×
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

Stress Propotionality
4

Stress Propotionality

Stress Propotionality

(OP)
I checking some FEM output and came across an elementary question since being out of school for such a while. In a linear elastic model, is there any time when stress is NOT proportional to external loading due to geometry, loading distribution, etc?

The person running the program needed to change all of the external loads by the same factor, and he wanted to open it up, change them, and re-run them all over again. I told him just to multiply the critical internal forces, stresses and displacements (from the original run) by the same factor so as not to waste time. He didn't agree and thus I am here. I tried to explain that it would be no different than noticing (WL^2)/8 is proportional to normal stresses in simple beam theory.  

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

It depends. If your FEA solver computed Von Mises stresses, you cannot simply multiply the Von Mises stress by some factor because the Von Mises stress equation is not linear at all. If you recall, the Von Mises stres equation is composed of square roots, squares, and differences between stresses.

If your solver computed purely bending moments, ie My/I, I think you can get away with it. Just be careful I guess.

The linear elastic model is reserved for behaviors that are modeled by linear differential equations. Such models have deflections and slopes proportional to applied loads. In such cases you can apply the Method of Superposition, but doesn't necessarily you can apply to stresses.

RE: Stress Propotionality

(OP)
Zero - Yeah, that is pretty much what I was thinking. Thanks for the affirmation, sir.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

Of course the stress is proportional to the load in a linear elastic model and so is the Von Mises stress intensity. Simple maths will tell you that. The only time it won't be proportional is when you have non-linearity from large displacement or from contact.

 

RE: Stress Propotionality

2
(OP)
Corus,

Would you like to explain better why those square roots and other operators/functions do not change the proportionality between external loading and maximum stresses?

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

Have to agree with Corus, and it is pretty simple math.

Given a body of linearly elastic, isotropic material, and a set of loads which can be characterized as proportional to some load factor, P.

A fundamental for linear elasticity (*) is that the components of the stress tensor vary linearly with the load vector, i.e. the principal stresses at any point in the body will vary linearly with P, i.e.

s1 = k1P
s2 = k2P
s3 = k3P

Von Mises' equation is

svm = sqrt[(k1P - k2P)^2 + (k2P-k3P)^2 + (k3P - k1P)2]

note we can factor out the P, giving

svm = P sqrt[(diff's of the k terms)]

Therefore von Mises stress magnitude is proportional to the load.

(*) I think it is, but couldn't find a reference.  Others have made this statement above...if not a fundamental, then let's just make it an assumption for the discussion above, the math still holds.

RE: Stress Propotionality

(OP)
I agree that that particular expression is correct and proportional. You must remember that not all engineers work with these combinations, but my original assumption was correct. Building codes, and typical steel, timber and concrete specs/codes do not speak much if at all about


"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

is your model truly linear ?  no gap elements ?

assuming not, then the model is linear (which you can now verify looking at the rerun analysis).  assuming not, i'd've done as your 1st thought, and factored the initial run.

 

RE: Stress Propotionality

(OP)
rb1957, there are gap elements, in fact a lot of them. They are acting as shear studs connecting plates (concrete deck) to beam elements (Longitudinal bridge girders.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

then the gaps will non-linearise the results ... which you can now check

RE: Stress Propotionality

(OP)
I did, and it wasn't.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

gap elements in linear analysis become linear spring elements in some codes. What solver and solution was used?

Corus is correct if it is a true linear static analysis the ouput it proportional to input that is the whole premise of linear analysis.

there is such a thing as non linear elastic which includes geometric effects (gaps, stress stiffening, PD effects etc) but not linear material properties.

 

RE: Stress Propotionality

Am surprised that the composite bridge girder model you describe has any significant nonlinearity. I would stay with your initial instinct and check carefully there are no other problems with your model. I don't know what program you are using but are the "gap" elements intended to be rigid links or linear or nonlinear springs etc.

RE: Stress Propotionality

i think gap elements/contact issues create the potential to non-linearise a linear model.  the OP has the results in hand to see if there is a significant difference.  and don't beat up corus 'cause he answered zero's post.  zero is still in the wrong (as shown vM is linear if the model is truly linear), and so corus is right it critique zero's post.

RE: Stress Propotionality

(OP)
Crisb, they are intended to perform as rigid links for composite action. The re-run vs. multiplying stresses by a factor was off by about 5%. I didn't create the model; I will have to check the geometry, etc..

rb, I will check it out some more to see where the difference originated. I agree zero is incorrect solely based on the square roots, etc. argument. However, my problem is that he attacked zero instead of kindly adjusting his mistake. The tone of this forum should covey respect, correct? I will leave it at that. Thanks for your help, gents.

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: Stress Propotionality

If they are rigid links the model and results should be linear and proportional. The only explanation I can think of for the difference is if some of the loads have not been scaled up the same e.g. self weight loads or the composite action has been modelled as a staged construction with slab added later.

RE: Stress Propotionality

"However, my problem is that he attacked zero instead of kindly adjusting his mistake."

I repectfully disagree, the attack was prefaced with "no offence intended", and conveyed the tone that Zero should check his math, because he made a bonehead error.  We all do it sometimes, no offense is intended.  
 

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