as follows
Table 4: Mesh data
Parameter Value
Mesh vertices 5
Edge elements 8
Minimum and average element quality 1
Element length ratio 0.707
Mesh edge length 13.66 m
Maximum element size 0.19
Minimum element size 8.49×10−4
Curvature factor 0.3
Maximum element growth rate 1.3
11
3.3.5 Contours: von Mises Stress Contour
Figure 18: von Mises stress contour
Figure 18 illustrates the von Mises stress distribution within the 2D truss geometry where the central member
is a zero-force member, such that it experiences no axial force under the applied loading conditions. From the
analysis, it is evident that the outer diagonal members are subjected to higher stress levels indicating they are
the primary load-bearing elements. with lower diagonal members having minimal stress development, suggesting
a secondary role in load distribution. As a whole, it is evident from the graph that the zero-force member shows
shows negligible or no stress, consistent with its minimal contribution to the load resistance of the structure.
3.3.6 Contours: Local Axial Force Contour
Figure 19: Local axial force contour
Figure 19 presents a local axial force distribution graph for the 2D truss with central member as a zer-force
member. From the analysis, it is evident that the lower diagonal members are subjected to higher axial forces,
implying that they carry the majority of the load. The central vertical member also appears to carry some force,
though less than the [Link] central member, as a zero-force member, exhibits no significant axial force.
In truss structures, the zero force members are added for improving the overall structure stability and symmetry,
however they do not transmit any force under the given conditions.
12
3.3.7 Contours: Line Displacement Magnitude Contour
Figure 20: Displacement magnitude contour
Figure 20 shows the line displacement magnitude contour for the truss structure. The analysis shows that the
outer diagonal members exhibit variety of displacement gradients, with maximum displacement about sharp points
where members meet, suggesting varying degrees of deformation with the highest displacement near the center.
The central vertical and horizontal members also display certain displacements, indicating moderate to high
displacement. The pattern of displacement aligns with the truss loading, where displacement increases toward
the center and at sharp points in geometric arrangement and gradually decreases to the point where the member
begins.
3.3.8 Contours: Reaction Force Contour
Figure 21: Reaction force contour
Figure 21 represents the load distribution diagram with the blue arrows indicating the direction and magnitude
of applied forces. The symmetrically positioned arrows suggest that the structure is subjected to upward forces,
about the point where the structure is pinned, restricting movement in any direction. Overall load magnitude is
relatively consistent across the points of application, as indicated by the contour.
3.4 Cross-Validation of Truss Analysis
The truss structure was cross-validated on 2D Truss where Analysis website as [Link]
-[Link]/fachwerk [Link] where the results were consistent with those observed on the COMSOL
13
Figure 22: 2D Truss Analysis results
3.5 Results and Discussions
The finite element analysis of the 2D space truss highlight the influence of the zero-force central member on the
overall stress distribution, force, and displacement distributions under an applied load. High stress concentrations
in the outer diagonal members exist, indicating they serve as primary load bearers, while the lower diagonals
experience moderate stress and the with central member experiencing no stress, rendering it to act as a zero
force member. The local axial force contour further elucidates this, with compressive forces dominant in the ouer
diagonals (around -1 × 107 N) and tensile forces in the lower ones, with central member serving to provide stability
to the overall structure, without transmitting loads. The line displacement magnitude contour reveals maximum
deformations (up to 1 × 10−3 m) at the central region and joints, decreasing toward the supports, consistent
with the downward load causing symmetric sag in the structure. Cross-validation with the online 2D truss
analysis tool affirms these findings, with similar force and displacement values, validating the COMSOL model’s
accuracy. Zero-force member, despite not bearing any force, significantly enhances the structural redundancy
and symmetry, potentially becoming active under asymmetric loads or failures, thus improving overall resilience;
however, its presence minimally affects computational efficiency in symmetric cases.
3.6 Conclusion
In conclusion, the FEA analysis of the symmetric 2D space truss shows that the central zero-force member plays
the role of providing structural stability under the applied point load P = 20000 N, applied in negative y-direction
as evidenced by negligible stress and axial forces, while the outer members manage the primary loading. This
configuration ensures equilibrium through symmetry, with displacements and reactions consistent with theoretical
expectations. The study highlights the correct identification of zero-force members in truss design for optimized
material use and enhanced stability.
14