www.globaljournal.

asia
GJESR RESEARCH PAPER VOL. 1 [ISSUE 1] FEBRUARY, 2014

ISSN:- 2349283X

ANALYSIS OF FINITE ELEMENT MESH SPACING INFLUENCE ON MODELING

RESULTS
*Rohit Rai
Dept. of Civil Engineering
M.M.M. Engineering College
Gorakhpur, India
Email: rohit.rai2609@gmail.com

ABSTRACT- In the present work the modeling of curved deck slab was done with computer program which was done with the
help of finite element method .In model the mesh spacing was varied and its influenced on various properties i.e. deflection,
bending moments, and torsional moments are discussed. In this only quadrilateral meshing is taken. And it was found that the
mesh spacing changes the results of FE Analysis. However, it also was found out that after certain value of mesh divisions the
results start to converge.
Keywords: Deflection, Bending Moment, Transverse Moment and Torsional Moment.

OVERVIEW OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

The finite element is a technique for analyzing complicated
structures by notionally cutting up the continuum of the
prototype into a number of small elements which are
connected at discrete joints called nodes. For each element
approximate stiffness equations are derived relating
displacements of the nodes to node forces between
elements and in the same way the slope deflection
equation can be solved for joints in a continuous beam, an
electronic computer is used to solve the very large number
of simultaneous equations that relate node force and
displacements. Since the basic principle of subdivision of
structure into simple elements can be applied to structures
of all forms and complexity, there is no logical limit to the
type of structure that can be analyzed if the computer
program is written in the appropriate form. Consequently
finite elements provide the more versatile method of
analysis at present, and for some structures only practical
method .However the quantity of computation can be
enormous and expensive so that the cost cannot be
justified for run of mill structures. Furthermore, the
numerous different theoretical formulations of element
stiffness characteristics all require approximations in
different ways affect the accuracy and applicability of the
method .Further research and development is required
before the method will have the ease of use and reliability
of the simple methods of bridge deck analysis.
The technique was pioneered for two dimensional elastic
structures by Turner et al and Clough during the1950s.The
whole structure is divided into component elements, such
as straight beams, curved beams, triangular or rectangular

plate elements, which are joined at the nodes. When this

method is applied to a slab, the slab is divided into
triangular, rectangular or quadrilateral elements. Thus, the
corners of the elements become nodes usually; the vertical
deflections of the plate element are expressed in a
polynomial of the coordinates of the vertices of the
element. This polynomial satisfies the conditions at the
corners but may violate the continuity condition along the
sides of the element.
During recent years, several research workers have
attempted to analyze curved bridge decks by the finite
element method. Jenkins and Siddall used a stiffness
matrix approach and represented the deck slab with finite
elements in the form of annular segments, while Cheung
adopted the triangular elements. In addition, a horizontal
curved box-beam highway bridge was investigated in a
three dimensional sense by Aneja and Roll.
MODELING OF SLABS USING FINITE ELEMENTS
If the finite element method is to be a useful tool in the
design of reinforced concrete flat plate structures, accurate
modeling is a prerequisite. Accurate modeling involves
understanding the important relationships between the
physical world and the analytical simulation. As Clough
states, Depending on the validity of the assumptions made
in reducing the physical problem to a numerical algorithm,
the computer output may provide a detailed picture of the
true physical behavior or it may not even remotely
resemble it. The following sections attempt to expose the
gap between physical and analytical behavior.

42
Virtu and Foi

GJESR RESEARCH PAPER VOL. 1 [ISSUE 1] FEBRUARY, 2014

ISSN:- 2349283X

Table 2: Result obtained for mesh division 05

ANALYSIS FOR MESH SPACING

For the mesh analysis we selected a model of curved deck
slab which has a radius of 1.27m ,outer arc length 2m and
width if .90m . For the analysis we have taken a UDL
loading which is kept constant for all the cases and there
results are discussed and the results of longitudinal
moments and torsional moments are compared with the
moment obtained by analytical method. And the finite
element program we selected STAAD Pro.In STAAD Pro we
have two type of meshing polygonal and quadrilateral
meshing .For our present study we had taken only the
quadrilateral meshing in this the mesh is created by
selecting the node and after selection we need to give the
number of small divisions which we want to give that also
would be in quadrilateral shape.

Maxim
um
displac
ement
(mm)
28.477

Maximu
m
Absolut
e stress
(N/mm
2)
125.932

Longitu
dinal
Moment
(kNm/
m)

Transverse
Moment
(kNm/m)

Torsion
al
Moment
(kNm/
m)

88.50

87.166

36.69

Case 3:Mesh Division=10

Case 1: Mesh Division = 01

Fig 1: Mesh Diagram with Division 01

Table 1: Result obtained for mesh division 01
Maximum
displacem
ent(mm)

30.166

Maximu
m
Absolute
stress
(N/mm2)
52.97

Longit
udinal
Moment
(kNm/
m)
56.48

Transv
e-rse
Mome
nt
(kNm/
m)
38.719

Torsion
al
Momen
t
(kNm/
m)
27.52

Case 2: Mesh Division = 05

Fig 3: Mesh Diagram with division 10

Table 3: Result obtained for mesh division 10

Maximu
m
displace
ment
(mm)

Maximu
m
Absolute
stress
(N/mm2)

Longitud
-inal
Moment
(kNm/m
)

Transverse
Moment
(kNm/m)

Torsional
Moment
(kNm/m)

28.806

243.469

195.16

86.152

105.83

Fig 2: Mesh Diagram with division 05

43
Virtu and Foi

GJESR RESEARCH PAPER VOL. 1 [ISSUE 1] FEBRUARY, 2014

ISSN:- 2349283X

Case 4: Mesh Division = 15

Table 5: Result obtained for mesh division 20

Maxim
um
displac
ement
(mm)

Maximu
m
Abosolu
te stress
(N/mm2
)

Longitu
dinal
Moment
(kNm/
m)

Transve
rse
Moment
(kNm/
m)

Torsio
nal
Momen
t(kNm/
m)

27.829

324.71

287.183

81.05

123.80
3

DISCUSSION ON RESULTS

Fig 4: Mesh Diagram with division 15

Maxi
mum
displa
ceme
nt
(mm)

Maximu
m
Absolut
e stress
(N/mm2
)

Longitu
dinal
Momen
t
(kNm/
m)

Transver
se
Moment
(kNm/m)

Torsion
al
Moment
(kNm/
m)

28.22
5

253.48

232.794

81.36

94.63

Table 4: Result obtained for mesh division 15

Case 5: Mesh Division = 20

The finite element method is an approximate technique,

and as such, results computed using the finite element
method must be critically evaluated before relied upon in a
design application. This process of critical evaluation
involves several steps for any structure being analyzed.
The number of elements used in a model can greatly affect
the accuracy of the solution. In general, as the number of
elements, or the fineness of the mesh, is increased, the
accuracy of the model increases as well. As multiple
models are created with an increasingly finer mesh, the
results should converge to the correct numerical solution
such that a significant increase in the number of elements
produces an insignificant change in a particular response
quantity.
Not all response quantities will converge at the same rate,
however. Displacements will generally be the most
accurate response quantity computed and will converge
faster than stresses, with the exception of some elements
derived with hybrid stress formulations, in which case the
stresses can converge at the same rate or higher than the
displacements.

Displacement(mm)
Displacement(mm)

30.5
30
29.5
29
Displacement
(mm)

28.5
28
27.5
0

10

20

30

Divisions
Fig 5: Mesh Diagram with division 20

Fig 6: Displacement Vs. Divisions

44
Virtu and Foi

GJESR RESEARCH PAPER VOL. 1 [ISSUE 1] FEBRUARY, 2014

Max. Absolute
Stress(N/mm2)

Torsional
Moment(kNm/m)

400
Max.
Absolute
Stress(N/mm
2)

200
0
0

10

20

Torsional
Moment(kNm/m)

Absolute Stress(N/mm2)

ISSN:- 2349283X

As far the case of transverse moment goes the value of

moment starts to converge at about 10 divisions.

30

Divisions

150
100

Torsional
Moment(kNm
/m)

50
0
0

Fig 7: Absolute stress Vs. Divisions

Above fig shows that the variation of absolute stress with
respect to division shows that the results to converge at
about divisions is about 10.

Longitudinal
Moment(kNm/m)

Longitudinal
Moment(kNm/m)

30

Fig 10: Torsional Moment Vs. Divisions

For torsional moment the convergence is achieved only at
about 10 division and further increase in division only
refines the value .The comparisons with the Results
obtained by FE Analysis at about 20 divisions is much
close to that obtained by analytical methods
CONCLUSION

400

1. The modeling should be done in a very proper way.

200
0
0

20

40

Longitudinal
Moment(kN
m/m)

2. More the fineness of the meshing more are the chances

of getting accurate results.
3. But if we continue to increase the fineness of mesh that
will make our program more bulky and which will slow the
processing speed.

Divisions

Fig 8: Longitudinal Moment Vs. Divisions

4. The storage requirement also increases with meshing.

From above fig. (8) the longitudinal moment with respect

to divisions it starts to converge at division about 20.The
result of longitudinal was to much agreement when the
number of divisions were 20.

Transverse
Moment(kNm/m)
Transverse
Moment(kNm/m0

10
20
Divisions

100
50
0
0

20

40

Transverse
Moment(kN
m/m)

REFERENCE
1.Turner,M.J.,Clough,R.W.,Martin,H.C.and
Topp,L.J(1956)Stiffness and deflection ana;ysis of complex
structures,J.Aero.Sci.23,805-23.
2.Clough,R.W.(1960) The finite element in plane stress
analysis,Proc.2nd
A.S.C.E
conf.on
Electronic
Computation,Pittsburg,Pa.,Sept.
3.Burnett,D.S(1987)Finite
wesley,Reading ,Mass.

Element

Analysis,Addison-

4. Bentley Systems (2010), STAAD Pro. Lab manual:

Getting Started and Tutorials.

Divisions

Fig 9: Transverse moment Vs. Division

45
Virtu and Foi