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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×