hi all,
this what i found in 2016 for preliminary review. i did not refined the model and investigate further, it seems beam element in CalculiX mostly dependent on how user modeling.
please, don’t judge quickly about the reliability and accuracy or even a bugs cause your model may inappropriate to set (i.e mesh, element type & additional restraint) or limitation itself.
i seen many user direct compared to 1D/2D classical element were is not comparable due to expanding element in CalculiX and generates knot or MPC existence. user need different model approach to refined and set up properly.
for example, curved shell with symmetry boundary conditions. i’m reading the documentation again, it’s required to transform nodal support to local axes.
another example is beam in elasto-plastic bending analysis in which using B32 element not B32R as recommended.
or an example from FreeCAD forums, it’s clear for me when someone notify about shear-locking and hourglassing.
some notify: beam element in CalculiX is unique, advances and challenging. no matter how it, keep imaging as solid element and MPC existences not as simple as classical element.
best,