×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Nastran/Abaqus shell stiffness discrepancy

Nastran/Abaqus shell stiffness discrepancy

Nastran/Abaqus shell stiffness discrepancy

(OP)
Good Morning Gentlemen,


Just for information I thought you may find the following numbers
interesting.
The model was a gently curved bonnet and was in
combined torsion and bending. Max displacement is reported. The adhesive

referred to sticks the top and bottom of the bonnet together but they
are also welded all around their edges.

ABAQUS      S4/S3              44.9 mm
ABAQUS      S4R/S3             46.6
NASTRAN   CQUAD4/CTRIA3        66.1
NASTRAN   CQUADR/CTRIAR       45.7
NASTRAN   CQUAD8              70.8
MASTER SERIES                 50.1

No adhesive results

ABAQUS    S4/S3             107
NASTRAN   CQUAD4/CTRIA3     123
NASTRAN   CQUADR /CTRIAR   109
MASTER SERIES              114

So the CQUADR appears to be MSC's attempt to match the HKS element
formulation. The CQUADR adds a fictitous stiffness to dof 6 for in-plane
rotational stiffness. According to MSC it's a better element than the
CQUAD4 for planar structures under in-plane loading, and also when the
element shape deviates from a perfect square.

Has anyone got any comments on the above? I regard the ABAQUS results to be the correct ones, but we have a long history of using NASTRAN. These results cause a major problem in comparing 'legacy' analyses with current ones.

RE: Nastran/Abaqus shell stiffness discrepancy

You have very succinctly brought to light one of NASTRAN's shortcomings. I don't have time for a longer explanation (I'm hungry and I'm ready to go home), but I saw your post and didn't want to leave you hanging. This 6th DOF, namely the rotation about the normal to the Shell surface, and the manner in which it enters the constitutive relation is why all Shell Elements are not interchangeable. You can generally reconcile the difference by adding a Constraint Eq., but this will generally make the solver less efficient.

Bottom line: I haven't used NASTRAN or ABAQUS lately (can't afford them), so my ability to compare them may be outdated, but back when I was using them regularly, it was my opinion that ABAQUS was hands down the better code, for accuracy of solution, anyway. So, since it appears that you have both codes at your disposal (lucky you), I would suggest that you use ABAQUS and save the headache.

Of course, this is coming from someone that had to put up with NASTRAN before they got around to adding the "fixed-up" Shell Element! I hope this was of some help. Good Luck.

Bob

RE: Nastran/Abaqus shell stiffness discrepancy

Just a hint!

I see that you are using both Quad4 and Tria3 in your study. The TRIA3 element in NASTRAN is unrealisticly stiff.

NASTRAN is also defining the type of 2D element you are simulating by defining properties, as opposed to ABAQUS where you select the element name. So for a comparison, it is important that you are sure that you have defined the correct properties in PSHELL.

Bernt

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources