Thank you for the feedback. I usually try to discourage folks from using solid elements for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons is that they are often not needed. Another is that they are harder to model correctly, harder to attach correctly, and harder to interperet. Also, the growing trend of auto-meshing solid elements from 3D models introduces ridiculous amounts of complexity, with little or no payback in accuracy. While they look pretty, they confuse the model and make it more difficult to understand and debug. Usually, a sufficiently accurate model can be obtained using plate elements modeled at the midplane. An obvious exception is modeling solid structures like large forged parts, where the use of solid elements might be a better approach. However, once solid elements are used, it is likely the only meaningful stress that can be evauated is principal stress and/or von-mises, which will not capture stability issues like buckling or crippling. Many Expert FEA folks are able to effectively use solid elements, but only after thoroughly studying their use and application. I currently focus my content on coarse modelling, since this is the best approach for perhaps 90% of lightweight structures. Once i have developed sufficient content on coarse modeling (i am currently working on a handbook for that) I may provide some guidance for simple solid element modeling, but that will probably be a year or so off. Sorry if this was not enough help. :-)
Sir, on the slide where you talk about the K value being used for the shear deflection, you say that the K is 1 by default. It says on the slide that K is infinite by default. When messing with NASTRAN, I found that the bigger the K, the values got closer to a blank (default) k, leading me to believe that the default value is infinite.
Titus, you are correct! Thanks for keeping me honest! lol. The default value is infinite, which makes the shear stiffness infinite. Good catch, and thank you. +5 XC!
Could you please explain the PSOLID Card Please.
P.S Love your videos thank you alot
Thank you for the feedback.
I usually try to discourage folks from using solid elements for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons is that they are often not needed. Another is that they are harder to model correctly, harder to attach correctly, and harder to interperet. Also, the growing trend of auto-meshing solid elements from 3D models introduces ridiculous amounts of complexity, with little or no payback in accuracy. While they look pretty, they confuse the model and make it more difficult to understand and debug.
Usually, a sufficiently accurate model can be obtained using plate elements modeled at the midplane.
An obvious exception is modeling solid structures like large forged parts, where the use of solid elements might be a better approach. However, once solid elements are used, it is likely the only meaningful stress that can be evauated is principal stress and/or von-mises, which will not capture stability issues like buckling or crippling.
Many Expert FEA folks are able to effectively use solid elements, but only after thoroughly studying their use and application.
I currently focus my content on coarse modelling, since this is the best approach for perhaps 90% of lightweight structures.
Once i have developed sufficient content on coarse modeling (i am currently working on a handbook for that) I may provide some guidance for simple solid element modeling, but that will probably be a year or so off.
Sorry if this was not enough help. :-)
Sir, on the slide where you talk about the K value being used for the shear deflection, you say that the K is 1 by default. It says on the slide that K is infinite by default. When messing with NASTRAN, I found that the bigger the K, the values got closer to a blank (default) k, leading me to believe that the default value is infinite.
Titus, you are correct! Thanks for keeping me honest! lol. The default value is infinite, which makes the shear stiffness infinite. Good catch, and thank you. +5 XC!