Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Navigation
- Simcenter
- Forums
- Blogs
- Knowledge Bases

- Siemens PLM Community
- Simcenter
- 3D Simulation - Simcenter 3D Forum
- Deviations between shell and solid model

Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

Solved!
Go to solution

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

09-08-2016 03:11 AM

Hi !

At the moment I am trying to validate my shell model. For doing this, I am comparing the analysis results of my solid model and my shell model. Unfortunately, the differences are not neglectable. To break the model down to a minimalistic one for basic understanding, I used a simple L-shaped body/sheet. (see attached pictures).

Both have L=50mm, thickness=2mm (in case of the shell model the mesh element thickness is defined as 2mm), width=20mm. On side A, a fixed constraint and on side B a simple load of 10 N in X direction is applied. Just a simple problem. (Material is the same)

When I am comparing the results, relative deviations of 1.1% are occuring. The deviations increase with an increasing thickness.

When I am using the Castigliano's Method for this, the result is ~3% higher than the values of Solid and Sheet body

How can these deviations be explained?

Is it because the flux of force in the corner is not accounted correctly?

Is it because the 3D mesh elements only possess three DOF's (only translational) and therefore the system reacts stiffer?

I would be glad if someone can help me.

Thank you in advance

Benny

Solved! Go to Solution.

Labels:

2 REPLIES

Solution

Solution

Accepted by topic author BennyS

09-15-2016
05:59 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

09-13-2016 03:51 AM

Benny,

after determining that no-one did answer you, I will try to give you some hints. May be you already know it or you did cope your problem in the meantime.

1. Keep in mind that solid and shell elements use different assumptions for shape functions. There are different theoretical approaches to solve the differential equations. These differences also occur in the variety of different shell-elements, too.

- Some elements are better in bending and others in shear. In your problem you have both loading parts.

- Some elements are better for describing thin structures others for thick structures.

- Keep in mind that there are different assumptions in plane strain and plane stress modelling.

- There are differences in quality of results by using linear or quadrilateral elements, too.

Try to use other shell elements to check the influence in your special case.

2. To bring solid and shell closer together try to reduce the effects lateral strains by setting poissons ratio to zero for test. Shell elements are not compressible in local normal direction and therefore here are additional differences between solid and shells.

3. Shell modelling assumes that the shell thickness plane according to local x- and y- direction (if normal direction is z-direction) does tilt but do not deform over local z-direction. That means those planes keep "plane". In a Solid it does not. You could try to reinforce your solid in load area to reduce that effect.

Therefore a solid will produce other results essentially every time than shell elements and the deviation depends on many influences.

I think a deviation of 1 % is not so bad.

Last hint: If you use Castigliano it implicates that you substitute your model with beams? - There are much more assumptions deviating from solid and shells. (Timochenko vs. Bernoulli, ...)

Best wishes, Michael

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

09-15-2016 06:00 AM

Thank you very very much!

I was gathering some books about FEM and now the deviation thing seems a little bit clearer for me

Follow Siemens PLM Software

© 2017 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc