FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT – 2

1. YAMINI - 20BAS1132

2. REVANT - 20BAS1145

3. GIA - 20BAS1142

4. PRINCE - 20BAS1148

5. STEVE - 20BAS1144

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
University Institute of Engineering (UIE)
CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY

SEMESTER – 07

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................2
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER – 1: ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM..................................................................................4

1.1 Problem Statement...........................................................................................................................4
1.2 Task Assignment..............................................................................................................................4
1.3 Software Used.................................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER – 2: APPROCH REVIEW.............................................................................................5

2.1 Approach review................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 3: CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 4: DESIGNING & SIMULATION..............................................................................13

4.1 Geometry...........................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Mesh................................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Solution............................................................................................................................................13
4.4 Nodal Solution................................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 5: RESULT, DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION........................................................16

5.1 Result.................................................................................................................................................16
5.2 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................16
5.3 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................17

Page | 2
LIST OF FIGURES

NUMBER NAME PAGE

NO.
1. Problem statement 4
2. Hand-written calculation 7
3. Hand-written calculation 8
4. Hand-written calculation 8
5. Hand-written calculation 9
6. Hand-written calculation 10
7. Hand-written calculation 11
8. Hand-written calculation 12
9. Geometry 13
10. Mesh 13
11. Solution 14
12. Nodal Solution 14
13. Result and Discussion 16
14. Conclusion 17

Page | 3
 CHAPTER – 1
Assignment

1.1 Problem Statement – 5

(a) Consider a brick wall of thickness 0.3 m, k = 0.7 W/m °K. The inner surface is at 28°C and the outer surface is
exposed to cold air at -15°C. The heat transfer coefficient associated with the outside surface is 40 W/m2 °K. Using
hand calculation determine the steady state temperature distribution within the wall and also the heat flux through the
wall. Use two elements and obtain the solution.
(b) Simulate the above problem using the Ansys Workbench and discuss the results. Also compare the simulation
results with that obtained through hand calculation. Present the comparison in plots using MATLAB (or MS Excel).

1.1 TASK ASSIGNMENT

 YAMINI - CALCULATIONS
 REVANT - ANSYS SIMULATION
 GIA - CALCULATIONS
 STEVE DCOSTA - REPORT
 PRINCE - MATERIAL FORMAT

1.2 SOFTWARE’S USED

ANSYS WORKBENCH – SIMULATIONS

MS WORD – Report making
MS EXCEL – Verification

1.3 CONCEPT’S APPORACHED

 FEM FORMULATION
 ANSYS WORKBENCH
 STATIC STRUCTURE

Page | 4
 CHAPTER -2
APPROACH REVIEW
ANSYS is a powerful finite element analysis (FEA) software that can be used for simulating various types of
structures, including truss elements. Truss elements are often used to analyze structures that are primarily subjected
to axial loads (tensile or compressive forces). Here is a general outline of how you can set up and perform an
ANSYS simulation for a truss element:

1. Geometry and Model Creation: - Start by creating or importing the 2D or 3D geometry of your truss
structure in ANSYS. You can use the ANSYS Design-Modeler or another CAD software to create the
geometry.
2. Mesh Generation: - After creating the geometry, mesh it. Truss elements are typically one-dimensional,
so use line elements for 2D trusses or beam elements for 3D trusses. You may need to specify element type
and mesh size.
3. Material Properties: - Define the material properties for the truss elements. This includes Young's Modulus
(E) and Poisson's Ratio (ν) if you are working in 3D, or just E if you are in 2D.
4. Boundary Conditions: - Apply appropriate boundary conditions to simulate the real-world constraints.
For truss elements, this often means fixing nodes or restraining degrees of freedom at specific locations. For
example, you may fix one end of the truss.
5. Loads: - Apply loads to the truss structure. These loads could be forces or moments acting on specific
nodes or along specific lines. Truss elements primarily deal with axial loads.
6. Analysis Setup: - Choose the type of analysis you want to perform. For most truss structures, a "Static
Structural" analysis is suitable. Configure analysis settings, such as the solver type, time steps, and
convergence criteria.
7. Solve: - Run the analysis. ANSYS will calculate the displacements, stresses, and strains within the truss
structure based on the applied loads and boundary conditions.
8. Post-Processing: - After the analysis is complete, review the results. ANSYS provides various tools for
visualizing and extracting relevant data, such as stress distributions, displacements, and reaction forces.
9. Optimization and Iteration (if needed): - Depending on your goals, you may need to iterate on your
design, changing material properties, geometry, or loads to achieve desired performance criteria.

10. Discretization:
a. Break the bar plate down into smaller pieces or parts.
b. Each element will have nodes at its ends, which will connect the element to the rest of the
structure.
c. The linear bar element is typically composed of two nodes.
11. Hypotheses:
a. Hooke's law applies because the material is linearly elastic.
b. Because the deformation is modest, geometric nonlinearities are ignored.
c. There is no initial tension.

Page | 5
12. Equations of Local Element:
a. The Truss element's behavior is determined by the equation for axial deformation, which is
provided by Hooke's law:
σ = Eε
Where
σ is the axial stress in the bar element.
E is the Young's modulus of the material.
ε is the axial strain in the bar element.

b. The axial strain can be related to the displacement using the formula: ε =
(u2 - u1) / L
Where:
u1 is the displacement at the first node.
u2 is the displacement at the second node.
L is the length of the bar element.

c. Substituting the strain equation into Hooke's law gives: σ = E

* (u2 - u1) / L

13. Global Equations:

a. To encompass the behavior of the entire structure, the local element equations must be
assembled into a global system of equations.
b. This entails considering the equilibrium of forces at each node.
c. You will have an equation for each node that accounts for the forces from connected parts as
well as any external loads.
14. Boundary Conditions:
a. To account for fixed nodes or prescribed displacements, apply boundary conditions to the
global system of equations.
b. The size of the system to be solved is reduced as a result.

Page | 6
 CHAPTER – 3

3.1 CALCULATIONS:

Fig2: page-1: Hand written calculation

Page | 7
Fig3: page-2: Hand written calculation

Page | 8
Fig4: page-3: Hand written calculation

Page | 9
CHAPTER – 4

DESIGNING & SIMULATION

4.1 GEOMETRY:

Fig 12: Geometry

Page | 10
Page | 11
Page | 12
CHAPTER – 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Steady-state thermal analysis is evaluating the thermal equilibrium of a system in which the
temperature remains constant over time. In other words, steady-state thermal analysis involves
assessing the equilibrium state of a system subject to constant heat loads and environmental
conditions.

5.1 RESULT

The resulting displacement and stress profiles within the bar plate are identical after both the
manual FEM formulation and the ANSYS simulation. More crucially, the estimated residual
value between the manual FEM formulation and ANSYS simulation solutions is zero. This
confirms that both methodologies produce congruent and accurate outcomes.

5.2 DISSCUSION

5.2.1 Accuracy and Reliability:

The major goal of this study was to establish whether the manual FEM formulation and
ANSYS simulation produce consistent and accurate findings. The fact that both approaches
produce similar displacement and stress distributions within the bar indicates that they are both
accurate. The residual value of zero adds to the certainty that the solutions produced from both
procedures are right.

5.2.2 Verification and Validation:

Verification includes confirming that a method's implementation is proper, whereas validation
entails ensuring that the method accurately reflects the underlying physics. The congruence of
findings can be viewed as a sort of verification when both approaches are correctly applied.
Furthermore, the concordance in results contributes to the validation of both the manual FEM
and the automated FEM Formulation for solving linear bar element issues, use formulation and
the ANSYS programmed.

5.2.3 Applicability and Complexity:

The manual FEM formulation necessitates a thorough understanding of the mathematical
principles underpinning the finite element approach, such as the creation of stiffness matrices
and the assembly of the global stiffness matrix. ANSYS, on the other hand, has a user-friendly
interface that automates many of these operations. This comparison demonstrates that, despite
the convenience of commercial tools like as ANSYS, the essential concepts of FEM remain
consistent and dependable.

5.2.4 Considerations for Resources:

While the manual FEM formulation gives a thorough insight of the method's inner workings, it
is time- consuming and may necessitate significant computational resources for large tasks. As
specialized software, ANSYS provides effective solutions to a wide range of engineering
challenges. Engineers can select between these strategies to produce accurate findings based on
the available resources and the complexity of the task.

Page | 13
 5.2.5 Limitations and Scope:

It is critical to recognize that this research focuses on a relatively simple linear bar plate problem. For
increasingly complex issues involving nonlinearity, dynamic effects, or coupled physics, the congruence of
findings derived from the manual FEM formulation and ANSYS simulation may not hold true. More
research is needed to understand the scope of application for both strategies in different contexts.

5.2.6 CONCLUSION

This study compares a manual FEM formulation to an ANSYS simulation for a truss element problem. The
results convergence and residual value of zero between the manual FEM formulation and the ANSYS
simulation provide strong proof that both methodologies are accurate and dependable for solving truss
element problems. This study confirms finite element analysis concepts and emphasize the practical
consequences of both human formulations and software-based solutions in engineering practice.

Page | 14
Page | 15