Different results for Static General, Dynamic Implicit and Dynami Explicit

[Zaurbek]

Dear Colleagues,
I'm doing a cyclic loading of RC column using Static General, Dynamic Implicit and Dynamic Explicit solvers.
Though I have almost similar results for the SG and DI cases, the results are very different for the DE case (see Figure). I've tried to divide each cycle into 4 load steps, but this also gives different results.
Then I used Smooth amplitude instead of Tabular and changed to Double Precision, but still got different results.
Can anyone suggest how to solve this problem?
Many thanks in advance!
I attach the following input files to Test-1.zip:
- Job-1: Cyclic loading with Static General solver
- Job-2: Cyclic loading with Dynamic Implicit solver
- Job-3: Cyclic loading with Dynamic Explicit solver (full smooth protocol)
- Job-4: Cyclic loading with Dynamic Explicit solver (divided smooth protocol)

 

[FEA way]

Interesting comparison. Abaqus/Explicit is a very different solver. It's inherently dynamic and you have to be really careful to avoid the influence of inertia forces if you are trying to run quasi-static analysis. Did you check all the energies in Abaqus/Explicit results ? This is crucial. Not only to make sure kinetic energy is small enough but also to verify the influence of automatically applied numerical damping among others.