Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:03:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <1092055869.3185.1711631033629@cornell1-cos-conf1.managed.contegix.com> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_3184_1582148732.1711631033628" ------=_Part_3184_1582148732.1711631033628 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Authors: Rajesh Bhaskaran and Vincent Prantil
Problem Specification
1. Pre-Analysis =
& Start-Up
2.=
Geometry
3. Mesh=
4. Physics Setu=
p
5. Nu=
merical Solution
6. Numerical Results
7. Verification & Validation
Exercises
Comments
Repeat the same analysis as in the tutorial using the two-dimensional ap= proximation for plane strain (instead of plane stress). How do the predicti= ons for the maximum transverse deflection for this analysis compare with th= e three-dimensional results shown in the Results Section and in Figure 4.12= of the text.
Repeat the analysis in the tutorial replacing the end simple-support bou= ndary conditions on nodes located at the beam neutral axis. Do this using b= oth plane stress and plane strain assumptions. How do the FEA predictions f= or these models compare with predictions from Euler-Bernoulli beam theory a= nd a fully three-dimensional FEA analysis? What do the findings of this exe= rcise lead you to conclude?
Compare the FEA predictions for maximum transverse deflection using the = original model and plane stress and plane strain assumptions to FEA predict= ions using one-dimensional beam elements incorporating an offset neutral ax= is. What do you conclude?
Repeat the tutorial for a beam with cross section 3inches by 3 inches. H= ow do FEA predictions using one-, two-, and three-dimensional models now co= mpare with Euler-Bernoulli beam theory?