I have set up a simple rectangular plate with a circular hole in the center.
Additionally, I have defined a rigid body for the set of nodes located at the lip of that hole. (NSET)
The rectangular plate is clamped on two sides and I’m pulling in the perpendicular direction to the plate with a force F applied to the reference node.
The reference node is at the center of the hole.
The result for Rigid Body shows that the inner lip face rotates allowing a large displacement of the plate.
¿Shouldn’t the lip (Through thickness face in the hole) keep also rigid?
That gives a completely different displacement shape as shown in the picture.
Left side with red top: NODE SURFACE COUPLING RIGID CCX.
Right Side: Same load but constraining surface rotation.
My main issue is that I’m Mecway user and my experience says that inp files do not always work when I have post them in this forum. Hope this one does.
Here it is the part of the code related with RIGID BODY Definition.
¿Do you mean ccx needs to fix that in the future or that we should set the model different to achieve the Abaqus behavior?
Ccx Manual says:
“The rigid body definition ensures that the distance between any pair of nodes belonging to the body does not change during deformation. This means that the degrees of freedom are reduced to six: three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom.”
The lip rotation implies that the Lip nodes still keep their rotational DOFs.
¿Could this be the origin of the RIGID BODY problems on shells and beams ?
Abaqus has two element type of shell, classical (2D) and continuum shell (3D). CalculiX expanded shell may comparable to the last ones, so it’s required to test with Abaqus model at the same condition. varying cases also may help to understand discrepancy, advantages and limitation.
