×
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 vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

Comparing FEA vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

Comparing FEA vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

(OP)
Hi, I'm running some FEA models of long bones in Abaqus.

I've extracted the cross-sectional properties at midshaft, and I've calculated what the predicted bending stress would be according to Euler beam theory applying the same bending load as FEA.

When I extract stress values at midshaft from my FEA models, I get values ~20% higher for von mises, and ~30% for max. principal than predicted by beam theory.

I understand that Euler Bernoulli ignores the effects of shear, which could be quite significant, as these bones have a fairly low l/d.

My question is: is it typical for Von Mises stress to be lower than Max. Principal stress?

And wouldn't we predict Max. Principal Stress to be closer to the values predicted by beam theory than Von Mises?

Appreciate the help
Cbrassey
 

RE: Comparing FEA vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

When you say "mid-shaft" due you mean the stress at the middle of the cross section?  Or, do you mean the stress at the mid span of the 'beam'?  

One important thing to realize is that shear deformation will likely be low due to your l/d ratio.  However, the shear stress may still be significant.... especially if this beam / bone is experiencing some torsional loading.

Lastly, the FEM model could be showing you some "warping" of the cross section that simple beam theory would not show.     

RE: Comparing FEA vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

(OP)
Sorry, by mid-shaft I mean 'at 50% of the length of the beam'

Yes, I would expect there to be significant shearing. I'm not surprised the FEA values are higher than the simple beam predictions. I'm just unsure why von mises stress is closer to the predictions than max. principal stress.

Cheers

RE: Comparing FEA vs beam theory in bones: von mises vs. max. principal

Different failure criteria are used for different failure modes.  In particular, Von Mises is very good when you are looking at yield stress as your failure mechanism. It's directionless, so it doesn't tell you much about how it fails other than some form of material yielding.  I would think that if you combined the shear stresses from simple beam theory with the flexural stresses from simple beam theory then you would get fairly close to the Von Mises value given by your FEM analysis.

Also, if you're trying to validate your model I wouldn't look at just a single point.  Instead, I'd look at the variation of stress along the length of the member.  If your maximum and minimum values occur at the right locations, then that may validate the general model behavior even if in some locations your hand calculations are off by as much as 20%....  Remember FEM does tend to show localized stress risers that may be unrealistic or which are usually ignored for hand calcs.  

 

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