Tagged: ansys-mechanical, composite-laminates, offset, shell-elements
-
-
March 10, 2022 at 12:20 pm
fekl
SubscriberHello,
I am modelling curved layered shells using shell281 elements. For postprocessing the results, I am extracting the element stress results (N11, N22, N12, M11, etc.).
I noticed that there is a large difference in the N11 results, when I change the secoffset between "mid" and "bot". I made a simple model showing the difference (see picture). To keep the geometry the same for both cases, I offset the nodes half of the shell thickness.
The results are extracted from elements at nearly the same position in both models. The maximum deflection in x direction of the whole model and the extreme stresses in the picked element are very similar for both models. From my understanding, the results should be pretty similar for the stress results as well, but they are not.
Can somebody explain this deviation?
I also tried to calculate the N11 results manually by integrating the stresses in x-direction over the laminate thickness, but my results are far off the value given in the SMISC,1 data. Am I missing something important here?
Thank you very much in advance.
Kind regards,
fekl
March 17, 2022 at 12:26 amBill Bulat
Ansys EmployeeI tried to reproduce your observation with the following APDL input file:
fini
/cle
/sys,del file*.png
/vie,1,1,2,3
/esha,1
C*******************************************
C*** PARAMETERS
C*******************************************
r=0.1 ! BEND RADIUS
l=0.1 ! LEG LENGTH
t=0.005 ! THICKNESS
w=0.1 ! WIDTH
esz=2*t ! ELEMENT SIZE
E=2e11 ! ELASTIC MODULUS
nu=0.3 ! POISSON'S
C*******************************************
C*** MODEL
C*******************************************
/prep7
et,1,281 ! ATTRIBUTES
keyo,1,8,2
sect,1,shell
secd,t
mp,ex,1,E
mp,nuxy,1,nu
secof,mid
k,1 ! GEOMETRY
k,2,,l
k,3,-r,l+r
k,4,-r-l,l+r
k,5,-r,l
k,6,,,w
l,1,2
l,3,4
larc,2,3,5,r
l,1,6
adra,1,2,3,,,,4
numm,kp
esiz,esz ! MESH
ames,all
ksel,s,kp,,1,6,5 ! BCs
lslk,s,1
nsll,s,1
d,all,all
ksel,s,kp,,4,10,6
lslk,s,1
nsll,s,1
f,all,fx,-1
fini
C*******************************************
C*** SOLVE
C*******************************************
/solu
alls
outr,all,all
/title,SECOFF,MID
save
solv
fini
C*******************************************
C*** POST PROCESS
C*******************************************
/post1
set
etab,n11,smisc,1
etab,n22,smisc,2
plet,n11
/sho,png $plet,n11 $/sho,close $/wait,2
plet,n22
/sho,png $plet,n22 $/sho,close $/wait,2
C*******************************************
C*** RESOLVE w/SECOFF,BOT
C*******************************************
fini
/prep7
secof,bot
fini
/solu
/title,SECOFF,BOT
save
solv
fini
/post1
set
etab,n11,smisc,1
etab,n22,smisc,2
plet,n11
/sho,png $plet,n11 $/sho,close $/wait,2
plet,n22
/sho,png $plet,n22 $/sho,close $/wait,2
The N11 and N22 results for SECOF,MID and SECOF,BOT (image files my input automatically creates) are very similar... it seems that I am so far unable to reproduce your observation. Can you can modify my input in such a way that it DOES show unexpected differences?
Cheers Bill
March 20, 2022 at 7:30 pmfekl
SubscriberDear Bill Thank you very much for your reply! I was not quite able to reproduce the differences with your script, so I used some of your code to adapt my own script. To keep it more simple this time, I left out the correction of the radius to compensate the secoffset. You can find the script below.
Looking at the global response of the model, the values for N11 and N22 are pretty similar for both secoffset,mid and secoffset,bot. When I look at a specific element, though, the difference is more substantial relative to the absolute values (see the PRETAB results).
Is there any way to compensate for these errors, e.g. by offsetting the geometry? I tried this in the original post, but did not succeed. To maybe give you some context to my question: I am using the N11, etc. to do some post-processing of laminated composite shells, which are using secoffset,bot. I need to "translate" the extracted loads to the secoffset,mid plane for the post-processing step. From my understanding, it should be sufficient to offset the M11, M22 and M12 moments and leave the N11, N22 and N12 values unchanged. I wanted to check this assumtion using the simple l-bracket model.
Kind regards fekl
This is the script I used:
/clear
/sys,del file*.png
/view,1,1,2,3
/prep7
length = 0.150
radius = 0.040
width = 0.040
force_ = 10
K,1,-length,radius,-width/2
K,2,0,radius,-width/2
K,3,radius,0,-width/2
K,4,radius,-length,-width/2
L,1,2
CSYS,1
L,2,3
CSYS,0
L,3,4
K,5,-length,radius,width/2
L,1,5
ADRAG,1,2,3,,,,4
MP,DENS,1,1971.00000 MP,EX,1,13445000000.00000 MP,EY,1,13445000000.00000 MP,EZ,1,11932000000.00000 MP,PRXY,1,0.67000 MP,PRYZ,1,0.20000 MP,PRXZ,1,0.20000 MP,GXY,1,3864600000.00000 MP,GYZ,1,3864600000.00000 MP,GXZ,1,3864600000.00000
MP,DENS,2,960.00000 MP,EX,2,45000000.00000 MP,EY,2,45000000.00000 MP,EZ,2,45000000.00000 MP,PRXY,2,0.30000 MP,PRYZ,2,0.30000 MP,PRXZ,2,0.30000 MP,GXY,2,22000000.00000 MP,GYZ,2,22000000.00000 MP,GXZ,2,22000000.00000
ET,1,281
KEYOPT,1,8,2
SECTYPE,1,shell
SECDATA,0.0005,1,0,,skin_1
SECDATA,0.0040,2,0,,core
SECDATA,0.0005,1,0,,skin_2
SECOFFSET,MID
ESIZE,0.002
AMESH,all
/eshape,1
/replot
NSEL,s,loc,x,-length
D,all,all
NSEL,s,loc,y,-length
*get,node_count,NODE,0,COUNT
F,all,fx,force_/node_count
ALLSEL
/solu
solve
/post1
SET,first
ETABLE,N_11,SMISC, 1
ETABLE,N_22,SMISC, 2
ETABLE,N_12,SMISC, 3
ETABLE,M_11,SMISC, 4
ETABLE,M_22,SMISC, 5
ETABLE,M_12,SMISC, 6
ETABLE,Cent_x,CENT,X
ETABLE,Cent_y,CENT,Y
ETABLE,Cent_z,CENT,Z
ESEL,s,,,1836
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
plet,N_11
/sho,png $plet,n_11 $/sho,close $/wait,2
ESEL,s,,,1836
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
PRETAB,N_11,N_22,N_12,M_11,M_22,M_12,Cent_x,Cent_y,Cent_z
C*******************************************
C*** RESOLVE w/SECOFF,BOT
C*******************************************
fini
allsel
/prep7
secof,bot
fini
/solu
solv
fini
/post1
SET,first
!RSYS,SOLU
ETABLE,N_11,SMISC, 1
ETABLE,N_22,SMISC, 2
ETABLE,N_12,SMISC, 3
ETABLE,M_11,SMISC, 4
ETABLE,M_22,SMISC, 5
ETABLE,M_12,SMISC, 6
ETABLE,Cent_x,CENT,X
ETABLE,Cent_y,CENT,Y
ETABLE,Cent_z,CENT,Z
ESEL,s,,,1836
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
plet,N_11
/sho,png $plet,n_11 $/sho,close $/wait,2
ESEL,s,,,1836
NSLE,s
ESLN,s,0
PRETAB,N_11,N_22,N_12,M_11,M_22,M_12,Cent_x,Cent_y,Cent_z
Viewing 2 reply threads- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Ansys Innovation SpaceEarth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Ansys Blog
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
Trending discussions- Saving & sharing of Working project files in .wbpz format
- An Unknown error occurred during solution. Check the Solver Output…..
- Understanding Force Convergence Solution Output
- Solver Pivot Warning in Beam Element Model
- Colors and Mesh Display
- How to calculate the residual stress on a coating by Vickers indentation?
- whether have the difference between using contact and target bodies
- What is the difference between bonded contact region and fixed joint
- The solver engine was unable to converge on a solution for the nonlinear problem as constrained.
- User manual
Top Contributors-
2620
-
2098
-
1327
-
1110
-
461
Top Rated Tags© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ansys does not support the usage of unauthorized Ansys software. Please visit www.ansys.com to obtain an official distribution.
-