The main beam is a very small rectangular steel section (1.5x2 in2), so the buckling load is very low, but if I couple it with another beam with a high capacity, it will stiffen the beam.
The units are in kips and inches.
Yes, the NLGeom is on. But the interesting thing is that the problem is seen only for the OOP displacements and not for U1 or U2. Therefore, if I plot a graph of force vs in-plane displacement in Riks analysis I do not see any snap-through.
My OOP displacement decreased at a time step which clearly is not supposed to happen. But as I increase the imperfection scale factor, the U3 was no longer decreasing.
Thank you for the clarification. So as per your explanation, if I am modeling my static analysis model in inches and I place a scale factor of 0.2, the normalized displacement will be multiplied by 0.2 inches. But in my analyses, I used the first mode shape and factor of 0.2 but the results do...
In Abaqus, when using imperfection from buckle analysis, how do we determine the scale factor?
*IMPERFECTION, FILE = (my odb file from buckle), STEP=1
Mode number, scale factor
What does the scale factor represent? For example, I want my out of plane displacement(U3) to have an imperfection of...
This is the beam; it is a simple steel rectangular beam with base fixed and static compression applied at the top. The beam would buckle at almost 1 kip but I have to apply a load beyond yield so I constrained (kinematic coupling) this beam with another beam (overlapped position) with a larger...
I am using steel with bilinear elastoplastic material. When I apply a compressive load on a beam (wire) element, After yield, I am getting a negative force-displacement curve for U3. What does that mean?
In Abaqus, when the documentation says "can generate linear as well as nonlinear constraints" for MPC subroutine, does that mean, it is for Non-Linear material regime?
In the Abaqus, I have a beam and column made of shell elements (S4R). They are connected with Tie constraint. When I run the analysis, there are node sets under "WarnNodeBCInactiveDOF" and those are the ones at the connection between beam and column. What might be the reason for this? This is...
Thank you @FEA way. I tried using continuum coupling but I got the following shape and this is not as expected. It looks like the wire beam is breaking from the connection. I have NLGEOM on and nonlinear material property. It seems like the breaking kind of behavior occurs in the nonlinear range.
What could be the best way to connect the 3D wire beam with the solid surface?
Initially, I tried using MPC Beam or Kinematic Coupling from the Interaction module but I am not getting expected results from these constraints.
There is some space between the two plates.
In ABAQUS, if we define 5 equation constraints such that we restrain 2,3,4,5,6 degrees of freedom, shouldn't the U2, U3, UR1, UR2, and UR3 for the nodes be equal given that Poisson's ratio is 0?
@FEA way, I am in fact, trying to make the left beam stiff. I have the following type of kinematic coupling defined for each node in the beam. B1 node is on the left beam and R1 on the right beam.
The beam on the left has less buckling capacity but we have to apply axial load beyond its buckling...
Thank you FEA way. Can you please help me understand what happens in this case where there are kinematic couplings defined for every node in the beam. Do we define a coordinate system for each node? I have been stuck in this for a long time.
In the below figure, the local axis is defined such that the X is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the left beam. In ABAQUS, if I define kinematic coupling say constrain U1 with the master for left beam and slave for right beam, will U1 still be the axial/longitudinal axes for the left beam...
"Your plot seems to show an additional intermediate plastic point that's not shown in your dialog box."
Thank you for the response. Yes, the ultimate point is 60 ksi; I seem to have miscalculated that. But I still do not understand the extra plastic point. I tried using a section poison ratio...
