Laboratory 3: Plane Elements

Aim of the laboratory is to reach stress convergence refining the mesh for different element types:
• Constant Strain Triangles (CST)
• Linear Strain Triangle (LST)
• Bilinear Quadrilateral Elements (Q4)
• 8-Nodes Quadrilateral Elements (Q8)

The elements size for the mesh refinement ranges from 5 to 0,1 mm for CST, from 5 to 0,5 mm for
LST, Q4 and Q8.

The geometry consists of a holed plate of small thickness (1 mm) with respect to the other
dimensions (200x100 mm), thus subjected to plane stress condition (figure 1). The hole as a
diameter of 20 mm.

Figure 1. Geometry.

The symmetries allow the consideration of only a portion of the plate to represent the whole system,
so as to save computational time.
The load is reproduced by applying a unitary displacement on the x direction (figure 2), while the
boundaries applied permit the real behaviour of the structure:
• On the left side a roller prevents the motion along x-axis and z-axis
• On the bottom side a roller prevents the motion along y-axis and z-axis
 Figure 2. Constraints.

The stress convergence is based on the analytical value of the stress concentration factor and the
one obtained from the FEM analysis; kt is evaluated based on . Convergence is reached when the
percentage error between analytical and the FEM is lower than an arbitrary threshold which is set to
0,5% in absolute value.

The graph below (figure 3) permits an easy estimation of the analytical value of kt given the ratio
hole diameter over plate width. For a ratio of 0,2, a corresponding kt of 3,15 is found.

Figure 3. Stress concentration factor curve.

The convergence analysis starts with a coarse mesh (5 mm) which is then refined only around the
hole, where the stress gradient is very high and requires finer elements in order to capture the
correct stress (figure 4). The analytical formulation for this kind of application is shown in the
graph below, in which  varies logarithmically in y.

Figure 4. Stress gradient.

Moreover, refining only a portion of the plate, and eventually adjusting the rest of the mesh in order
to obtain a more uniform mesh, is possible to reduce the number of nodes, and so the number of
elements, saving the computational time with respect to refine the whole component.

T.B.N:
• The dimension reported in tables refers to the refined portion of the plate, whereas the rest
of the component is meshed with 5 mm elements.
• The Mesh in figures represents the last row of the tables.
 Constant Strain Triangles (CST)
dimension # nodes # elements σmax σmax,aver. σmin kt,FEM % errorkt kt,FEM aver. % errorkt,aver.
5 252 443 4728 3765 2011 2,35 25,36 1,87 40,56
4 269 472 5341 4559 2007 2,66 15,52 2,27 27,89
2 360 643 5897 5080 2006 2,94 6,68 2,53 19,61
1 631 1168 6234 5677 2002 3,11 1,15 2,84 9,98
0,5 1286 2445 6216 5856 1998 3,11 1,23 2,93 6,95
0,2 3915 7630 6275 6118 1996 3,14 0,20 3,07 2,69
0,1 13020 25697 6292 6210 2001 3,14 0,18 3,10 1,48

CST - error kt
50,0

40,0
error [%]

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
# elements

Figure 5. CST – mesh 0,1 mm.

 Linear Strain Triangles (LST)
dimension # nodes # elements σmax σmax,aver. σmin kt,FEM % errorkt kt,FEM aver. % errorkt,aver.
5 947 443 6440 5506 1998 3,223 -2,325 2,76 12,52
4 1196 564 6372 5479 1997 3,191 -1,295 2,74 12,90
2 1310 618 6443 6191 1996 3,228 -2,475 3,10 1,53
1 2331 1119 6349 6260 1999 3,176 -0,828 3,13 0,59
0,5 4551 2215 6326 6286 1995 3,171 -0,664 3,15 -0,03

LST - error kt
13,0
11,0
9,0
error [%]

7,0
5,0
3,0
1,0
-1,0
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
# elements

Figure 6. LST – mesh 0,5 mm.

In these first two table are shown the number of elements and node for each mesh size, the
maximum and the minimum stress, and also the maximum stress averaged. This choice is due to the
fact that, using the triangle elements, the maximum stress node is shared among two elements. This
stress discontinuity is a valid indicator of a coarse mesh that needs to be refined. This gap is
naturally decreasing in the tables as mesh refines.
The analysis proceeds with quadrilateral elements that does not present this issue as the most
stressed node is not shared among elements.

Bilinear Quadrilateral Elements (Q4)

dimension # nodes # elements σmax σmin kt,FEM % errorkt

5 222 191 5145 2000 2,573 18,333

4 232 199 5401 2000 2,701 14,270
2 261 224 6036 1992 3,030 3,806
1 576 522 6192 1990 3,112 1,220
0,5 1023 957 6256 1989 3,145 0,149

Q4 - error kt
20,0

16,0
error [%]

12,0

8,0

4,0

0,0
190 390 590 790 990
# elements

Figure 7. Q4 – mesh 0,5 mm.

 8-Nodes Quadrilateral Elements (Q8)
dimension # nodes # elements σmax σmin kt,FEM % errorkt

5 671 203 5884 1996 2,948 6,416

4 728 220 5772 2003 2,882 8,518
2 773 233 6227 1996 3,120 0,961
1 1484 460 6266 1995 3,141 0,290
0,5 3729 1197 6297 1994 3,158 -0,253

Q8 - error kt
9,0

7,0
error [%]

5,0

3,0

1,0

-1,0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
# elements

Figure 8. Q8 – mesh 0,5 mm.

From the convergence analysis is easy to assess the goodness of the Q8 elements as they reach
convergence fastly and with less elements. The convergence threshold chosen (0,5%) is reached
even with an elements size of 1 mm, the use of this dimension instead of the 0,5 mm saves
computational time.
For this kind of problem, the CST element has the worst formulation because it can represent only
constant strain behaviour and so the convergence is reached only passing through an intense mesh
refinement.
The strain formulation of the LST element is linear both in x and y and so is a better approximation
than the CST.
The strain formulation of the Q4 element is linear only in y (not really important for this problem as
the main variation is logarithmic in y) and so should be comparable with the LST result.
This doesn’t happen because the Q4 strain is derived from a bi-linear formulation, while the LST
one is derived from a quadratic formulation which can better approximate the real displacement
around the hole.
The Q8 element has the best formulation for the purpose of this exercitation as it presents quadratic
displacement both in x and y and a strain that varies quadratically in y, providing the best possible
approximation in the FEM software used.

Once chosen the element type (Q8), it is easy to obtain the whole kt curve changing the ratio hole
diameter over plate width.

Stress concentration factor analysis

hole dimension diameter-to-width ratio kt,analytical σmax σmin kt,FEM error
10 0,1 3,03 6132 2074 2,96 0,02
20 0,2 3,15 6267 1990 3,15 -0,04
30 0,3 3,35 6331 1868 3,39 -0,12
40 0,4 3,70 6414 1692 3,79 -0,25

What emerges is that the FEM results (kt,FEM) follow exactly the curve of the stress concentration
factor (kt,analytical). Here the error is due principally to the approximation of the analytical coefficient.