validations:he8-solid-twisted-beam

Action disabled: revisions

HE8 SOLID-MITC element twisted beam validation

This validation aims at assessing the behavior of the SesamX HE8 SOLID-MITC element against the equivalent Abaqus C3D8I element. The Abaqus element implements the hexahedron with incompatible modes, whereas the SesamX element implements the MITC8 element. As such we expect to notice some discrepancies between the Abaqus C3D8I element and the SesamX HE8 SOLID-MITC.

A twisted 3D beam model is studied for this comparison.

 Twisted beam model

The beam is clamped at one end and subjected to an arbitrary load at the other end. A linear elastic material is applied with $E = 200 GPa$ and $\nu = 0.33$.

This case is solved as a linear static resolution.

The following figure gives an overview of the beam displacement.

 Twisted beam deformation

The following table gives the comparison of the nodal translations between Abaqus and SesamX.

Abaqus SesamX Comparison
Node id $u_x (m)$ $u_y (m)$ $u_z (m)$Magnitude $(m)$ $u_x (m)$ $u_y (m)$ $u_z (m)$Magnitude $(m)$ Magnitude error
4 9.14E-06 3.51E-05 6.40E-06 3.68E-05 8.90E-06 3.40E-05 6.09E-06 3.57E-05 -3.15%
50 1.86E-06 4.46E-06 2.75E-06 5.56E-06 1.83E-06 4.31E-06 2.67E-06 5.39E-06 -3.01%
100 4.91E-06 1.45E-05 3.98E-06 1.58E-05 4.82E-06 1.40E-05 3.87E-06 1.53E-05 -3.05%
150 6.29E-06 2.86E-05 -1.31E-06 2.94E-05 6.14E-06 2.78E-05 -1.26E-06 2.85E-05 -3.02%
200 2.44E-07 2.22E-06 -1.53E-06 2.71E-06 2.34E-07 2.14E-06 -1.47E-06 2.61E-06 -3.76%
250 2.13E-06 1.09E-05 -3.78E-06 1.17E-05 2.08E-06 1.06E-05 -3.66E-06 1.14E-05 -3.08%

The maximum difference is about 4%. We notice that the SesamX element is a bit stiffer that the Abaqus element. Overall, the results are coherent between Abaqus and SesamX.

The following table gives the comparison of the principal strains between Abaqus and SesamX.

Abaqus SesamX Comparison
Element id $\varepsilon_{11} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{22} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{33} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{11} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{22} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{33} (\%)$ $\varepsilon_{11}$ error $\varepsilon_{22}$ error $\varepsilon_{33}$ error
3 7.62E-06 -5.57E-07 -6.18E-06 7.20E-06 -5.14E-07 -6.00E-06 -5.52% -7.71% -2.88%
22 2.35E-06 -6.83E-07 -9.92E-07 2.33E-06 -6.73E-07 -9.87E-07 -0.89% -1.49% -0.49%
49 7.37E-06 -1.59E-06 -1.85E-06 7.12E-06 -1.42E-06 -1.83E-06 -3.49% -11.00%-0.80%

The maximum difference is about 11%. The results are coherent between Abaqus and SesamX.

The following table gives the comparison of the principal stresses between Abaqus and SesamX.

Abaqus SesamX Comparison
Element id $\sigma_{11} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{22} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{33} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{11} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{22} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{33} (MPa)$ $\sigma_{11}$ error $\sigma_{22}$ error $\sigma_{33}$ error
3 1.28E-02 4.56E-04 -8.00E-03 1.18E-02 2.28E-04 -8.03E-03 -7.25% -49.90%0.30%
22 4.52E-03 -4.33E-05 -5.08E-04 4.48E-03 -3.63E-05 -5.09E-04 -0.88% -16.17%0.20%
49 1.68E-02 3.34E-03 2.96E-03 1.63E-02 3.51E-03 2.88E-03 -2.88% 4.96% -2.55%

Over the significant values, the maximum difference is about 8%. The results are coherent between Abaqus and SesamX.

  • validations/he8-solid-twisted-beam.txt
  • Last modified: 2023/05/31 20:40
  • by Ali Baba