# Comparison between shell and solid elements **URL:** \ **Category:** General Questions\ **Created:** [December 10, 2025, 2:45pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/comparison-between-shell-and-solid-elements/3134 "2025-12-10T14:45:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![FEAnalyst](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/prepomax.discourse.group/feanalyst/32/688_2.png) [@FEAnalyst](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/FEAnalyst)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2025, 1:11am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/comparison-between-shell-and-solid-elements/3134/6 "2025-12-11T01:11:08Z")
> [@Agazzotti](#): > > I have removed the rotational constraints at the base You don’t necessarily have to remove all of them. You should particularly watch out for the drilling DOF and you can try using cylindrical coordinate system fir the BCs as mentioned in the referenced CalculiX forum thread. > [@JuanP74](#): > > For some reason, in the shell model the loads for the buckling step (2,1) do not produce the same result as the static step (1,1). If the static step is deactivated and only the buckling step is run the results are consistent The question to the OP is if the loads have to be the same in both steps. Usually, the first step only introduces preload and includes so-called dead loads such as gravity while buckling step only includes live (operational) loads such as pressure/force. Sometimes, a slightly different approach is used to introduce load imperfections. This thread is a good example: [Issues with linear buckling analysis following ASME PTB-2022 example problem](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/issues-with-linear-buckling-analysis-following-asme-ptb-2022-example-problem/3080) --- _[View the full topic](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/comparison-between-shell-and-solid-elements/3134)._