Get Help

Turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Community
- :
- Creo Parametric
- :
- Simulation
- :
- Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometr...

Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Highlighted
##

# Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

## 1.BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

#### Material Details

#### Sheet Metal Bracket

#### Load

#### Constraints

*Case 1: Mesh – Sheet Metal 3D Solid Model*

*Case 2: Mesh – Sheet Metal 2D Shell Idealized*

### Solid Mesh Vs Shell Mesh

## 3.RESULT COMPARISON

## OBSERVED ADVANTAGES

## CONCLUSION

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

03-16-2017
04:51 PM

03-16-2017
04:51 PM

Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

BY PARTHIBAN KANNAN · PUBLISHED MARCH 15, 2017 · UPDATED MARCH 17, 2017

Hello Guys,

Here, I am going to explain about the advantages of shell idealization over the solid model. I have done Geometric Element Analysis on sheet metal bracket using Creo Simulate (Pro Mechanica)

I have considered 2 cases, one for the sheet metal bracket with the 3D solid model and another one for the same component of 2D Shell model.

Following Boundary Conditions and Design Considerations are taken for the analysis

Units

S.NO | Unit | Value |

1. | Length | Mm |

2. | Mass | Kg |

3. | Time | Sec |

4. | Temperature | C |

S.NO | Description | Value |

1. | Material | Steel |

2. | Density | 7.83*10^-06 Kg/mm^3 |

3. | Young’s Modulus | 200 GPa |

4. | Poisson’s Ratio | 0.27 |

5. | Symmetry | Isotropic |

The drawing details of the model Considered for this analysis

Uniformly distributed Load of 100 Kg applied on loading area (mentioned in the figure)

All the Degree Of Freedom fixed at the M8 tap hole (mentioned in the figure)

2. MESHING

In Creo Simulate, the default solver is Auto GEM, which uses p-method to solve the model i.e. It uses the highest polynomials order of each element to solve the element equation instead of changing the number of elements (like FEA method) i.e. it changing the element shape to get the better result. That’s why Creo Simulate also called Geometric Element Analysis (GEA) application.

In this case, the model considered as solid. The model meshed with the Auto GEM option with the maximum element size of 6 mm.

Auto GEM created totally 8689 Tetrahedron elements on Solid Model in 0.03 minutes.

In this case, thin mid-shell made on the solid model using shell pair option in the Creo Simulate & meshing done with the Auto GEM

Auto GEM created totally 248 triangular & 664 Quadrilateral elements in Shell Model in less than 0.01 minutes

This chart shows the difference of meshing operation between the 3D Solid model & the 2D Shell model

From the chart, it clearly shows solid model takes more time for meshing than shell model because it creates large number of 3D elements while the shell model requires less number of 2D elements.* *

*here the 3D Solid model takes nearly 10 times more elements then 2D Shell model.*

These figure shows the difference between displacement analysis of solid and shell model. The result variation between both cases are less than 1%.

From the analyzed result the deformed magnitude displacement of the solid model is 2.44 mm and the shell model is 2.49 mm. The variation in result between the both cases are very low.

I have generated following charts to understand the difference between both cases

Total analysis takes 7.65 seconds for the shell model and 24.42 seconds for the solid model. The disk space consumed by the solid model is 175 Mb and the shell mode is 35 Mb

- The 2D Shell model of the component takes
*less time to mesh*comparatively the 3D Solid model of the same component - Displacement
*result varies less than 1%*between the 2D shell model & the 3D solid model of the same component - The 3D solid model of the component nearly consumes
*3 times more TIME*than the 2D shell model of the same component - The 3D solid model of the component requires nearly
*5 times more disk space*than the 2D shell model of the same component

LIMITATION

- The 2d Shell model only applicable for the model with symmetric projection from the midplane like Sheet Metal Components.
- Not suitable for Non-Linear analysis such as Large deformation & contact.

( Paul Kloninger suggested)

Creo Simulates (Pro Mechanica) provides the powerful option Shell pair for extracting mid-plane from the solid model. Analysis with the mid-plane efficiently savings the time taken and the disk space for an analysis.

See more articles in my blog

http://jkparthiban.com/index.php/category/all/

Labels:

6 REPLIES 6

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

03-17-2017
07:58 AM

03-17-2017
07:58 AM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

Shell model...

Contact???

Large Deformation???

not possible

support / example

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

03-17-2017
09:33 AM

03-17-2017
09:33 AM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

Hi, Paul Kloninger

Nice Job, We can add the contact & large deformation to Limitations of shell model. also, u have used the symmetry feature from Simulate that too have some more advantages than using full model.

Thank you for your valuable Job.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

03-30-2017
05:23 AM

03-30-2017
05:23 AM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

Hi, in the drawing is missing some measures like inner and outer radius.

I'm trying to redo the exercise with solid non-tetra elements.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

05-17-2018
03:45 PM

05-17-2018
03:45 PM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

What about in modal analysis? Are the natural frequencies within 5% as your static deflection results?

Thanks in advance.

Rich Hilson

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

11-09-2018
07:34 AM

11-09-2018
07:34 AM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

A short test for Modal Analyses with only solid versus Solid AND shell in Creo 5.0.2.0. Strangly calculation time is MUCH MORE with shells than with only Solid in this case (49min. vs 1min). Mesh settings are default and only Quickstudy is applied, so I wouldn't worry over the result difference. I'm not ready to jump into conclusions yet, but at least be alert using shells in Modal.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

11-16-2018
04:53 AM

11-16-2018
04:53 AM

Re: Shell Idealization Over the Solid Model in Geometric Element Analysis

We found Modal Analyses (in this example) is only slow when using Shell Pairs, not with 'simple' shells (defined by a single surface).

Top Tags

- ptcuser_portal
- creo_parametric_proengi…
- creo_simulate_proengine…
- creo
- simulate
- creo_system_administrat…
- mechanism
- creo_customization_proe…
- animation
- pro/engineer
- simulation
- 3d
- analysis
- mechanica
- pro/e
- renderings
- video
- proengineer
- error
- creo_simulate
- creo_machining_proengin…
- modeling
- drawing
- parametric
- wildfire
- assembly
- contact
- creo simulate
- design
- manikin