ANSYS workbench - finer elements gives errous results

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simulation of a cantilever beam using ANSYS Workbench, specifically addressing the discrepancies in von-Mises stress and total deformation results as the mesh is refined. Participants explore the implications of mesh quality on simulation accuracy and the potential causes of unexpected results.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that coarser meshes yield von-Mises stress results that align closely with theoretical values, while finer meshes produce increasingly higher stress values, suggesting a possible stress singularity near constraint points.
  • Another participant suggests checking constraints and loading conditions, indicating that improper constraints could lead to erroneous results.
  • It is mentioned that adaptive meshing is not available in the participant's version of ANSYS Workbench, prompting a discussion about the potential benefits of adaptive versus standard meshing.
  • Participants discuss the accuracy of the results, with one stating that a 1% error is acceptable in finite element analysis (FEA), while another emphasizes the importance of element types used in the simulation.
  • There is a suggestion to consider using BEAM elements instead of SOLID elements for potentially better results in this specific analysis.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the availability of the ADAPT command in ANSYS APDL for mesh refinement based on results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the effects of mesh refinement and element types, with no consensus reached on the best approach to resolve the discrepancies in results. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal settings and configurations for accurate simulation outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of adaptive meshing in the participant's version of ANSYS Workbench and uncertainty about the specific element types and their impact on results. The discussion also highlights the need for careful consideration of constraints and loading conditions.

frodeh
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello!

I'm doing a simulation in ansys workbench mechanical (12.1) of a cantilever beam (axle) fixed to a wall and loaded radialy at the other end.

The funny thing here is that when the mesh is rather coarse the results regarding von-mises stress (at the support where the bending moment is at it's highest) is very accurate compared to the theoretical values. When the mesh is getting finer, the results gets higher and higher and deviates from the theoretical ones.

the opposite happens with the total deformation where the results are getting more and more correct as the elements are getting finer and finer.

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation to this?

thanks
Frode
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The fact that you refine the mesh and the stresses skyrocket indicates a stress singularity probably close to a constraint point. Deflections are small (as it's constrained) mean that you would expect to see the displacement not change much at that end.

I thought ansys workbench had adaptive meshing. If you have this on, turn it off and do a standard mesh. If you have it off, turn it on and see what happens.

How far from calculated values are you?

Check your constraints, one that doesn't truly reflect the load case you are thinking of can cause funny results. eg something like a fixed constraint where it should be compressive only (I know this doesn't directly apply but you get the idea - check your loading conditions).

As far as I remember you have very little control over element type in workbench, so I doubt that is the issue.
 
I found that adaptive meshing is not an option for my mechanical workbench I'we found out.

See the atached image for details.
I've used fixed support and the load is applied at the face as force with 10000N in magnitude.

Also, what is the consequence of using element midside nodes regarding the results?
 

Attachments

  • upload engineering.jpg
    upload engineering.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 950
It's accurate to approx 1%... Thats pretty damn good. when I do FEA simulations (granted they are more tricky than this and are harder to validate) but 5% variation is deemed acceptable.

Midside nodes allows the element to take on a curved edge. Allowing better fidelity to round objects with less elements.

Read up on H-refinement and P-refinement.
 
Firstly, what kind of elements are you using? If you are using SOLID elements, then you'll have a discontinuity as Chris suggested at the "wall" (I assume that you're not actually modeling the wall, as indicated by the images).

Again, as Chris suggested, with solid elements on an analysis such as this, 1% error is pretty good. However, you can try using BEAM elements, they should actually give better results for this particular problem.

edit: I'm not sure that Workbench has an adaptive mesher, however what is now called ANSYS APDL does. There is a command called...ADAPT maybe that you can issue during the solution environment to allow the solver to refine the mesh based on the results.

p.s. I'm not 100% sure about the ADAPT command (I no longer have access to the ANSYS help files).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
32K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K