Hi all,

I'm performing a mesh convergence test on a simple 3D shell model with 1st and 2nd order
shell elements.
I use CA 11.5 on Ubuntu 12.04 with Intel cpu's. I just measure the displacement of a
particular node (magnitude).
I have the base geometry in .med format and I keep bisecting the element with Homard,
within Salome-Meca 2013-2. As you can see in attached images, 1st and 2nd order elements
does not converge to an identical result (in the graphs, tmxy, x is the number of bi-sectioning
and y means the order of elements, so tm 42 means a very fine mesh with 2nd order
elements).
We tested the same model in Abaqus, and the results converge for 1st and 2nd order of
elements.
The simulation is performed to study steady state displacement under harmonic excitation
with DYNA_LINE_HARM. The .comm files for 2 types of elements with base geometry are
attached.
Same convergence problem exist also for static and DYNA_LINE_HARM for shell and 3D
elements too.
I'll really appreciate any input.
Thanks,
bme

Attachments:
mesh_convergence.zip, Size: 53.35 KiB, Downloads: 89
Offline

#2 2014-02-05 14:47:31
Johannes_ACKVA
Member
From: Ingenieurbro fr Mechanik, DE
Registered: 2009-11-04
Posts: 485
Website

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

hello,
before discussing the (more complicated) harmonic result I raccomand to compare these
models also in a static and then in a modal analysis. From the static comparision You can
know if the reason is in the stiffness or in the mass.

If mass is the reason: Is Your shell thick or thin? If thick, the rotational mass
(AFFA_CARA_ELEM(..INER_ROTA..) is important which is not considered by all
modelisations.
If stiffn is the reason: MODELISATION='DKT' has no shear stiffness. If You shell is thick,
try if You find a difference using MODELISATION='DST'.
Is You shell curved? In this case DKT and DST, QUAD4-elements must have all nodes in a
plan to have correct results.
Did You arrange that GROUP_NO='bc' containing the clamped nodes must be different for
both modelistions? In MODELISATION='COQUE_3D' it must also contain the mid-edgenodes.
Regards,
Johannes_ACKVA

Ingenieurbro fr Mechanik
D 91717 Wassertrdingen / Germany
www.code-aster.de
CODE-ASTER

Training & Support for NASTRAN and

Offline

#3 2014-02-06 21:33:26
bme
Member
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 46

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Hi Johannes,
Thank you so much for your comments.
As I said before, the problem with mesh convergence of 1st and 2nd order elements exist for
static and also 3D elements. The problem is also worse for 3D elements.
Considering the static model, the problem may be referred to the stiffness of the formulation.
The Geometry (attached in .med format) is a curved shell, with a diameter almost 1cm, and
the thickness is 0.2 mm, which makes sense to consider it as a thick shell. I also extruded this
model to generate 3D model. (using code-aster
me1=CREA_MAILLAGE(MAILLAGE=MESH,
COQU_VOLU=_F(NOM='PRESSv',
GROUP_MA='press',

EPAIS=-0.0002,
PLAN='INF',),);
The 3D model with 2nd order elements converges to the results of shell model with 2nd order
elements very well, but the 1st order 3D model, after 4 times refinement (8 layers of
elements), it does not converge at all.
Regarding your point about boundary nodes, yes I select all nodes after each refinement and
also converting to 2nd order elements.
Since the problem exist in static models, I have not tried rotational mass, for stiffness
problem, since 3D model has the same problem, I have not tried thick shell models.
I've attached results and also command and initial meshes of 3d and shell models.

Attachments:
Mesh_convergence2.zip, Size: 64.4 KiB, Downloads: 81
Offline

#4 2014-02-12 00:00:24
Thomas DE SOZA
Guru
From: EDF
Registered: 2007-11-23
Posts: 2,748

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Hi,
There are several things to take into account :
- for the 2D models, you're using a plate model (DKT for 1st order) vs. a shell model
(COQUE_3D for 2nd order). Moreover one is made for thin shells (DKT) whereas the other
accounts for the shear stress in thick shells (COQUE_3D). Maybe you should use DST
instead of DKT. What about the models you used in Abaqus ?
What do the final refinements look like for both 1st and 2nd order models ? Were they the
same in Abaqus when convergence was reached ?
- for the 3D model, is the refinement uniform or mainly concentrated in the shell part ? This
is not surprising to be unable to have a decent result with only one layer of standard linear
elements.
TdS
Offline

#5 2014-02-13 21:08:57
bme
Member
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 46

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Hello Thomas,
Thanks for your comments.
1. I tried with TDS shell elements, and it converged to the 2nd order shell elements very nice!
2. I used S3 and STRI65 shell elements in Abaqus for 1st and 2nd order elements,
respectively and the meshes are identical for code-aster and Abaqus.
3. In each step of mesh refinement, whole model was bisected, i.e., 3dtm 41 consists of 8
layer of 21888 elements in each layer. So the convergence problem for 3D element has not
been solved yet.
Thanks,
bme
Offline

#6 2014-02-14 13:47:59
Thomas DE SOZA
Guru
From: EDF
Registered: 2007-11-23
Posts: 2,748

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

bme wrote:
1. I tried with TDS shell elements, and it converged to the 2nd order shell elements very nice!
2. I used S3 and STRI65 shell elements in Abaqus for 1st and 2nd order elements,
respectively and the meshes are identical for code-aster and Abaqus.
Great. S3 is indeed a 1st order thick-shell plate model which should be similar to DST so this
makes sense. The previous element you used, DKT, likely corresponded to Abaqus STRI3.
bme wrote:
3. In each step of mesh refinement, whole model was bisected, i.e., 3dtm 41 consists of 8
layer of 21888 elements in each layer. So the convergence problem for 3D element has not
been solved yet.
I just noticed that your material is almost incompressible. This is unlikely you will be able to
solve this case with 1st order PENTA6 given the '3D' model. I'm not familiar with Abaqus

but judging from the documentation I'm pretty sure C3D6 elements would result in the same
behaviour.
The '3D_OSGS' model in Code_Aster 11.5 handles incompressibility with PENTA6 elements
but at the moment it won't work with DYNA_LINE_HARM (only STAT_NON_LINE).
Another possibility would be to switch to TETRA4 elements and use the '3D_INCO_UP'
model.
TdS
Offline

#7 2014-02-15 16:45:32
Nima
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2009-05-04
Posts: 119

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Hi,
Very interesting discussion!
So, can COQUE_3D or DST elements be used for simulating nearly-incompressible materials
safely?
Offline

#8 2014-03-18 18:30:48
bme
Member
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 46

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Hi Thomas,
1. I changed the Poisson's ratio to 0.3 (to be away from incompressible conditions), results of
1st and 2nd order 3D elements converged.
2. But I could not perform nearly incompressible conditions (i.e., 3D_INCO and
3D_INCO_UP) in my simulations. Apparently only STAT_NON_LINE,
DYNA_NON_LINE can implement those elements (Ref: R3.06.08, Part 4.3), while I'm using
DYNA_LINE_HARM :-(

3. Nima, at least in my simulations (DYNA_LINE_HARM and MECA_STATIQUE)

COQUE_3D and DST converge, for v=0.499.
BME
Offline

#9 2014-03-18 18:43:42
Nima
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2009-05-04
Posts: 119

Re: Mesh convergence for 1st and 2 order elements

Thanks for updating us.
I use 3D_INCO in DYNA_LINE_TRAN.

What is "hourglass effect" in finite element

analysis?
How the reduced integration works which give rise to hourglass effect? What are the ways
we counter the hourglass effect?
3 Answers

Achilleas Vortselas, Doctorate in Tribology: Wear Modeling

25.7k Views Upvoted by Mukunda Madhava Nath, CAE engineer at General Motors
Achilleas is a Most Viewed Writer in Finite Element Analysis.

What is hourglassing?
It is essentially a spurious deformation mode of a Finite Element Mesh, resulting from the
excitation of zero-energy degrees of freedom. It typically manifests as a patchwork of zig-zag
or hourglass like element shapes (Fig.1), where individual elements are severely deformed,
while the overall mesh section is undeformed. This happens on hexahedral 3D solid reduced
integration elements and on the respective tetrahedral 3D shell elements and 2D solid
elements.

Fig.1 Typical manifestation of the hourglassing effect (LSDYNA), image source:

esocaet.com
Hourglassing - ESOCAETWIKIPLUS

Why does hourglassing happen?

I believe the following segment from Getting started with Abaqus manual explains it well:
Consider a single reduced-integration element modeling a small piece of material subjected to
pure bending (Fig.2)

Fig. 2 Deformation of a linear element with reduced integration subjected to bending moment
M.
Neither of the dotted visualization lines has changed in length, and the angle between them
is also unchanged, which means that all components of stress at the element's single
integration point are zero. This bending mode of deformation is thus a zero-energy mode
because no strain energy is generated by this element distortion. The element is unable to
resist this type of deformation since it has no stiffness in this mode. In coarse meshes this
zero-energy mode can propagate through the mesh, producing meaningless results.
The concept of reduced integration elements is explained here [1].

How is hourglassing diagnosed?

By optical inspection of the mesh deformation, increasing its scale factor of necessary. But
most reliably by directly comparing the energy contained in the zero energy modes
(hourglass energy) with the internal energy of the system. Hourglass energy should not
exceed 5% of internal energy. This is done by plotting the energies from history data.

How is hourglassing addressed?

By inserting an artificial stiffness to the hourglass deformation modes (the default

way utilised in static/quasistatic problems).
By inserting an artificial viscosity (preferred for dynamic and high velocity impact
problems).
By using fully integrated elements.
By refining the mesh.

The basic hourglass control methodologies have been pioneered by Belytschko and Flanagan
since 1981 [2]. Details about the application of hourglass control can be found here [3-7].
[1] FAQ: What is reduced integration in the context of finite element analysis?
[2] Ted Belytschko, Jame Shau-Jen Ong, Wing Kam Liu, James M. Kennedy, Hourglass
control in linear and nonlinear problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Volume 43, Issue 3, May 1984, Pages 251-276, ISSN 0045-7825, Hourglass
control in linear and nonlinear problems. (Hourglass control in linear and nonlinear
problems)
[3] Presentation by J. Day - LSTC (for LSDYNA) PDF
[4] LSDYNA Support page Hourglass - LS-DYNA Support
[5] Leonard E. Schwer, Samuel W. Key, Thomas A. Puik, Lee P. Bindeman, An Assessment
of the LS-DYNA Hourglass Formulations via the 3D Patch Test, 5th European LS-DYNA
Users Conference PDF
[6] Amit H. Varma, Finite Elements in Elasticity, Purdue University CE-595 lecture notes
(for ABAQUS) PPT
[7] ABAQUS/Explicit Advanced topics seminar, lecture slides, p.31 PDF

Written Nov 14, 2013 View Upvotes Answer requested by Mukunda Madhava Nath
Related Questions
More Answers Below

What are the most important problems in finite element analysis?

Are there any good Android applications that do finite element analysis?
Why interpolation methods such as finite element analysis have to satisfy the partition
of unity?
Reviews of: Finite Element Analysis
How much does a mixed formulation increase the complexity of a finite element
problem?

Adrian Bennett, I believe in God's design for marriage: one man and one woman for life.
9.2k Views Upvoted by Mukunda Madhava Nath, CAE engineer at General Motors
Adrian is a Most Viewed Writer in Finite Element Analysis.
Thanks for the A2A
Achilleas Vortselas's answer is excellent. I will not go over again the things he has written,
nor could I do a better job of it. But I would like to add something I think is very valuable and
answers the last part of your question which is "What are the ways we counter the hourglass
effect?" As an acknowlegment to the reader, p-FEM is my area of research.
So, first reduced integration is method to prevent something called "locking", in particular
"shear locking", in some finite elements which prevents the solution from correctly
converging. This is basically one mistake introduced to cover another. The best way to
prevent the "hourglass" effect is to avoid the whole problem of shear locking and reduced
integration to begin with. This can be done through using higher order finite element
formulations. Lower order elements have a basis which is not capable of completely
expressing the structural behavior within the elements. Higher order elements do.
The p-FEM method in contrast to the h-version of the finite element method uses increasing
polynomial order of the element basis functions to refine the solution and obtain greater
accuracy in analysis. In the traditional h-version, usually the basis functions are only of the
first or second order, and increasing the accuracy of the solution is done through mesh
refinement. This involves creating new meshes at each step to get a better solution. In the pversion of the finite element method, the mesh is not altered, but the order of the basis
functions is increased. This is very convenient because the mesh does not have to be changed.
The convergence of the p-FEM method has been shown to be superior to the h-version also.
Few elements are needed for p-FEM. There are very significant advantages of the p-FEM
over the traditional finite element method.
A particular significant advantage of the p-version of FEM over the h-version is the
acceptable aspect ratios of the elements. In the h-version there is a severe limitation on the
aspect ratio of the elements. Aspect ratios of several hundred to 1 can be used in the pversion. Even solid elements can be used to represent thin plates and shell elements without

problems of shear locking.

I have been working with p-FEM and I simply do not have to consider hour-glass effect,
reduced integration, or shear locking. With higher order elements, all this becomes
unnecessary.
Updated Sep 6, 2014 View Upvotes Answer requested by Mukunda Madhava Nath

Brmv Krishna
5.1k Views
Hourglassing is a state of strain, which is free of energy (ZEM: Zero Energy Mode) and can
emerge in case of one-point-integrated solid- (hexahedrons) and shell elements
Hourglass modes are mostly caused by:
- concentrated loads
- contact (contact force at several nodes )
in LS-DYNA there are 2 possibilities to prevent Hourglassing:
1. using a fully integrated element type
disadvantages: - more computation time
- more sensible with respect to large element
deformations
2. using the automatic stabilisation against this deformation with
- *HOURGLASS (input for each part) or
- *CONTROL_HOURGLASS (global control)
Written Jun 5, 2014 View Upvotes
Related Questions

What are some of the reputed and high impact conferences and journals related to
finite element analysis/methods?
What is the best way to learn finite element analysis in LS Dyna?
How does Finite Element Analysis compare and contrast with continuum mechanics?
What are the main industries and machinery where FEA (Finite Element Analysis) is
used?
Which research labs are working in the intersection of computer-aided design,
computer graphics, and the finite element method?
Where can I find examples of finite element analysis?
How does one go about a Finite Element Analysis project?
Finite Element Analysis: Does beam orientation should be same as global co-ordinate
of mesh model?
How does finite element analysis help manufacturers to improve product
performance?
What are some good books to learn finite element analysis?
What is a complete explanation of essential boundary condition and natural boundary
condition in Finite Element Analysis?
What exactly is Finite element analysis?

Finite Element Analysis: What are some really interesting and influential topics
related to steel?
Can transfinite numbers be used with the finite element method?
What is the best reference book for finite element method?

Why do I get different results from

Abaqus/CAE as the mesh differs?
My question regards biomedical models and finite element analyses in Abaqus.
Which results should I trust?
Thanks in advance.

Topics

Finite Element Method

Computer-Aided Engineering
Biomedical Engineering
Finite Element Analysis
Abaqus

Oct 14, 2014

Share

0/0

All Answers (8)

Darby Luscher Los Alamos National Laboratory

Hi Cyrus,
I agree with the response provided by Younes and will expand upon his response
slightly.
There is a discretization error in the finite element solution because of the
approximation of the actual solution field with element shape functions. As you
increase the number of elements in the solution, they provide a more accurate
representation of the solution field and the discretization error is reduced.
You can perform a convergence analysis or mesh refinement study by tabulating the
result a specific location versus the characteristic element size for solutions from
different meshes. You can often fit results from this numerical study to an expression
of the type: d(h) = d0 + Ah^p where d is a solution variable (at one specific location)

like displacement, h is element size. d0, A, and p are fitting parameters. If you do this,
then d0 is an estimate of the exact numerical solution and d(h)-d0 is an estimate of the
error associated with that variable for the mesh with an element size of h.
Best, DJ Luscher
Oct 14, 2014

Cyrus Ahmadi Toussi Hakim Sabzevari University

Thak you both ,Mr Nouri and Mr Luscher, it was so helpful.You know Ive modeled 9
different dental prosthesis, i choose the seed 0.001 but in some models i get 2 nodes to
close and makes me change the seed ,and when i do that the results arent corresponds
to others.
Oct 14, 2014

Sanan H Khan Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

FEM results are always mesh dependent. For better results use finer mesh.
Oct 15, 2014

Marcias J Martinez Clarkson University

I would recommend that you read the paper by: MacNeal & Harder - Standard
Problems FE Accuracy. It shows how standard elements fail to produce the analytical
solution.
Oct 16, 2014

Pradeep George New York University Abu Dhabi

Please do a mesh independence study initially.
Oct 16, 2014

Hojjat Badnava Isfahan University of Technology

A fundamental problem of incorporating material model with softening behavior
(such as damage and softening plasticity) in standard continuum models is the
inherent mesh sensitivity. This mesh sensitivity goes beyond the standard
discretisation sensitivity of numerical approximation methods for partial differential
equations and is not related to deficiencies in the discretisation methods. Instead, the
underlying reason for this mesh sensitivity is a local change in character of the
governing partial differential equations. This local change of character of the
governing set of partial differential equations leads to a loss of well-posedness of the
initial boundary value problem and results in an infinite number of possible solutions.
After discretisation, a finite number of solutions results. For a finer discretisation, the
number of solutions increases, which explains the observed mesh sensitivity. Since
the observed mesh sensitivity is of a fundamental.
What kind of material model you have used?

convergence and mesh refinement

Classic
6 messages

List
Options

Threaded

zandfub1
Reply | Threaded | More
Jan 26, 2009; 11:00am

convergence and mesh refinement

Hi,
i am looking for reasons, why the stresses do not converge with mesh
refinement. (Each calculation converges!)
The model consists of two blocks put on top of each other with
different isotropic materials. The lower block is larger than the
upper, the upper one has square edges. There is surface to surface
contact with small sliding and exponential pressure overclosure
between the blocks. The contact surfaces are plane and a high adjust
value was chosen. The lower one is fixed while the upper one is
compressed on the top perpendicular to the surface. Fixation and load
entry are far away from the contact. It is a static analysis with
abaqus 6.8.

126 posts

Now i refined the hex mesh (C3D8) in each iso direction two fold (so
that the number of elements is 8fold). After that i refined the mesh
again 8fold (so the mesh is refined 64fold compared to the initial
one), but the stresses in the elements in the area of contact are each
about doubling with mesh refinement. I looked at the stresses in the
integration points, in the nodes and in the element centroids.
Everywhere the same problem.
Has anyone an idea?
Thanks,
Thomas
Remove Ads

Frederic Levesque
Reply | Threaded | More
Jan 26, 2009; 3:21pm

Rp. : convergence and mesh refinement

Hi!
Maybe you should try further refinement. Also, if you look at the theory of
contact mechanics, the pressure is infinite at the edge of the contact area (if I
understand well the case you described). The finite element model will never
be able to return you an infinite pressure. At that point, the model might not
converge very well. Maybe you should look at another physical quantity to
assess convergence. A teacher once advised me to use strain energy for a
contact mechanics problem. Maybe you should give it a try.
I hope it can help
Fred
--- En date de : Lun, 26.1.09, zandfub1 <[hidden email]> a crit :
De: zandfub1 <[hidden email]>
Objet: [Abaqus] convergence and mesh refinement
: [hidden email]
Date: lundi 26 Janvier 2009, 5 h 00

Hi,
20 posts

i am looking for reasons, why the stresses do not converge with mesh
refinement. (Each calculation converges!)
The model consists of two blocks put on top of each other with
different isotropic materials. The lower block is larger than the
upper, the upper one has square edges. There is surface to surface
contact with small sliding and exponential pressure overclosure
between the blocks. The contact surfaces are plane and a high adjust
value was chosen. The lower one is fixed while the upper one is
compressed on the top perpendicular to the surface. Fixation and load
entry are far away from the contact. It is a static analysis with
abaqus 6.8.
Now i refined the hex mesh (C3D8) in each iso direction two fold (so
that the number of elements is 8fold). After that i refined the mesh
again 8fold (so the mesh is refined 64fold compared to the initial
one), but the stresses in the elements in the area of contact are each
about doubling with mesh refinement. I looked at the stresses in the
integration points, in the nodes and in the element centroids.
Everywhere the same problem.
Has anyone an idea?

Thanks,
Thomas

Offrez un compte Flickr Pro vos amis et votre famille.

http://www.flickr.com/gift/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zandfub1
Reply | Threaded | More
Jan 27, 2009; 8:52am

Re: Rp. : convergence and mesh refinement

> the pressure is infinite at the edge of the contact area
Thanks Fred, that was the hint!
Thomas
126 posts
MikeBrown_CivlEng
Reply | Threaded | More
Jul 21, 2009; 7:15pm

Re: Rp. : convergence and mesh refinement

In reply to this post by Frederic Levesque

Fred, Thomas, or anybody else,

I'm having a similar problem with my model. I'm studying a liner system
used in water main rehabilitation. I'm modeling a situation where the liner
goes from spanning a section of the cast iron pipe that is intact to a section
where the cast iron is deteriorated (essentially non-existent). I'm applying an
internal pressure to the liner which makes the liner want to wrap around the
cast iron section that is intact...
-------cast iron
----------------------liner
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
applied intenal pressure
I'm not sure if that illustration will turn out properly. Anyway, how will I be
able to accurately determine the stresses at "the bend", since in theory they
are infinite. Where do the stresses begin to actually converge to the correct
value (how far away from the stress concentration)? I know i'll have to
investigate that myself. I'm just looking for ideas in general.
Thanks in advance.
Mike Brown

--- In [hidden email], Frederic Levesque <theo_est_en_tabarnak@...> wrote:

3 posts

>
> Hi!
>
> Maybe you should try further refinement. Also, if you look at the theory of
contact mechanics, the pressure is infinite at the edge of the contact area (if I
understand well the case you described). The finite element model will never
be able to return you an infinite pressure. At that point, the model might not
converge very well. Maybe you should look at another physical quantity to
assess convergence. A teacher once advised me to use strain energy for a
contact mechanics problem. Maybe you should give it a try.
>
> I hope it can help
>
> Fred
>
> --- En date de : Lun, 26.1.09, zandfub1 <thomas.zander@...> a crit :
>
> De: zandfub1 <thomas.zander@...>
> Objet: [Abaqus] convergence and mesh refinement
> : [hidden email]
> Date: lundi 26 Janvier 2009, 5 h 00
>
>

>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> i am looking for reasons, why the stresses do not converge with mesh
> refinement. (Each calculation converges!)
>
> The model consists of two blocks put on top of each other with
> different isotropic materials. The lower block is larger than the
> upper, the upper one has square edges. There is surface to surface
> contact with small sliding and exponential pressure overclosure
> between the blocks. The contact surfaces are plane and a high adjust
> value was chosen. The lower one is fixed while the upper one is
> compressed on the top perpendicular to the surface. Fixation and load
> entry are far away from the contact. It is a static analysis with
> abaqus 6.8.
>
> Now i refined the hex mesh (C3D8) in each iso direction two fold (so
> that the number of elements is 8fold). After that i refined the mesh
> again 8fold (so the mesh is refined 64fold compared to the initial
> one), but the stresses in the elements in the area of contact are each
> about doubling with mesh refinement. I looked at the stresses in the
> integration points, in the nodes and in the element centroids.
> Everywhere the same problem.
>
> Has anyone an idea?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Offrez un compte Flickr Pro vos amis et votre famille.
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/

>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
... [show rest of quote]

zandfub1
Reply | Threaded | More
Jul 22, 2009; 6:58am

Re: Rp. : convergence and mesh refinement

> I'm just looking for ideas in
> general.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Mike Brown
Hi Mike,

126 posts

if theory says that the stresses are infinite (is this really true?) than it
seems that the reality is not described correctly by the FE model if the
stresses are not infinite in reality (very wise, isn't it?)
On the other hand FE is not a tool to describe reality but to describe the
theoretical model which says (?) that stresses are infinite.
Just my thinkings,
Thomas

dukuru
Reply | Threaded | More
May 29, 2014; 6:00pm

Re: Rp. : convergence and mesh refinement

This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.

Infinite pressure is possible if your point is infinitely small. force/area. The

only difference is that infinitely small objects don't exist (to my
knowledge :). So even though in real life there is a round to the edge of a
block, the abaqus model only has a node, and since nodes don't have volume,
the point is infinitely small in Abaqus.
1 post

but i like the thought haha.

regards
-Mike