Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2018, Vol. 10(6) 1–9
Ó The Author(s) 2018
Computational consistency of the DOI: 10.1177/1687814018780029
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
material models and boundary
conditions for finite element analyses
on cantilever beams

Wei-chen Lee and Chen-hao Zhang

Abstract
The objective of this research was to investigate the effects of material models, element types, and boundary conditions
on the consistency of finite element analysis. Two cantilever beams were used; one made of stainless steel SUS301 3/4H
and the other made of polymer polyoxymethylene. The load–deflection curves of the two cantilever beams obtained by
experiments were compared to those obtained by finite element analysis, where the material models—including bilinear,
trilinear, and multi-linear—were used. Four element types—beam, plane stress, shell, and solid—were also employed
with the material models to obtain the simulated load–deflection curves of the cantilever beams. It was found that
bilinear material models had the stiffest behavior due to their overestimated yield strength. In addition, by applying a
finite displacement to simulate the grip of the cantilever beams, the discrepancy between the simulated permanent set
and the experimental set could be reduced from 80% to 5%. To sum up, both the selection of the material model and
the setup of the boundary conditions are critical for obtaining good agreement between the finite element analysis
results and the experimental data.

Keywords
Finite element analysis, material model, element type, boundary condition, consistency

Date received: 30 May 2017; accepted: 26 January 2018

Handling Editor: Artde Lin

Introduction By comparing these possible errors with the experimen-

tal data, it may be reasonable to assume that the devia-
Accuracy is usually a concern when performing finite tions between the experimental data and the exact
element analysis (FEA). In actual engineering applica- results are small so that the experimental data can be
tions, there are usually no analytical solutions avail- used as a reference for computational consistency.
able. Those not familiar with FEA may expect that the Also, the uncertainties due to the geometric tolerances,
analysis results should be as close to the experimental material parameters, and boundary conditions may
results as possible, implicitly assume that the experi-
mental data are error-free, and can be used for deter-
mining the accuracy of the FEA results. However, this Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University of
assumption is not true, as measurement in experiments Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
always contains errors, which may be introduced by the
Corresponding author:
operators or the measuring equipment. However, anal- Wei-chen Lee, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan
ysis results also contain errors, which include formula- University of Science and Technology, Taipei 10607, Taiwan.
tion errors, discretization errors, and round-off errors. Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

also contribute to the variation of the finite element that can affect consistency. Nevertheless, mesh density
solution.1 Commercial FEA software packages usually can be determined by observing the convergence of the
allow users to define the material model, adjust the solution with different mesh densities, so its effect was
mesh density, and choose the element type because they not considered here. The objective of this research was
are all related to the accuracy of the results.2 However, to find the effects of the material model, the element
how to choose the proper settings so that analysis type, and the setup of the boundary condition on the
results can be efficiently obtained, and with reasonable consistency of the FEA results with respect to the mea-
consistency, remains a challenge for many FEA users. sured results. Instead of using various constitutive
A previous study by Cifuentes and Kalbag3 demon- equations for the material models, bilinear, trilinear,
strated that the quadratic tetrahedral element might and multi-linear models were used. The conclusions
behave as well as the quadratic hexagonal elements drawn from this study can be used to improve consis-
regarding accuracy and CPU time. Li et al.4 also tency in future FEA.
reported that both tetrahedral element and hexahedral
elements were valid by comparing the simulation
results with the experimental data of a bogie frame. Materials and methods
However, it was found that the hybrid hexahedral ele- Material models
ment performed well, but the hybrid tetrahedral ele-
ment performed poorly for the simulation of the foot The materials used in this study were polyoxymethy-
and footwear under compression and shear loading.5 lene (POM), and stainless steel SUS301 3/4H. Tensile
Muccini et al.6 also showed that the linear tetrahedral tests were performed to obtain the stress–strain curves
element should be avoided during contact analysis due of these two materials, and then, the curves were used
to its accuracy problem. Regarding the mesh density, to generate their material models to for use in FEA. To
Langer et al.7 provided some guidelines for meshing: it perform the tensile tests, POM specimens and SUS301
was reported that at least 20 quadratic or 500 linear ele- 3/4H specimens were prepared according to ASTM
ments per standing wave were needed to achieve a solu- D638 (Type I) and ASTM A370 (sheet type), respec-
tion for eigenfrequencies with an error of less than 1%. tively, and three specimens of each material were tested
However, Shi and Liu8 studied different material using a universal testing system (Instron 3365, Instron,
models, such as those of Litonski–Batra, the power law, MA, USA). The stress–strain curves of POM and
Johnson–Cook, and Bodner–Partom, for simulating SUS301 3/4H were obtained as shown in Figures 1 and
orthogonal machining on an HY100 alloy. While some 2, respectively. Please note that the stresses and strains
material models could generate accurate predictions of used in this paper all refer to true stresses and true
cutting force and chip formation, they failed to predict strains.
the residual stress. From their study, it seemed difficult In FEA, three material models were used: bilinear,
to find one material model that could accurately predict trilinear, and multi-linear. These three models are com-
behavior in all aspects of interest. Lazarescu et al.9 also monly used when the material’s nonlinearity is consid-
used several constitutive models to generate yield sur- ered. The POM models are illustrated in Figure 1, and
faces for AA6016T4 aluminum alloy. Through hydrau-
lic bulge testing, they found that, to obtain good
agreement between the simulation and experimental
data, the constitutive model BBC2005 with all the input
parameters should be used. Thomas et al.10 applied a
cyclic loading using a punch on a simply supported cir-
cular plate to study various work hardening material
models, including isotropic, kinematic, mechanical sub-
layer, and Mroz. They found that the mechanical sub-
layer model was the most efficient, and had good
correlation with the experimental results. Amy et al.11
presented various error sources while performing FEA,
including material variability, dimensional tolerances,
and input parameter inaccuracy. They also reported
that the boundary condition was critical to the accuracy
of the FEA.
In this study, the measurement data were employed
as a reference to compare with the FEA results. As
mentioned previously, the material model, the mesh Figure 1. Experimental stress–strain curves and three material
density, and the element selection are critical factors models for POM.
Lee and Zhang 3

Table 1. Parameters of bilinear material models of POM and SUS301 3/4H.

Materials POM SUS301 3/4H

Young’s modulus (GPa) 2.431 157.6

Yield strength (MPa) 54.70 1117
Tangent modulus (GPa) 0.025 1.448

POM: polyoxymethylene.

Table 2. Parameters of trilinear material models of POM and SUS301 3/4H.

Materials data points POM SUS301 3/4H

Strain (%) Stress (MPa) Strain (%) Stress (MPa)

1 1.02 24.8 0.44 689.1

2 5.69 55.0 1.38 1122.2
3 13.60 58.2 11.50 1278.8

POM: polyoxymethylene.

two linear portions together. As shown in Figures 1 and

2, the yield points of the trilinear models are the points
where the material starts to yield or the points where
the first linear portions end. By comparing the yield
points with those of the bilinear models, the yield points
of the trilinear models are obviously lower. The stresses
and strains used to define the trilinear material models
of POM and SUS301 3/4H are listed in Table 2.
The multi-linear material models of POM and
SUS301 3/4H are also shown in Figures 1 and 2, respec-
tively. Obviously, the material models best fit the
experimental stress–strain curves. The stresses and
strains used to define the multi-linear models can be
found in Table 3, in which eight data points are used to
construct each of the material models.

Figure 2. Experimental stress–strain curves and three material

models for SUS301 3/4H. Methods
In this study, the comparison between the experimental
data and the FEA results was made to determine con-
those of SUS301 3/4H are illustrated in Figure 2. The sistency. The experiment was to apply loads to cantile-
bilinear material models were constructed by extending ver beams made of POM and SUS301 3/4H to obtain
the linear portions in both the elastic region and the the load–deflection relationship. The size of the POM
plastic region. The point where the two linear portions cantilever beam was 60.0 3 12.0 3 3.0 mm and that of
meet is the yield point for the bilinear material models. the SUS301 3/4H beam was 30.0 3 8.0 3 0.4 mm. The
Young’s moduli, yield strengths, and tangent moduli of actual lengths of the cantilever specimens were longer
both the POM and SUS301 3/4H are listed in Table 1. than the specified dimensions, as an extra length was
To better describe the stress–strain curves of the needed for gripping. The experiments were conducted
POM and SUS301 3/4H, the trilinear material model, on the same universal testing system used to obtain the
as shown in Figures 1 and 2, was used to represent the stress–strain curves of the materials. The horizontal
stress–strain relationship between the POM and cantilever beam specimens were clamped on the fixture,
SUS301 3/4H. Each trilinear model includes three lin- and then, a rack containing weights was loaded near
ear portions: the first line and third line are the linear the free end of the cantilever so that the load direction
portions in the elastic region and plastic region, and the was always perpendicular to the ground, thus, simulat-
middle one is obtained by simply connecting the other ing the fixed loading direction in FEA. The small
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Parameters of multi-linear material models of POM and SUS301 3/4H.

Materials data points POM SUS301 3/4H

Strain (%) Stress (MPa) Strain (%) Stress (MPa)

1 1.02 24.8 0.44 698.1

2 1.57 33.7 0.71 952.6
3 2.15 40.3 0.96 1074
4 2.79 45.7 1.38 1122
5 3.81 51.0 2.26 1146
6 4.80 53.7 11.5 1279
7 5.69 55.0 15.0 1379
8 13.6 58.2 27.2 1718

POM: polyoxymethylene.

Table 4. Material models and element types used for obtaining

the load–deflection curves.

Material model Element type

Bilinear BEAM188
Trilinear PLANE183
Multi-linear SHELL181
SOLID186

unloaded portion of the cantilever beam was not

included in the length of the cantilever beam so that it
did not affect the simulation. The weights in the rack
were gradually increased to obtain the load–deflection
curves for the cantilever beams; the maximum loads
were 15.5 N for POM and 10.6 N for SUS301 3/4H.
Three cantilever beams were tested for each material, Figure 3. Actual load–deflection curve of the POM cantilever
and the mean values were calculated to produce the beam and the simulated ones with the use of various elements
load–deflection curves. and a bilinear material model.
To obtain the analysis results, commercial FEA soft-
ware ANSYS (Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA) was
used to perform the simulation. Table 4 lists the three types used in this study to determine the proper element
material models and the four element types adopted in sizes. It was found that the von Mises stresses of the
analysis. The four element types were BEAM188, cantilever beams converged when the element size was
PLANE183, SHELL181, and SOLID186. BEAM188 is reduced to 1 mm for POM and 0.2 mm for SUS301 3/
a one-dimensional beam element, PLANE183 is a two- 4H, respectively. Therefore, in subsequent analysis,
dimensional plane-stress quadrilateral element, these element sizes were used for the finite element
SHELL181 is a three-dimensional shell quadrilateral models. The FEA results are presented by the materials
element, and SOLID186 is a three-dimensional solid in the following sections.
hexagonal element. All the elements were quadratic,
meaning that there is a node in the middle of each edge
of the elements. The boundary conditions, fixed sup- POM
port at the fixed end and a load at the free end, were
The solid lines with various colors in Figure 3 represent
applied to the finite element model to obtain the simu-
the POM cantilever beam’s load–deflection curves, as
lated load–deflection curves.
obtained using the following elements: BEAM188,
PLANE183, SHELL181, and SOLID186, respectively.
The material model used to obtain the curves was
Results and discussion
bilinear. While Figure 3 shows that the calculated max-
Before the FEA was conducted on the cantilever beams, imum deflections ranged from 19.5 to 20.8 mm, the
convergence tests were performed for all of the element actual maximum deflection was 24.64 mm. Apparently,
Lee and Zhang 5

Table 5. Deviations in the maximum deflection and the permanent set based on POM’s bilinear material model for various element
types (the values in the parentheses indicate the deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) –4.84 (–20%) –3.84 (–16%) –5.14 (–21%) –4.36 (–18%)
Permanent set (mm) –2.72 (–100%) –2.42 (–90%) –2.72 (–100%) –2.62 (–96%)

POM: polyoxymethylene.

Table 6. Deviations in the maximum deflection and the permanent set based on POM’s trilinear material model for various element
types (the values in parentheses indicate deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) 1.80 (7%) 2.46 (10%) 0.42 (2%) 1.29 (5%)
Permanent set (mm) 5.94 (218%) 5.55 (204%) 4.45 (163%) 4.64 (170%)

POM: polyoxymethylene.

the calculated results all underestimated the actual

deflection. It was also found that the calculated POM’s
permanent deflections were all trivial, and the actual
one was 2.72 mm. The deviations in the calculated
results from the experimental data are summarized in
Table 5, in which both the values and the percentages
are presented. It can be seen that the deviation percent-
age of the maximum deflection ranges from 216% to
221% and that of the permanent set ranges from
290% to 2100%. Here, the negative sign indicates
that the calculated results underestimated the measured
data.
To understand the cause of the significant deviation,
Figure 1 shows that, while the bilinear model had a
yield strength of 54.7 MPa, the POM started to yield at
26.1 MPa. This difference was one of the reasons that
there were noticeable deviations, especially for the per- Figure 4. Actual load–deflection curve of the POM cantilever
manent set, between the calculated results and the beam and the simulated ones using various elements and a
simulated ones. Regarding element type, all four ele- trilinear material model.
ment types, BEAM188, PLANE183, SHELL181, and
SOLID186, behaved similarly. 163% to 218% as listed in Table 6. As mentioned pre-
Then, the trilinear model, which better describes the viously, the yield strength of the trilinear model is less
nonlinear behavior of POM, was used to improve the than that of the bilinear model; therefore, both the
consistency of the cantilever beam FEA. The analysis maximum deflections and the permanent sets, as calcu-
results of the POM cantilever beam are shown in lated based on this trilinear model, were greater than
Figure 4. Table 6 lists deviations at the maximum those obtained for the bilinear case. Regarding the ele-
deflection, which ranged from 2% to 10% for the four ment types, BEAM188 and PLANE183 behaved simi-
element types used in this research. The deviations of larly, as did SHELL181 and SOLID186.
the maximum deflection, as based on the trilinear To continue to improve consistency, the multi-linear
model, are obviously less than those based on the model was used to simulate the POM cantilever beam.
bilinear model, which was due to the lower yield Figure 5 shows the load–deflection curves obtained
strength of the trilinear model, as depicted in Figure 1. from the experiment and the FEA, as based on the four
Contrary to the results of the bilinear model, all the element types. In comparison with Figures 3 and 4, it
load–deflection curves of the trilinear material model can be seen that, for the same element type, the curve in
overestimated the maximum deflection and permanent Figure 5 is between those shown in Figures 3 and 4 as
set. The deviations of the permanent set ranged from expected, because the stress–strain curve of the multi-
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 7. Deviations in the maximum deflection and the permanent set based on POM’s multi-linear material model for various
element types (the values in parentheses indicate deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) –2.54 (–10%) –1.54 (–6%) –3.44 (–14%) –2.54 (–10%)
Permanent set (mm) 0.18 (6%) 0.42 (15%) –0.52 (–21%) –0.22 (–9%)

POM: polyoxymethylene.

Table 8. Deviations in maximum deflection and the permanent set based on SUS301 3/4H’s bilinear material model for various
element types (the values in parentheses indicate deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) –1.02 (–8%) –0.75 (–6%) –1.40 (–11%) –1.40 (–11%)
Permanent set (mm) –2.86 (–100%) –2.72 (–95%) –2.71 (–95%) –2.86 (–100%)

Figure 5. Actual load–deflection curve of the POM cantilever Figure 6. Actual load–deflection curve of the SUS301 3/4H
beam and the simulated ones using various elements and a cantilever beam and the simulated ones using various elements
multi-linear material model. and a bilinear material model.

linear model is also between those of the bilinear and model for POM. Figure 6 shows the load–deflection
trilinear models, as shown in Figure 1. Table 7 lists the curves obtained using the experiment and finite element
deviations at the maximum deflection ranging from models, as based on the four element types. The devia-
26% to 214%, which are between the maximum tions in the maximum deflections calculated using FEA
deflections calculated using the bilinear and trilinear with the four element types ranged from 26% to
material models. The same situation occurred for the 211%, as indicated in Table 8. While the permanent
permanent set, which ranged from 221% to 15%. sets calculated by FEA were trivial, the actual perma-
Regarding the element type, all four element types nent set was 2.86 mm. This significant deviation was
behaved differently. mainly due to the overestimated yield strength of the
bilinear material model, as previously explained.
Regarding the element type, all four element types,
SUS301 3/4H BEAM188, PLANE183, SHELL181, and SOLID186,
This study extended this section to another material, behaved similarly.
SUS301 3/4H, which used the same approach as the Then, the trilinear model was used to calculate the
POM material. Regarding the SUS301 3/4H bilinear deflection and permanent set of the cantilever beam,
model, the results were similar to those of the bilinear and Figure 7 illustrates the results. The deviations in
Lee and Zhang 7

Table 9. Deviations in the maximum deflection and permanent set based on SUS301 3/4H’s trilinear material model for various
element types (the values in parentheses indicate deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) 0.86 (7%) 0.77 (6%) –0.38 (–3%) 0.04 (–0.4%)
Permanent set (mm) –0.21 (–7%) –0.54 (–19%) –1.32 (–46%) –1.02 (–36%)

Figure 7. Actual load–deflection curve of the SUS301 3/4H Figure 8. Actual load–deflection curve of the SUS301 3/4H
cantilever beam and the simulated ones using various elements cantilever beam and the simulated ones using various elements
and a trilinear material model. and a multi-linear material model.

the calculated maximum deflections, as listed in the permanent set between the calculated and the
Table 9, ranged from 20.4% to 7%, which were quite experimental results were large, which may indicate
consistent with the experimental maximum deflection. that there was an unknown factor that affected the
Next, the deviations in the permanent set calculation results of the permanent set.
ranged from 27% to 246%, as indicated in Table 9. One possible factor was the stress caused by the grip.
Compared to results of the POM case, as listed in In the cantilever beam experiment, a portion of the can-
Table 6, the calculated permanent sets based on the tri- tilever was firmly gripped to provide support. The stres-
linear model for SUS301 3/4H were relatively consis- ses of the specimens at the grip were generated, which
tent with the experimental results. Regarding the may have contributed to the large permanent set in the
element types, BEAM188 and PLANE183 behaved SUS301 3/4H’s case. Regarding simulation, we simply
similarly, as did SHELL181 and SOLID186. used boundary conditions with gripping portions per-
Finally, using the multi-linear material model for manently fixed at the initial position; thus, there were
SUS301 3/4H, the load–deflection curves were no stresses at the grip. To reduce the deviation in the
obtained, as shown in Figure 8. As the multi-linear boundary conditions between the experiment and the
model is stiffer than the trilinear model, as illustrated simulation, further simulations were performed using
in Figure 2, the load–deflection curves in Figure 8 the modified boundary condition, as discussed in the
shifted to the left, as compared to the curves in Figure following.
7. This trend was similar to that of the POM case. The
deviations at the maximum deflection, using the four Study on the setup of the boundary
element types, ranged from 21% to 28%, while the
deviations of the permanent set ranged from 262% to
condition
277%, as indicated in Table 10. Regarding the element In this section, a cantilever beam made of another
types, BEAM188 and PLANE183 behaved similarly, as material, SUS301 H, was analyzed to examine the setup
did SHELL181 and SOLID186. While the deviations of the boundary condition. The size of the beam was
in the maximum deflection between the calculated and the same as the one made of SUS301 3/4H, and the pro-
the experimental results seemed to be small, those of cedure was similar to that presented in the previous
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 10. Deviations in the maximum deflection and the permanent set based on SUS301 3/4H’s multi-linear material model for
various element types (the values in parentheses indicate deviations in percentage with respect to the experimental data).

Deviation BEAM188 PLANE183 SHELL181 SOLID186

Maximum deflection (mm) –0.28 (–2%) –0.11 (–1%) –1.00 (–8%) –0.87 (–7%)
Permanent set (mm) –1.83 (–64%) –1.77 (–62%) –2.20 (–77%) –2.18 (–76%)

Table 11. Comparison of the deviations for SUS301 H by FEA

with the use of SOLID186 element (pre-stress at displacement
0.02 mm).

Without pre-stress With pre-stress

Maximum deflection –1.85 (–14%) –0.03 (0.2%)

deviation (mm)
Permanent set –2.55 (–80%) + 0.15 (5%)
deviation (mm)

FEA: finite element analysis.

The stresses created by the grip increased the stress

Figure 9. Pre-stress boundary conditions of the SUS301 H
at the fixed end of the cantilever beam did affect the
cantilever beam.
simulated results. If the stresses are ignored, a signifi-
cant deviation of the permanent set may occur. If the
sections. First, the specimens were made using the
stresses are included in FEA by imposing displacement
SUS301 H material. Next, tensile testing was performed
at the grip, then, how to determine the displacement
to obtain the stress–strain curve to build the multi-
becomes a critical issue. The analysis process found that
linear material model. Then, FEA, as based on the
multi-linear material model, was performed with the permanent set was very sensitive to the value of dis-
boundary conditions with and without pre-stress to placement. In a real situation, FEA analysts may have
obtain results. Pre-stress was generated by assigning a difficulty setting up this displacement boundary condi-
downward displacement on top of the gripping area, as tion unless the experimental data are available. Without
shown in Figure 9, to simulate the stress created due to properly setting up the boundary conditions according
the grip on the specimen. Only the SOLID186 element to the actual boundary conditions of the experiment,
type was used for this study, as BEAM188 and inconsistency between the simulated results and the
SHELL181 cannot be applied to the finite displacement experimental data is expected.
boundary condition. PLANE183, which is a two-
dimensional element type, cannot be used for the gen- Conclusive remarks
eral three-dimensional structure as well.
Regarding the boundary condition without pre- FEA software has proven to be an indispensable tool
stress, the calculated deflection at the maximum load for researchers and engineers in solving engineering
was 11.15 mm, which was 1.85 mm or 14% less than the problems. The objective of this research was to study
experimental results, as indicated in Table 11, while the and improve the consistency of FEA using various ele-
calculated permanent set was 2.55 mm or 80% less than ment types, material models, and the setup of the
the experimental data. Obviously, the simulation results boundary conditions. The four element types used in
were not consistent with the experimental data, espe- this research were BEAM188, PLANE183, SHELL181,
cially for the permanent set. Regarding the boundary and SOLID186. Three material models—the bilinear
condition with pre-stress, the calculated deflection at model, trilinear model, and multi-linear model—were
the maximum load was 0.03 mm or 0.2% less than the used to simulate the behavior of cantilever beams made
experimental data, while the calculated permanent set of both POM and SUS301 3/4H. The study findings
was 0.15 mm or 5% more than the experimental data. are summarized as follows. When the stress–strain
The simulated results with pre-stress greatly improved curve of the materials is not available for finite element
the consistency. Here, the press-stress was simulated simulation, to use limited information such as yield
based on the displacement of 0.2 mm, which was mea- strength, Young’s modulus, and tangent modulus, to
sured during the experimental setup. create an approximate stress–strain curve as a bilinear
Lee and Zhang 9

curve may be inappropriate. The yield strength of the 2. Diwan AG and Mahajan YS. Study of the effect of vari-
bilinear stress–strain curve may be much higher than ous parameters on the result of stress analysis obtained
that of the actual stress–strain curve, which may result using tetrahedral and hexahedral mesh elements. J Chin
in less deflection and permanent set. To use the trilinear Inst Eng 2017; 40: 101–109.
or the multi-linear stress–strain curve is a better choice 3. Cifuentes AO and Kalbag A. A performance study of
in adopting the material model. In addition, the devia- tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D finite element
structural analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des 1992; 12:
tion between the FEA results and the experimental
313–318.
results may be due to the over-simplified boundary 4. Li GJ, Wang WJ, An L, et al. Research on hexahedral
condition setup. Simply fixing the displacement of the and tetrahedral mesh applied to strength analysis of
boundary without considering the stresses induced by bogie frame’’, Appl Mech Mater 2014; 477–478: 150–154.
the grip may underestimate the permanent set gener- 5. Tadepalli SC, Erdemir A and Cavanagh PR. Compari-
ated at the boundary. son of hexahedral and tetrahedral elements in finite ele-
ment analysis of the foot and footwear. J Biomech 2011;
44: 2337–2343.
Declaration of conflicting interests
6. Muccini R, Baleani M and Viceconti M. Selection of the
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with best element type in the finite element analysis of hip
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this prostheses. J Med Eng Technol 2000; 24: 145–148.
article. 7. Langer P, Maeder M, Guist C, et al. More than six ele-
ments per wavelength: the practical use of structural
Funding finite element models and their accuracy in comparison
with experimental results. J Comput Acoust 2017; 25:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup- 1750025.
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 8. Shi J and Liu CR. The influence of material models on
article: The authors thank the Ministry of Science and finite element simulation of machining. J Manuf Sci E: T
Technology, Republic of China, for the financial support of ASME 2005; 126: 849–857.
this research under grant MOST 105-2221-E-011-055. 9. Lazarescu L, Ciobanu I, Nicodim IP, et al. Effect of the
mechanical parameters used as input data in the yield cri-
References teria on the accuracy of the finite element simulation of
sheet metal forming processes. Key Eng Mater 2013;
1. Langer P, Sepahvand K and Marburg S. Uncertainty
554–557: 204–209.
quantification in analytical and finite element beam mod-
10. Thomas TJ, Nair S and Garg VK. A numerical study of
els using experimental data. In: 9th international confer-
plasticity models and finite element types. Comput Struct
ence on structural dynamics (EURODYN 2014) (ed
1983; 16: 669–675.
A Cunha, P Ribeiro, E Caetano, et al.), 2014, pp.2753–
11. Amy RA, Aglietti GS and Richardson G. Accuracy of
2758. European Association for Structural Dynamics,
simplified printed circuit board finite element models.
https://paginas.fe.up.pt/;eurodyn2014/CD/papers/381_
Microelectron Reliab 2010; 50: 86–97.
MS14_ABS_1746.pdf