On launching ANSYS Workbench, the main user interface appears as shown in Fig. I used ANSYS to explore the physics of this benchmark more deeply, in particular, looking at contact and dynamic loading. The plate will tend to move away from whatever is loading the central point during snap-through and the snap-through will be dynamic in nature. The discussion was based on the fact that none of these loadings is realistic. arc length displacement-controlled loading that permits reverse displacement (“snap-back”). displacement-controlled loading that is enforced at the center point andģ. force-controlled loading that applies a monotonically increasing force at the center point Ģ. The three classic types of loading are:ġ. This implies counterbalancing forces and reversal of motion at the center point during the snap-through. This is impractical once snap-through has started. The reason it is flawed is that static stability is required at each load step in the benchmark. It has been used as a benchmark for many years.Īs I mentioned in a previous DE article ( January 2018, “Demos and Benchmarks”), it is a typical example of a benchmark that is numerically challenging but is flawed, practically speaking.
There are many real-world examples of snap-through, such as the lid of an oil drum with an internal vapor pressure, mechanical switch systems or metal “clickers” for dog training. The debate is in how the transition occurs. The red line shows the overall “jump” from one configuration to another.
2d model ansys 15 full#
The full snap-through follows the blue line and shows unloading, reverse loading and reverse deflection. 2: Shallow roof snap-through showing load versus central deflection.