Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the feasibility of meshing and comparing different element types (solid, shell, and beam) in ANSYS APDL for structural analysis of honeycomb lightweight structures. Participants explore the requirements for each element type and the implications for modeling the same 3D geometry.
Discussion Character
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Homework-related
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions whether it is possible to mesh and compare solid, shell, and beam elements using the same 3D model.
- Another participant asserts that different geometries are required for each element type due to their distinct geometric requirements.
- A request for examples and further clarification is made by a participant who is new to ANSYS APDL.
- Further clarification is provided regarding the solid model's ability to be meshed, noting the need for a dense mesh for accurate results and potential limitations of the student version of ANSYS.
- It is mentioned that the second model cannot be meshed with shell elements due to incorrect formatting and significant geometric differences from the first model.
- A suggestion is made to define a surface plane for each side of the honeycomb structure if shell elements are to be used.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the possibility of using the same geometry for different element types, with some asserting it is not feasible while others explore potential workarounds.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the need for different geometries for each element type and potential restrictions based on the version of ANSYS being used, which may limit the number of nodes available for meshing.
Who May Find This Useful
This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in structural analysis using ANSYS APDL, particularly those working with honeycomb structures or new to the software.
