{"id":243550,"date":"2022-12-09T13:38:27","date_gmt":"2022-12-09T13:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/forums\/topic\/why-k-and-m-matrices-of-beam188-shows-different-than-traditional-theory\/"},"modified":"2022-12-09T16:05:06","modified_gmt":"2022-12-09T16:05:06","slug":"why-k-and-m-matrices-of-beam188-shows-different-than-traditional-theory","status":"closed","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/why-k-and-m-matrices-of-beam188-shows-different-than-traditional-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Why K and M Matrices of Beam188 looks different than traditional theory ?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hello everyone,<\/p>\n

I have very simple cantilever beam model in Ansys Mechanical for comparing mass and stiffness matrices of Ansys to the traditional Timoshenko’s beam stiffness and mass matrices. Why the stiffness matrix of the BEAM188 element exported from Ansys is so different than stiffness matrix calculated by traditional Timoshenko’s beam theory ?<\/p>\n

Here is the Timoshenko’s beam theory’s 12×12 local 3D stiffness matrix that I used for hand calculation:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The length of the rectangular beam is 2 m, the height of the beam is 0.1m and the width of the beam is 0.05m. Poisson ratio is 0.3, Young’s modulus is 200GPa, Shear modulus is 76.923 GPa.<\/p>\n

Beam element’s local coordinate system is aligned with the global coordinate system so there isn’t need for transformation matrix.<\/p>\n

The beam has fixed support at the node 1 and the node 2 is free.<\/p>\n

This is the hand calculated local stiffness matrix for the beam element:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This is the hand calculated global stiffness matrix where rows and colums corresponding constrained DOFs are eliminated:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This is the force vector:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This is the eliminated force vector for calculating displacements @ node 2:
<\/a><\/p>\n

Then we can calculate the displacements at the node 2:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

These are the displacement results for node 2:
<\/a><\/p>\n

Axial displacement (x-axis transitional displacement) is 0.02mm, vertical displacement (y-axis transitional displacement) is 32.061mm and rotation respect to the x-axis is -0.024 rad which is -1.375deg.<\/p>\n

The ansys model is linear static with Large deflection OFF and material linear elastic steel corresponding to the values mentioned above of this post.Here is the Ansys model:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here are the components of the force, X-axis:10000N and Y-axis:-10000N;<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The beam is meshed only with one linear BEAM188 element (Mesh size: 2m) so that it can be compared to hand calculation.<\/p>\n

Here are the Ansys displacement results:<\/p>\n

X-axis displacement is 0.02 mm:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Y-axis displacement is -32.062 mm:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Rotation respect to the z-axis is -1.3751 deg:
<\/a><\/p>\n

So we can see that with this stiffness matrix we get precise the same results for displacement’s with Ansys. But how the exported stiffness matrix from Ansys still looks so different than this hand calculated stiffness matrix ?<\/p>\n

I exported the stiffness matrix with APDL commands @ the solution branch:<\/p>\n

*DMAT,MatKD,D,IMPORT,FULL,file.full,STIFF
*PRINT,MatKD,Kdense.matrix<\/p>\n

Here is the exported dense stiffness matrix from Ansys:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is the hand calculated stiffness matrix again for comparison:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

I tried also exporting the local stiffness matrix from the Ansys for the beam element 1 with the APDL commands:<\/p>\n

*DMAT,MatStiff1,D,IMPORT,EMAT,file.emat,STIFF,1
*PRINT,MatStiff1,K1.matrix<\/p>\n

Here is the local beam element n.1 stiffness matrix:<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

It says in Ansys element reference manual that BEAM188 should be 2 nodes 6DOFs\/node beam element resulting 12 DOFs, but the exported local element matrix is 18×18 which indicates that there would be 3 nodes. Is the “additional” node for beam element’s directions ?<\/p>\n

Does anyone know why these stiffness matrices looks so different, but still gives same displacement results for static analysis ?<\/p>\n

Best regards,<\/p>\n

Pirkka Ruotsalainen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-243550","topic","type-topic","status-closed","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"acf":[],"custom_fields":[{"0":{"_bbp_subscription":["239624","240","18229","58821"],"_bbp_author_ip":["23.192.164.14"]," _bbp_last_reply_id":["0"]," _bbp_likes_count":["0"],"_btv_view_count":["3830"],"_edit_lock":["1670602185:163764"],"_bbp_topic_status":["unanswered"],"_bbp_status":["publish"],"_bbp_topic_id":["243550"],"_bbp_forum_id":["27791"],"_bbp_engagement":["240","18229","58821","239624"],"_bbp_voice_count":["4"],"_bbp_reply_count":["5"],"_bbp_last_reply_id":["243648"],"_bbp_last_active_id":["243648"],"_bbp_last_active_time":["2022-12-10 07:46:59"]},"test":"pirkka-ruotsalainen1gmail-com"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics\/243550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/topic"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics\/243550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}