RD-E: 1801 Square Plate Torsion
This example concerns a torsion problem of an embedded plate subjected to two concentrated loads. This example illustrates the role of the different shell element formulations with regard to the mesh.
Options and Keywords Used
- Q4 shells
- T3 shells
- Hourglass and mesh
- Boundary conditions (/BCS)
The boundary conditions are such that the three nodes of a single side and the two middle ones are blocked, while the others are free with respect to the Y axis.
- Concentrated loads (/CLOAD)Two concentrated loads are applied on the corner points of the opposite side. They increase over time as defined by the following function:
F(t) 0 10 10 t 0 200 400 - Element formulation (Properties)
Input Files
Before you begin, copy the file(s) used in this example to
your working directory.
Model Description
Units: mm, ms, g, N, MPa
The material used follows a linear elastic behavior with the following characteristics:
- Material Properties
- Value
- Initial density
- 7.8x10-3
- Young's modulus
- 210000
- Poisson ratio
- 0.3
Model Method
Four different types of mesh are used:
- Mesh 1
- Two quadrilateral shells and four triangular shells (2Q4-4T3)
- Mesh 2
- Four quadrilateral shells (4Q4)
- Mesh 3
- Eight triangular shells (8T3)
- Mesh 4
- Eight triangular shells (8T3 inverse)
For each model, the following shell formulations are tested:
- QBAT formulation (Ishell =12)
- QEPH formulation (Ishell =24)
- Belytshcko & Tsay formulation (Ishell =1 or 3, hourglass control TYPE1, TYPE3)
- C0 and DKT18 formulations
Results
Curves and Animations
This example compares several models concerning:
- the use of different element formulations for each mesh
- the different types of mesh for a given element formulation
To compare the results, two criteria are used:
- absorbed energy (internal and hourglass)
- vertical displacement of the node under the loading point
The following diagrams summarize the results obtained.
Energy Curves / Comparison for Element Formulations
Mesh 1: 2Q4-4T3
Mesh 2: 4Q4
Meshes 3 and 4: 8T3 and 8T3_INV
Energy Curves / Comparison for Mesh Definitions
2 Q4- 4 T3 | 4 Q4 | 8 T3 | 8 T3 Inverse | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QEPH | BT_TYPE1 | BT_TYPE4 | BATOZ | QEPH | BT_TYPE1 | BT_TYPE4 | BATOZ | DKT | C0 | DKT | C0 | |
IEmax | 2.74x10-2 | 2.35x10-2 | 2.37x10-2 | 7.21x10-2 | 3.64x10-2 | 2.93x10-2 | 2.97x10-2 | 2.30x10-2 | 1.37 x10-1 | 1.69x10-2 | 1.37x10-1 | 1.69x10-2 |
HEmax | -- | 1.01x10-4 | 1.03x10-4 | -- | -- | 1.94x10-4 | 1.98x10-6 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
DZmax | 1.75x10-3 | 1.78x10-3 | 1.78x10-3 | 1.21x10-2 | 2.42x10-3 | 2.95x10-3 | 2.97x10-3 | 2.30x10-3 | 1.44x10-2 | 1.69x10-3 | 1.44x10-2 | 1.69x10-3 |
Conclusion
A square plate under torsion is a severe test to study the behavior of shell elements in
torsion-bending. A general overview of the results obtained highlight the following
key points:
- For the 4Q4 mesh, the results obtained using QBATOZ and QEPH are similar. BT elements are too flexible and are not significantly influenced by the hourglass formulation, due to the in-plane mesh.
- For triangular meshes, the DKT element is able to bend much better, the co-element being too stiff.
- The mesh with both Q4 and T3 elements may not comment like the other two, as one part uses the triangle elements employed in Radioss.