Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Size matters! At least when it comes down to the finite element size.

To cover different layers of fiber orientation in a fiber reinforced material it is necessary to use a fine mesh, but to keep the cpu time low, it has to be as coarse as possible.

I´d like to share with you the following experience:

 

- Midplane meshes of course are the best opportunity to caver as much information over the thickness as possible since it is simply your choice how many layers you´d like to use.

- A Hexahedral mesh is nice to keep dof low, but can only cover as many information as there are elements over the thickness.

- Tetrahedral meshes usually take less time in preprosessing and are usually the best choice to represent complex geometries. For short fiber reinforced materials they have another benefit. The center of each Tet-element is slighty shifted over the thickness and therefore, covers different information.

 

In this picture you see the fiber orientation distribution function over the thickness (legend) and an example micrograph showing this effect in a real part. The different mesh types have different pros and cons when used to take these effects into account:

 

 

23-04-_2018_09-16-05.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...