×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Comparing FEA results to experimental results

Comparing FEA results to experimental results

Comparing FEA results to experimental results

(OP)
I am posting these thoughts and questions in regard to Von Mises failure criteria and comparing it to experimetnal results.  I am curious as to how everyone verifies models against experimental data.  

With respect to Von Mises(VM)stress criteria the books define failure as a stress above the yield strength(YS).  By "failure" do they mean physically breaking the part in two, or yielding and the onset of plastic deformation?  I presume the second.

Should a load that produces a failure according to a VM failure criteria stress in a FEA actually break or create excessive deformation in experimetnal tests, and if so does it occur at the first sign of Von Mises stresses above yield strength, or when the entire cross section has has reached a VM stress exceeding yield strength, or somewhere in between?  Is the only relationship between experimental ultimate failure(fracture or excessive deformation) and VM stresses one that is created by a specific model with unique geometry, loads, and constraints.  

Thanks in Advance

EngForm78
  

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

1) Yes, it yields and generate plastic deformation. Not break.

2) It is considered failed with the most dangerous point passes the yield limit. Not the entire cross section.

3) The failure model is conservative. Most part designed by VM<yield strength will be over weighted. That is why and aerospace industry, they need nonlinear analysis.  

4) I doubt that you can confirm the VM failure criteria experimental tests. It is too difficult to measure the stress and strain around the yield point.

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

(OP)
Eric

Could you please explain the second part of 3) "That is why and aerospace industry, they need nonlinear analysis."  

Thanks

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

Von Mises stress IS NOT A FAILURE CRITERIA. It's a representation of a compound stress state environment. The failure is a matter of judgement: does my object retain it's functionality at a given stress state? For example, in automotive industry the yield stress represents a failure criteria and we use von Mises stress to see if we reach it or not. In nuclear engineering the fuel elements undergo plastic deformation and this is a normal behaviour. One of failure criteria is in this case 5% plastic deformation of the sheath. And so on ...

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

Look at the degree of plastic deformation in a clamped plate (for instance the hull plates of a ship). You; ll calculate stress way in excess of allowable, yet, only deformation plastic deformation occurs.

The best method to evaluate FEA results is by applying strain gauges, and compare the results with calculated results.

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

rob 768
How are strain gauge results correlate to FEA plastic analysis results, because once the metal yields then the strain rate is different from preyield strain rate?
thank you

good57morning@netzero.com

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

EngForm78;

What's your material? If you're talking plastics, fine, but if you're talking elastomers, 'yield' is a word I'd try to avoid at all cost!

On top of that, what state of strain are we talking about here? If we're talking about a uniaxial 'simple' tension state, failure should, in fact, mean breaking of the sample, since it can be measured (though, in plastics this is messy due to localized straining after the yield, but in rubbers this is very valid!). In other states of strain, however, the definition of 'failure' is much more difficult.

How do you define 'failure' in a uniaxial 'simple' compression experiment, for example? Is it when the specimen starts to crack or crumble? What if it doesn't do that, is it simply when your test frame and/or load cell run out of force / range? Same thing goes in many other strain states; I wouldn't know how to describe 'failure' in a shear test, and I wouldn't know how to measure it in an equal biaxial extension test.

Only suggestion I can think of is that you try to model the test you obtained the experimental data from. Of course, the data needs to be good (e.g. strain measured on the specimen, rather than crosshead position of the actuator), and of course, this takes some time. But, I think you'll gain a much deeper understanding of what 'failure' can mean and does in your case.

Best,

Ron

RE: Comparing FEA results to experimental results

Feadude,

of course, the evaluation is valid until yielding of the steel occurs. However, the combination strain gauges and FEA at sub-maximum load levels may be sufficient to evaluate the situatiuon at full load, and predict when failure, or at least plastic deformation, occurs.

 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources