Behind the Pretty Pictures - Engineers Australia · PDF file• Structural Components...

10-Sep-05

How to get the most from your Finite Element Analysis contractors

Behind the Pretty Pictures:

John Davidson – WorleyParsons Services Ltd: Pressure Equipment Group

24/07/20082 FEA presentation.ppt

Introduction

Aims of this presentation:

• To give a general awareness of finite element analysis (FEA) and its common applications

• Highlight key issues and potential problems in the methods used

• What should be involved in the validation of FEA work?

• What should a good FEA report contain?

• How do you get the most value out of your FEA contractors?


Introduction

My FEA background:

• Pressure equipment (vessels, piping)

• Structural Components (offshore platform connections, lifting equipment, BussletonUnderwater Observatory)

• Mechanical and thermal, linear and non-linear, static and transient analyses

• Use of ANSYS, Caesar II, FEPipe, SACS, USFOS, ABAQUS

• On-the-job training with some supplementary external courses.


Introduction – The Finite Element Method

Developed in the early 1940’s by Richard Courant and Alexander Hrennikoff to solve complex elastic structural analysis problems.

They are numerical techniques used for finding approximate solutions of partial differential equations.

Development progressed in the middle to late 1950s for airframe and structural analysis through the work of John Argyris and Ray W. Clough in the 1960s for use in civil engineering.

By late 1950s, the key concepts of stiffness matrix and element assembly existed essentially in the form used today, and NASA issued request for proposals for the development of the first finite element software NASTRAN in 1965.


Introduction – Common FEA Today

Structural and thermal problems are the most common use of FEA today:• Structural analysis calculates the mesh’s node displacements•Displacement components interpolated across elements to calculate a displacement field in the model.•Displacement fields are differentiated to find strains.•Stresses calculated based on strains and material elasticity.•Thermal analysis is similar: an interpolated temperature field is differentiated to find a temperature gradient. Heat flux is calculated based on gradient and material conductivity.


Introduction – Some key issues

• Significant increase in software accessibility and hardware power has lead to a surge in the amount of FEA undertaken.• Increasing costs of materials is raising the importance of design efficiency –FEA offers potential to improve and iterate design for comparatively low cost.• FEA being introduced in university courses – is there a danger of being too software focussed?•Misconception of FEA as an engineering panacea; the new primary design tool.• The pretty pictures are very useful for mollifying upper management

‘The “perform-FEA” syndrome often stems from bureaucratic misunderstanding rather than engineering need for results’

Paul Kurowski – President ACOM Consulting, USA


Who should be running your FEA?

FEA is an engineering tool and running the analysis is a specific skill:• Training is required and the opportunity to practice extensively.• “Garbage in = garbage out” – the black box dilemma• Some foundation in the theory behind the method as well as sound engineering judgment in materials and load conditions is needed as a minimum.• Some software providers are pushing the integration of FEA with CAD –encouraging the use of designers/draftspeople as FEA operators. This is a potentially dangerous philosophy. Functions such as “Automeshing” still require an experienced eye to confirm suitability.• An FE analyst needs to decide which features need modelling, how to apply loads and boundary conditions, what errors are acceptable, and how the results are interpreted against the relevant codes.



Use of recent graduates as FEA operators: • Computer-savvy, but lack meaningful experience in the fundamentals of good engineering design.

Understanding the FE method is more important than specific software commands, which are easily learned.

• “Unwillingness to ask too many questions, graduates may withdraw into isolated world of simulation. This is of no benefit to their growth as a good engineer or to the company employing them.”• A person eager to use newly acquired skills and lacking a good grasp of FEA is probably the most dangerous user.



NAFEMS (National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards ) has released a quality supplement to ISO 9001 titled R0013 – “Finite element analysis in the design and validation of engineering products”

Includes recommendations for the level of experience required to complete certain levels of FEA:

Analysis Category Engineering experience

Finite-element experience after formal training

Relevant FEA jobs performed

1. Vital 5 years 6 months

2 X category 1 under supervisory or 5 X category 2 properly assessed

2. Important 2 years 2 months

1 X category 1 or 2 under supervision or 3 X category 3 properly assessed

3. Advisory 1 year 1 month Relevant benchmarks


Codes and Standards – Which to Use?

Pressure Vessels Previously ASME VIII, Division 2 and AS1210-Supplement 1:1990. • Almost identical in their guidance for numerical analysis• Biased towards linear elastic analysis (written before the FEA software boom) – the “hopper diagram”• Although simple to analyse, interpretation of stresses requiresexperience and good knowledge of differences between primary andsecondary, general and local stresses.• Stress intensity (Max shear stress / Tresca stress theory) compared against multiples of the material design strength. Max shear stress theory usually more conservative and simpler to calculate.


Codes and Standards – The ‘Hopper’ Diagram



Pressure Vessels

ASME VIII Div 2 rewritten in 2007• Very prescriptive section on design-by-analysis (Ch 5)• Focussed on protection against:

- Plastic collapse - Buckling- Local failure - Failure under cyclical loading

•Specifies methodology for linear (elastic) and non-linear (plastic) analyses –now uses Von Mises stress rather than stress intensity.AS1210 to be revised later in 2008 (?)• Some improved guidance on FEA • New ASME VIII Div 2 methods may be included in later amendments

Pressure Piping

AS4041 currently directs users to AS1210 for complex geometries.



Structural Components

Far fewer codes available that give guidance on FEA use.

Some European standards (eg BS 7608, DNV-RP-C203) specify methods for extracting suitable stresses from FEA for fatigue assessment.

Some analysts use AS3990 (or similar) based on comparing average stress through sections against a proportion of material yield strength.

Clients and analysts must consider what form the loads are given in:

- Working Stress design

- Limit State design



Determination of stress at FE model singularities for strength and fatigue purposes (DNV-RP-C203)


Material Design Strength

Determination of material design strength is one of the key issues in correctly interpreting FEA results (particularly for pressure equipment).

Some variation in design strength between AS1210, ASME VIII and ASME B31.3 etc – remember the fundamental intent behind them!

AS1210 – ‘f’ is typically lesser of Yield/1.5 and UTS/3.5 (amended from UTS/4 except for flanges).

•Local membrane stresses limited to 1.5*f (Max = 1* yield strength)

•Local primary + secondary stresses limited to 3*f (Max = 2* yield strength).

Care must be taken with standards using different calculations for ‘f’, eg: AS4041 Class 2P (f =0.72*Yield), AS2885 (f = 0.8*Yield)


Material Design Strength

“Sps , is computed as the larger of thequantities shown below.1) Three times the average of the S values for the material at the highest and lowesttemperatures during the operational cycle.2) Two times the average of the Sy values for the material at the highest and lowesttemperatures during the operational cycle……” – ASME VIII Div 2

CAUTION – Careful consideration of the definition of “load cycle” is required!

For steady state conditions (say pressure + external loads at operating temperature) it is more correct to determine the design strength at the operating temperature.


Modelling Techniques – Solids vs Shells

• Consider maximum stress locations• Bending stresses at repad edges• Weld geometry, etc…


Modelling Techniques – Solids vs Shells

Nozzle thickness

Shell thickness Shell + repad thickness

Neutral Axis

…corresponds with…

No bending stress at repad edge accounted for!

Bending stiffness ⍺ (2t)³ Bending stiffness ⍺ 2(t³)

Shell + repad?Somewhere in between…

2tt

t


Modelling Techniques – Hexahedra vs Tetrahedra

A second-order hexahedral elementA volume built from first-order tetrahedral elements

Three basic approaches to reducing % element error in FEA:- ‘h’ method: the element order (p) is kept constant, but the mesh isrefined infinitely by making the element size (h) smaller. - ‘p’ method: the element size (h) is kept constant and the element order (p) is increased. - ‘h-p’ method: the h is made smaller as the p is increased to create higher order h elements.


Modelling Techniques – Hexahedra vs Tetrahedra

510MPa348MPa

An 8-noded hexahedron formed from five tetrahedrons has greater discretisation error than a single 8-noded “brick” because the five tetrahedrons cannot assume all the displacement fields handled by the 8-noded element. (1st order tetrahedra elements also have constant strain behaviour compared to linear strain behaviour across a 1st order hexahedral element).

Element selection can be a matter of preference – but there are some key issues to be aware of.


Modelling Techniques – Element selection

Model 1 -• 1st order tetrahedra – constant stress across element• one element through thickness – cannot represent bending stress• elements will be highly distorted• shows a maximum Von Mises stress of 18,000 psi.

From “When Good Engineers Deliver

Bad FEA” - by Paul Kurowski – ACOM

consulting

The mesh and results from the finite-element analysis of a bracket



Model 2 -• 2nd order tetrahedra – linear stress across element• one element through thickness – mesh still too coarse to model stress concentrations• some elements will be highly distorted• shows a maximum Von Mises stress of 32,000 psi.



Model 3 -• 2nd order tetrahedra, enough elements to model stress distribution reasonably accurately (good starting point)• analyst needs to successively refine mesh to check that % error in stress is within permissible limits (stress will increase with each refinement)• shows a maximum Von Mises stress of 49,000 psi.



Model 4 -• Adaptive-order ‘p’ elements – software automatically iterates element order at each location until a user-specified accuracy is achieved (accuracy based on local strain energy, local displacements or global RMS stress etc)• Shows a maximum Von Mises stress of 62,000 psi. • Not all software handles adaptive-order elements.


Validating third party results

Due to general incompatibility between software packages, it is often difficult to get models validated.

• Not necessarily cost-effective to re-build and re-analyse a model from scratch.

• Some gains are being made in FE software’s ability to export CAD-type geometry files (.IGES, .SAT) which may be imported into client’s CAD packages to allow geometry checking (and vice-versa for model development….)

• Often have to wait until receipt of final reports to highlight any possible problems with the analysis and assumptions – by then is it too late?

• Can be totally reliant on contractor’s internal checking procedures


Validating third party results

As part of the contractor’s checking process, the following should be done:• Confirmation of use of correct element type (shell vs solid, 1st or 2nd order…)• Confirmation of use of correct analysis type (linear vs non-linear, small vs large deflection)• Check of material properties, loads, boundary conditions and sum of reaction forces• Hand calculation of results away from geometric discontinuities (PD/2t, Roark’s Formulae…)• Check that stress variation across elements is within acceptable limits (mesh density)Element Order % Stress Variation across element

0 10%

1 20%

2 30%

>2 40%

• Check that units are consistent• Check contact (if applicable)• Check model for “free edges”• Check for solution convergence


What should a good FEA report contain?

• Software package and version• List of assumptions:

• Codes/Standards applied• Design strengths applied• Description of failure modes considered• Material Properties

Longitudinal and circumferential restraint at free end

Nozzle loads applied at centre of flange face and transferred to face via rigid constraint equations

Symmetry constraints applied on Y-Z plane

14MPa pressure applied to all internal surfaces

0.3MPa pressure applied to bottom surface of upper support plate and top surface of lower support plate

• Plot of model geometry (including list of thicknesses if shell elements used)• Plot(s) of FE mesh at critical areas•Type of elements used (shape and order)• Plot of applied loads and boundary conditions (including notation for clarity)

Plot c/o Contract Design and

Management Services Pty Ltd


What should a good FEA report contain?

• Plots of the final deflected shape with colour contouring• Key results plots

• Stress / Strain / Temperature etc• Clearly indicating type of stress (Von Mises, Tresca…) or strain (‘true’, ‘engineering’…)

Other helpful information:• Summary of reaction forces at boundaries.• Additional hand calculations to verify results away from discontinuities


Getting the most value from your contractor

Avoid the “Perform FEA” syndrome..• Stay involved with the FE contractor during the process• Develop and agree on a design basis with the key assumptions addressed (loads, materials, failure criteria, critical regions in the component/assembly…)• Review preliminary results to ensure that the output is as expected.• Understand that, what may seem like a “minor” design change at your end, can be significantly more complex to implement in an existing model.• Review your contractor’s internal auditing:

• Do they have other analysts with enough experience to independently check the analysis?• Do they have an analysis verification checklist?• Documentation should contain enough information that a third party can replicate the analysis long after the original author is gone.


Questions?

….. and the obligatory cartoon

Feel free to contact me at [email protected] for further discussion.

mailto:[email protected]

Behind the Pretty Pictures - Engineers Australia · PDF file• Structural Components...

Documents

Transcript of Behind the Pretty Pictures - Engineers Australia · PDF file• Structural Components...