×
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

S.C.F. discrepancies in FEA programs?

S.C.F. discrepancies in FEA programs?

S.C.F. discrepancies in FEA programs?

(OP)
Hello all,

Ok, what I’m doing is, calculating the stress concentration factor for a plate with a hole getting pulled uniaxially in the Cartesian 2-direction. I’m first of all calculating the theoretical, and then using my results from ABAQUS to calculate a stress concentration factor.

When I compared the 2 results, the S.C.F. calculated from ABAQUS was much higher at the edge of the hole. I know it’s something to do with ABAQUS calculating the stress at gauss points, and then extrapolating to get the value at the node. Can anyone point me in the right direction or give me an in-depth explanation to the exact reason of why the maximum stress is much higher at the edge of the hole in AQBAQUS than in reality?

Also, another thing I noticed is, when looking at the output .dat file of ABAQUS the  stresses at the edge of the hole in the Cartesian 1-direction were quite large! Should they not, theoretically, be zero? Also, shouldn’t my stresses (S11 and S22) at the node points, in the 1 and 2 directions be the exact same as my principal stresses (SP1 and SP2)? It’s also calculated shear stresses when it shouldn’t have. I’m a bit confused. I’m aware this is a fundamental flaw in the method FEA (program) uses and would be eternally grateful if anyone can point me to some website or give a clear explanation. Thank you!

RE: S.C.F. discrepancies in FEA programs?

There is no reason why you should not be able to get the SCF to match for a simple loading case and material.  Some questions:
What are the dimensions of the plate and hole?
How are you loading the plate?
What boundary conditions are used?
What element type are you using?
How many elements between the hole and edge of plate?
What is the material and what elastic properties are you using?
What is the theoretical SCF?
What is the SCF from the model?
How are you calculating the SCF from the model? i.e. what far field stress are you using?
Note that you will have to correct the theoretical SCF for finite plate width, as most SCF formula are for infinite width plats.

RE: S.C.F. discrepancies in FEA programs?

With a fine enough mesh and correct BC's , there WILL be an almost exact match between theory and FE. Gauss point stress extrapolation is a red herring, with a good quality mesh there will be little stress variation across any one element and errors from extrapolation will be infinitesimal.

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