Finite Element Analysis Lab

7th SEMESTER

Submitted by Arqam Ahmad

Class / Section ME 12 C
CMS ID 334444
Submitted to LE Ibrahim Khan

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

 OPEN ENDED LAB # 01
November 15, 2023

OVERVIEW
We are given a problem, and we must perform FEA analysis on it and compare the results for
different materials followed by room for improvement in structure agility and performance.

PROBLEM

This is a problem of a beam which is under some loading. To solve this problem, we will follow
the following steps:

1. Defining the Beam Interface:

To start this, we will first setup our COMSOL module in simple steps:

1
 2. Geometry of the Beam:
Next, we will generate the beam given in the figure in COMSOL. For that, we will be using line
segments and array transformation. The length of the beam is 5 m. The beam will look like this in
the start:

Figure 1: Beam before BCs

3. Application of Physics:
This part is divided into two sub-categories:

i. Boundary/Point Constraints:
The left most side must be fixed while the right most side must be pinned. These are available in
COMSOL as Fixed Constraints and Pinned and both are in the Points menu in Physics tab.
Let us apply these two boundary conditions:

2
 Figure 2: Point 1 Fixed Figure 3: Point 6 Pinned

Now, for the roller joints, there is a command known as Prescribed Displacements/Rotations.
Since, the roller is allowing motion in 𝑥 direction only, we will prescribe its motion along 𝑦 axis and
set its value to be zero.

Figure 4: Points 3 and 5 are roller supports.

3
 ii. Boundary/Point Loads:
The node 2 is under an applied load of 1 𝑘𝑁 in the negative 𝑦 direction followed by a bending
moment of 1 𝑘𝑁 ⋅ 𝑚 in the counterclockwise direction. This step in COMSOL is as follows:

Figure 5: Loads on Node 2

The next step is a slightly different and complicated step. From nodes 3 to 4, the beam is under
a non-uniform distributed load. To define this on COMSOL, we will first set up a piecewise function
for the entire beam. Our manual calculations suggest that:

𝑦 − 𝑦1 = 𝑚(𝑥 − 𝑥1 )

𝑦 − 3 = 4(𝑥 − 2)

4
 𝒚 = 𝟒(𝒙 − 𝟐) + 𝟑

Figure 6: Defining distributed load

Finally, we will apply edge load between nodes 3 and 4 whose value will be the piecewise
function we defined earlier.

5
 4. Selection of material:
For this problem, we will be comparing the results for two materials:

Aluminum

Structural Steel

For aluminum, we defined a blank material whose properties are as follows:

Nature Isotropic

Young’s Modulus 70 𝐺𝑃𝑎

Poisson’s Ratio 0.33

Density 2700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Furthermore, finer mesh was selected.

6
 5. Results:

7
 By changing the material to structural steel, we obtain the following results:

Aluminum:

Nodal Reaction Forces (N)

1 0

2 4.7576 × 10−5

3 0

4 −2.6228 × 10−4

5 0

6 0

Total Reaction Forces (N)

Local Stresses on Applied Reaction Forces (N/m2)

1 2.7143 × 105

2 8.9284 × 105

3 1.2770 × 106

4 1.3977 × 106

5 1.0386 × 106

6 59680

8
 Structural Steel:

Nodal Reaction Forces (N)

1 0

2 4.7576 × 10−5

3 0

4 −2.6228 × 10−4

5 0

6 0

Total Reaction Forces (N)

Local Stresses on Applied Reaction Forces (N/m2)

1 7.7550 × 105

2 2.5510 × 106

3 3.6486 × 106

4 3.9933 × 106

5 2.9676 × 106

6 1.7051 × 105

9
 6. Discussion and Conclusion:
Both materials have similar nodal reaction forces, which is expected since the applied loads and
boundary conditions are the same for both cases. Also, Structural Steel experiences higher local
stresses compared to Aluminum, indicating that it is carrying a greater load and is subjected to
higher internal forces.

This is consistent with the stronger mechanical properties of steel. If stresses are approaching or
exceeding the material limits, design modifications, material substitution, or additional support
may be necessary to ensure structural reliability.

10