PSI - Issue 48

Arifin Nurcholis et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 48 (2023) 33 – 40 Nurcholis et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

36 4

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of the mechanical loading

Based on the presented information in Figure 2, it can be interpreted that the structure experiences a temperature loading with an initial value according to room temperature, then rises to 800 °C, then drops back to room temperature at the end of loading. The heat applied to the rod is uniform throughout the rod.

3.3. Mesh variation

Mesh variations are used for mesh convergence studies to find mesh convergence configurations. The size of the seed mesh and the number of elements for each variation can be seen in Table 1. This analysis, using ten types of mesh variations, can be seen in Figure 7 and Table 1. The difference in mesh size is applied to the length of the mesh. For mesh, width uses the same configuration. Meanwhile, the mesh arrangement uses a uniform, linear quadrilateral mesh arrangement. Differences in mesh size are applied to analyze mesh convergence. In addition, if the mesh size is too small, the time needed for analysis will be too long.

Figure 7. Mesh configuration on numerical analysis

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Benchmarking results

In this paper, it is assumed that the rod has an axial stiffness of 190181250 N/m. That value is obtained from 75% of the axial stiffness of a solid iron rod. The discount of 75% was taken to anticipate the variation in the axial strength of the iron rods, which imperfections in the body of the iron rods may cause. In this paper, a simplification of the stem and material geometry is also carried out to facilitate the re-checking process to ensure that the benchmark calculation is correct. In Figures 8 and 9, it can be seen a comparison of benchmark results from several software; in this paper, we use ABAQUS Dynamic Explicit, while other marks are the results of benchmark studies that have been carried out by Gillie [2009], which we use as a media benchmark. The benchmark results in Figures 8 and 9 show that the values ​ ​ obtained have a reasonably uniform trendline. However, at some points, quite significant differences occur in the axial force's minimum and maximum values. A different trendline occurs in the case of VULCAN Quasi-Static in Figure 8. In the case of ANSYS in Figure 9 during the heating process, there is a significant difference in mid-span displacement values of 50% compared to other benchmarks. This is because the material data needs to be more detailed for the steel material's strength response to heat. In this benchmark, the material is deliberately simplified to ensure that the results of the calculations can be checked manually.