Chapter 16
Validation of Finite Element Calculations and TALA


The validity of the finite element analyses has been tested in a number of ways:

1. The 2D finite element model of a large panel with an empty, open hole was compared with the closed form solution described by Timoshenko [29]. The SCF derived from the finite element model, SCF = 3.0 is identical to the closed form solution value.

2. The 2D finite element model of a pinned connection was compared with strain gage and photoelastic measurements [87]. Table 16.1 summarizes the calculated and measured SCF-values. The two sets of results are in good accord when the differences in P1/D are accounted for.

3. The 2D finite element analysis of a frictionless, pinned connection [1, 18] was compared with the corresponding, closed form solution of Cavaella and Decuzzi [25]. As illustrated in Figure 16.1, the finite element model accurately reproduces the pressure distribution of the closed form solution.

4. To test the adequacy of the 3D model mesh refinement, the mesh was employed to analyze a finite, pinned connection with friction under in plane loading. The results are compared in Figure 16.2 with those obtained with the more refined mesh of the 2D finite element analysis. The two sets of results for contact pressure and slip distributions are in good agreement. The difference in SCF obtained using the 2D and less refined 3D mesh under in-plane loading is about 7%.

5. To test the adequacy of the 3D finite element analysis for treating out-of-plane distortions an analysis of a single, rivet-row lap joint was compared with experimental measurements of the joint in-plane and out-of plane displacements [1, 16]. The results are summarized in Figure 16.3. The calculations predict the variations of displacement with load and the absolute values of displacement within 10%.

6. A further test of the 3D finite element analysis of a single, rivet-row lap joint is obtained by comparing the results of Fung and Smart [88,89] with another 3D finite element model of a different lap joint. Table 16.2 illustrates that the finite element calculations produce comparable SCF values when differences in P1/D and D/t are taken into account.

  • 16.1. Finite Element Model Validation
  • 16.2. Validation of The Thin Adhesive Layer Analysis (TALA)

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In