Good afternoon everyone! I know it’s been a while since the last post but I’ve been (and still am) very busy with all kind of simulations, tests and writing papers and my doctoral thesis. Hopefully, I’ll manage to write some more articles during the summer! I recently had a conversation with some senior engineers from a F1 team regarding Cantilever beams and some erroneous assumptions which are commonly made, so I wanted to discuss it with you! Hope you enjoy this brief post!
A few weeks ago, I had the chance to speak with three top F1 designers and we had a chat about a certain question regarding the use of the Cantilever beam as a tool to design some vehicle structural components. First of all, let’s remind what this type of configuration is. A Cantilever beam is a structure which is fully constrained at one end, having a vertical load applied at the other end of the beam to study the effect of bending, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
This type of structure is very useful when designing certain components, since they can be simplified to this well-known beam, reducing the number of variables and being able to define simpler design targets. The thing is that usually, in reality, the components usually have some part of its length reinforced (e.g. thicker walls), so two questions arise: why is this non-homogeneous beam common and where should that reinforcement be placed?We agreed that a lot of people answer very quickly that it should be placed at the free end of the beam, i.e. where the load is applied. According to these people, the reason for this is pretty obvious, since that end will suffer the greatest deflection (I will write another post soon where I derive this and discuss some ways to calculate it by hand!). Hence, if that region was reinforced, the deflection would be smaller and the structure would be better in terms of bending performance. But, is this true? Let’s have a thought.
Predicting material failure is always a challenge, especially when it comes to composites and advanced materials. There are plenty of theories that try to provide a numerical approach to solve this complex problem, such as Maximum Stress/Strain Theories, Hashin, Tsai-Hill or Tsai-Wu. Although all of them brought something valuable to the table, some of them don’t seem to be that precise when accurate results are needed. In these terms, Tsai-Wu is my least favourite criterion and I’ll explain the reasons for that.
First of all, Tsai-Wu is an interactive failure criterion for composite materials. This means that the theory takes into account the interaction of different stress components in order to predict failure. Basically, the criterion uses equation 1 (subjected to the condition given by equation 2) to calculate an index and, if its value is one, then it means the material is failing. Please note that i,j=1,2,…,6, where subindices 1 to 3 represent normal stress components and 4 to 6 are shear stress components. In the original publication, authors explain how the different coefficient can be determined through experimental tests (e.g. compression, tension, biaxial…). So far, so good.
If you are an advanced Abaqus user, I am sure you have heard a word which some people try to avoid at all costs: subroutines. Today, I write about them as well as about my recent experience coding one for my research.
First of all, lets start with the main question: what is a subroutine? It is a script that, when run in parallel with the Finite Element (FE) model, allows users to request features which are not defined by default in the commercial software Abaqus. This FE package recognises a lot of different types of subroutines for both implicit and explicit simulations, depending on the information that we want to include, recalculate, modify, request… In other words, subroutines are useful when we want something that is not already available within the software and we need it in order to produce acceptable results.
Consider, for instance, that we were trying to simulate the response of a certain material, but the material model which was available in Abaqus did not quite reproduce the correct behaviour. What could we do then? The first option would be to contact Dassault Systemes to ask if they had any kind of expansion (with its corresponding extra cost, not too many things are given for free these days I’m afraid); sometimes, since a lot of users request the same thing, it is the company itself the one that creates the official subroutine. This option would save time and effort, but it would also affect our wallet. The second option would be to create a new material model from scratch. How could we do that? Well, we would need to code a UMAT (implicit) or a VUMAT (explicit) subroutine. In order to do so, we would need to learn how to code in Fortran, which is the only language supported by Abaqus (I know, this is a bit of a pain since Fortran is basically obsolete, but hey! It’s always good to learn something new!). We would also need to install two compilers and link them to the FE package, which once again is not straight forward (don’t worry, I’ll try to write another post to explain this). Some people might say that giving up would be the third option, but to me that attitude would be unacceptable, so don’t you dare!Continue reading →
If you are a regular Abaqus user, I am sure that eventually you will need to run models for long periods of time. It can be quite annoying to go back to the office just to check if the simulation has finished to then find out that it is still running. For that reason, I’ve coded a simple python script that sends an automatic e-mail to the user once the simulation is completed or aborts due to errors.
While you run FE models that take a huge amount of computational time to finish, it is likely that you will be working on other things, such as experimental tests, reports, meetings and so on. Obviously, we want to check our results as soon as they are ready, but in order to do so we need to be checking our computer every now and then. This can be particularly annoying when you leave a simulation running for a few days and you are doing things out of the office. Hence you need to go and check if the model is done… and then you realise it’s still there, calculating more stresses and strains and that your trip to the office was a waste of time. To overcome this problem, I decided to create a python script to send a notification directly to my e-mail every time my analyses finish. I will try to explain you the basics so you can use this code on your computer.Continue reading →
Basically, when we want to determine the forces and displacements in a certain structure using Finite Element Analysis (FEA), what we are doing is creating a system of equations that relates the stiffness of the elements to the displacements and forces in each node. When we run a simulation, we do not see all the calculations. For that reason, today I want to illustrate a simple case that can be easily solved by hand applying that methodology.
Before getting started, just think of a spring. Everyone has come across the Hooke’s law at a certain point during school. It states that the force in the spring is proportional to a constant “k” multiplied by the variation in length of the spring. FEA follows the same principle, but in this case the “k” constant is the stiffness matrix and the variation in length is a vector of displacements and rotations, depending on the case.
Let’s study a simple static case. Our structure consists of two bar elements connected at a common node, where a load “P” is applied. The other two nodes have both horizontal and vertical displacements constrained (see the boundary conditions). For this particular case, the reactions in nodes 1 and 3 and the displacements of node 2 are requested. I have solved the problem by hand following a few steps that, based on my experience, can be generalised for more complex problems. Pretty much, the summary of the methodology is:Continue reading →
The FEA dictionary is back and it’s time for letter D! Today I will introduce you to one of the methods to introduce damage in your material models.
Although it was created based on the failure of metals, this damage model can be used to introduce the degradation of mechanical properties for other types of materials. This option is available in Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit and it requires the definition of the ideal elastic-plastic behaviour of the material, a damage initiation criterion and a damage evolution response. Please note that if any of the requirements cited before is not defined, the material properties will not be degraded.
In Abaqus there are different options for the damage initiation criterion and basically they can be classified as follows:
Criteria for fracture of metals (ductile and shear).
As I promised a few weeks ago, I’m back with a tutorial! In this occasion, a cantilever beam will be modelled in Abaqus/Standard. What is more, the importance of defining a good mesh (not only the element size matters!) will be illustrated with several examples.
So, first things first. A cantilever beam is a structure which has one of its ends fully constrained. This means that all degrees of freedom are restricted. An example is presented in the following figure:
A similar case as the one presented above will be modelled using the Finite Element package Abaqus/Standard. The structure can be created using different types of elements: beam, bar, solid or shell. I have decided to model it using shell elements, since it will allow me to show the influence of the element size and type in a very simple way.
In order to create the component we need to be in the Part module. We should select the 3D deformable shell(planar) option. Then we will be able to create the geometry. In this case a simple rectangle of 20mm x 100mm will be enough. Please bear in mind that Finite Element codes are unitless and all the parameters need to be defined in a consistent system of units. I have decided to use mm, GPa and kN.
New post about FEA! In this occasion, I bring you some theoretical background for two types of elements which are very useful for modelling certain structures: bars and beams.
Let’s start from the beginning. A bar is basically an element which can resist only axial loading. Therefore each of its nodes has one degree of freedom, i.e. a displacement along the longitudinal axis of the element. On the other hand, each node of a beam presents not only one but three degrees of freedom: displacement in the longitudinal axis, displacement in the transverse direction and rotation.
As you should already know, Finite Element Analysis requires the a stiffness matrix (K) so, in order to illustrate this, in this post I will show you how the K matrix can be derived for bar elements. Note that the process for obtaining the stiffness matrix of a beam element is similar but a bit more tedious.
Happy New Year everyone! After a well deserved Christmas break I’m back with some more engineering topics. In this occasion I want to introduce a new series of brief posts about Finite Element Analysis. The idea is to cover one topic for each letter of the alphabet (i.e. from A to Z). Let’s get started!
Motivated by the “A-Z Challenge” that I followed for the first time thanks to Dr David Jesson, the idea of doing something similar has been growing in my head for some time. However, in this case I won’t be writing a post every day but, hopefully, once a week a new one will be published.
I had some doubts about the topic, but after meeting some of the members of the Formula Student Team of the University of Seville (Spain), I thought it would be a great idea to do some kind of simple Finite Element guide. In particular, this guide will be focused on the commercial package Abaqus. Some of you might be wondering why I’ve chosen this particular software, and the reason is pretty obvious: it is one of the most used FE packages in industry and loads of students struggle to understand how it works, especially if their first experience with FEA involved Ansys. Don’t get me wrong, I started using Ansys as well and I don’t want to give the impression that I have a problem with it. The thing is though, that a lot of people tend to learn how to model things in Ansys by heart and because of that, they won’t be able to reproduce the same models in other packages.
This week I wanted to write a brief post regarding a very common problem that can be found when running and post-processing Finite Element models: the correct definition of contact algorithms.
During this week, I had a conversation with other engineers about some issues related to the TIED CONTACT definition. In these terms, any commercial FE package gives you the opportunity to define this type of contact in a relatively easy way: you select the nodes or surfaces (master and slave) and then the pre-processor shows some kind of symbol in order to highlight that the contact has been established. However, the symbols and the fact that you have followed the standard steps of the software do not mean that the parts are going to behave as expected.Continue reading →