I have an acoustic specification in SPL vs. Hz that I need to apply to a flat panel with its supporting frame behind it. Does simulate have the capability to complete such an analysis? I imagine it is being similar to a dynamic analysis but instead of applying loads to constraints I can apply this to a surface. Any idea where to begin? Thanks.
↧
How to apply acoustic loads to structural components? Is this possible?
↧
Creo Simulate Force & Moment graphs?
Hi, I'm trying to create some Force & Moment diagrams for a simply supported beam, with a pin support on the left side and a roller support on the right side, and some distributed and point loads.
The problem is that I can't find the option to make these diagrams.
I've read several tutorials that said to do this, open the Results Window Definition, select the Graph Display Type, and select Force & Moment under Quantity.
However, there is no such option in my software. I'm using Creo Simulate 3.0 M080
↧
↧
How to know the beam element node reaction force and moment in Pro Mechanica
Hello all, I am new to Pro Mechanica. I have a question regarding to probe the reaction force and moment at a node of a beam element.
In my application, I use the beam element to represent my whole equipment structure. The results behave correctly. However, I have problem to know the reaction force and moment at a node connected two beams. This node actually represent the bolt joint connection in reality. Therefore, I want to know the force and moment reaction at this particular place.
Since Pro mechanica consider the beam connection is a rigid link and I can only output the reaction force and moment at the constraints. Is there any way I can find the reaction force and moment at node between beams when there is no constraint there.
Thank you all.
↧
Material Assign
Hello,
If you assign a Material A to a component:
And then you assign a Material B to a volume region. What happens?
I mean, does the Material A overrides the Material B? Or Creo understand that I want to work with two materials on the same part?
Thank you very much! May the Dilbert be with you.
↧
Fatal error near end of run on large modal analysis...
OK I have a specific error that no one here at work has seen before. I have a large model running a modal analysis on, single pass adaptive, and after the second run sometime during or after the displacement and stress results are happening I am getting the error "The design study terminated abnormally" which generally doesn't bother me in the beginning of an analysis because that means something is wrong and I can fix it but that error at the end of the run throws me off a bit. Additionally I get a very specific internal error dialogue shown below...
*** A fatal error has occurred. ***
An internal error has occurred in file S:\sim\engine\src\common\post\resultsOut.cxx, line 96.
An internal engine error has occurred. Please be sure
to run error checking before you run this study. If
you have run error checking, then contact Customer Support.
Any clue what the error means? Also my diagnostics look good other than a warning about a beam element that doesn't have recovery points defined, would that cause this error? In that particular beam I am not worried about stresses.
Thanks in advance for any assistance on this one.
↧
↧
How to create multiple surface constraints for a simulation
In my mechanism below I want to simulate the bouncing shown in example provided in the exercise eleven of the How to Model Anything. The yellow man consistently goes straight through the green box rather than stopping at the bottom of the bin. I tconcluded that it is due to the fact that I do not have all the surfaces referenced as is done in the 4th picture below. How do i do multiple 3D connection references, as I only have one surface 3D connection reference as it does not seem to be enough information for the software to simulate at this point.
↧
Straight beam limitations
Hi All,
This is not new but after staring long and hard at numbers that simply 'do not add up' when comparing beam and solid model results, I realise I have been here before.
So I thought I would share the following to help others avoid the same.
Beams are really useful, they reduce the size of a model, they are quick, we get bending moments, stresses etc.
So consider the following simple model which approximates a built in I-beam loaded in the centre
It seems reasonably intuitive to me that as the beam is loaded, the constraints will be pulled toward each other and the constraints are acting to keep them where they begin means a horizontal reaction force.
Define x,y,z, constraint reaction measures for C1 & C2 and we get the output :
The vertical load is shared equally (input 1e5N)
But no X-direction (horizontal) forces.
The deflected shape doesn't seem feel right either with it's abrupt change of curvature at centre span and the apparent lack of tangency to the horizontal at the built in ends.
What happens if we introduce a small kink in the original beam?
... Horizontal components appear
(the deflected shape still sees an abrupt change of curvature at centre span and lack of tangency with the horizontal at the ends)
In the first instance (straight beam) the applied force is normal to the to the beam. Small deflection theory = no horizontal force. (and a quick chat with a Civil confirmed that they generally only care about the moments and vertical forces at the supports)
In the second instance (deliberate kink) the structural stiffness is changed and horizontal components appear.
We now have to ponder whether these horizontal components are correct? Clearly if the 89.9deg figure is made 70deg say, the horizontal force will change. Therefore I have to answer : No, these horizontal component are probably quite wrong.
So off we go into Large Deflection Analysis world. There is no LDA for beam only models or models containing beams
Resorting to solid modelling (and ignoring the debate about how exactly the beam is built in, what the stiffness of the supports are, whether rotations are permitted within the support due to gaps, how is the load introduced etc. ; for this we keep it simple). Same model but solid and Small deflection theory
If we apply a bit of mesh control, 10% load steps and run LDA bearing in mind that it is the top flange that is bending a lot due to the concentrated load :
Conclusion : Beware horizontal beams lie.
Hope these ramblings make sense and are vaguely useful.
bfn
↧
What is going on?
↧
How to give bolt connection for slots on both plate?
Dear community,
I have two plates and want to give bolted connection. Now for bolted connection, we can only select edge of diameter. How I can give bolted connection for such slots?
Thanks,
Jitu
↧
↧
how to get the component (X,Y,Z) of the constrain reaction?
Hello there,
This maybe a simple thing but I just can not figure out how to do it.
Here is the thing, I have a simple part that is constrained at the hole, of course the load is applied.
Now at the measures tab I can "measure" the resultant forcé at the constrain however if I try to "measure" any of the components x,y,z it gives me an error, it tells me reactions measures are computed for constrains relative to the WCS...please select a different constrain...
ok first question, why is it?
how can I measure the omponents of the resultan force at the constrain?
See file attached
I really apreciatte any help on this
Thanks
Antonio
↧
Solidworks ScanTo3D vs. Reverse Engineering Extension
Possibly not the right forum, but I'm stuck with Solidworks ScanTo3D to handle scanned point clouds. I'm having issues with poor performance / crashing software.
How does Creo Reverse Engineering Extension handle this?
Does anyone have any experience from this?
↧
Creo Simulate Force & Moment graphs?
Hi, I'm trying to create some Force & Moment diagrams for a simply supported beam, with a pin support on the left side and a roller support on the right side, and some distributed and point loads.
The problem is that I can't find the option to make these diagrams.
I've read several tutorials that said to do this, open the Results Window Definition, select the Graph Display Type, and select Force & Moment under Quantity.
However, there is no such option in my software. I'm using Creo Simulate 3.0 M080
↧
How to analyse a vibration test table?
Hello,
Is there a way to analyse the interaction and resultant displacement and stresses between a model sitting on top of a vibration test table?
I have an assembly with 2 parts in, one to represent the test table and the other to represent the model sitting loose on top. A vibration profile of the forces are applied to the test table part with contact interfaces (with friction) defined between the 2 parts.
When I run a modal and dynamic frequency analysis, it shows that the contact interface between them is ignored and they will be free. The same error occurs when I define a non-linear static analysis.
Is this possible to define with such a motion and analysis in CREO or not?
Regards,
Durbal
↧
↧
Finite friction blocks
Hello All,
I am trying to develop a feel for the behaviour of Creo3.0's finite friction.
So starting with a simple model
Text book concludes no sliding.
Reality tells us that the pressure distribution is not like the text book Amongst other things,the load pulling the green block acts a distance above the surface and not in the surface. It's this estimate of reality we want.
We know that the blocks are elastic (even though they are steel) and therefore one should expect a high (theoretically enormous) stress around the perimeter of the green block ... and maybe in part where problems begin.
The values chosen should ensure no sliding.
I used brick elements (tets give poor pressure plots and bricks provide a more 'stable' solution)
The problem is very 'sensitive' to the initial time step.
It will not solve using the default 0-1 ramp function with much oscillation of the residual norm, contact area reducing to zero followed by bisection after bisection then failing. The load factor is reduced to
Load Factor: 0.000195313
*** A fatal error has occurred. ***
There are 3 directions to explore
1. Load step refinement
2. Mesh refinement
3. This is a load rather than displacement controlled problem
LOADSTEP REFINEMENT:
With 10% timesteps, bisection still occurs but I get a solution and the results don't look right. Unrealistic displacement of the green block and a tangential force measure magnitude of 0.00757N where the applied load is 0.1N. The load factor is reduced by the software:
** Warning:
Excessive motion detected at contact regions.
Cutting load step size.
Load Factor: 0.025 (presumably of my 10% step)
The interface force is 7.48e-2 whereas the normal force applied is 2000N (presumed: the interface force measure is normal to the surface)
All the movement occurs in the first time step.
All this suggests poor mesh/loadstep selection.
With 1% loadsteps there is some similar behaviour, just many more graph points (not all shown) and a lot more time (14658.75 secs vs 2246.68 secs)
There is a much smaller movement, with nearly all of it happening in the first loadstep with a very small increase in displacement each step after the first time step.
but now the tangential force measure doesn't stack up. The block is being pulled with 0.1N. The integral of tangential friction force across the contacting face cannot exceed the applied load.
Interface1_any_slippage: 2.456282e-01
Interface1_area: 2.000001e+03
Interface1_average_slippage: -8.653680e-02
Interface1_complete_slippage: -2.126610e-01
Interface1_force: 3.672802e+00
Interface1_max_tang_traction: 4.273336e-01
Interface1_tang_force: 4.515394e-01
the applied load pulling the block was 0.1N, the tang force is 0.45N
The resultant pressure load applied was 2000N, interface force is 3.67N
I should (and forgot) to create a ground constraint measure. Grrr.
So this is a mesh refinement thing? Should we have a finer mesh at the loaded edge? Should rounds be applied?
MESH REFINEMENT
Try tets? smaller bricks? Mesh is everything in Non-linear.
DISPLACEMENT CONTROL
A lot of problems have to be turned 'upside down'. Rather than applying the load an enforced displacement constraint is used such that a run-away condition is cannot be encountered; the model is always fully constrained. The reaction at the constraint is the load that would have otherwise been applied. This is how the examples posted on the learning connector (and others) work.
The problem with this is that the potential movements are so small. The green steel block is 50mmx40mmx10mm and if it's entire length 50mm length was involved in the stretching, it would have a stiffness of 10x40x200,000/50=1.6e6 N/mm. When the full load of 0.1N is applied then the extension would be 6.35e-8mm. The actual extension will be less than this as is seems reasonable that slip would only occur local to the loaded face initially with the rest of the contact interface effectively isolated and not moving. Surely therefore the enforced displacement constraint must have steps in the order of 10e-9mm or lower. I then have to question the mesh resolution again even though I know there are polynomials underneath.
So the fuzzy question is, There will have been much testing on simple models such as this. Can we have some guideline re mesh, loadsteps and where it is not appropriate to apply finite friction, benchmark models?
Could my meanderings above be unpicked for a better understanding? and apologies in advance for any glaring mistakes, it has been a long (interesting) week.
En passant, what is the practical difference between asking for full results at user defined steps on the output tab and having a load that is factored by a function?
Thanks for getting this far
bfn
↧
MESH FEM MODE - HANDLE NODES
Hi all.
I've a question.
Is possible nodes handle in Creo Simulate when throw "Mesh/Run" inside "FEM Mode"?
I need that there not jump between nodes.
Attached image.
↧
Creo simulate using the memory as "hard drive"
Hello,
I have read that there is different kind of memory allocations for the Creo Simulate although the current Windows with 64-but can handle quite a big amount of memory in single machine. So my question in the Simulate use is that has anybody used the memory as hard drive? There are some commercial programs to change the memory look like a hard drive and using the working directory from the memory should be quite fast. Of course that means that in the computer there should be something like 100Gb memory (or more) installed, but that should also be much faster than any SSD disks currently. So using the "normal" 32 Gb as the computer memory and then creating the lets say f-drive from memory with 96 Gb should be quite fast for simulate use. If the solver etc. starts caching or swapping then the swapping would be done on the memory so the solram size should be quite meaningless..
If someone has the experience with this kind of settings, I would be appreciated of the shared experience about the equipment and how much faster the machine actually is, if the Simulate is working on memory.
- Kriste
↧
how to find BELD Tension...???
Hello,
I have to find the tension in belt, in belt pulley mechanism...
↧
↧
Is it possible to do Inertia relief analysis in Creo?
I need to analysis the stick and boom models.
I have tried to do the boom but stress is high in boom mounting point because i fixed a pin as X:00 Y:00 and Z:00 displacement.
↧
Assembly with only inherited parts and constraints
Hi!
I am going to use Creo Simulate on an assembly model that contains parts that will change slightly during the design process but still not change in such ways that it will affect anything in the simulation model like boundary constraints and so on.
Therefore I would like to create an assembly that only contains inherited parts so that I can create a simulation model of the assembly and then when the parts are changed I only have to update the parts and run the simulation again to se what effects the changes have had.
Is this possible? I have only found ways of doing it for parts and not whole assemblies.
Regards
Jimmie
↧
Mechanism problem
Hi All
im having a problem creating a mechanism. it consists of a worm driven gear mounted on a shaft, that turns a screw which should force a collar to travel linearly. i have the worm gear drive set up fine as a mechanism, however im not sure how to get the screw and collar to behave the way i want to. the collar is mounted to the screw with a cylindrical and slot connection, and i can drag the components manually to acheive the movement i want, but i cant automate it. i have attached a video with the components being dragged to show the movement im after
↧