ABAQUS Lacture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes
By:
Mohammad Javad Kazemzadeh-Parsi
Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering
Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch
Shiraz, Iran
M.J. Kazemzadeh-Parsi
Chapter 1
Introduction
The finite element method is a numerical method that can be used for the accurate solution
of complex engineering problems. Although the origins of the method can be traced to several
centuries back, most of the computational details have been developed in mid 1950s,
primarily in the context of the analysis of aircraft structures. Thereafter, within a decade, the
potential of the method for the solution of different types of applied science and engineering
problems was recognized. Over the years, the finite element technique has been so well
established that today, it is considered to be one of the best methods for solving a wide
variety of practical problems efficiently. In addition, the method has become one of the active
research areas not only for engineers but also for applied mathematicians. One of the main
reasons for the popularity of the method in different fields of engineering is that once a
general computer program is written, it can be used for the solution of a variety of problems
simply by changing the input data.
The ABAQUS finite element software has strong capabilities for solving, specifically, nonlinear
problems and was developed by Hibbitt, Karlsson&Sorenson, Inc. The solution of a general
problem by ABAQUS involves three stages: ABAQUS Preprocessor, ABAQUS Solver, and
ABAQUS Postprocessor. ABAQUS/CAE or another suitable pre-processor provides a
compatible input file to ABAQUS. ABAQUS/Standard or ABAQUS/Explicit can be used as
ABAQUS/Solver to solve the problem. The ABAQUS/Standard, based on implicit algorithm, is
good for static, strongly nonlinear problems. ABAQUS/Explicit, based on explicit algorithm, is
intended for dynamic problems. Both ABAQUS/Standard and ABAQUS/Explicit can be
executed under ABAQUS/CAE. The ABAQUS/CAE or another suitable postprocessor can be
used for displaying the output (results) of the problem.
ABAQUS/CAE provides a complete ABAQUS environment that provides a simple, consistent
interface for creating, submitting, monitoring, and evaluating results from ABAQUS/Standard
and ABAQUS/Explicit simulations. ABAQUS/CAE is divided into modules, where each module
defines a logical aspect of the modeling process; for example, for defining the geometry,
defining the material properties, and generating a mesh. As we move from one module to
another module, we build the model from which ABAQUS/CAE generates an input file that
we can submit to the ABAQUS/Standard or ABAQUS/Explicit for carrying the analysis. After
completing the analysis, the unit (ABAQUS/Standard or ABAQUS/Explicit) sends the
information to ABAQUS/CAE to allow us to monitor the progress of the job, and generates an
output database. Finally, we use the visualization module of ABAQUS/CAE (also licensed
separately as ABAQUS/Viewer) to read the output database and view the results of analysis.
The ABAQUS/Viewer provides graphical displays of ABAQUS finite element models and
results. It obtains the model and results information from the output database. We can
control the output information displayed. For example, we can obtain plots such as
undeformed shape, deformed shape, contours,x-ydata, and time history animation from
ABAQUS/Viewer.
Basic Concepts of the Finite Element Method

The basic idea in the finite element method is to find the solution of a complicated problem
by replacing it by a simpler one. Since the actual problem is replaced by a simpler one in
finding the solution, we will be able to find only an approximate solution rather than the exact
1
solution. The existing mathematical tools will not be sufficient to find the exact solution (and
sometimes, even an approximate solution) of most of the practical problems. Thus, in the
absence of any other convenient method to find even the approximate solution of a given
problem, we have to prefer the finite element method. Moreover, in the finite element
method, it will often be possible to improve or refine the approximate solution by spending
more computational effort.
In the finite element method, the solution region is considered as built up of many small,
interconnected subregions called finite elements. As an example of how a finite element
model might be used to represent a complex geometrical shape, consider the milling machine
structure shown in Figure 1-1(a). Since it is very difficult to find the exact response (like
stresses and displacements) of the machine under any specified cutting (loading) condition,
this structure is approximated as composed of several pieces as shown in Figure 1-1(b) in the
finite element method. In each piece or element, a convenient approximate solution is
assumed and the conditions of overall equilibrium of the structure are derived. The
satisfaction of these conditions will yield an approximate solution for the displacements and
stresses. Figure 1-2 shows the finite element idealization of a fighter aircraft.
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Historical Background
Although the name of the finite element method was given recently, the concept dates back
for several centuries. For example, ancient mathematicians found the circumference of a
circle by approximating it by the perimeter of a polygon as shown in figure 1-3. In terms of
the present-day notation, each side of the polygon can be called a finite element. By
considering the approximating polygon inscribed or circumscribed, one can obtain a lower
bound S(l) or an upper bound S(u) for the true circumference S. Furthermore, as the number of
sides of the polygon is increased, the approximate values converge to the true value. These
characteristics, as will be seen later, will hold true in any general finite element application.
Figure 1-3
To find the differential equation of a surface of minimum area bounded by a specified closed
curve, Schellback discretized the surface into several triangles and used a finite difference
expression to find the total discretized area in 1851. In the current finite element method, a
differential equation is solved by replacing it by a set of algebraic equations. In 1943, Courant
presented a method of determining the torsional rigidity of a hollow shaft by dividing the
cross section into several triangles and using a linear variation of the stress function over
each triangle in terms of the values of at net points (called nodes in the present day finite
element terminology). This work is considered by some to be the origin of the present-day
finite element method. Since mid-1950s, engineers in aircraft industry have worked on
developing approximate methods for the prediction of stresses induced in aircraft wings. In
1956, Turner, Cough, Martin, and Topp presented a method for modeling the wing skin using
three-node triangles. At about the same time, Argyris and Kelsey presented several papers
outlining matrix procedures, which contained some of the finite element ideas, for the
solution of structural analysis problems.
The name finite element was coined, for the first time, by Clough in 1960. Although the finite
element method was originally developed mostly based on intuition and physical argument,
the method was recognized as a form of the classical Rayleigh-Ritz method in the early 1960s.
Once the mathematical basis of the method was recognized, the developments of new finite
elements for different types of problems and the popularity of the method started to grow
almost exponentially. The digital computer provided a rapid means of performing the many
calculations involved in the finite element analysis and made the method practically viable.
Along with the development of high-speed digital computers, the application of the finite
element method also progressed at a very impressive rate. Zienkiewicz and Cheung presented
the broad interpretation of the method and its applicability to any general field problem.
With this broad interpretation of the finite element method, it has been found that the finite
element equations can also be derived by using a weighted residual method such as Galerkin
method or the least squares approach. This led to widespread interest among applied
mathematicians in applying the finite element method for the solution of linear and nonlinear
differential equations. It is to be noted that traditionally, mathematicians developed
techniques such as matrix theory and solution methods for differential equations, and
engineers used those methods to solve engineering analysis problems. Only in the case of
finite element method, engineers developed and perfected the technique and applied
mathematicians use the method for the solution of complex ordinary and partial differential
equations. Today, it has become an industry standard to solve practical engineering problems
using the finite element method. Millions of degrees of freedom (dof) are being used in the
solution of some important practical problems.
A brief history of the beginning of the finite element method was presented by Gupta and
Meek. The rapid progress of the finite element method can be seen by noting that, annually
about 3800 papers were being published with a total of about 56,000 papers and 380 books
and 400 conference proceedings published as estimated in 1995. With all the progress, today
the finite element method is considered one of the well-established and convenient analysis
tools by engineers and applied scientists.
Engineering Applications of the Finite Element Method

As stated earlier, the finite element method was developed originally for the analysis of
aircraft structures. However, the general nature of its theory makes it applicable to a wide
variety of boundary value problems in engineering. A boundary value problem is one in which
a solution is sought in the domain (or region) of a body subject to the satisfaction of
prescribed boundary (edge) conditions on the dependent variables or their derivatives. Table
1-1 gives specific applications of the finite element in the three major categories of boundary
value problems, namely (1) equilibrium or steady-state or time-independent problems, (2)
eigenvalue problems, and (3) propagation or transient problems.
In an equilibrium problem, we need to find the steady-state displacement or stress
distribution if it is a solid mechanics problem, temperature or heat flux distribution if it is a
heat transfer problem, and pressure or velocity distribution if it is a fluid mechanics problem.
In eigenvalue problems also, time will not appear explicitly. They may be considered as
extensions of equilibrium problems in which critical values of certain parameters are to be
determined in addition to the corresponding steady-state configurations. In these problems,
we need to find the natural frequencies or buckling loads and mode shapes if it is a solid
mechanics or structures problem, stability of laminar flows if it is a fluid mechanics problem,
and resonance characteristics if it is an electrical circuit problem.
The propagation or transient problems are time-dependent problems. This type of problem
arises, for example, whenever we are interested in finding the response of a body under timevarying force in the area of a solid mechanics and under sudden heating or cooling in the field
of heat transfer.
Commercial Finite Element Program Packages

The general applicability of the finite element method makes it a powerful and versatile tool
for a wide range of problems. Hence, a number of computer program packages have been
developed for the solution of a variety of structural and solid mechanics problems. Some of
the programs have been developed in such a general manner that the same program can be
used for the solution of problems belonging to different branches of engineering with little or
no modification.
Many of these packages represent large programs that can be used for solving real complex
problems. For example, the NASTRAN (National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Structural Analysis) program package contains approximately 150,000 FORTRAN statements
and can be used to analyze physical problems of practically any size, including a complete
aircraft, an automobile, and a space shuttle.
The availability of supercomputers has made a strong impact on the finite element
technology. In order to realize the full potential of these supercomputers in finite element
computation, special parallel numerical algorithms, programming strategies, and
programming languages are being developed. The use of personal computers and
workstations in engineering analysis and design is becoming increasingly popular as the price
of hardware is decreasing dramatically. Many finite element programs, especially suitable for
the personal computer and workstation environment, have been developed. Among the main
advantages are a user-friendly environment and inexpensive graphics.
Solutions Using Finite Element Software

Three Steps of Finite Element Solution
The solution of any engineering analysis problem using commercial FEA software involves the
following three steps:
Preprocessing:
In this step, the geometry, material properties, loads (actions) and boundary conditions are
given as input data. In-built automatic mesh generation modules develop the finite element
mesh with minimal input from the analyst on the type of elements and mesh density to be
used. The analyst can display the data as well as the finite element mesh generated for visual
inspection and verification for correctness.
Numerical analysis:
The software automatically generates the element characteristics (stiffness) matrices and
characteristic (load) vectors, assembles them to generate the system equations, implements
the specified boundary conditions and solves the equations to find the nodal values of the
field variable (displacements) and computes the element resultants (stresses and strains).
Post processing:
The solution of the problem, such as nodal displacements and element stresses, can be
displayed either numerically in tabular form or graphically (two- or three-dimensional plots
of deformed shape or stress variation. The analyst can choose the mode of display for the
results.
Checking the Results of FEA
It is extremely important to check the results given by the FEA software. Usually a simpler
version of the actual problem is to be solved using the software so that the results can be
compared with known solutions (obtained by other methods such as a simplified analysis
technique). In addition, the analyst must ensure that the results agree with engineering
intuition and behavior. Also, one needs to verify whether the solution satisfies the specified
boundary and symmetry conditions. If necessary, the problem needs to be solved by changing
the boundary conditions, loads or materials to find whether the resulting FEA solutions
behave as per engineering intuition and expectations.
Basic Element Shapes

In most engineering problems, we need to find the values of a field variable such as
displacement, stress, temperature, pressure, and velocity as a function of spatial coordinates
(x, y, z). In the case of transient or unsteady-state problems, the field variable has to be found
as a function of not only the spatial coordinates (x, y, z) but also time (t). The geometry
(domain or solution region) of the problem is often irregular. The first step of the finite
element analysis involves the discretization of the irregular domain into smaller and regular
subdomains, known as finite elements. This is equivalent to replacing the domain having an
infinite number of degrees of freedom (dof) by a system having a finite number of dof.
A variety of methods can be used to model a domain with finite elements. Different methods
of dividing the domain into finite elements involve varying amounts of computational time
and often lead to different approximations to the solution of the physical problem. The
process of discretization is essentially an exercise of engineering judgment. Efficient methods
of finite element idealization require some experience and knowledge of simple guidelines.
For large problems involving complex geometries, finite element idealization based on
manual procedures requires considerable effort and time on the part of the analyst. Some
automatic mesh generation programs have been developed for the efficient idealization of
complex domains requiring minimal interface with the analyst.
The shapes, sizes, number, and configurations of the elements have to be chosen carefully
such that the original body or domain is simulated as closely as possible without increasing
the computational effort needed for the solution. Mostly the choice of the type of element is
dictated by the geometry of the body and the number of independent coordinates necessary
to describe the system. If the geometry, material properties, and the field variable of the
problem can be described in terms of a single spatial coordinate, we can use the onedimensional or line elements shown in Figure 1-4(a). The temperature distribution in a rod
(or fin), the pressure distribution in a pipe flow, and the deformation of a bar under axial load,
for example, can be determined using these elements. Although these elements have a crosssectional area, they are generally shown schematically as a line element (Figure 1-4(b)).In
some cases, the cross-sectional area of the element may be non-uniform.
Figure 1-4
For a simple analysis, one-dimensional elements are assumed to have two nodes, one at each
end, with the corresponding value of the field variable chosen as the unknown (degree of
freedom). However, for the analysis of beams, the values of the field variable (transverse
displacement) and its derivative (slope) are chosen as the unknowns (dof) at each node as
shown in Figure 1-4(c).
When the configuration and other details of the problem can be described in terms of two
independent spatial coordinates, we can use the two-dimensional elements shown in Figure
1-5. The basic element useful for two-dimensional analysis is the triangular element. Although
a quadrilateral element (or its special forms, the rectangle and parallelogram) can be obtained
by assembling two or four triangular elements, as shown in Figure 1-6, in some cases the use
of quadrilateral (or rectangle or parallelogram) elements proves to be advantageous. For the
bending analysis of plates, multiple dof (transverse displacement and its derivatives) are used
at each node.
Figure 1-5
Figure 1-6
If the geometry, material properties, and other parameters of the body can be described by
three independent spatial coordinates, we can idealize the body by using the threedimensional elements shown in Figure 1-7. The basic three-dimensional element, analogous
to the triangular element in the case of two-dimensional problems, is the tetrahedron

element. In some cases the hexahedron element, which can be obtained by assembling five
tetrahedrons as indicated in Figure 1-7, can be used advantageously. Some problems, which
are actually three-dimensional, can be described by only one or two independent
coordinates. Such problems can be idealized by using an axisymmetric or ring type of
elements shown in Figure 1-8. The problems that possess axial symmetry, such as pistons,
storage tanks, valves, rocket nozzles, and reentry vehicle heat shields, fall into this category.
Figure 1-7
Figure 1-8
For the discretization of problems involving curved geometries, finite elements with curved
sides are useful. Typical elements having curved boundaries are shown in Figure 1-9. The
ability to model curved boundaries has been made possible by the addition of mid-side nodes.
Finite elements with straight sides are known as linear elements, whereas those with curved
sides are called higher-order elements.
Figure 1-9
Discretization Process
Various considerations to be taken in the discretization process are discussed in the following
sections.
Type of Elements
Often, the type of elements to be used will be evident from the physical problem. For
example, if the problem involves the analysis of a truss structure under a given set of load
conditions (Figure 1-10(a)), the type of elements to be used for idealization is obviously the
bar or line elements as shown in Figure 1-10(b). Similarly, in the case of stress analysis of
the short beam shown in Figure 1-11(a), the finite element idealization can be done using
three-dimensional solid elements as shown in Figure 1-11(b). However, the type of elements
to be used for idealization may not be apparent, and in such cases one has to choose the type
of elements judicially. As an example, consider the problem of analysis of the thin-walled shell
shown in Figure 1-12(a). In this case, the shell can be idealized by several types of elements
as shown in Figure 1-12(b). Here, the number of dof needed, the expected accuracy, the ease
with which the necessary equations can be derived, and the degree to which the physical
structure can be modeled without approximation will dictate the choice of the element type
to be used for idealization. In certain problems, the given body cannot be represented as an
assemblage of only one type of elements. In such cases, we may have to use two or more
types of elements for idealization. An example of this would be the analysis of an aircraft
wing. Since the wing consists of top and bottom covers, stiffening webs, and flanges, three
types of elementsnamely, triangular plate elements (for covers), rectangular shear panels
(for webs), and frame elements (for flanges)have been used in the idealization shown in
Figure 1-13.
10
Figure 1-10
Figure 1-11
Figure 1-12
11
Figure 1-13
Size of Elements
The size of elements influences the convergence of the solution directly, and hence it has to
be chosen with care. If the size of the elements is small, the final solution is expected to be
more accurate. However, we have to remember that the use of smaller-sized elements will
also mean more computation time. Sometimes, we may have to use elements of different
sizes in the same body. For example, in the case of stress analysis of the box beam shown in
Figure 1-14(a), the size of all the elements can be approximately the same, as shown in Figure
1-14(b). However, in the case of stress analysis of a plate with a hole shown in Figure 1-15(a),
elements of different sizes have to be used, as shown in Figure 1-15(b). The size of elements
has to be very small near the hole (where stress concentration is expected) compared to
distant places. In general, whenever steep gradients of the field variable are expected, we
have to use a finer mesh in those regions. Another characteristic related to the size of
elements that affects the finite element solution is the aspect ratio of the elements. The
aspect ratio describes the shape of the element in the assemblage of elements. For twodimensional elements, the aspect ratio is taken as the ratio of the largest dimension of the
element to the smallest dimension. Elements with an aspect ratio of nearly unity generally
yield best results.
12
Figure 1-14
Figure 1-15
Location of Nodes
If the body has no abrupt changes in geometry, material properties, and external conditions
(e.g., load and temperature), the body can be divided into equal subdivisions and hence the
spacing of the nodes can be uniform. On the other hand, if there are any discontinuities in the
problem, nodes have to be introduced at these discontinuities, as shown in Figure 1-16.
Figure 1-16
13
Number of Elements
The number of elements to be chosen for idealization is related to the accuracy desired, size
of elements, and the number of dof involved. Although an increase in the number of elements
generally means more accurate results, for any given problem, there will be a certain number
of elements beyond which the accuracy cannot be significantly improved. This behavior is
shown graphically in Figure 1-17. Moreover, since the use of a large number of elements
involves a large number of dof, we may not be able to store the resulting matrices in the
available computer memory.
Figure 1-17
Simplifications Afforded by the Physical Configuration of the Body

If the configuration of the body as well as the external conditions are symmetric, we may
consider only half of the body for finite element idealization. The symmetry conditions,
however, have to be incorporated in the solution procedure. This is illustrated in Figure 1-18,
where only half of the plate with a hole, having symmetry in both geometry and loading, is
considered for analysis. 1 Since there cannot be a horizontal displacement along the line of
symmetry AA, the condition that u=0 has to be incorporated while finding the solution.
14
Figure 1-18
Finite Representation of Infinite Bodies

In most of the problems, like in the analysis of beams, plates, and shells, the boundaries of
the body or continuum are clearly defined. Hence, the entire body can be considered for
element idealization. However, in some cases, as in the analysis of dams, foundations, and
semi-infinite bodies, the boundaries are not clearly defined. In the case of dams (Figure 1-19),
since the geometry is uniform and the loading does not change in the length direction, a unit
slice of the dam can be considered for idealization and analyzed as a plane strain problem.
However, in the case of the foundation problem shown in Figure 1-20(a), we cannot idealize
the complete semi-infinite soil by finite elements. Fortunately, it is not really necessary to
idealize the infinite body. Since the effect of loading decreases gradually with increasing
distance from the point of loading, we can consider only that much of the continuum in which
the loading is expected to have a significant effect as shown in Figure 1-20(b). Once the
significant extent of the infinite body is identified as shown in Figure 1-20(b), the boundary
conditions for this finite body have to be incorporated in the solution. For example, if the
horizontal movement only has to be restrained for sides AB and CD (i.e., u=0), these sides are
supposed to be on rollers as shown in Figure 1-20(b). In this case, the bottom boundary can
be either completely fixed (u=v=0) or constrained only against vertical movement (v=0). The
fixed conditions (u=v=0alongBC) are often used if the lower boundary is taken at the known
location of a bedrock surface.
15
Figure 1-19
Figure 1-20
NODE NUMBERING SCHEME

The finite element analysis of practical problems often leads to matrix equations in which the
matrices involved will be banded. The advances in the finite element analysis of large practical
systems have been made possible largely due to the banded nature of the matrices.
Furthermore, since most of the matrices involved (e.g., stiffness matrices) are symmetric, the
demands on the computer storage can be substantially reduced by storing only the elements
involved in half bandwidth instead of storing the entire matrix.
The bandwidth of the overall or global characteristic matrix depends on the node numbering
scheme and the number of dof considered per node. If we can minimize the bandwidth, the
storage requirements as well as solution time can also be minimized. Since the number of dof
per node is generally fixed for any given type of problem, the bandwidth can be minimized by
using a proper node numbering scheme. As an example, consider a three-bay frame with rigid
joints, 20 stories high, shown in Figure 1-21. Assuming that there are 3 dof per node, there
are 252 unknowns in the final equations (including the dof corresponding to the fixed nodes),
and if the entire stiffness matrix is stored in the computer, it will require 2522 =63504
locations. The bandwidth (strictly speaking, half-bandwidth) of the overall stiffness matrix can
be shown to be 15, and thus the storage required for the upper half-band is only 15252=3780
locations.
16
Figure 1-21
Before we attempt to minimize the bandwidth, we discuss the method of calculating the
bandwidth. For this, we consider again the rigid jointed frame shown in Figure 1.21. By
applying constraints to all the nodal dof except number 1 at node 1 (joint A), it is clear that an
imposed unit displacement in the direction of 1 will require constraining forces at the nodes
directly connected to node Athat is, B and C. These constraining forces are nothing but the
cross-stiffnesses appearing in the stiffness matrix, and these forces are confined to the nodes
B and C. Thus, the nonzero terms in the first row of the global stiffness matrix (Figure 1.22)
will be confined to the first 15 positions. This defines the bandwidth (B)as the maximum
difference between the numbered dof at the ends of any member + 1.
This definition can be generalized so as to be applicable for any type of finite element as
Bandwidth (B)=(D+1)*f. Where D is the maximum largest difference in the node numbers
occurring for all elements of the assemblage, and f is the number of dof at each node.
Figure 1-21
17
The previous equation indicates that D has to be minimized in order to minimize the
bandwidth. Thus, a shorter bandwidth can be obtained simply by numbering the nodes across
the shortest dimension of the body. This is clear from Figure 1-23 also, where the numbering
of nodes along the shorter dimension produces a bandwidth of B=15 (D=4), whereas the
numbering along the longer dimension produces a bandwidth of B=66 (D=21).
As observed previously, the bandwidth of the overall system matrix depends on the manner
in which the nodes are numbered. For simple systems or regions, it is easy to label the nodes
so as to minimize the bandwidth. But for large systems, the procedure becomes nearly
impossible. Hence, automatic mesh generation algorithms, capable of discretizing any
geometry into an efficient finite element mesh without user intervention, have been
developed. Most commercial finite element software has built-in automatic mesh generation
codes. An automatic mesh generation program generates the locations of the node points
and elements, labels the nodes and elements, and provides the elementnode connectivity
relationships.
Figure 1-23
Automatic Mesh Generation

Mesh generation is the process of dividing a physical domain into smaller subdomains (called
elements) to facilitate an approximate solution of the governing ordinary or partial
differential equation. For this, one-dimensional domains (straight or curved lines) are
subdivided into smaller line segments, two-dimensional domains (planes or surfaces) are
subdivided into triangle or quadrilateral shapes, and three-dimensional domains (volumes)
are subdivided into tetrahedron and hexahedron shapes. If the physical domain is simple and
the number of elements used is small, mesh generation can be done manually. However, most
practical problems, such as those encountered in aerospace, automobile, and construction
industries have complex geometries that require the use of thousands and sometimes
millions of elements. In such cases, the manual process of mesh generation is impossible and
we have to use automatic mesh generation schemes based on the use of a CAD or solid
modeling package.
18
Automatic mesh generation involves the subdivision of a given domain, which maybe in the
form of a curve, surface, or solid (described by a CAD or solid modeling package) into a set of
nodes (or vertices) and elements (subdomains) to represent the domain as closely as possible
subject to the specified element shape and size restrictions. Many automatic mesh generation
schemes use a bottom-up approach in that nodes (or vertices or corners of the domain) are
meshed first, followed by curves (boundaries), then surfaces, and finally solids. Thus, for a
given geometric domain of the problem, nodes are first placed at the corner points of the
domain, and then nodes are distributed along the geometric curves that define the
boundaries. Next, the boundary nodes are used to develop nodes in the surface(s), and finally
the nodes on the various surfaces are used to develop nodes within the given volume (or
domain). The nodes or mesh points are used to define line elements if the domain is onedimensional, triangular, or quadrilateral elements if the domain is two-dimensional, and
tetrahedral or hexahedral elements if the domain is three-dimensional.
The automatic mesh generation schemes are usually tied to solid modeling and computeraided design schemes. When the user supplies information on the surfaces and volumes of
the material domains that make up the object or system, an automatic mesh generator
generates the nodes and elements in the object. The user can also specify minimum
permissible element sizes for different regions of the object. Many mesh generation schemes
first create all the nodes and then produce a mesh of triangles by connecting the nodes to
form triangles (in a plane region). In a particular scheme, known as Delaunay triangulation,
the triangular elements are generated by maximizing the sum of the smallest angles of the
triangles; thus the procedure avoids generation of thin elements.
The most common methods used in the development of automatic mesh generators are the
tesselation and octree methods. In the tesselation method, the user gives a collection of node
points and also an arbitrary starting node. The method then creates the first simplex element
using the neighboring nodes. Then a subsequent or neighboring element is generated by
selectingthe node point that gives the least distorted element shape. The procedure is
continued until all the elements are generated. The step-by-step procedure involved in this
method is illustrated in Figure 1-24 for a two-dimensional example. Alternately, the user can
define the boundary of the object by a series of nodes. Then the tesselation method connects
selected boundary nodes to generate simplex elements. The stepwise procedure used 3 in
this approach is shown in Figure 1-25.
Figure 1-24
19
Figure 1-25
The octree methods belong to a class of mesh generation schemes known as tree structure
methods, which are extensively used in solid modeling and computer graphics display
methods. In the octree method, the object is first considered enclosed in a three-dimensional
cube. If the object does not completely (uniformly) cover the cube, the cube is subdivided
into eight equal parts. In the two-dimensional analog of the octree method, known as the
quadtree method, the object is first considered enclosed in a square region. If the object does
not completely cover the square, the square is subdivided into four equal quadrants. If any
one of the resulting quadrants is full (completely occupied by the object) or empty (not
occupied by the object), then it is not subdivided further. On the other hand, if any one of the
resulting quadrants is partially full (partially occupied by the object), it is subdivided into four
quadrants. This procedure of subdividing partially full quadrants is continued until all the
resulting regions are either full or empty, or until some predetermined level of resolution is
achieved. At the final stage, the partially full quadrants are assumed to be either full or empty
arbitrarily based on a pre-specified criterion.
Units
Before starting to define any model, you need to decide which system of units you will use.
Abaqus has no built-in system of units. Do not include unit names or labels when entering
data in Abaqus. All input data must be specified in consistent units. Some common systems
of consistent units are shown in table 1-2.
Table 1-2
20
Chapter 2
Geometric Modeling
In this chapter geometric modeling in the part module of the ABAQUS is investigated.
Example 1
Two and three dimensional wire parts
21
Example 2
Two dimensional shell parts
Part (1)
Part (2)
Part (3)
22
Part (4)
Part (5)
23
Part (6)
Part (7)
24
Example 3
Three dimensional shell parts
25
Example 4
Three dimensional solid parts
Part (1)
Part (2)
Part (3)
26
Part (4)
Part (5)
Part (6)
27
Part (7)
Part (8)
Part (9)
28
Part (10)
Part (11)
Part (12)
29
Part (13)
Part (14)
Part (15)
30
Part (16)
Part (17)
Part (18)
31
Chapter 3
Truss Structures
Example 1
The structure is a simple, pin-jointed truss that is constrained at the left end and mounted on
rollers at the right end. The members can rotate freely at the joints. The frame is prevented
from moving out of plane. A simulation is required to determine the structures static
deflection and the peak stress in its members when a 10 kN load is applied as shown in figure.
All members are circular steel rods 5 mm in diameter. Elastic properties are E=200 GPa and
v=0.29.
32
Example 2
E =10e4 ksi, A=2 in2, P4=P8= 100 kip
33
Example 3
E=210e7 N/cm2, A=2cm2 for all members
All dimensions in centimeters; All base nodes fixed
34
Example 4
Finite element to be used: T3D2 = 3D two-node truss element
Dimensions in figure are in mm; Area of cross section of each bar: 3225.8 mm2
Material: Aluminum; E= 69 GPa
Load applied: Vertical load of 10,000 N at node 1
35
Example 5
In this example the 52 bar space truss (dome structure) with configuration shown in the
following figures is considered. At each free node (113) it is attached a non-structural mass
of 50 kg. The material is steel with Youngs modulus equal to 210 GPa, Poisson ration equal
to 0.29 and specific mass of 7800 kg/m3. The 52 bars are divided into eight groups, as shown
in the table.
36
37
Other Examples
38
39
Chapter 4
Two Dimensional Elasticity
Example 1
Hole in Plate
A Rectangular plate with central circular hole is subjected to a uniformly distributed axial force
as shown. If the plate was made of carbon steel with 210 GPa Young modulus and 0.29 Poisson
ratio determine the maximum deflection and Von-Mises stress due to the specified loading.
The plate thickness is 0.002 and the resultant of the axial loading is 2 kN. Use any symmetry
in the model if it is appropriate. Also do a grid study analysis and determine the optimal mesh
size.
50
45
Maximum Stress (Mpa)
40
35
30
25
S (Mpa) Q4
20
S (Mpa) T3
15
10
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Number of Nodes
40
5000
6000
7000
Example 2
L Shaped Bracket
An L shaped plate of thickness 0.05 inch is subjected to a distributed force as shown. If the
plate was made of aluminum with 10.4 Mpsi Young modulus and 0.333 Poisson ratio
determine the maximum deflection and Von-Mises stress due to the specified loading.
41
Example 3
Tensile Bracket
A bracket plate with an internal hole is loaded axially. The plate was made of carbon steel
with 210 GPa Young modulus and 0.29 Poisson ratio. Determine the maximum deflection and
Von-Mises stress due to an axial tensile loading of 10 kN distributed along the right and left
edges.
42
Example 4
Connecting Rod
Consider the following connecting rod (All dimensions are in mm). Assume the left hole
constrained completely in all directions and 1 KN vertical force is distributed over the internal
surface of the right hole. If it was 10mm in thickness, determine the maximum Von-mises
stress and maximum displacement for the plane-stress case. The rod is made of ST37
structural steel with 200GPa Young modulus and 0.3 Poisson ratio.
The solution is as follows. All deformations are in mm and all stresses are in MPa.
43
44
Example 5
Curved Slider
Consider the following slider (all dimensions are in inch). The left hole is constrained in all
directions and the right hole constrained only in y direction. Also assume that 250 lb force is
distributed in the semicircular arc at the upper end of the slit with an angle of 30 degree with
respect to the horizon. If the thickness of the plate was 1/8 inch and it was made of structural
steel with 30Gpsi Young modulus and 0.3 Poisson ratio determine the maximum Von-mises
stress and also the maximum deflection in the object.
The solution is as follows. All deformations are in inch and all stresses are in psi.
45
46
Example 6
Concentrated Force
Consider a 2D square object supported on a flat frictionless surface as shown in the following
figure. A concentrated force is applied at the midpoint of its upper edge. Use linear and
quadratic quadrilateral elements to evaluate the maximum Von-Misses stress under the load.
Examine different mesh size and draw convergence curve. The plate is made from structural
steel with E=200GPa and v=0.3. Its thickness is 1mm and assume plane stress.
180
160
Element Q4
140
Element Q8
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Number of elements
47
3500
4000
4500
Example 7
Sharp Corner
Consider a 2D object with sharp corners which is clamped at left and is under a uniform tensile
stress at right as shown in the following figure. Use linear and quadratic quadrilateral
elements to evaluate the maximum Von-Misses stress in the object. Examine different mesh
size and draw convergence curve. The plate is made from structural steel with E=200GPa and
v=0.3. Its thickness is 1mm and assume plane stress.
Q4 Elements
Q8 Elements
48
2.8
2.6
Element Q4
(Mpa)
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0
2000
4000
6000
Number of elements
49
8000
Example 8
Rounded Corner
Consider a 2D object with round corners which is clamped at left and is under a uniform
tensile stress at right as shown in the following figure. Use linear and quadratic quadrilateral
elements to evaluate the maximum Von-Misses stress in the object. Examine different mesh
size and draw convergence curve. The plate is made from structural steel with E=200GPa and
v=0.3. Its thickness is 1mm and assume plane stress.
Q4 Elements
Q8 Elements
50
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
Element Q4 (Mpa)
Element Q8 (Mpa)
1.05
1
0
2000
4000
6000
Number of elements
51
8000
10000
Example 9
Solid Slab under Variable Load Distribution
A long rectangular solid slab is clamped completely along two opposite sides as shown in the
figure. The slab is subjected to a transvers triangular distributed force with maximum of 100
tonne/m for unit depth. The slab was made of concrete with 25 GPa Young modulus, 0.2
Poisson ratio and 2320 kg/m3 mass density. Determine the maximum deflection and
maximum normal stress in the slab due to the specified loading.
52
Example 10
Solid Slab under Variable Load Distribution
53
Example 11
Pipe Made of Two Different Materials
54
Chapter 5
Three Dimensional Elasticity
Example 1
Cantilever Beam
55
Example 2
Cantilever Beam under Variable Loading
56
Example 3
L Shaped Bracket 1
Consider the following 3D bracket (all dimensions are in mm). Assume that the left end of the
object is clamped completely and a 1KN shearing force is distributed over the internal surface
of the hole and is pointing to the right. The bracket is made of structural steel with 200GPa
Young modulus and 0.3 Poisson ratio. In this circumstance, determine the maximum Vonmises stress and maximum displacement produced in the object.
The solution is as follows. All deformations are in mm and all stresses are in MPa.
57
58
Example 4
L Shaped Bracket 2
Consider the following 3D bracket (all dimensions are in mm). Assume that the internal
surfaces of the two holes in the right leg are clamped completely and a 3KN shearing force is
distributed over the internal surface of the upper hole and is pointing to the right. The bracket
is made of structural steel with 200GPa Young modulus and 0.3 Poisson ratio. In this
circumstance, determine the maximum Von-Mises stress and maximum displacement
produced in the object.
59
Example 5
Pin Loading
60
Chapter 6
Heat Transfer
Example 1
Conductive Heat Transfer in a Square
Three sides of a square plate are maintained at constant temperature of 0C and the fourth
one is kept at 100C. The plate is made of carbon steel with average thermal conductivity of
52 W/mK. Under this conditions, determine the temperature distribution in the plate.
K=(53.2+50.7)/2=52 W/mK
61
62
100.00
90.00
Mesh 1
Mesh 2
80.00
Mesh 3
Mesh 4
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
63
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Example 2
Three Dimensional Needle Fin
Consider a needle fin with circular cross section made of carbon steel which is under natural
convection in the quiet air. The base of the fin is maintained at 100C while the ambient
temperature is 25C. Under this condition, determine the temperature distribution along the
fin.
The thermal conductivity of the fin can be approximated for 50C as fillows.
k=(53.2+50.7)/2=52 W/mK
The coefficient of convective heat transfer can be approximated for horizontal cylinders as
the follows:
h
(1.79 0.179 t0.25 )
do
h (2.16 0.32 t0.25 )t
1/ 3
0.25
W/m2K
for laminar conditions
W/m2K
for turbulent conditions
64
In this problem we consider t 25 , t 100 25 75 and d o 0.01 therefore one can obtain
h 12.9
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
65
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Chapter 7
Thermal Stress
Example 1
Thermal Stress in a Rod
A steel link, with no internal stresses, is pinned between two solid structures at a reference
temperature of 0C (273 K). One of the solid structures is heated to a temperature of 75C
(348 K). As heat is transferred from the solid structure into the link, the link will attempt to
expand. However, since it is pinned, this cannot occur, and as such, stress is created in the
link. A steady-state solution of the resulting stress will be found to simplify the analysis. Loads
will not be applied to the link, only a temperature change of 75C. The link is steel with a
modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa, a thermal conductivity of 60.5 W/mK, and a thermal
expansion coefficient of 12e-6/K.
66
Example 2
Thermal Stress in a Square
Consider a square 2D elastic object which is under thermal stress condition. Three sides of
the square are maintained in constant temperature of 0C and the fourth one is kept in 100C
as shown in the following figure. Under this condition, determine the temperature
distribution in the body and also obtain the maximum displacement and Von-Mises stress
induced in it for both cases of plane stress and plane strain. The square is made of carbon
steel with the following material properties.
Coefficient of thermal conductivity:

Coefficient of thermal expansion:
Young modulus:
Poisson ratio:
52
10.8e-6
200e9
0.3.
67
W/mK
1/C
Pa
Plane stress case
68
Plane strain case
69
Example 3
Thermal Stress in a Pipe
Consider a circular cross section long pipe with internal diameter of 60mm and external
diameter of 100mm. The internal surface of the pipe is maintained in 100C and its external
surface is kept in 0C. Under this condition, determine the temperature distribution,
maximum displacement and Von-Mises stress induced in the pipe due to thermal stress. The
pipe is made of carbon steel with the following material properties.
Coefficient of thermal conductivity: 52
W/mK
Coefficient of thermal expansion: 10.8e-6
1/C
Young modulus:
200e9
Pa
Poisson ratio:
0.3.
70
71
Chapter 8
Beam Structures
Example 1
Beam Bridge
Youngsmodulus: E=70e3
Poissons ratio: v=0.0 it is not required for beams
THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS PRINTED FOR NODES BELONGING TO NODES
72
Example 2
Beam Bridge
The two-dimensional bridge structure is simply supported at its lower corners. The structure
is composed of steel T-sections (E=210 GPa, =0.25) oriented as shown below. The detail of
the cross section is also shown. A uniform distributed load of 1000 N/m is applied to the lower
horizontal members in the vertical downward direction. Determine the stresses and the
vertical displacements.
73
74
Example 3
Table
The following table frame structure is supported by a frictionless surface under its legs. The
structure is composed of steel box sections (E=210 GPa, =0.25). A uniform distributed load
of 1000 N/m is applied to the upper horizontal members in the vertical downward direction.
Determine the stresses and the displacements of the structure.
75
76
Example 4
Crane
The following structure is a part of a crane which is clamped at four left joints. The main beams
of the structure are composed of steel circular cross section pipes with 80mm outer diameter
and 4mm in thickness. The braces are also made of steel pipes of 60mm outer diameter and
3mm in thickness. This structure, In addition to the weights of its own members, supports a
concentrated force of 6KN at the mid span of the last member on the right. Under this
circumstance, determine the stresses and displacements of the structure. For steel, consider
E=210 GPa, =0.25 and mass density as 7800 kg/m3. The gravitational acceleration is
9.81m/s2.
77
Example 5
Bridge
To deal with a more realistic example, the following discussion considers the arch structure
shown in the figure, a simplified model of a pedestrian bridge with the arches in a baskethandle configuration. The span L=1200 in (30.5 m); the width W=96 in (2.44 m). Cross sections
are selected either from a list of 32 AISC HSS round sections or a list of 75 AISC HSS rectangular
tube sections. The lists are compiled by selecting the lightest section for each shape variety.
The model includes one geometric decision variable, the span-to-depth ratio of the arch (),
which ranges from 4 to 12, plus the five section variables indicated in Fig.5as follows:
Rib: The main arch rib, a round HSS section.
Brace: Members that connect the two arches near the crown,
a round HSS section.
Hanger: The suspenders which transfer load from the deck to
the arch, a round HSS section.
Tie beam: The longitudinal beams at the deck level, a rectan-gular HSS section.
Transverse beam: The beams which span between the tie, a
rectangular HSS section.
Concerning structural modeling, the structure uses a pin sup-port for each arch at one end of
the bridge and roller supports at
the other. The hanger members are pin-ended, and the connections
between the arches and the tie beams are also pinned. Concerning
materials, the rectangular tube sections use a yield stress of 46 ksi
(317 MPa), and the round sections use a yield stress of 42 ksi
(290 MPa). Dead load includes the self weight of the model plus
a superimposed dead load on the deck area of 0:08 kip=ft
2
(3.83 kPa). The live load is 0:85 k=ft
2
(4.07 kPa) distributed on
the deck area. Superimposed dead and live loads are applied to
the nodes of each transverse beam, at the beam ends, and a midspan
node according to tributary area. The vertical deflection of the
nodes of the tie beam are limited toL=1;000 for live load only. The
analysis includes four load combinations: two to check stiffness
and two to check strength and stability. The combinations for stiff-ness include one with full
live load and one with live load on half
the span; these combinations use linear analysis. The combinations
for strength and stability include one with dead plus live and an-other with dead plus live load
on half the span; these combinations
are factored according to the AISC LRFD code (AISC 2001) and
use large displacement analysis. Note that these load combinations
are unrealistically simple, in particular because they do not account
for lateral loads. Concerning stability criteria, the algorithm checks
each member to account for member-level compression stability
according to the AISC LRFD requirements discussed previously
by using an effective length factorK1:0 and an unsupported
78
length equal to the member length. System-level stability was

considered as described in the discussion of stability constraints
79
Chapter 9
Shell and Plate Structures
Example 1
Rectangular Plate
Plate is fixed at one edge and supported by rollers at the opposite edge. Other two edges are
free (no support). A concentrated transverse force of 100 N applied at center. Material:
E=10e3 N/mm2, Poisson ratio = 0.3
80
Example 2
L Shaped Beam Structure
A frame structure which is composed of two I beams is shown in the following. The
dimensions of the cross section are also shown. Assume the structure is completely fixed at
point A and a vertical force of 1KN is applied at the end at B. It is also needed to consider the
weight of the own structure. The structure is made of structural steel with 200GPa Young
modulus, 0.3 Poisson ratio and 7800kg/m3 mass density. In these conditions determine stress
distribution and displacements of the structure.
81
82
Example 3
Pressure Vessel
A pressure vessel is composed of a cylindrical body with hemispherical caps. The diameter of
the vessel is 1m and its total length is 2m. Two pipes of 0.2m diameter are attached to the
central part of the vessel with relative angle of 90 degrees. Each pipe is 0.3m in length and
the distance between centerlines is 0.6m. The connection point of the pipes and the vessel is
filleted with radius of 0.05m. The thickness of the vessel and pipes is 0.005m and are made of
structural steel (E=200GPa, v=0.3). Assume a constant pressure of 2atm is exerted on the
internal surfaces and the free ends of the pipes are clamped completely. In these conditions
determine the stress and displacement distribution in the vessel.
83
84
Example 4
Pipe
E=200GPa
Niu=0.3
Thichness=0.01 m
Internal Pressure=1e6 Pa
BC: onlt the translational DOFs of the edges of the bolt holes are restrained
85
86
87
Chapter 10
Composite Structures
Composite is a macroscopic mixture of at least two materials. One of the materials is the
matrix in which the other materials called reinforcements are embedded.
The following figure shows a schematic of an Airbus 380 airplane (the largest airplane in the
world as of 2008). This airplane has more than 50% of its structure made of composite
materials. These components include the flaps, ailerons, rudder, radome etc. Most of these
components are flat in shape and they are usually made using hand-lay-up (HLU) and
autoclave molding techniques. The next figure shows a schematic of the hand-lay-up
fabrication technique and a representative lay-up sequence. Autoclave molding is a wellestablished method for composites used in the aero-space industry with certified resins and
fibers. A photograph of an auto-clave is also shown.
88
89
The following figure shows a pressure vessel made of composite materials using the
combination of hand-lay-up and filament winding processes. Composite pressure vessels are
light weight and can contain pressures higher than those contained by metallic vessels. These
components are made using the filament winding process.
The following figure shows a photograph of a filament winding machine.
90
Figure 1.3(a) shows a component made using pultrusion. Pultrusion is used to make many
structures for civil engineering applications. Figure 1.3(b) shows the schematic of the
pultrusion process, and Figure 1.3(c) shows a photograph of a lab scale pultrusion machine.
91
92
Figure 1.4(a) shows a composite component made using the liquid composite molding (LCM)
method (5 piece). LCM has been used to make automobile composite components. Figure
1.4(b) shows a schematic of the liquid composite molding process.
Depending on the purpose of the analysis, different modeling techniques for composites can
be used:
Microscopic modeling
Matrix and reinforcements are separately modeled as deformable continua.
Each element is composed of a single homogeneous material.
Layered modeling
Each element is composed of several layers of different materials.
Smeared modeling
The composite is modeled as an equivalent homogeneous material with stacked or single
layer element configuration
93
94
Example 1
Glass/Epoxy
E1=38.6 GPa
E2=8.27 GPa
G12=4.14 GPa
Viu12=0.26
Layer thickness =0.002 m
Layup: [90, 45, 0, 45, 90]
95
Chapter 11
Free Vibration
Example 1
96
Chapter 12
Linear Buckling
Example 1
97
Chapter 13
Contact Stress
Example 1
98
Chapter 14
Plastic Deformation
Example 1
99
Chapter 15
Flow in Porous Media
Example 1
100
Chapter 16
Flow of Viscose Fluids
Example 1
101
Appendix 1
Material Properties
102
103
104
105
106
Appendix 2
Stress Concentration Factors
107
Appendix 3
Meshing Techniques
Top-down meshing
Top-down meshing relies on the geometry of a part to define the outer bounds of the mesh.
The top-down mesh matches the geometry; you may need to simplify and/or partition
complex geometry so that Abaqus/CAE recognizes basic shapes that it can use to generate a
high-quality mesh. In some cases top-down methods may not allow you to mesh portions of
a complex part with the desired type of elements. The top-down techniquesstructured,
swept, and free meshingand their geometry requirements are well-defined, and loads and
boundary conditions applied to a part are associated automatically with the resulting mesh.
Structured meshing
Structured meshing is the top-down technique that gives you the most control over your
mesh because it applies preestablished mesh patterns to particular model topologies. Most
unpartitioned solid models are too complex to be meshed using preestablished mesh
patterns. However, you can often partition complex models into simple regions with
topologies for which structured meshing patterns exist. Figure 173 shows an example of a
structured mesh.
Swept meshing
Abaqus/CAE creates swept meshes by internally generating the mesh on an edge or face and
then sweeping that mesh along a sweep path. The result can be either a two-dimensional
mesh created from an edge or a three-dimensional mesh created from a face. Like structured
meshing, swept meshing is a top-down technique limited to models with specific topologies
and geometries. Figure 174 shows an example of a swept mesh.
108
Free meshing
The free meshing technique is the most flexible top-down meshing technique. It uses no
preestablished mesh patterns and can be applied to almost any model shape. However, free
meshing provides you with the least control over the mesh since there is no way to predict
the mesh pattern. Figure 175 shows an example of a free mesh.
Bottom-up meshing
Bottom-up meshing uses the part geometry as a guideline for the outer bounds of the mesh,
but the mesh is not required to conform to the geometry. Removing this restriction gives you
greater control over the mesh and allows you to create a hexahedral or hexahedraldominated mesh on geometry that is too complex for the structured or swept meshing
techniques. Bottom-up meshing can be applied to any solid model shape. It provides you with
the most control over the mesh, since you select the method and the parameters that drive
the mesh. However, you must also decide whether the resulting mesh is a suitable
approximation of the geometry. If it is not, you can delete the mesh and try a different
bottom-up meshing method or partition the region and mesh the resulting smaller regions
with either bottom-up or top-down meshing techniques.
To mesh a single bottom-up region, you may have to apply several successive bottom-up
meshes. For example, you may use an extruded bottom-up mesh to generate part of a region,
109
then use the element faces of the extruded mesh as a starting point to generate a swept mesh
for features that the extruded mesh did not include.
Loads and boundary conditions are applied to geometry. Unlike a top-down mesh, a bottomup mesh may not be fully associated with geometry. Therefore, you should check that the
mesh is correctly associated with the geometry in areas where loads or boundary conditions
are applied. Proper mesh-geometry association will ensure that the loads and boundary
conditions are correctly transferred to the mesh during the analysis. (For more information,
see Mesh-geometry association, Section 17.11.4.) Because of the extra effort required by
the user to create a satisfactory mesh compared to the automated top-down meshing
processes, bottom-up meshing is recommended for use only when top-down meshing cannot
generate a suitable mesh.
Figure 176 shows an example of a bottom-up meshed part. Although this part is relatively
simple, it requires two regions and four bottom-up meshes to completely mesh the part.
Abaqus/CAE displays bottom-up meshed regions using a mixture of the region geometry color
(light tan) and the mesh color (light blue) to emphasize that the geometry and mesh may not
be associated. Displaying both the geometry and the mesh allows you to view and edit the
mesh-geometry associativity.
What is structured meshing?

The structured meshing technique generates structured meshes using simple predefined
mesh topologies. Abaqus/CAE transforms the mesh of a regularly shaped region, such as a
square or a cube, onto the geometry of the region you want to mesh. You can apply the
structured meshing technique to simple two-dimensional regions (planar or curved) or to
simple three-dimensional regions that have been assigned the Hex or Hex-dominated
element shape option. For example, Figure 1742 illustrates how simple mesh patterns for
triangles, squares, and pentagons are applied to more complex shapes.
110
Three-dimensional structured meshing

Figure 1749 illustrates examples of simple three-dimensional regions that can be meshed
using the structured meshing technique.
Meshing more complex regions with this technique may require manual partitioning. If you
do not partition a complex region, your only meshing option may be the free meshing
technique with tetrahedral elements. Meshes constructed using the structured meshing
technique consist of hexahedral elements, which are preferred over tetrahedral elements.
You can eliminate holes (whether they pass all the way through the part instance or just part
way through) by partitioning their circumferences into halves, quarters, etc. For example, the
four partitions in Figure 1751 convert the part instance from one region with a hole to four
regions without holes.
111
You should limit arcs to 90 or less to avoid concavities along sides and at edges. For example,
the part instance in Figure 1752 has been partitioned so that the single region with 180 arcs
becomes two regions with 90 arcs.
All the faces of the region must have geometries that could be meshed using the twodimensional structured meshing technique. For example, without partitioning, the semicircles
at either end of the part in Figure 1753 have only two sides each. (A face must have at least
three sides to be meshed using the structured meshing technique.) If you partition the part
into two halves, each semicircle is divided into two faces with three sides each.
Exactly three edges of the region must meet at each vertex. For example, the vertex at the
top of an unpartitioned pyramid in Figure 1754 is connected to four edges. However, if you
partition the pyramid into two tetrahedral regions, the vertex is connected to only three
edges for each individual region.
112
What is swept meshing?

Abaqus/CAE uses swept meshing to mesh complex solid and surface regions. The swept
meshing technique involves two phases:
Abaqus/CAE creates a mesh on one side of the region, known as the source side.
Abaqus/CAE copies the nodes of that mesh, one element layer at a time, until the final side,
known as the target side, is reached. Abaqus/CAE copies the nodes along an edge, and this
edge is called the sweep path. The sweep path can be any type of edgea straight edge, a
circular edge, or a spline. If the sweep path is a straight edge or a spline, the resulting mesh
is called an extruded swept mesh. If the sweep path is a circular edge, the resulting mesh is
called a revolved swept mesh.
For example, Figure 1765 shows an extruded swept mesh. To mesh this model, Abaqus/CAE
first creates a two-dimensional mesh on the source side of the model. Next, each of the nodes
in the two-dimensional mesh is copied along a straight edge to every layer until the target
side is reached.
To determine if a region is swept meshable, Abaqus/CAE tests if the region can be replicated
by sweeping a source side along a sweep path to a target side. In general, Abaqus/CAE selects
the most complex side (for example, the side that has an isolated edge or vertex) to be the
source side. In some cases you can use the mesh controls to select the sweep path. If some
regions of a model are too complex to be swept meshed, Abaqus/CAE asks if you want to
remove these regions from your selection before it generates a swept mesh on the remaining
regions. You can use the free meshing technique to mesh the complex regions, or you can
partition the regions into simplified geometry that can be structured or swept meshed.
When you assign mesh controls to a region, Abaqus/CAE indicates the direction of the sweep
path and allows you to control the direction. If the region can be swept in more than one
direction, Abaqus/CAE may generate a very different two-dimensional mesh on the faces that
113
it can select as the source side. As a result, the direction of the sweep path can influence the
uniformity of the resulting three-dimensional swept mesh, as shown in Figure 1766.
114

ABAQUS Lacture Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABAQUS Lacture Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABAQUS Lacture Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Basic Concepts of the Finite Element Method

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Engineering Applications of the Finite Element Method

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Commercial Finite Element Program Packages

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Solutions Using Finite Element Software

Basic Element Shapes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

to the triangular element in the case of two-dimensional problems, is the tetrahedron

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Simplifications Afforded by the Physical Configuration of the Body

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Finite Representation of Infinite Bodies

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

NODE NUMBERING SCHEME

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Automatic Mesh Generation

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Maximum Stress (Mpa)

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

ABAQUS Lecture Notes

Maximum Stress (Mpa)