Hex Blaster is a cool and challenging hexagon aiming and shooting game. Your goal is to pop each and every hexagone before they reach the bottom of the stage, shooting large numbers of bouncing balls. Collect all kinds of power ups and aim as good as possible to destroy as many blocks as possible with every shot. Play the levels to unlock new ones and open gifts or the unlimited mode to set. Facebook is showing information to help you better understand the purpose of a Page. See actions taken by the people who manage and post content.

Shell elements are used to model structural elements in which two dimensions are much greater than the third one and when the change of the analysed feature across this third direction can be neglected. It is reasonable for static analysis of panel/planar elements such as slabs or walls as well as thin-walled spatial elements such as shells. The advatnages of the use of shell elements, as you said, results mainly from time-saving due to reduced number of finite elements (and consequently the equations to solve).

So, anytime you can reduce the problem to planar problem and neglect what happens at the thickess of the element I don't see the reason to use solid elements. The results from the following simple analysis: suggest that it is when the third dimension is at least 20 times smaller than the other ones. However, if the change of the analysed feature is on a comparable level in all directions of the analysed element, solid elements should be used.

It is the case e.g. In block elements, like massive concrete elements which are among my interests. In such elements, the observed thermal and moisture fields are highly non-stationary and the resulting thermal and moisture gradients lead to formation of the internal restraint in the elements which, in turn, is the origin of (self-induced) stresses in the element. If that fact was neglected, we would not be able to analyse this phenomenon. I have heard this opinion many times, however I don't understand it.

Suppose a large pressure is applied on a thin plate (dimension 400.400.1mm) with its edges clamped and the plate will bend. In my opinion, the bending behaviour of the plate will mainly depend on the mesh size of the plate surface not the thickness even the solid element is used. If the mesh size of the plate surface is small enough (for example 1mm) and only one element is used in the thickness direction, I think a good result can be gotten. It is agreed that shells provide less computational time in contrast to solids. This is mainly due to the number of elements to be used in the model. For shell elements the plane (x,y) dimensions are usually much larger than the thickness (Z) dimension. To achieve similar accuracy, solid elements have to have similar size (element ratio) in all directions, thus necessitating a smaller size solids (as you mentioned). Moreover, with solids and to be able to mimic the bending effect of the structure (in the z-direction of plate/shell structure), it is necessary to model through the structure thickness with more than one solid element.

While, the shell element has already the bending effect within it formulation (as rotation dof according to Mindlin or Kirchoff theory). Now, I am analyzing very thin shells with ratio between thickness(t) and overall size(D) of shell is 1/5000 I used different element types to compare the strength and stiff of structures. The result is so interesting. The models are meshed by shell elements, solid-shell elements are not sensitive with element size but the output result is low even lower than experiment while models meshed by solid elements is stiffer and much higher mech properties( 10 times results gained by shell elements) but they is sensitive with element size. And because of very large ratio D/t, i don't know what element size is good enough and the analysis result is correct or not? In this article details of an hybrid FEM formulation is discussed using solid elements. Only one element in thickness direction is enough to model very thin structure.

Brick type and shell type structure can be model without using complicated interfacing (solid and shell degree of freedoms are different) if solid and shell type geometry has to be model together. The rotation degree of freedom makes shell formulation very complicated and reducing general nonlinear constitutive relation for shell formulation complicate the situation further. Other than computational time, one advantage is that Shell allows rotation (Conventional Shell). Shell has both Translation as well as Rotation degrees of freedom. Dishonored wiki daud. To note: In some software, you have two types of shells - Continuum as well as Conventional shell.

Though both are modeled as shells, Continuum shells may not allow rotational D.O.F. Shell elements are more efficient in modelling bending behavior. I believe with shell elements, you also get the option to choose whether to consider Shear deformation or not as well in addition to bending on application of a transverse load. That is you have the option of whether to include Kirchoff theory or not in your model.