Hello Mike & Bill,
Thank you for your clear answers ! Sorry for a slightly unclear presentation of the problem, but you still understood the problem. I tested your recommended post-processing styles and they both work, and now the results looks like they should be ! I think that post-processing results by Material ID is better style, because you can still rotate geometry and use other Mechanical’s handy post-processing tools like animation, probe etc.
Here was the simple problem that I used for this test:
Hand calculated stresses at point C:
Hand calculated beam’s cross section’s von Mises stresses at point C at cross section’s 5 different locations:
Here are the boudandary conditions in Ansys:
Here are the von Mises stress results at point C with default Ansys Mechanical’s settings for BEAM189 without any APDL command object:
Here are the von Mises stress results at point C with APDL command object for BEAM189. Beam 1 is the left hand side beam and Beam 2 is the right hand side beam:
So we can see from the left hand side beam that it was necessary to add this APDL command object to achieve more accurate results by increasing cells in cross section and taking in account transverse shear stresses caused by shear force in addition to torsional shear stresses.
Here is a summary for the von Mises stress results and Mechanical’s results difference to hand calculation:
However post-processing results by Material ID naturally removes ability to post-process results by vertex, which could be useful in some scenarios. My workaround was to create section planes to post-process cross sections at certain locations, but it might be time consuming process in large assemblies.