9. G modeling#

9.1. Characteristics of modeling#

Meshing with ``3D_ INCO_UPG « and » DEFORMATION =” GDEF_LOG “``elements incompressible types TETRA10 only.

Face with imposed radial displacement Face locked in dy

_images/100147DE000069D5000048C34BB63DF767058DA9.svg

\(\mathit{AB}\) is on the \(\mathit{OX}\) axis (unlike modeling A).

The mesh was obtained with GMSH for a density of \(\mathrm{0,01}\).

The boundary conditions are:

  • Zero vertical displacement on “FACSUP” and “FACINF” faces \(\mathit{AEFD}\) (\(z=0\) and \(z=0.01\)): DZ = 0.

  • Normal movement stuck on the “FACEAB” faces (side \(\mathit{AB}\), DY = 0) and “FACEEF” (side \(\mathit{EF}\), DNOR = 0.)

  • Imposed displacement on the inside of the cylinder “FACEAE”: face \(\mathit{AE}\) DNOR = -6.10-5

9.2. Characteristics of the mesh#

Number of knots: 2064

Number of meshes: 1121 TETRA10

9.3. Tested sizes and results#

Displacements and constraints SIGM_NOEU are evaluated at points \(A\) and \(F\). The components of field SIEQ_NOEU are tested to the point \(A\) only.

Identification

Reference type

Reference

Tolerance

\(A\)

\(\mathit{u}\) (X)

ANALYTIQUE

  1. 10-5

  1. 10-3

\(\mathit{v}\) (DY)

ANALYTIQUE

  1. 10-3

\(\mathit{\sigma_{xx}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

-59.9955

0.02

\(\mathit{\sigma_{yy}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

99.9566

0.02

\(\mathit{\sigma_{zz}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

19.9326

0.03

\(\mathit{\sigma_{xy}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

0.03

VMIS

ANALYTIQUE

138.5226

0.002

TRESCA

ANALYTIQUE

159.9521

0.002

PRIN_1

ANALYTIQUE

-59.9955

0.02

PRIN_2

ANALYTIQUE

19.9326

0.03

PRIN_3

ANALYTIQUE

99.9566

0.015

VMIS_SG

ANALYTIQUE

138.5226

0.002

Identification

Reference type

Reference

Tolerance

\(F\)

\(\mathit{u}\) (X)

ANALYTIQUE

2.1217 10-5

  1. 10-4

\(\mathit{v}\) (DY)

ANALYTIQUE

2.1217 10-5

  1. 10-4

\(\mathit{\sigma_{xx}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

20.003

0.003

\(\mathit{\sigma_{yy}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

20.003

0.005

\(\mathit{\sigma_{zz}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

20.003

0.002

\(\mathit{\sigma_{xy}}\)

ANALYTIQUE

-20.003

0.01

9.4. notes#

The results obtained are completely correct since the constraints are obtained with an accuracy of less than \(\text{3%}\) See \(\text{1%}\) at point F. The gap is a bit bigger here important only for HEXA20, but can be explained by the fact that the loading is imposed here in a slightly less precise manner since the displacement u at point A is only defined to a precision of \(\text{0.158%}\) against \(\text{0.077%}\) (evening factor 2, that can be found on the constraints).