I can do some user control meshing in Abaqus, but not enough experience for ANSYS workbench. So, I would like to do same type of meshing format at ANSYS which I did at Abaqus.
well i dont have experience in abaqus but meshing is easy in ansys . i have a complete book on ansys workbench if you need it give me your email id i will provide you. hopefully it will help you.
I have actually the "Users Guide of ANSYS Meshing". It is so big in volume to read. Do you have the 'Introduction to ANSYS Meshing' workshop and lecture file?
Moreover, I don't want to do auto mesh.
Thanks for your answer, Mr. A. Basit.
Ansys workbench automatically mesh the elments you don't have to define any size, just refer to some anays workbench tutorials at you tube and you can find it how easy to use....
Dear S. Kumar,
I know that, it can generate mesh auto. But, some time auto mesh can not connect node to node.
Mesh controls in ANSYS Workbench and Abaqus CAE are sufficiently different that you will never get quite the same meshing in both. However; both programs allow you to set mesh sizing on faces, solids, etc. prior to meshing, so theoretically you can have similar local mesh refinement as needed. Not sure what you mean by "auto mesh can not connect node to node." Are you trying to get matched meshes on bodies that share a common face?
Thanks Dr. Danny Levine for your answer. No, I don't want to match meshes on bodies that share a common face. Two adjacent faces(different dimensions) touch each other, and I want to match the pattern of meshes, then node to node can match.
What will the interface condition be between the two adjacent faces? Merged meshes? Bonded contact? Sliding contact? In my experience, people try to match meshes (i.e. match node to node) when the intent is to merge the nodes and thus join the adjacent faces. Is that your goal?
Dear Dr. Danny Levine,
Condition of two adjacent faces is "Friction-less".
To transmit the stress/energy from Incident bar to Specimen (Please see the picture attached), node to node match is necessary? What do you think?
Once again, thanks for helping me.
I don't know that matched meshing is a critical factor, although you may wish to study the effect of mesh density and possibly element type on results. If this is a 3D analysis, ANSYS may be able to mesh some of the solids with hexahedral elements automatically and adding "mapped meshing" tools in ANSYS can improve the mesh appearance. So you can have a nice regular mesh that produces smooth stress contours without necessarily having nodes in perfect alignment at the interface. I suspect that contact settings may be as important as mesh if not more so.
Hi Imrose,
I have considerable amount of experience in Ansys and to some extent in Abaqus as well. Theoretically you can get the same type of meshing as the terms and specifications are same. Most importantly I believe getting the same mesh is not important for the analysis, getting the right result is all that matters.
If you add local meshing into the structures of critical and finite contact, then the meshing will be quite proper and will help in the analysis to run efficiently and the output should be acceptable.
The model consists of 4 basic components in the case of compression SHPB The parts are:
• Specimen
• Input bar
• Output bar
• Striker
All the parts listed are in contact at some point during experiment and, therefore, mesh definition is extremely crucial. In FEA analysis, the quality of the contact between two parts is closely related to the mesh. It is important that parts that are in contact have coincident nodes at contact interface. Figure shows the elements at the extremities of the input and striker bars, with the nodes being coincident.
So, if I use auto mesh in ANSYS Workbench, at contact surfaces nodes are not coincident. What can be the solution then?
- Badges
- Science topic