HI Dear Dr. Ronald Wagner I've recently be accustomed with your page. I believe you are so professional in abaqus and in your attitude. I'll try to watch all your tutorials. I'm very pleased that find your page. Sincerely yours, Omid Bashari.

good work and it's very interesting

Reference: www.sciencedirect.com/science... Timecodes: 0:00 - Intro 0:36 - Model Creation 1:57 - Property Definition 2:21 - Assembly 2:25 - Step 2:38 - Interaction Definition 4:10 - Boundary Conditions 5:03 - Mesh 5:10 - Job 5:35 - Results - Part - 1 (perfect) 6:38 - CAE model with Cutout Imperfection 9:00 - Results - Part - 2 (imperfect) 9:22 - Comparison of results

@wolferi9615

3 жыл бұрын

not written by you?

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

@@wolferi9615 yes, i cover many different references on this channel. if a research grp has an interesting paper i will present it.

@ Dr.-Ing. Ronald Wagner Sir, is the stiffness not matching due to the linear buckling analysis performed in the video? Also, in non-linear buckling analysis what type of geometric imperfections are to be considered to match with the experimental results? Also, the restrained condition is not as per the experiment I think.

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

From my experience, I think that some kind f loading imperfection may have occured during the testing which may reduce the axial stiffness significantly. As for geometric imperfections, I think dimple or cutouts are sufficient for this problem. The equation constraint is a guess from my side, not sure about it.

Hi, nice video. I am thinkg about the difference respect to the test. Seems there is a faster decay of stiffness in the test. Maybe the sample does not have constant thickness

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

it was not stated in the paper that the shell has a non-constant thickness. In my experience the difference in stiffness can be caused by the measurement system (displacement transducer) and also the testing rig. It is actually a "high art" to get good correlation between exp. and numerical stiffness. But atleast the buckling load can be somewhat estimated.

@advancedfea912

3 жыл бұрын

@@hnrwagner Yes I know the transducer can have same discrepancies but it seem too much in this case. Did you try also to put displacement with a contact surface? Thanks

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

@@advancedfea912 if the plane perfectly even, the load-displacement curve is the same as in the video. However, if the rigid plane is slightly inclined the stiffness of the numerical model matches the test much better. Good advice, thanks.

@advancedfea912

3 жыл бұрын

@@hnrwagner the point is that you put a teference node which is not the real configuration. The edge should not be contrained as it should be free to move in all dierection. The surface contact is more realistic and allow the edge to move following the buckling phenomenon. Thanks to you.

could you explain using ansys software

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

sry i have never used ansys

hi, Ronald, how to generate the force/shorten mm data?

@hnrwagner

3 жыл бұрын

go to the visualization module -> create XY Data -> ODB field output -> variable (unique nodal) - > select RF2 & U2 for RP-2 -> Save: look here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d2mFmcuze7fRoJs.html at about 10:20

@wolferi9615

3 жыл бұрын

@@hnrwagner thank you!