Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thick Cylinder PDF
Thick Cylinder PDF
Thick Cylinder PDF
1
Related files/documents: explovatplots.doc, thick_cylinder.xls, thick_elasq4.mud, thick_elasq8.mud,
thick_plasq4.mud, thick_plasq8.mud.
1
Geometry, boundary conditions and material
constants.
We choose, more or less arbitrarily
Inner radius ri = 10 mm
Outer radius ro = 20 mm
Young modulus E = 100000 N/mm2
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3
Inner pressure p = 0, 20,40, .. 400 N/mm2
∆z z=0 = ∆z z=1 = 0 ,∀ r, ∀θ
This condition assures that the tube is not allowed to change its
length, i.e. the axial strain is 0 ( ‘plain strain’). As a result the
problem is reduced to a 1-dimensional problem. Figure 1
shows the mesh.
1200
1000
stress (Mpa)
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
strain
2
The elastic linear case.
The case of linear material behavior is calculated with inner pressure p = 400 N/mm2.
No other non-linearities are taken into account, i.e. no geometrical effects. We have not
corrected the nodal external forces for the nodal displacement (i.e. no follower force), and
the FE-calculation is purely linear. Two types of quadrilateral elements have been used:
4-node linear (type 10) and 8-node quadratic (type 28). The finite element model results
have been obtained using the Marc/Mentat files ‘thick_elasq4.mud’ and
‘thick_elasq8.mud’. The numerical results are copied into the sheet ‘elastic 400 MPa’ of
the Excel file ‘thick_cylinder.xls’, in which also the analytical calculations are done.
In Appendix I the stresses and displacement as a function of r are shown, both for the
quad4 and quad8 models, as well as their differences with an analytical model.
These analytical results are obtained from (see standard textbooks):
These formulas predict how the radial stress decreases from p to 0, as r goes from ri to ro.
The circumferential stress is expected to change in our case from 666,6 to 266,6 N/m2
The axial stress is a constant, in this case 2*0.3*400/3 = 80 N/m2
For each element: calculate the average of the integration point values and assign it to the
element’s centroid.
For each integration point: extrapolate linearly from the centroid through the integration
point to the corresponding nodal point.
For each node: average the extrapolation results (step 2) of all elements that share this
node.
3
In order to find out the effect of these settings we have listed in Appendix III, as an
example, the radial stress of the elastic and plastic quad4 cases for different settings
(numerical values in sheet ‘postp. options’ of thick_cylinder.xls). We also show the
integration point values of the two inner elements for both quad4 and quad8 (elastic and
plastic) cases.
The same comments apply to the plastic models (Appendix II). There, in the quad4 case
the stresses at the inner mesh border are even more disastrous. These discontinuities need
to be explanated, understood, and eliminated if possible.
Final question: is this behavior to be expected in some way (and why), or do we meet
here a MARC bug?
4
Appendix I: Graphical results linear elastic models at 400 MPa.
0
FE_quad8 1000 FE_quad8
-50
FE_quad4 900 FE_quad4
-100 800 quad4 Von Mises
-200 600
500
-250
400
-300
300
-350 200
10 15 20
-400
10 15 20 r (mm)
r (mm)
Figure
6. Radial stress at p=400 MPa (elastic model) Figure 3. circumferential and Von Mises stress at
p=400 MPa (elastic model).
axial stress
ra d ia l d is p la c e m e n t
100
0 .0 8
FE_quad8 FE_quad8
95 FE_quad4
FE_quad4
0 .0 7
90
85 0 .0 6
80
0 .0 5
75
0 .0 4
70
10 12 14 16 18 20
10 12 14 16 18 20 r (m m )
r (mm)
Figure 4. Axial stress at p=400 MPa (elastic model) Figure 5. radial displacement (p=400 MPa ,elastic
model)
5
Differences of FE-stresses with analytical results.
r a d i a l s t r e s s d if f e r e n c e s
c ir c u m fe r e n tia l s tr e s s d iffe r e n c e s
2 q u a d 8 - a n a ly tic a l
q u a d 4 - a n a ly tic a l 2
1 .5 q u a d 8 - a n a y tic a l
1 .5
1 q u a d 4 - a n a ly tic a l
1
0 .5
0 .5
0
0
- 0 .5
-0 .5
-1
-1
- 1 .5
-1 .5
-2
-2
10 12 14 16 18 20
10 12 14 16 18 20
r (m m )
r (m m )
Figure 8. Radial stress: differences with analytical result at Figure 7. Circumferential stress: differences with analytical
p=400 MPa (elastic model). result at p=400 MPa (elastic model).
2 FE_quad8 -anal
FE_quad4-anal
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
10 12 14 16 18 20
6
Appendix II. Results for plastic quad4 and quad8 models at 400 MPa.
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 2 4 r - ri (mm) 6 8 10
7
Some details:
Plastic case: radial stress at p=400 Plastic case: circumferential stress at p=400
0 700
FE quad4 model
-50 650
600 elastic linear model
-100
550 FE quad8 model
-150
500
-200 450
-250 400
-300 FE quad4
350
elastic model
-350 300
FE quad8
-400 250
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
200 1.4
FE quad4 model quad4
180 1.3
elastic linear model quad8
1.2
160 FE quad8 model 1.1
140 1
120 0.9
0.8
100
0.7
80 0.6
60 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 r - ri (mm)
r - ri (mm)
Figure 15. Plastic case: radial displacement at p=400.
Figure 12. Plastic case: axial stress at p=400.
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
r - ri (mm)
8
Appendix III. Radial stress within inner two elements: different
extrapolation options
Elastic quad4 case
-300
-310
-320
-330
-340
-350
-360
post_extrap_linear
-370 analytical
-380 post_extrap_translate
post_extrap_average
-390 integration point values
-400 corrected integration points
10 10.5 11
r (mm)
Figure 17. Elastic quad4: stresses with different extrapolation options
-300
-310
-320
-330
-340
-350
elastic analytical model
-360 q4 elastic
-370 q4 elastic 'corrected'
-380 q8 elastic
q8 plastic
-390
q4 plastic
-400
10 10.5 11
r (mm)