Dear all,
Can someone please explain the below warnings? Im doing dynamic impact scenario with 2d composite shell..
***WARNING: For surface S_CONTACT, some facets have an offset which is greater
than one-half times an edge or diagonal length of the facet (for
example...
Dear all,
It was observed that by using different offset options, the contact force and strains were varied during dynamic impacting case. when setting referece surface to the top surface (offset=0.5), it gave lower impact force than when setting that to the middle surface by default. I would...
Dear all,
Depending on how to assign the slave surface (for example, 1) assigning only first two plies, 2) whole 16 plies), it was found that contact force and strains were different. So i'd like to know the reason to have different results.
A slave model consists of 16 plies using 3D...
Dear all,
Is it necessary to use transverse shear stiffness whenever using shell section card? I can see that most of examples do not include.
Do the k values in transverse shear stiffness correspond to the material's young's modulus? If not, how can i calculate it?
By the way, Im using S4R...
Hi xerf,
Thank you for your help.
However, im able to output CPRESS and CSHEAR but COPEN using ODB field output even though i requested in inp file as per below:
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=NO_FRI,mechanical constraint=penalty, cpset=Int-1
M_CONTACT, S_CONTACT
*CONTACT...
Dear all,
Currently im analysing the dynamic impact onto composite panel. However, compared to experimental results, FE analysis over-predicts in terms of contact force. So now im trying to have soften contact behaviour using *Surface Bahavior with PRESSURE-OVERCLOSURE=EXPONENTIAL. However, I...
Dear all,
During the dynamic impact onto composite panel using 2d shell for both an impactor and the target, it was seen that the deformed elements at the impacting centre were very localised. I think due to this, the strain values at the centre in FE were higher than those in Experiment. Even...
Dear all,
I've had experimental results and tried to get FE results to be as close to the tests as possible. However,it was found that FE over-predicted over the tests especially contact force and strain with shorter impact duration. So i've been thinking of ways to reduce the contact force in...
Hi all,
For FE comparison to experimental results in terms of strain, i've tried to
extract the strain in FE models using shell element, initilaly. For more testing
information, the specimens were made of carbon fibre composite with 16 plies,
[45/90/-45/0]2s. Additionally, the strain gauges...
Hi all,
After several simple testing, i've just realised that why the max principle strain and E11 strain came out different when applying tension at one end and clamped the other end. Initial i stretched the panel to be extended by 0.28mm so that it was expected to have 2000 microstrain on the...
Further to this,
Im simply impacting the rigid ball to a composite panel, both ends (or tips) constrained.
I'm using explicit method for both codes; but they still give me the different results.
In LSDYNA, lower surface was picked; in abaqus, SP1 (section point 1??) was picked.
1) element...
Hi all,
Im currently comparing the max strain values using different codes: Abaqus and LSdyna.
It was found that while both codes give pretty close values of force and displacement etc to each other, LSdyna derives much much higher than Abaqus for max strain as seen below:
LSdyna: 0.0240226...
