achilles03
Aerospace
- Oct 9, 2008
- 7
I've done a parametric study of crippling of a plate simply supported on 3 edges with 1 free edge (the free edge is not a loaded edge), just like a typical flange. I've compared the results to a classical hand calc.
The problem is that my FEM predictions (linear eigenvalue, Abaqus 6.7) are about twice as high as the closed-form solution. I've double-checked the material properties, as well as the loading and boundary conditions: 3 edges constrained from out of plane motion and the edge opposite the unconstrained edge is constrained perpendicular (jn plane) to the load direction. No rotational constraints anywhere. Does the closed-form solution use some sort of conservative energy method approach or make some other conservative assumptions?
For reference, the closed-form solution I am using is as follows:
crippling stress = k*E*pi/12/(1-(mu^2))*((t/h)^2)
where:
k=1/(L/h)+6*(1-mu)/(pi^2)
t=thickness of the flange, L=length, and h=height
k approaches about .407 for flanges with high length to height ratios (mu=.33).
This hand calc is based on the following reference: Bulson, P.S., “The Stability of Flat Plates”, American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1969.
Why is there such a large discrepancy?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Dave
The problem is that my FEM predictions (linear eigenvalue, Abaqus 6.7) are about twice as high as the closed-form solution. I've double-checked the material properties, as well as the loading and boundary conditions: 3 edges constrained from out of plane motion and the edge opposite the unconstrained edge is constrained perpendicular (jn plane) to the load direction. No rotational constraints anywhere. Does the closed-form solution use some sort of conservative energy method approach or make some other conservative assumptions?
For reference, the closed-form solution I am using is as follows:
crippling stress = k*E*pi/12/(1-(mu^2))*((t/h)^2)
where:
k=1/(L/h)+6*(1-mu)/(pi^2)
t=thickness of the flange, L=length, and h=height
k approaches about .407 for flanges with high length to height ratios (mu=.33).
This hand calc is based on the following reference: Bulson, P.S., “The Stability of Flat Plates”, American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1969.
Why is there such a large discrepancy?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Dave