Finite Element Laboratory Computational A3:

FEA of a Simple Cantilever Beam

Date:
Contributors:

April 27, 2016

David Lam
Max Wood

Introduction
In this lab, two cantilever beams (one steel and another a steel-polystyrene composite) were analyzed using Abaqus, a finite elemental analysis software. The stresses and displacements were
studied for the two different material systems as well as for differing element selections. The subsequent analysis demonstrates the importance of selecting the correct mesh elements in calculating
results that agree with analytical solutions.
As the number of nodes per mesh element increases, the FEA-derived results more closely agrees
with the analytical result. Furthermore, replacing the middle half of the all-steel cantilever with
polystyrene results in a decrease in the stiffness by a factor of two, while simultaneously reducing the
weight substantially. However, the inverse of this layered structure decreases the stiffness further
by a factor of four, without providing any benefits in weight reduction. This lab illustrates the
importance in selecting proper mesh elements and placement of weaker materials in appropriate
locations.

Methods
Figure 1a shows the all-steel cantilever geometry. For the first part of the assignment, the cantilever
is made from all-steel, with a Youngs modulus of E = 209 GPa and Poissons ratio of = 0.3. In
the second part of the assignment, half of the steel bar is replaced with a 25 mm polystyrene layer
(E = 3 GPa, = 0.3) in the middle of the cantilever. Figure 1b illustrates the steel-polystyrene
geometry.

(a) The geometry of the cantilever being

analyzed in this assignment, as taken from the
problem statement.

(b) The geometry of the steel-polystyrene

composite, as taken from the problem
statement.

Figure 1: Geometries of the two cantilevers considered in this report.

For all models, an encastre boundary condition is applied at the low-x portion of the beam,
fixing the cantilever to a wall. A constant load of 0.4 MPa is applied on the top of the cantilever
on the high-y end of the beam.
1

For the first part of the assignment, the mesh has a global node density of 0.03. For the
mesh elements, linear hexahedral (C3D8) elements are used to compare the FEA-derived vertical
displacement vs. the analytical displacement, while C3D8, linear tetragonal (C3D4) and quadratic
brick (C3D20) elements are used to compare the error in the deflection of the cantilevers free end.
For the second part of the assignment, the mesh has a global nodal density of 0.01 and C3D20
elements were used.

Results/Discussion
Figure 2 plots the vertical displacement along the length of the beam for both the FEA-derived
values (using C3D8 elements) and the analytical displacements. The FEA-derived values are in
good agreement with the analytical vertical result for distances close to the fixed wall, but are less
than the analytical result closer to the free end.

Figure 2: FEA-derived vertical displacement along the length of the beam for a C3D8 mesh
element vs. the analytical vertical displacement.
For the analytical vertical displacement, Equation 1 was used [1]:
x2 (x2 + 6l2 4lx)
(1)
24EI
where is the uniformly distributed load per unit length, x is the distance along the beam, l
is the length of the beam, E is the Youngs modulus, and I is the area moment of inertia, defined
3
as I = bh
12 for a cantilever beam, where b is the base length and h is the height [2].
Figure 3a shows that the top of the cantilever is in tension, while the bottom of the cantilever
is in compression. Towards the free end, the cantilever experiences no significant axial stresses.
Furthermore, in the center of the cantilever, the axial stress is much lower than those found at the
surface.
Similarly, the von Mises stress (as seen in Figure 3b) is large at the top and bottom of the
attached face where the stresses are maximum. Near the free end of the cantilever, the von Mises
y=

(a) Axial stress distributed along the C3D8

all-steel beam.

(b) von Mises stress distributed along the C3D8

all-steel beam.

Figure 3: Contours of the stress distribution in the steel cantilever beam due to an applied
uniform load.
stress is much lower than that of the stress found near the attached face. As with the axial stress,
the center of the cantilever experiences less stress than those found near the top or bottom surface.
This indicates that the center of the all-steel cantilever can be replaced with a lighter material,
such as polystyrene, and not experience drastic changes in stiffness.
After analyzing the steel cantilever with C3D8 elements, the error in the deflection of the free
end of the cantilever is compared for various mesh elements alongside the analytical deflection, as
shown in Figure 4 and the error in deflection, , in Table 1. As the number of nodes increases in
each element type, the error decreases, more closely reproducing the behavior expected from the
analytical solution. For all element types, the predicted vertical displacement downwards is less
than that of the predicted analytically.

Figure 4: FEA-derived vertical displacement for various mesh element types along the length of
the beam vs. the analytical vertical displacement.

Element Type
Linear tetragonal (C3D4)
Linear hexahedral (C3D8)
Quadratic brick (C3D20)

Error in [106 m]
-218
-36.5
-6.29

Table 1: The error in the final displacement of the free end of the cantilever beam compared to
the analytical solution.
The stiffness can be calculated by the simple relation F = PA where P is the pressure applied
on the high-y face of the beam and A is the area of the high-y face. For the all-steel beam, the
N . Once the center of the steel beam is replaced with a polystyrene core, the
stiffness is 2.75 107 m
N . Since we assume the beam stiffness for the all-steel beam is more
stiffness reduces to 1.52 107 m
than adequate, a factor of two decrease in the stiffness is manageable in exchange for drastically
reducing the weight of our cantilever.
Figure 5 compares the axial stress distributions for both the all-steel and composite beams. The
stress distribution for the composite cantilever is similar in profile to that of the all-steel beam, but
there are higher stresses (by a factor of roughly 2) at the top and bottom of the attached face for
the composite beam. Furthermore, more of the stresses are concentrated closer to the fixed wall
for the composite beam, while the stress on the steel beam is more distributed. Similar conclusions
can be drawn from the von Mises stress distributions, as shown in Figure 6.

(a) Axial stress distributed along the C3D20

all-steel beam.

(b) Axial stress distributed along the C3D20

composite beam.

Figure 5: Contours of the axial stress distribution in the steel and composite cantilever beam.
Figure 1b illustrates the sandwich structure where polystyrene is in the center of the cantilever.
This structure is a better design than the inverse structure, in which two 12.5 mm polystyrene
layers sandwich a 25 mm layer of steel, due to the lower displacement as shown in Figure 7. The
N , while the inverse structure is 3.81 106 N ,
stiffness for the original layered structure is 1.52 107 m
m
roughly a factor of 4 lower. This intuitively makes sense, since the stress build-up is on the top
and bottom faces of the cantilever, where the stronger steel material would be more important.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this lab analyzed a steel cantilever beam and a steel polystyrene composite cantilever
beam using various mesh elements. The all steel cantilever beam was analyzed with tetragonal
(C3D4), hexahedral (C3D8), and quadratic brick (C3D20) elements. Increasing the number of
4

(a) von Mises stress distributed along the

C3D20 all-steel beam.

(b) von Mises stress distributed along the

C3D20 composite beam.

Figure 6: Contours of the von Mises stress in the steel and composite cantilever beam.

Figure 7: The displacement as a function of distance from the wall for both the sandwich
structure (with polystyrene in the middle) and the inverse structure. The inverse structure has a
higher displacement, and thus, a lower stiffness.
nodes per element type lead to a decreasing error in maximum deflection as compared to the
analytical solution. The von Mises and axial stress was seen to be concentrated at the top and
bottom of the cantilevers fixed face. In the second half of the lab, a composite was formed by
replacing the center of the steel cantilever with a polystyrene core. It was found this structure
greatly reduced the cost and weight of the cantilever and only reduced the stiffness by roughly a
factor of 2. The inverse of this composite (polystyrene on top and bottom) was briefly considered
but this structure had its stiffness reduced by a factor of four.

References
[1] Beam Deflection Formulae
http://ruina.mae.cornell.edu/Courses/ME4735-2012/Rand4770Vibrations/
BeamFormulas.pdf
[2] Wikipedia, List of second moments of area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_second_moments_of_area