I have carried out uniaxial compression test of hollow glass microsphere material and have Experimental data of force displacement of uniaxial compression test. Further, I would like to create a model of uniaxial compression test in ABAQUS to determine the force-displacement curve of material and would like to compare Simulation-based Force-displacement curve to experimental curve. So, for that, I need help regarding establish the model in ABAQUS. As I am new in ABAQUS Software I would like to know for uniaxial compression test is it suitable to use ABAQUS standard or explicit?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Suggestion required to create uniaxial compression model in ABAQUS
- Thread starter Harsh2191
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
@Mustaine3 thank you for your reply. For now, I would not like to consider bucking effect in compression and would like to analyze the linear behavior of glass material in compression. So, I believe for now /Standard approach fit for my application.
Furthermore, I have already developed the uniaxial compression model of the hollow glass microsphere (HGM) in ABAQUS and as the property of HGM is unknown, I have taken assumption for material property and assumption are Young's modulus 60e3 MPa and Poisson's ratio 0.2 (general glass properties). For model, there are three parts indenter, glass sphere, and holder. Indenter and holder considered as rigid material by applying higher Young's modulus. Surface to surface contact applies between sphere to indenter and sphere to the holder where frictionless tangential contact is considered. Displacement boundary condition is applied to the Master node and force displacement curve gets from the same master node.
Correct me if I am wrong at any point as I explained my simulation model above. Now, My question is Force-displacement curve from simulation model does not fit for now but still much impressive slope of simulation curve related to experimental result. The thing is I have only crushing strength of material and simulation model stress development in the material is much higher then crushing strength limit. So, I would need your help if you can correct me at any place, might be I misunderstood the thing or I made a mistake in the model or something like that you can correct me.
I have attached the model .inp file below if you need to look in.
Thank you in advance.
Furthermore, I have already developed the uniaxial compression model of the hollow glass microsphere (HGM) in ABAQUS and as the property of HGM is unknown, I have taken assumption for material property and assumption are Young's modulus 60e3 MPa and Poisson's ratio 0.2 (general glass properties). For model, there are three parts indenter, glass sphere, and holder. Indenter and holder considered as rigid material by applying higher Young's modulus. Surface to surface contact applies between sphere to indenter and sphere to the holder where frictionless tangential contact is considered. Displacement boundary condition is applied to the Master node and force displacement curve gets from the same master node.
Correct me if I am wrong at any point as I explained my simulation model above. Now, My question is Force-displacement curve from simulation model does not fit for now but still much impressive slope of simulation curve related to experimental result. The thing is I have only crushing strength of material and simulation model stress development in the material is much higher then crushing strength limit. So, I would need your help if you can correct me at any place, might be I misunderstood the thing or I made a mistake in the model or something like that you can correct me.
I have attached the model .inp file below if you need to look in.
Thank you in advance.
The linear elastic material model is only correct for small strains. So check if that is still valid for your model.
Beside that I can't tell you the reason for the different results. That's something you have to figure out by yourself.
Your model definitions are not wrong, but they are also not good. Why don't you use symmetry to calculate just a quarter of the model? Or even run it axisymmetric. The two plates can be modeled as analytical rigids to save additional computation time.
Beside that I can't tell you the reason for the different results. That's something you have to figure out by yourself.
Your model definitions are not wrong, but they are also not good. Why don't you use symmetry to calculate just a quarter of the model? Or even run it axisymmetric. The two plates can be modeled as analytical rigids to save additional computation time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question