Correction: "small-strain assumptions " should be "thin-shell assumptions". Sorry.
-- Yuxiang "Shawn" Wang, PhD yw...@virginia.edu +1 (434) 284-0836 On Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 22:21 Yuxiang Wang <yw...@virginia.edu wrote: > Dear all, > > As one usually reads from literature (or commercial software > documentation), usually, a shell element would need >= 2 Gaussian > quadrature points through the thickness to capture its bending behavior. > For example, in the LS-DYNA documentation > <https://www.dynasupport.com/tutorial/ls-dyna-users-guide/elements> or > mentioned in this paper > <http://web.mit.edu/kjb/www/Principal_Publications/Performance_of_the_MITC3+_and_MITC4+_shell_elements_in_widely_used_benchmark_problems.pdf> > . > > I noted that the QUADSHELL4 and QUADSHELL8 elements have only the 4 > quadrature point at the zeta=0 plane. I was thinking about manually adding > one more layer for numerical integration, but just wonder that - would it > make sense to build that in QUADSHELL4 or QUADSHELL8 default qrule? Or > would you think it would be cleaner to manually add one more loop? > > PS: The existing MITC4 shell example (actually Q4Gamma24 element) seems to > be using only one layer of quadrature points across the thickness, and the > results does not match ABAQUS well with thicker shells. I am still trying > to understand whether it is because of some small-strain assumptions during > implementation of the Q4Gamma24 theory, or whether it is because of the > 1-layer integration points through the thickness. I'll report back when I > have an idea! > > PPS: Reading a French textbook with Google Translate is really > challenging... :) > > Best, > Shawn > > -- > Yuxiang "Shawn" Wang, PhD > yw...@virginia.edu > +1 (434) 284-0836 > _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list Libmesh-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
