{"id":300902,"date":"2023-08-10T15:29:33","date_gmt":"2023-08-10T15:29:33","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/forums\/reply\/300902\/"},"modified":"2023-08-11T08:41:16","modified_gmt":"2023-08-11T08:41:16","slug":"300902","status":"publish","type":"reply","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/reply\/300902\/","title":{"rendered":"Reply To: Enhanced assumed strain method SOLID185, KEYOPT(2)=2,KEYOPT(6)=0"},"content":{"rendered":"

<p> <\/p><p> <\/p><p>Hello,<\/p><p>I have tried with the following enhanced interpolation matrix (9+3):<\/p><p><\/p><p>This gives indentical results with SOLID185, (KEYO(2)=2 and KEYO(6)=0) when the hexahedral is perfect cube and traditional 2x2x2 Gaussian quadrature rule is used and same 6×6 transformation matrix T_0 is used than in Andelfinger and Ramm([321]<\/em>  paper.<\/p><p>However when the hexahedral element is initially parallelepiped or arbitrarily distorted there is difference between the results so this enhanced interpolation matrix M_xi is not correct one.<\/p><p>I also tried this 9+4 version of the enhanced interpolation matrix, but it gives almost identical results with the above one:<\/p><p><\/p><p>I have read many PhD theses and scientific publications about these EAS methods, but I haven’t yet found the 9+4 version for the enhanced interpolation matrix which is mentioned in the Ansys Theory manual.<\/p><p>Could someone explain or show what is the correct form for the matrix and are there other aspects to consider ? This isn’t explained in the Ansys Theory Manual clearly.<\/p><p>Best regards,<\/p><p>Pirkka<\/p><p> <\/p><p> <\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-300902","reply","type-reply","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t