www.nafems.

org

Education & Training

Plate Collapse A Challenge for FEA

Introduction

Author, Jack J Reijmers, NEVESBU, The Netherlands

ometimes an everyday structure looks so simple that it is hard to imagine that it can raise serious trouble. When complex structures can easily be analyzed with FE analysis, then it seems impossible that a straightforward mechanical problem could be a pitfall. However when it comes to plate bending FEA is put to the test. A first encounter with the problem is displayed in the NAFEMS Workbook of Examples [1]. The outcome of this study is in someways quite embarrassing, since simple formulas deliver a design that is superior to a linear elastic FE analysis. All the features of FEA shall be brought to the battlefield to cope with this problem. The quintessence of the plate bending problem is that even in the design area nonlinear effects already hatch out. And this comprises geometrically and material nonlinearity. Plasticity tends to cause collapse of a structure, so further investigations were performed to gain insight into the load carrying capability of plate fields. Results were presented in the annual industry meeting of FENet in Hamburg [2] and this article highlights the problem areas.

Problem Description
A clamped plate is considered, see figure 1, with a length of 4000mm and a width of 800mm. The thickness amounts 15mm. This plate carries a normal pressure, p = 0.22 N/mm2. The aspect ratio for this geometry has a value of: a/b = 5. Formulas for stress and deflection can be found in several handbooks, e.g. Roark [3] and from these formulas follows that for aspect ratios above 2.0 the plate may be considered as infinitely long. This simplifies the problem significantly. Since there is no influence from the shorter sides a simple strip with a breadth, x, may be considered. This leads to a basic case of a clamped beam with length, b, cross section, x X t and a line load, p X x. This beam concept leads to a maximum bending moment at the edges: acting on a section modulus: Bending moment and section modulus yields a bending stress at the edge:

Figure 1 Plate bending benchmark

(1) With the application of mild steel with a yield stress, y = 235 N/mm2, this stress seems too high. However when Rules and Regulations are applied to this structure there is no need for an increasing thickness. Lloyds Register of Shipping gives the following required thickness [4]: (2) s = b, the spacing of the stiffening, s = 800 [mm] f, correction factor for aspect ratio, for long plates, f = 1 h, the pressure head. p = 0.22 [N/mm2] h = 22 [mwh] k, material factor. For mild steel, y = 235 [N/mm2], k = 1

April 2004

Page 7

Education & Training

So according to the Rules a thickness of 15 [mm] is sufficient to carry the design pressure, although the bending stress exceeds the yield stress. In normal engineering practice yielding cannot be far from collapse, so what safety margin is available for this design. In other words: at what pressure will the plate loose its load carrying capability?

www.nafems.org

The pressure related to a clamped beam (x X t) with three plastic hinges is given by: (4) The plastic moment is defined by: (5)

Theoretical Considerations
The stress following from equation (1) results from bending theory. On the other hand there are structures that have no bending stiffness at all, but are able to take a considerable load. 100 years ago the Wright Flyer was lifted and airborne by pressure acting on a piece of cloth. So a texture without bending stiffness is certainly capable of coping with lateral pressure. This phenomenon is well known by the name of tensgrity. With the geometry given in figure 1 the plate problem dwells in both worlds and this complicates the analysis in an extreme way. To give an impression of the elongation the deflection is simply considered by a triangular pattern, see figure 2. So for an infinitely long plate, consider the bending stress retrieved in equation (1), the collapse pressure related to bending with three plastic hinges is given by:

(6) For the plate field under consideration it follows that: Pressure at start yield:

Design pressure: pdes = 0.22 [N/mm2] Collapse bending pressure:

Figure 2 Deflection versus tension

According to Pythagoras theorem a deflection of 19 [mm] results in a strain:

So the design pressure amounts to 2/3 of the collapse pressure, which indicates a reasonable safety margin, although yielding occurs.

First FE Attempt With Shell Elements

In order to gain insight into the collapse pressure of the plate a FE model is built in ANSYS with shell elements.

With a Youngs modulus, E = 2.06 X 105 [N/mm2], follows: E 5 -3 = 232 [N/mm2]. So without X = 2.06 X 10 X 1.1275 X 10 considering the correct shape of deflection and the real stress situation it can be stated that with a deflection in the order of the plate thickness the yield stress, y = 235 [N/mm2], is reached. When the membrane effect or stress stiffening is neglected the load carrying capability comes down to pure plate bending. Equation (1) can be rearranged giving the pressure to reach yield: (3) It shall be noted that reaching yield does not imply collapse. A collapse mechanism could be the presence of 3 plastic hinge lines, see figure 3.

The model is illustrated in figure 4. Symmetry conditions are applied, so only one quarter of the plate is modeled. The plasticity model is Bilinear ISOtropic hardening with a very small tangent modulus for stresses beyond the yield stress. At this point the Youngs modulus, E = 2.06 X 105 [N/mm2] changes to 20.6 [N/mm2]. In figure 4 the von Mises stress is given for the design pressure (0.2213 [N/mm2]) and the edge is clearly in yield.

Figure 4 Plate model with the von Mises stress at design pressure.

Figure 3 Plastic moments

The deflection curve is given in figure 5 and the collapse pressure containing the three plastic hinges is clearly visible. The linear solution for the pure bending case is also plotted in this figure, given by [3]: April 2004

Page 8

www.nafems.org

Education & Training

(7) (7b)

Figure 5 suggests that beyond the pressure of 0.40 [N/mm2] collapse is imminent. However the increase of the deflection flattens and follows the slope of the linear solution, see figure 6. At a pressure of 2.6 [N/mm2] instability occurs and the analysis stops at a deflection of 56 [mm], some 3.7 times the plate thickness.
Figure 5 Deflection curve shell elements up to 0.40 [N/mm2].

(7c) Since a thin plate is considered the stress through the thickness is zero: z = 0. At the plate center, far from the influence of the shorter clamped edge the strain in the x-direction is zero, x = 0. In other words the plate is in a plane strain situation, so from equation (7a) follows: (8) In previous sections the stretching of the plate is considered. The deflection of the plate induces an elongation in the y-direction giving a strain: y A thin plate is considered (z = 0) so from equation (7b) and (8) follows: (9)

Figure 6 Deflection curve shell elements up to 3.0 [N/mm2].

So the stress in the transverse direction is given by (10)

The Stress State

In the preceeding sections the bending stress is considered in a small strip. This was legitimate since the plate is sufficiently long. The interaction between the strips is not considered, however that does not imply that there is no interaction. For a strip, x, the deformation in the longitudinal plate direction is constrained. The plate model is schematically presented in figure 7.
Figure 7 Plate model with co-ordinate system

From equation (8) follows: x = stress is given by:

y, so the von Mises

(11) Combination with equation (10) with the Poisson ratio set to = 0.30 for mild steel yields: (12) So the strain calculated by the deflection, see figure 2, multiplied by the Youngs modulus, does not deviate much from the von Mises stress.

In the y-direction the stress amounts to:

Second FE Attempt With Plane Strain Elements

With the knowledge that the plate is in plane strain the FE analysis may be performed with dedicated elements. This model should deliver more information on the stress distribution over the thickness of the plate. Figure 8 gives a view on the model, with the von Mises stress at a pressure of 0.40 [N/mm2]. The deflection plot is given in figure 9 and this graph matches the view in figure 5 and 6 on the deflection. So application of plane strain elements gives similar results, however with more information on the stress distribution. Figure 9 gives the deflection up to instability at 2.56 [N/mm2] and this equals Page 9

according to equation (1) for the linear approach. The strain is related to the stress according to Hookes law by: (7a)

April 2004

Education & Training

the result for the shell element model, i.e. 2.6 [N/mm2]. The plane strain model shows a sharper increase of the deflection towards instability and from figure 9 follows 67.5 [mm], some 4.5 times the plate thickness.

www.nafems.org

Figure 10 von Mises stress at design pressure.

Figure 8 The plane strain model

Figure 11 von Mises stress at bending collapse pressure.

Figure 9 Deflection curve plane strain model up to 3.0 N/mm2.

Figure 12 von Mises stress (tension) over the full thickness.

A Critical Look at the R esults

Although the results give a sound impression, there are some reasons for doubt. The behaviour of the plate is highlighted at some characteric points. These points are summarized in Table I
Table I Characteristic pressures

Figure 2 shows a simple approach to the membrane effect. A more refined deflection is described by a circular arc, see figure 13. For a deflection of 16.75mm the arclength amounts to 800.935mm. According to equation (12) the von Mises stress is given by:

Pressure [N/mm2] 0.215 0.335 1.490

Description Design pressure. Yield in outer fibers Collapse bending pressure. Plastic hinges Tensile yield over the full thickness

Deflection Figure [mm] 3.48 6.00 31.43 10 11 12

For the design pressure the von Mises stress at the edge is presented in figure 10. At this pressure the outer fibers are clearly in yield and the deflection at the center of the plate amounts to 0.23 times the plate thickness. At the bending collapse pressure the plastic hinges are visible, however the stress pattern is not symmetric. Due to the tension stress, induced by the membrane effect, the area in compression is diminished. The deflection amounts to 0.40 times the plate thickness. A further increase of the pressure pulls out the compression at the plate top. The bottom region in tension extends towards the top. At a pressure of 1.49N/mm2 the compression has vanished and the tension reaches the top. By then the deflection has grown to 2.10 times the plate thickness.

Figure 13 Deflection assumed as a circular arc

So a rough estimate and a more elaborate analysis yield the same conclusion: with a deflection in the order of the plate thickness the membrane is in yield. The complete thickness is just in yield at a deflection of twice the plate thickness, i.e. the third case in Table I. Therefore it may be expected that an additional deflection in the order of the plate thickness should result in a complete loss of load carrying capability. In other words: it is hard to imagine that the deflection may grow beyond three times the plate thickness. This deflection is reached at a pressure of 2.06N/mm2. Therefore the collapse pressure of 2.56N/mm2 seems too high.

Page 10

April 2004

www.nafems.org

Education & Training

So with the FE analysis illustrated in the figures 10 to 12 a collapse value is found in the range governed by tension. This follows clearly from the stress plots, however the question remains why the defined plasticity model does not result in an earlier loss of stability.

Final remarks
The introduction speaks of an everyday structure, however even literature tends to treat this problem as a special case. A neat overview is given by Ventsel and Krauthammer [5]. Starting with the work of Euler in the 18th century plate bending got a solid base with the work of Kirchoff in 1850. With the application of steel instead of wood, shipbuilders started the search for the theory behind the behaviour of thin plates. The considered geometry, given in figure 1 has a ratio, b/t = 800/15 = 53. With this ratio such a typical shipbuilding structure lies right between thick plates (b/t = 810) and membranes (b/t = 80100). As stated earlier, plating in shipbuilding dwells in both worlds, depending on the deflection. According to [5] the plate can be classified as stiff with a deflection less than 20% of the plate thickness. Load carrying capability is governed by bending. When the deflection exceeds 30% of the plate thickness the pressure is carried by a combination of bending and stretching. Above 5 times the plate thickness flexural stresses can be neglected.

R eferences
[1] Advanced Workbook of Examples (Vol 2), NAFEMS, 2004 [2] Collapse pressure of plates, FENet Industry meeting Hamburg, December 2003
www.fe-net.org

[3] Formulas for stress and strain, R.J. Roark & W.C. Young, 5th Ed., MacGraw-Hill, 1975 [4] Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships, Lloyds Register, Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 9, Table 1.9.1 [5] Thin plates and shells, Eduard Ventsel and Theodor Krauthammer, New York Dekker, 2001

Contact
Jack J Reijmers Nevesbu E jack.reijmers@nevesbu.nl

How to Introduce FE into the Design Process Request For Tenders

The NAFEMS Education and Training Working Group wish to commission a new document, the details of which are given below. As was observed in the editorial of the October 2003 issue of BENCHmark, recent developments of stress analysis technology have included, improvements in the ease of use and accessibility of the software. These developments have made F.E. more readily available and no longer the reserve of specialist analysts. In particular F.E. analysis technology can now be regarded as a tool to use during the design process rather than a tool to check the suitability of a near final design. The aim of the booklet is to explain the issues surrounding the ways in which F.E. can be introduced into the design process, and show how the issues may be resolved. It is emphasised that the booklet is about managing the technology, not the technology per se. It is expected to cover at least process issues (e.g. analysis before CAD, after or both), people issues, F.E. program management and data management. The target readership is design managers. The closing date for proposals is May 15th 2004.

Submission Guidelines
Prospective contractors are invited to submit proposals to perform the work described to tender. Such proposals should include, but not be limited to the following: 1 A brief appreciation of the work to be done. It should demonstrate an understanding of the nature of the task and the issues and complexities involved. 2 An outline of the contents (Chapter headings and key topics). The typical length will be 40-60 pages in total. 3 A work plan with a timetable and associated costs. 4 A price schedule (Tenderers should note that it is normal practice for NAFEMS to pay on approval of the deliverable by the working group). Typical costs are expected to be in the low thousands of pounds sterling. 5 The tenderer's credentials for undertaking the work, in terms of qualifications and relevant experience, together with a c.v. Proposals should be sent to the NAFEMS office info@nafems.org. For further information please contact the NAFEMS office in the first instance or visit www.nafems.org/technical

April 2004

Page 11