A Presentation on Dissertation Entitled As

“Comparative Study Of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) And

Isogeometric Analysis (IGA)”

Guide: Presented By: Co-Guide:

Prof. Vishal B. Patel Siddharth Moteriya Prof. Vishal A. Arekar
Assist. Professor, (140080720006) Asst. Professor,
B.V.M. Engineering B.V.M. Engineering B.V.M. Engineering
College College College

PG Department of Structural Engineering,

Birla Vishwakarma Mahavidyala,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat.
 CONTENT:
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
SCOPE & OBJECTIVES
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
NUMERICAL STUDY
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
ISOGEOMETRIC ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
WORK PLAN
REFERENCES

2
INTRODUCTION

3
• There are mainly two fundamental steps in virtual manufacturing as

1. Computer Aided Design (CAD)

2. Finite Element Model (FEM)

CAD (1970’s - 1980’s) – Engineering Design Process:

• Engineering designs are encapsulated in CAD systems
• CAD geometry is exact
• Hundreds of thousands analyses of CAD designs are performed in engineering offices throughout the world
every day

FEM (1950’s - 1960’s) – Engineering Analysis Process[1]:

• CAD geometry is replaced by FEM geometry (“mesh”)
• Mesh generation accounts for more than 80% of overall analysis time and is the major bottleneck
• Mesh refinement requires interaction with CAD geometry
• The mesh is an approximate geometry
4
CRITICAL ISSUES
• To overcome this critical issues in FEA, an idea has been developed by Hughes et al. in 2005 that,

• In the analysis framework, it is employed the same function used to describe the geometry of
the computational domain i.e. typically use B-Splines and/or Non – Uniform Rational B-Splines
(NURBS).

• The key concept of IGA outlined by Hughes et al.[2] in 2005 is,

• To employ NURBS not only as a geometry discretization technology but also a

discretization tool for analysis.

5
• Working on this idea the design and analysis process becomes easy and better as,

 CAD geometry is exactly and efficiently represented

 simplified mesh refinement

 Improving the solution accuracy

 smooth basis functions with compact support

 superior approximation properties

 integration of design and analysis

6
LITERATURE REVIEW

7
 Nguyen Vinh Phu et al., presents
• Iso-geometric analysis (IGA) represents a recently developed technology in computational mechanics that offers
the possibility of integrating methods for analysis and Computer Aided Design (CAD) into a single, unified process.

• In this paper a self-contained MATLAB implementation applied to IGA applied analysis problems and the related
computer implementation aspects.

• Furthermore, implementation of the extended IGA which are applied for both two-dimensional and three-
dimensional bodies.

• The MATLAB code which accompanies the present paper can be applied to one, two and three-dimensional
problems for linear elasticity, linear elastic fracture mechanics, structural mechanics (beams/ plates/ shells
including large displacements and rotations).

“Iso-geometric analysis: An overview and computer implementation aspects”, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation [4]

8
 Simeon B. , Fubeder D. et al., presents
• A mathematical model has been developed for shape optimization problem under static equation constraints
where the discretization is done by the B-splines and/or Non Uniform Rational B-splines(NURBS).
• IGA has been used for solving the Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) and nodal approach to change domain
where control points takes the place of nodes.
• The optimization problem has been solved by a gradient descent method where shape gradient is defined in Iso-
geometric term.
• There are two techniques used for solving the shape optimization problem:
• (1). Optimize first and discretize later.
• (2). Discretize first and optimize later
• It has been concluded that optimize first and discretize later is more suitable technique than the other one since
they obtained same results.

“Fundamental aspects of shape optimization in the context of Iso-geometric Analysis(IGA)”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.-286(2015), pg.-313 to 331.
[5]

9
Falco C., et al., presents
•Its main objective is to provide a common framework for the implementation of the IGA methods for
discretization of PDEs which are based on B-splines and NURBS.
•The main feature of IGA is to maintain the same exact description of the computational domain geometry
throughout the analysis process including refinement.
•The design process using GeoPDEs is done in 3 steps as under:
(1). define the parameterization: the geometry structure
(2). Domain Partition: Mesh Structure
(3). the discrete space: The space structure
•GeoPDEs is also able to solve more complex structure as under:

GeoPDEs is able to solve the non-isoparametric elements where the solution space does not coincide with the
geometry space.

GeoPDEs is also able to solve liner elasticity, non-homogeneous boundary conditions and 3D Liner elasticity
example problems.
“GeoPDEs: A research tool for Iso-Geometric Analysis of Partial Differential Equations (PDEs)”, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol.-42(2011), pg. 1020-1034.[6]

10
Vuong A. V. et al., presents

•In this Paper it is enlightening that the main feature of IGA to use one common geometry representing

for creating CAD model, for meshing, for numerical solution, which makes a seamless integration of all

computational tool within a single design loop.

•This paper resents a tutorial of 2D MATLAB code for solving diffusion type problems on single patch

geometries.

•This ISOGAT code is used for the solving elliptic diffusion type problems including Poisson’s equation on

single patch geometries.

•ISOGAT code includes an example of L-shape, circular, square type elements. Knot Refinement

procedure in ISOGAT is h-refinement.

“ISOGAT: A 2D tutorial MATLAB code for Iso-geometric Analysis (IGA)”, Computer Aided Geometric Design, Vol-27(2011), pg. 644-655. [7]
11
Xinkang Li et al., presents
•IGA is based on the NURBS developed for static analysis of beam and plates using Third Order Shear
Deformation Theory (TSDT) with C1 continuity.
•NURBS based on IGA utilizes the concept of isoparametric which refers to the use of same basis functions for
both geometry and unknown field of discretization.
•To apply TSDT to plates five degree of freedoms u 0, v0, w0, фx, фy has been considered.
•In this paper some examples are and their results are discussed as under:
•(1). Beams Under a Uniform Pressure: from the result it has been concluded that IGA based on TSDT gets
more accurate results than FEA based on FSDT. FEA needs more nodes to represent the geometry than the
control points needed in IGA.
•(2). Beams at extreme thickness situation: from the result it has been concluded that NURBS element
modelled with lower order basis functions suffers from shear locking. As the order of basis function increases
the shear locking problem is reduced.
•(3). Square plate under a uniform pressure: From the results it has been concluded the shear locking
phenomenon is more obvious in clamped plates than simply supported beam and this problem is improved
by using the h-refinement technique.
“NURBS based IGA of Beams & Plates using Higher Order Sher Deformation Theory (HSDT)” Hindawi Publication, volume 2013.[8]
12
 Daniel Rypl, Patzak Borek, presents
• In Recent time the Iso-geometric analysis has been introduced as a viable alternative to the standard,
polynomial-based finite element analysis. Moreover, it has been shown that IGA is superior then the
classical finite element method in many aspects.
• The results shows that the amount of the modified and/or added code is rather limited (mostly related to
handling B-spline or NURBS based shape functions).
• On the other hand (FEA), the less transparent physical meaning of primary variables may complicate the
debugging of the code.
• The functionality of the implementation and the performance of the IGA code has been verified on a few
numerical examples.
• The results reveal that the IGA is a viable methodology which can be profitable for the whole engineering
community.

“From the finite element analysis to the Isogeometric analysis in an object oriented computing environment”, Advances in Engineering Software,vol.44 (2012), pg. 116-125. [9]
13
 Summary Of Literature:

From the above literature survey the main summary of the literature is listed as under:

• An Isogeometric analysis is a new emerging technology in analysis field which is faster in meshing in
curved surface. Hence, the time required to get solution is very less as compared to other analytical
methods. From the literature it has been noted that most of the work has been done on two dimensional
bodies like plates sections like circular, square, etc. Using the Isogeometric Analysis tool like GeoPDEs,
ISOGATE and IGAFEM the analysis procedure become more speedy and easy.

14
SCOPE & OBJECTIVES

15
 Scope of the work is

To study behaviour of structural curvilinear element with Isogeometric analysis using various IGA tools
using NURBS or B-Spline Functions.

 The main objective of the study are

• To study FEA for curvilinear element by mesh refinement technique to achieve optimal results using
ANSYS and ABAQUS.

• To study Isogeometric Analysis (IGA) as an emerging method which may prove to be efficient method of
analysis for curvilinear elements (with NURBS function) using IGA tool.

• To validate results obtained from FEA & IGA tool with theoretical results.

• To compare the results of curvilinear element obtained from FEA & IGA tool with theoretical results.

16
 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

17
 B-splines: a pre-analysis tool

• Knot vectors:

A knot vector in one dimension is a non-decreasing set of coordinates in the parameter space, written =
{ξ1, ξ2, . . . , ξn+p+1}.

where, ξi ∈ R is the ith knot,

i is the knot index, i = 1, 2, . . . , n + p + 1,

p is the polynomial order, and

n is the number of basis functions used to construct the B-spline curve.

• Knot vectors may be uniform if the knots are equally spaced in the parameter space.

• Knot vector may be non-uniform if they are unequally spaced in the parameter space.

• A knot vector is said to be open if its first and last knot values appear p + 1 times.
18
•  B-Spline Basis functions:

• With a knot vector in hand, the B-spline basis functions are defined recursively starting with
piecewise constants (p = 0) :

For polynomial order p=1,2,3,…… they are defined by,

This formula is referred as Cox-de-Boor Formula.

19
B-spline Basis Function B-spline Basis B-spline Basis
for p=0 Function for p=1 Function for p=2

20
• Let
  Quadratic basis functions for the non-uniform knot vector

Properties of B-splines:
• First and last element of the knot vector is repeated p+1 times in knot vector.
• The regularity can be controlled by changing the knots multiplicity.
• The function Bi,p is supported in the interval [ξi , ξi +p+1].
• They are non-negative and form a partition of unity.

21
•  B-Spline Curves:


• B-Spline curves are defined by the coefficients of the basis functions, the control points P i.

Where, = Basis Function

= Control Points

• B-Spline Curve has following properties:

I. A B-Spline curve of degree p has p-1 continuous derivatives in the absence of repeated knots.

II. Higher degree curve is flatter and smoother than the lower degree curve.

III. Repeating a knot or control point k times, reduces the number of continuous derivatives by k.

IV. Non-negativity of the basis follows to the convex hull property, if ∈ then C () lies within the convex hull
of the control points Pi-p,…,Pi.
22
• 
B-Spline Surfaces:
• The B-Spline surface is defined by a control net Pij, i=1,2,…,n, j=1,2,…,m and the knot vectors ,

B-Spline Solids:

• The B-Spline surface is defined by a control net Pi,j,k, i=1,2,…,n, j=1,2,…,m, k=1,2,…,l and knot vectors , , .

23
Refinement:
• The B-Spline basis can be enriched by three types of refinement of which two have an analogue in
standard FEM bases.

• The first two are equivalent to h- and p-refinement respectively, the last one is dubbed k-refinement and
has no equivalent in standard FEM.

• These are,

I. knot insertion: h-refinement

II. Degree elevation: p-refinement

III. Degree and continuity elevation: k-refinement

24
•I.   Knot insertion: h-refinement
• Knot intersection or h-refinement in classical FEM improves the basis by increasing the resolution of the
parameter space.

• Given a knot vector,, and introducing an extended knot vector , such that .

• The new n + m basis functions are formed by B-Spline Basis functions applying to .

• The new n + m control points, P = {P1, P2,…, Pn+m}T are formed from linear combinations of the original
control points, P={P1, P2,…, Pn}T by

25
II. Degree elevation: p-refinement
• Degree elevation is the second method of enriching the basis functions.

• This procedure starts by effectively subdividing the curve into Bezier elements by knot insertion to raise
the multiplicity to the polynomial degree.

• Then the order of the polynomial is raised on each individual segment. Finally excess knots are removed
to create the new B-spline.

• The basis has p − k continuous derivatives, so increasing p also implies increasing k. This ensures that the
basis keeps its original continuity.

• P-refinement does not change the geometry of the B-Spline.

26
•III.
  Degree and continuity elevation: k-refinement
• A potentially more powerful type of refinement which is unique to the B-Spline basis is k refinement.

• Inserting a unique knot value between two distinct knots in a degree p curve lowers the number of
continuous derivatives at to p-1. Elevating the degree to q, using the process of p-refinement, increases
the multiplicity of each knot so that discontinuities in the pth derivative of the basis are preserved.

• The above process can be turned around by first elevating the curve degree to q and then inserting the
unique knot . Now the basis has q-1 continuous derivatives at . This process is called k-refinement.

27
 NURBS : A pre-analysis tool
••  The main issue to go from B-splines to NURBS is the fact that a wide range of geometrical objects can
be exactly represented with NURBS.

• A NURBS is constructed by a projective transformation of a B-spline. Technically this is achieved by

introducing weights at the control points that allows more control over the actual shape of the NURBS.

• The NURBS basis functions are computed by multiplying the B-spline basis functions with the
appropriate weights and dividing the product by the weighting function W ().

Where, = the set of B-spline basis functions of order p,

= the set of NURBS weights

28
Benefits of NURBS:
• The smoothness of NURBS basis functions allows for straight forward analysis of plate or shell
elements.

• NURBS basis function are capable to solve the higher order Partial Differential Equations (PDEs).

• Represent exactly a wide class of curves as, e.g., conic sections.

29
NURBS Curves:
• Similarly to B-Spline Curve, The NURBS Curve defined as,

NURBS surfaces and solids:

• Similarly to B-Spline surface and Solids,

30
NUMERICAL STUDY

31
Validation Problem & Result:

PROBLEM- I: A cantilever beam having span 10ft with uniformly distributed load 1000 lb/ft is
analysed to get the value of deflection using ANSYS 15 and the same problem is also analysed for
deflection manually. And value of deflection for both analysis is compared.

• DATA: Beam: W18x35,A= 10.3 in2,L= 10 ft, I= 510 in4,W= 1000 lb/ft, E= 29x106lb/in2

32
RESULT:

Total deflection according to Total deflection according to

Book 0.148 in STAAD Pro. 0.156 in

ANSYS 0.156 in ANSYS 0.156 in

Difference 5.12% Difference 0%

33
PROBLEM-2: A beam of rectangular cross section with 100 mm width and 250 mm depth is
subjected to uniform pressure of 10 N/mm2. The beam is curved to a radius of 400 mm along the
centroidal axis and bending moment increases the curvature. Find out the stresses in curved beam.

• Solution:

• To solve this problem in software Steel material is used with following property:

Modulus of Elasticity, E= 2X105 N/mm2

Poisson’s Ratio= 0.3

• This Problem is solved using ABAQUS 6.14-1 and ANSYS 15.0 FEM tools. And the results are as under:

34
 (A). Equivalent Stresses:
ABAQUS 6.14 87.11
ANSYS 15.0 90.539
Error (%) 3.78 %
   
(B). Maximum Principal Stress:
ABAQUS 6.14 110.1
ANSYS 15.0 114.68
Error (%) 3.993 %
   
(C). Minimum Principal Stress:
ABAQUS 6.14 87.57
ANSYS 15.0 90.641
Error (%) 3.388 %
   
(D). Directional Deformation (Y-AXIS):
ABAQUS 6.14 0.0084
ANSYS 15.0 0.0084923
Error (%) 1.086 %
35
Problem Formulation:
• Isogeometric Analysis gets effective in curvilinear element where meshing is complex problem. We are
currently take a two types of problems as under:

1. Hook (4 Models of Hook with different cross-sections and same area)

2. Beam Curved in Plan (2 Models – Quarter Circle And Semi Circular Models)

• First of all we are doing Finite Element Analysis of these models and their results are compared with Iso-
geometric Analysis results.

36
 Model Information of Hook
Model-1 Model-2
Model-3 Model-4
  (Circular) (Rectangular)
(Rectangular) (Trapezoidal)
   

Cross Section

Material Steel Steel Steel Steel

C/S Area 1256.63 mm2 1256.63 mm2 1256.63 mm2 1256.63 mm2

Radius 20 mm - - -

15 mm , 35 mm
Side Width - 25×50.24 mm 50.24×25 mm
50.24 mm height
Maximum Principal
21500 N 26500 N 32250 N 41000 N
Load

Nodes 293 372 480 375

Element 972 1248 1713 1195

4 Noded Linear 4 Noded Linear 4 Noded Linear 4 Noded Linear

Element Type
Tetrahedron Tetrahedron Tetrahedron Tetrahedron
37
 Data for Beam Curved in Plan

  Model-1 Model-2

Type Quarter Circlular Beam Semi Circular Beam

Cross Section

C/S Size 230 X 300 mm 230 X 300 mm

Centroidal Radius 4000 mm 4000 mm

Applied Failure Pressure 0.901 N/mm2 0.192 N/mm2

Nodes 621 344

Elements 64 28

Element Types 20 Noded hexahedron 20 Noded hexahedron

38
 FINITE
ELEMENT
ANALYSIS
• FEA Result of Hook Model-1:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 40

• FEA Result of Hook Model-2:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 41

• FEA Result of Hook Model-3:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 42

• FEA Result of Hook Model-4:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 43

 Comparison of Hook Model Result

  Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

Equivalent Stress
213.39 193.5 206.5 213.4
(N/mm2)

Maximum Principal
246.7 245.3 246.7 246.4
Stress (N/mm2)

Minimum Principal
195.8 163.8 131.2 173.2
Stress (N/mm2)

Total Deformation
0.62 0.6938 0.3258 0.3779
(mm)

44
• FEA Result of Curved Beam Model-1:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 45

• FEA Result of Curved Beam Model-2:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 46

 Comparison of Curved Beam Result

  Model-1 Model-2

Equivalent 213.1 216.1

Stress N/mm2 N/mm2

Maximum 243.8 248.00

Principal Stress N/mm2 N/mm2

Minimum 243.6 248.1

Principal Stress N/mm2 N/mm2

Total 10.53 45.86

Deformation mm mm

47
Isogeometric Analysis

48
Steps of IGA Using NURBS in ABAQUS 6.14:
Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS) plugins should be installed in Abaqus 6.14 for performing an Iso-
Geometric Analysis. General Steps are described here to perform an IGA as under:

• Step-1: Open Abaqus 6.14 and start with Standard/Explicit Model.

• Step-2: Set the Abaqus working Directory for saving all the files in one folder as C:\AbaqusWorking
Directory\REPORT STEP PROBLEM and click ok button.

• Step-3: Import the model geometry in “.igs” or “.stp” format.

• Step-4: Give the material property by clicking on models--property and define Section.

• Step-5: Create assembly and select the part and click on “ok”.

• Step-6: Create step for analysis as you want and click on “continue”.
49
• Step-5: Create assembly and select the part and click on “ok”.

• Step-6: Create step for analysis as you want and click on “continue”.

• Step-7: Give the loading condition and boundary “conditions”.

• Step-8: Create meshed part and set the element types.

• Step-9: Create Job for analysis and submit the job from job manager and get the FEM results. After job
status has shown as completed click on result and get the analysis results.

• Step-10: After FEM results are getting, The Iso-geometric analysis step has been started using NURBS
Plugins. For this process click on Plugins – NURBS – Analysis. Enter the path for input file (.inp) and
mathematical notebook file (.NB) file from your set abaqus working directory and click on submit and
generate “.fil” file .

50
• Step-11: Do NURBS Post Processing using above step generated .fil file and .NB file and submit the
process and generate Output Data Base File (.odb). Enter the path for “.fil”file and mathematical
notebook file (.NB) file from your set abaqus working directory and click on conform and generate “.odb”
file.

• Step-12: Open “.odb” file generated from above step in Abaqus 6.14 Viewer to get final Iso-Geometric
Analysis Results.

51
• IGA Result of Hook Model-1:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 52

• IGA Result of Hook Model-2:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 53

• IGA Result of Hook Model-3:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation 54

• IGA Result of Hook Model-4:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Minimum Principal Stress 55

Total Deformation
Comparison of Hook Results:

 
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4
 
Equivalent
197.3 183.8 192.2 210.9
Stress (N/mm ) 2

Maximum
Principal Stress 242.7 240.1 241.0 243.9
(N/mm2)
Minimum
Principal 187.5 158.9 122.6 166.8
Stress (N/mm2)
Total
Deformation 0.580 0.6844 0.3182 0.3603
(mm)

56
Comparison of FEA and IGA for Hook Models
• The variation in FEA and IGA results are listed in following table:
 
Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4
 
Equivalent
7.50 5.012 6.92 1.171
Stress (%)
Maximum
Principal 1.62 2.119 2.31 1.01
Stress (%)
Minimum
Principal 4.23 2.997 6.98 3.695
Stress (%)
Total
Deformation 6.45 1.354 2.33 4.65
(%)

57
IGA Result of Curved Beam Model-1:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

Total Deformation 58
Minimum Principal Stress
IGA Result of Curved Beam Model-2:

Equivalent Stress Maximum Principal Stress

59
Minimum Principal Stress Total Deformation
Comparison of Curved Beam Results:

 
Model-1 Model-2
 
Equivalent Stress
203.5 204.5
(N/mm2)
Maximum Principal
Stress 235.7 236.7
(N/mm2)
Minimum Principal
Stress 235.6 236.7
(N/mm2)
Total Deformation
9.938 43.07
(mm)

60
Comparison of FEA and IGA for Curved Beam Models

 
Model-1 Model-2
 
Equivalent
4.50 5.36
Stress (%)
Maximum
Principal Stress 3.32 4.556
(%)
Minimum
3.28 4.594
Principal Stress (%)
Total
Deformation (%) 5.62 6.08
 

61
Summary of Findings

62
• In this study, the behaviour of hook with their different cross section models and beam curved in plan
has been studied and comparative result between FEA and IGA has been presented. From the result it
has been concluded that the IGA gives less value for stress and deformation than the FEA rather
keeping same loading condition.

Comparative result for Hook models are as under:

 For Circular Cross Section of hook models, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-Mises), Maximum
Principal Stress, Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 7.50%, 1.62%, 4.23%, 6.45%
respectively less than FEA values for same loads.

 For Rectangular Cross Section (Width is blend) of hook models, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-
Mises), Maximum Principal Stress, Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 5.012%,
2.119%, 2.997%, 1.354% respectively less than FEA values for same loads.

63
 For Rectangular Cross Section (Depth is blend) of hook models, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-
Mises), Maximum Principal Stress, Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 6.92%,
2.31%, 6.98%, 2.33% respectively less than FEA values for same loads.

 For Trapezoidal Cross Section of hook models, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-Mises),
Maximum Principal Stress, Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 1.171%, 1.01%,
3.695%, 4.65% respectively less than FEA values for same loads.

Comparative results for beam curved in plan are as under:

 For Quarter Circle Curve Beam, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-Mises), Maximum Principal
Stress, Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 4.50%, 3.32%, 3.28%, 5.62%
respectively less than FEA values for same loads.

64
• For Semi Circular Curve Beam, IGA values for Equivalent Stress (Von-Mises), Maximum Principal Stress,
Minimum Principal Stress and Total Deformation gives 5.36%, 4.50%, 4.59%, 6.08% respectively less
than FEA values for same loads.

• As shown in advantage of IGA, IGA improves the solution accuracy and directly integrate with CAD
model. From this conclusion it has been satisfied over number of curvilinear models.

65
Modification on DP-1 Comments:
• Following comments are given by External Examiners in DP-1 which is done and mentioned below:

Sr. No. Comments Given by External Examiners in Dp-1 Modification on Comment

1. Basic theory, basic literature, more study is required. General idea about the topic is covered.
2. Scope & Objective more clearly defined. Earlier I want to do work with ANSYS for
FEA and IGAFEM, GEOPDEs for IGA. In
DP-1 examiner suggest me to do work on
only one software. And I select the
ABAQUS 6.14 integrated with NURBS
function.
3. Detailed description is required. Where needed I explained it in detail.
4. Type of Element should be define properly. Where needed I mentioned which type
of element is used in Analysis process.

66
WORK PLAN

67
Sr. DISCRIPTION MONTH STATUS
No.

1 Literature Review JULY-2015 Completed

2 Area Specific study of literature & Objective Decided AUGUST-2015 Completed
3 Learning ANSYS workbench tool & Creo Modelling Tool & Rhinoceros Tool SEPT.-OCTOBER 2015 Completed
4 Validate problem in ANSYS & ABAQUS for selected model and compare with NOVEMBER-2015 Completed
theoretical results
5 Study the mesh refinement technique in ABAQUS and Finding Optimal solution DECEMBER-2015 Completed

6 Implement FEA technique on selected model in ABAQUS tool. JANUARY-2016 Completed

7 Implement IGA technique on selected model in ABAQUS software using B-splines FEBRUARY-2016 Completed
OR NURBS function.

8 Comparison of FEA & IGA results with theoretical results MARCH-2016 Completed

9 Final observation, Compilation of Results and Conclusion APRIL-2016 Pending

10 Final thesis writing and PPT Presentation APRIL & MAY-2016 Pending

68
References

69
• S. S. Bhavikatti, “Finite Element Analysis”, New Age International Publisher.[1]
• J. A. Cottrell, T. J. R. Hughes, Y. Bazilevs, “Iso-geometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA”, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [2]
• T.J.R. Hughes, J.A. Cottrell, Y. Bazilevs, “Isogeometric analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geometry and mesh refinement”, Computer
Methods Applied Mechanics, Vol. 194 (2005), pg. 4135–4195[3]
• Vinh Phu Nguyena, Cosmin Anitescu et al., “Iso-geometric analysis: An overview and computer implementation aspects”, Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation [4],.

• Fubeder D., Simeon B. et al., “Fundamental aspects of shape optimization in the context of Iso-geometric Analysis(IGA)”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.-286(2015), pg.-313 to 331. [5]

• Falco C., et al., “GeoPDEs: A research tool for Iso-Geometric Analysis of Partial Differential Equations (PDEs)”, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol.-
42(2011), pg. 1020-1034.[6]
• Vuong A. V. et al., “ISOGAT: A 2D tutorial MATLAB code for Iso-geometric Analysis (IGA)”, Computer Aided Geometric Design, Vol-27(2011), pg. 644-
655.[7]
• Xinkang Li et al., “NURBS based IGA of Beams & Plates using Higher Order Sher Deformation Theory (HSDT)” Hindawi Publication, volume 2013. [8]
• Daniel Rypl, Patzak Borek, “From the finite element analysis to the Iso-geometric analysis in an object oriented computing environment”, Advances in
Engineering Software,vol.44 (2012), pg. 116-125.[9]
• Dennis Ernens, “Finite Element Methods with exact geometry representation including IsoGeometric Analysis, NURBS Enhanced Finite Element
Method and Aniso Geometric Analysis” Delft University of Technology.[10]

70
71