×
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

the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

(OP)
There are two questions about the curve of load and displacement and one question about deformation result for FEM ,
1. the load obtained by displacement controlled in abaqus is larger than experimental result, although the material elastic property is same as description in the literature, of course, there is some simplification in my model.
2. Beside, I use nonlinear analysis due to big deformation, nut the curve of load vs displacement is not nonlinear at the displacement between 6mm and 8mm. After the 8mm, abaqus is terminated due to many attempts. At last, I must mention that the material has plastic characteristic, but due to lack the value of stress and strain, I ignore them.
3. The specimen is sandwich composite consisted of two skins and core, but the deformation of bottom skin seem not occur, but the experimental result has small deformation at this deformation at relevant displacement.
4. The region of distortion will be corrected by re-drawing more tiny mesh, if you think it's wrong, please tell me. Due to lot time to recalculate it, so I plan to wait to solve above problems.
FEM: load vs displacement
experiment: load vs displacement
FEM: deformation result:

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

Can you show the displacement contours (unaveraged)? and maybe some more information on your boundary conditions?

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

(OP)
Thank you for your remind, but I still cannot find question. These are displacement contours as followings, and hope you can get some more information. In Addition, the boundary condition seem is right, which is the two supports subject to U1=U2=U3=UR1=UR2=UR3=0, and loading head only subjected to U2.

UT3:
UT2:
UT1:

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

The result looks unrealistic. I would expect a global bending and not a local one of the top face.

First I would check if this is hourglassing in the deformed elements.

Then I would think that in reality the side walls buckle when they are much stiffer than the core. In the analysis you have a perfect straight structure and this does not happen. I would recommend to do a buckling analysis and use the results as imperfections.

Also check the strains in the material. A linear-elastic material model is only valid for small strains.

Have you thought about symmetry to reduce the analysis effort?

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

(OP)
Thank you for your help.
I think the reason may interface between core and skin is not induced, besides, another wrong maybe the element type which I choose shell, but it's a bend.
But I want to know the reason that the curve of load vs deflection is straight in abaqus, although I open NLgeom, not same as experiment.

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

Something does not seem right with the deformation of the bottom two pins and adjacent skin in the first deformed shape image you have shown. I would expect to see at least some rotation or displacement of the bottom skin. Have you compared the load resultants of the bottom two pins to the top one? Perhaps the whole bottom skin was inadvertently fixed?

RE: the numerical results have large different with that of experiment.

(OP)
Dear friends, @Mustaine3 @DRM89 and , thanks for your help.
Now, I have a new simulation by introducing cohesive element in a 2D model, which the skin and core meshed by solid elements. But there is a new error which is show that the power is not specified or the specied value is equal to or smaller than zero.

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close