Application of Finite Element

Modelling in Stress Analysis

BRUNEL UNIVERSITY

Fabrizio Andrea Valentini

Student ID: 1115756

SUMMARY
The problem that has been investigated treats the analysis of stress on a
semi-finite plate that presents 2 rows of staggered holes and is subjected
to a tension force. The stress will be identified taking under consideration
the variation of the plate thickness, the stress concentration factor K, the
horizontal pitch-holes diameter ratio and the angle of staggered holes .
The experimental values of the stress obtained through computational
Finite Element Analysis will be compared with the theoretical ones and the
Ansys modelling strategies will be discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays Finite Element Analysis has become very important in various
fields of research and application (biomedical, civil, aviation and
automotive engineering): setting standards in many companies, it is used
in every stage of the development of new products or components,
allowing cutting costs, saving time during early state of concept design
and guaranteeing safety and quality criterions.
In engineering, the investigation of stresses in plates of different materials
it has always been of important consideration, especially when these are
part of structures or moving system. It is critical then to analyze the
magnitude of the stress along the object in use. If the used plate is
consistent and uniform, the stress distribution will be uniform accordingly
but when holes are present along it, the distribution of the stress changes.
These geometry irregularities increase the magnitude of the stress very
close to them and that is where usually failures occur. The stress
concentration at the edge of a hole is calculated as:
max =K 0

It can be seen that in order to calculate it, a factor (K) is used: the so
called stress-concentration factor.
This factor is defined by the following formula:
K tn =

Where

max

max
nom

(1)

is the Equivalent maximum stress (Von Mises) and

nom

is

the nominal stress.

When the practical values are calculated through the data obtained from
Ansys, they will be compared to the theoretical ones that are taken from
the graph in Petersons Stress Concentration Factors.

PROBLEM UNDER INVESTIGATION

The problem under analysis, as said before, concerns a plate with
staggered holes that is subjected to a uniform tension stress .
The plate has fixed length and width and its thickness is going to vary
throughout the experiment. The holes have a fixed diameter and they are
separated from each other with a distance b: in addition, the staggered
holes present a distance c between the two rows of the holes when the
angle between them is increased.
The variables are varied in order to create multiple arrangements and
therefore to investigate how the stress is affected by each of them.
Ansys will be used to solve complex structural stress calculations finding
the magnitude of the maximum stress around the holes: a mesh will be
created on the geometry of the plate and therefore obtain a global result
for the entire object.
The symmetry of the plate that is presented across the central vertical
axis could be used as an advantage to analyze half of the plate and
therefore reduce computational time.
- Boundary Conditions
The initial conditions present: l = 250 mm; w = 100 mm; = 1000 N; a =
6 mm; b = 50 mm.
The values of a (diameter of holes) and b (horizontal pitch), are parameter
that change from one student to the other. The value of b that was initially
assigned to me was such that made the holes overlap each other: after emailing Dr. Wang, I chose another random value for that specific
parameter (e-mail in the appendix).

Figure 1 - Plate with Staggered Holes Subjected to Tension

The
c will be

distance
varied

throughout the experiment with values range of 0, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35,
40, 45 mm for each thickness t of 3, 5, 7 mm. With these alterations of
parameters, 27 different geometries will be obtained and subsequently
analyzed paying
particular
attention to the
stress magnitude
and the stress
concentration
factor.
From Petersons
stress
concentration
figure (Fig. 2) it
can be already
seen that for a
plate of fixed
dimensions with
staggered holes,
the smaller the
Figure 2 - Peterson's Stress Concentration Curve
ratio a over b, the
higher the net stress concentration factor is; if the holes are very small
compared to the distance that divide them, Ktn tents to 3. Additionally, the
stress concentration factor increases as the angle increases until 60,
after that the line flattens out and remains constant.
The material of the plate presents the given properties with an Elastic
Modulus of 210 GPa, Poissons ratio of 0.32 and Yield stress of 250 MPa.
DESCRIPTION OF MODELLING AND MODELLING STRATEGIES

The initial step to face the experiment was to create a work space in
Ansys Workbench under the static structural domain. During the creation
of the geometry the parameters that were supposed to vary further on in
the experiment were parameterized to avoid the creation of many
different files; in addition, it was possible to quickly set the wanted
configuration of thickness and the distance between rows of hole.
Once the plate was created respecting the geometric boundaries, the
modelling was taken to the next step; the material was assigned with the
right properties through the engineering library and the relative tension
stress of 1.2 kN was applied in the upper plate edge. In the lower part of
the plate and as well as in the right one, 2 displacement support were
applied respectively; the first with the x motion set as free and the latter
with the y motion set as free.
One of the purposes of the experiment carried out is to investigate the
effect of varying meshes on the results of stress magnitude and stress
concentration factor; 3 types of meshes have been applied to the previous
created model: Automatic, Mapped Face, and Refinement.
The best mesh out of the chosen 3 has been then used to the 27
geometries in order to investigate the practical K values against the
theoretical one for every angle .
For this particular experiment (and for a license limitation), the maximum
meshing nodes allowed had a limit of 32000.
- Automatic Meshing

Figure 3 - Automatic Mesh

The automatic mesh applies the standard meshing to the geometry. The
advantage of it is that the results can be processed at a higher speed but
the mesh is not always uniform and neat in the areas of interest: for this
reason it needs to be refined changing the elements size or controlling the
relevance option.
The Automatic mesh has been applied to the geometry keeping the
Relevance Center fine, the Smoothing angle medium and the Span Angle
Center fine; instead the element size has been varied from 4 mm to 0.9
mm.

- Mapped Face Meshing

Figure 4 - Mapped Face Mesh

The Mapped Face mesh can be very useful when you need an ideal mesh
around an interested area or surface; its algorithm forces the nodes grid
to adapt to the round shape (in this case) and can produce quite accurate
results in the stress regions. When this mesh has been used on the model,
a long computational time was needed to achieve results (especially with
a high number of divisions and a fine edge meshing): circular faces have
been printed around the staggered holes to guarantee a higher density of
nodes in the studied area. Usually applying this kind of mesh with default
parameters generates a fair mapped grid on the analyzed geometry but
an engineering judgment in necessary to find the right balance between
solving time, less nodes and uniform grid.
- Refinement Meshing

Figure 5 - Refinement Mesh

The refinement mesh control allows to concentrate the grid on a particular

area of the surface and therefore obtain better results; for this model, the
grid has been refined selecting the holes edges. For the rest of the plate
the grid has been controlled with face sizing in order to maintain a uniform

pattern. When applied to the model, 3 different convergence processes

have been obtained: the Refinement Relevance has been varied in each
one of them (from 1 to 3) and the element sizing was varied from 5 to
0.91 mm.
When the grid modelling process is started, the user has to keep in mind
that various factor has to influence your judgment on which best mesh
has the most reliable for the studied geometry. In order to reduce the
number of nodes that were going to be applied in every face of the plate,
the early geometry was extruded as a thin surface. In this way was
possible to still examine the effects of various thicknesses whilst keeping
the number as low as possible to optimize the computational time.
KEY RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT ANALYTICAL MODELS
One of the aim of the experiment that has been carried out with the Ansys
package, was to investigate the various types of meshes and their effect
on the results on a plate with staggered holes at different configurations
of thickness and .
The first step was understanding which mesh was more suitable for the
geometry and therefore would give the most reliable results. To achieve
that, the convergence of every type of mesh was found; the parameters
were varied in a sort of iteration process until convergence or the
maximum amount of nodes was reached.
The data obtained through the software were compared in tables and
graph using Excel; all the experimental values were then compared again
against the theoretical stress concentration factor K.
As a first trial, the difference between the use of quadrilaterals dominant
meshes was compared to tetrahedral ones; the results showed that the
use of quadrilaterals for our types of mesh and geometry is more suitable.
3
2.5
2
K

Refinement 1

1.5

Refinement 2
Refinement 3

Mapped Facing
Automatic

0.5
0
0

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Number of Elements

Fi
gure 6 shows the comparison of the convergence for 5 different meshes;

the configuration of the geometry was kept constant with the holes
forming one row ( = 0 because c = 0) and the thickness t set at 3 mm.
Examining the graph, it can be seen that
the automatic mesh is the worst so far.
The convergence doesnt present a
uniform pattern and at the reach of the
nodes limit, has the furthest value of Ktg
(2.47) from the theoretical gross stress
concentration factor of 2.85. Even refined,
this grid control method gave imprecise
results due to the quality of mesh near the
edge of the holes. The mapped face
control presents instead a better
convergence (13882 nodes with a Ktg
equals to 2.62) but is the Refinement with
relevance set at 3 that has been found to
be the best mesh, converging at a lower
number of nodes (8702 nodes) with the
Figure 6 - Convergence of Different Types of Meshing Methods

value of Ktg reaching 2.64. The Equivalent

Maximum stress magnitude with this
Figure 7 - Max Principal Stress for
optimized grid was found to range
Best Mesh
between 4.71 GPa to 4.79 GPa; it can be
noticed then that even this result stabilized very soon during the process.
Finding accurate results with a uniform mesh, good density in the studied
area and low elements count is critical in engineering fields, were it is
needed to work on scheduled restricted time and cost cutting philosophy.
The chosen mesh is going to be applied to the before mentioned 27
geometry configurations.
- Best Meshing Method Applied to 27 Geometries
The mesh grid applied on the studied geometry, gives a very smooth and
uniform approximation of a real plate and of the stress results (Fig. 7).
Figure 8 shows the tabulated results obtained through Ansys with a
refined mesh at a relevance of 3 and element sizing set to 1.1 mm.

Ktg and Kt vs for Different Thicknesses

Ktg

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Thickness = 3
Thickness = 5
Thickness = 7
Theoretical K

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 8 - Best Mesh Applied to 27 Configurations at Different Thicknesses. The

practical Gross Stress Concentration Factor Values is Compared Against the Theoretical
Ones.

For every distance between the holes rows c, the number of elements and
the equivalent maximum stress were noted down. The first set of data
concerned the plate with a thickness of 3 mm (Table 1 in the appendix): as
it can be noticed the maximum stress magnitude was calculated to be
ranging from 4.78 at 0 to 4.80 at 60.95. Excluding the second decimal
variation of 0.02, the magnitude can be considered constant throughout
the parameters variation. This happens because the holes are very distant
from each other, presenting a relative smaller diameter compared to the
distance b and they dont affect each other with the stresses: if they were
happening to be closer the stress would have appeared to increase with
the decrease of c (in this case, minimum at the angle of 60.95 and
maximum at the angle of 0).
In order to calculate the practical values of Ktg (Formula 1) the nominal
stress is needed and it was calculated as follow:
(l( d holes n ) ) t

1200
nom = =
=1.8181 GPa
( 0.25( 0.006 5 ) ) 0.005 1000000
The second set of data sees the increment of thickness to 5 mm. As the
graph in Fig. 8 shows, the value of the gross stress concentration factor
remains the same as the previous configuration; what can be noted from
Table 2 is that the nominal stress has a lower value equals to 1.09 GPa
and the actual equivalent stress has decreased to 2.9 GPa.
This behavior for the maximum equivalent stress magnitude and nominal
stress can be found in the plate that presents a thickness of 7 mm; it

decreases to 2.09 GPa and 0.779 GPa respectively whilst the value of Ktg
stays once again more or less constant.
What can be seen then from Fig. 8 is that the stress concentration factor is
not affected by the variation of the thickness.
The theoretical line that is presented has been extrapolated from the
Petersons Stress Concentration Factors curve (Peterson, R.E. Stress
Concentration Factor). According to the parameters given, the ratio l/d
was calculated to be 8.333; the theoretical line for the specific problem
was then lying between two lines present on the same graph; l/d = 5 and
l/d = 10. With an interpolation process the correct line suitable for the
analyzed geometry was found. Of course the values that define the line
are the net stress concentration values (Ktg). Since we needed the gross
ones the following reversed formula was used for angles smaller than 60:
K tg=

K tn
2d
1(
cos)
l

And the following for angles

K tg=

60 :

K tn
d
1( )
l

- Recommendation for the best sets of variables (a, b, c and t)

Carrying on the experiment, it was possible to analyze how different
geometries variables would affect results in term of equivalent maximum
stress magnitude and stress concentration factor K.
In engineering fields, it is critical to understand on which parameter is
better to work on, in order to increase quality and safety of a particular
element and therefore optimizing time (computational), costs
(manufacturing) and improvements (concept and final design stages)
The diameters of the holes (a) was a parameter that was fix for the whole
analysis but it is important to notice that bigger holes (and close to each
other or to the plate edges) will cause more stress on the whole element.
The horizontal pitch (b) tents to do not affect the overall stress along the
holes line if its dimension is big relative to the holes diameter; during the
design stage of the element an optimal balance between a, b and the
distance between the holes rows c has to be maintained in order to avoid
structural failures in the high loaded areas.
From tables and graph analyzed before, it was clear to see that K is not
affected by the thickness of the plate t; knowing this, in order to reduce

cost and the use of materials, the function of t can be minimized although
maintaining enough safe factor range.

CONCLUSIONS
The use of Ansys software package as a tool for Finite Element Analysis is
proven to be very useful and gives very good approximations of results. In
a nowadays market, always moving towards fast, the use of these kind of
analysis on concept or improvement stages set standards of time saving,
cost cutting, and better quality of the final product.
With the experiment that has been carried out the following conclusions
has been reached:
-

Semi-finite plates that present geometry irregularities like holes

have a greater tendency to structural failure.

If the holes are small and they are separated from a long distance,
the Equivalent maximum stress doesnt change with the decrease of
the rows angle of staggered holes. In contrary, closer holes that
influence each other make the magnitude of the stress increase.

In addition the closer the holes get to the edge of the plate and the
more the chances of failure.

The edges of the holes are the parts that withstand the highest
stress.

From the results obtained, it can be noticed that the stress

concentration factor doesnt vary with the increase of thickness.

The different between the theoretical values and the practical one
can be considered acceptable (7.7 % off).

APPENDIX

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thickn
ess
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Ang
le

Number Of
Elements

0
21.
8
30.
96
38.
66
45
50.
19
54.
46
57.
99
60.
95

Equivalent
Stress

22771

4.7833

10

22801

4.89

15

22812

4.9523

20

22812

4.9523

25

22868

4.8704

30

22859

4.8497

35

22837

4.8275

40

23005

4.8144

45

22909

4.8064

Nominal
Stress
K
1.8181818 2.6308
18
15
1.8181818
18 2.6895
1.8181818 2.7237
18
65
1.8181818 2.7237
18
65
1.8181818 2.6787
18
2
1.8181818 2.6673
18
35
1.8181818 2.6551
18
25
1.8181818 2.6479
18
2
1.8181818 2.6435
18
2

Table 1 - Best Mesh on 3 mm Thick Plate at Different

Thickn
ess
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Ang
le
0
21.
8
30.
96
38.
66
45
50.
19
54.
46
57.
99

Number Of
Elements

Equivalent
Stress

23275

2.8694

10

23293

2.9316

15

22812

2.968

20

22840

2.9379

25

22868

2.9184

30

22859

2.9061

35

22837

2.8926

40

23005

2.8853

Nominal
Stress
K
1.0909090 2.6302
91
83
1.0909090
91 2.6873
1.0909090 2.7206
91
67
1.0909090 2.6930
91
75
1.0909090
91 2.6752
1.0909090 2.6639
91
25
1.0909090 2.6515
91
5
1.0909090 2.6448
91
58

60.
95

45

22909

2.8806

1.0909090
91

2.6405
5

Table 2 - Best Mesh on 5 mm Thick Table at Different

Thickne
ss

Angl
e

22783

2.0463

21.8
30.9
6
38.6
6

10

22801

2.0905

15

22812

2.117

20

22840

2.0946

45
50.1
9
54.4
6
57.9
9
60.9
5

25

22868

2.0808

30

22859

2.0719

35

22837

2.0619

40

23005

2.0575

45

22909

2.0543

7
7
7
7
7
7
7

Number Of
Elements

Equivalent
Stress

Nominal
Stress
K
0.7792207 2.6260
79
85
0.7792207 2.6828
79
08
0.7792207 2.7168
79
17
0.7792207 2.6880
79
7
0.7792207 2.6703
79
6
0.7792207 2.6589
79
38
0.7792207 2.6461
79
05
0.7792207 2.6404
79
58
0.7792207 2.6363
79
52

Table 3 - Best Mesh on 7 mm Thick Plate at Different

REFERENCES
[1] Pikley, W. and Pikley D., Petersons Stress Concentration Factors
[2] Wang, B. (2013), ME3602 FEA Lecture Notes, Finite Element Analysis in
Engineering Design
[3] Cover Image Courtesy of Barair System Limited:
http://www.barair.co.uk/