Hi,
I have a comparatively larger assembly which fails while generating the mesh. As it consists of sheet-metal parts mostly I tried with shell elements but no success.
Will circular references in assembly affect AutoGEM process?
The model doesn't have any interference.
Also I'm getting a message saying "Detected degenerate boundary faces near the markers on the highlighted surfaces." which I couldn't understand.
Advice me how to proceed further.
--
Dhinesh
Hi,
Maybe someone can help me understand this:
I've tried recently to simulate a click effect on a custom-built connector and had problem with Creo Simulate.
This is simple assembly just to show the problem.
One part is constrained with pin constraint but when viewing simulate results it seems not to turn but tries to return to start position like on a spring.
Pushing part just turns it a little and then slides below it. First i thought friction is the problem but its not.
Am I not understanding what pin constraint in Simulate actually does?
Attached are avi of simulate result and assembly.
Why is it that displacement for a cone is not rotational symmetric for an internal pressure?
A sample model is attached (Creo 3.0) I've brought it back to the bare minimum. 1/4 cone, symmetry, default mesh etc.
It doesn't help if you refine to enormous amounts of elements, Large deformationm analysis makes it slightly better, but it is never right?
Why is that? it should not happen.
How do we solve this?
Extra: I've added a full 360 degree version in Creo2.0 format
In post-process,I want to shade some component, when I choose that component, it works,but it also shade what I don't want to, attached is a video I've made,anyone can give me some advices? Thanks is the advance for it.
Am I (and my colleague) right in thinking that surface (and volume) regions are part-level features, and therefore cannot be created on surfaces resulting from an assembly-level cut?
If so I may submit an Idea...
Thanks!
Hello All,
I am working on ROPS analysis ( Large deformation analysis). I have couple of questions related to analysis.
1. Since the 2D shell does not support large deformation analysis with elastic-plastic material properties, I am meshing the structure with Solid elements. I am not able to map meshed it because of complex joints in model, so my first question is will I have a lot of convergence issue if i model with Solid Tet elements. If Yes, what are the precautions i need to take if i want to continue with Tet mesh?
2. What is the best way to run sequential analysis, as the load sequence change in ROPS. IS there any option like model change as used in Abaqus.
3. How to run restart analysis?
I am new to Creo simulate and trying to replicate analysis which was done in Abaqus before, so need some information for the same.
Regards,
Sarvesh
When you put a force load on the flat surface, you review total load,and the result is right; But when you put a force on the sphere surface,the result is wrong, do you all encounter this kind of problem? Attached is the images.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I have a large (~250K shell and solid elements) assembly that I am seeking to do a dynamic time analysis on. I have successfully performed several static analyses and a modal analysis on the model. However, the dynamic time analysis always fails with an internal engine error on the "begin element calculations, pass 0" step after 200-300 seconds. Opening the *.pas file gives the following information:
*** A fatal error has occurred. ***
An internal error has occurred in file S:\sim\engine\src\as\dynamics\DYN_ModalStressRecords.cxx, line 973.
I did a full search of my computer C: drive for "DYN_ModalStressRecords.cxx" but found nothing. Command I used: dir /b /s *DYN_ModalStressRecords*
I have a few questions, answers to any would be extremely helpful!:
1. If you have any ideas in general, please let me know.
2. Where is the "S:\sim\engine\src\as\dynamics\" directory? I can't seem to said directory.
3. There were several temporary files made: "mpc.tmp", "mel1.bas", "oel1.bas", "kblk1.bas", and "kblk2.bas". Does anyone know their significance?
4. Are *.mda and *.mma files both mesh filetypes?
FYI, other references regarding similar errors are:
(1) Fatal error near end of run on large modal analysis...
(2)contact analysis error, Assertion failed: minK_ > 0.0
Thank you for any assistance!
Hello all
As far I know, since beginning of Pro/E, a CAD volume has been always a “divided” surface. An extruded (or other construction) part will always have two faces that can be selected.
Usually – but not always – most of the time the CAD interprets it as a unique surface. Thus this is not a major problem.
However I have some times meshing problems exactly in the interface of these surfaces - especially if it is located in a bad position in an assembly forming for example a sharp corner.
My current issue is that my mapped mesh is getting too complex due to this characteristic. I´m trying to create a mapped mesh in a contact region. However this native split is being considered inside Simulate and the consequence is that I have to mesh a more regions and even worst – to create more contact regions. I consider a good contact mesh a mesh that has common elements in both sides of the contact. This is usually possible only if the mapped mesh patter can match both sides of the contact geometry - as in the picture below when volumes in both sides were create to match the contact region. The problem is that Creo finds not 2 volumes in the cylinder but 4 - due to the native CAD split.
_ My question is if there is a way to “trick” Creo that it ignores these artificial regions created in the native mode and simple respect the volumes regions that I applied. To illustrate here is the cylinder model. To map the ring I need to map not 4 regions but 6 regions!
I guess that one can find a good approach for specific cases as the one above but the true is that this undesired split in the original CAD model can cause meshing issues and I´m thus looking for a way to merge the native surfaces - if this is the best approach, of course.
Thank you in advance for any feedback.
R. Rabe
Hello all
I “suspect” that the command Solidify or Cut is not behaving in well in an assembly containing pattern inside Creo / Creo simulate. So far there is no explicit restriction when using it.
As we know solidify/cut is very useful to explore symmetry in FEM to reduce computing time. Especially in Creo solidify is a good approach if your model contains components having volumes regions to be used inside the simulation. From my experience it is easy to “lose” these volumes made in the CAD parts when you have an assembly that was cut using extrude/revolve feature – but this is another case…
The below assembly (4 CAD parts) was also made patterning some sub-components.
When I try to simplify it using the feature "solidify" (fig. a) the result is bad. If instead I create a volume to cut half of the assembly (fig. b) the result looks god – but not once the model is inside Cre Simulate (fig. c, d)!
a
b 
c
d 
I do not see any logic or restriction why these commands should not work well with pattern. One can argue that since the model contains pattern we can pattern just enough to create the symmetry. This is indeed what I think I have to do in this case but truly it is not the best way since you have to build the model again – what can be very time demand in some cases.
_Has someone faced such problem and found a solution or work around?? I´m using Creo 2.0 M150.
Thanks,
R. Rabe
Hi,
I have found as of Creo 3 M080 that using simplified reps can cause issues with running Structural analysis in Simulate.
Simplified reps cause materials, fasteners, or other simulate features related to components excluded by the reps to fail in Creo 3 where in Creo 2 they would have been suppressed.
This causes you to have to delete them in order to trouble shoot large assemblies (isolate areas of the assembly) or to do analysis on different configurations no,
Please vote on this issue and submit a PTC case if you have maintenances.
sample files in creo 2 & 3 are attached to the product idea and our case number can also be found using the link above.
Thanks,
Don Anderson
Hello
Howisitpossibletosimulatetheforcerequiredtobendthis
steelbarunderthetermsoftheattacheddrawing.
You mustentertheinformationofthe steeltoexceedtheelasticlimit.
Simulate 3.0 is it able to do
Kind regards.
Denis
I want to search a SPR case,but I can't find the web site,can someone supply it? Thanks!
Dear All,
Recently I`ve tried analysing a variation of a dimension in the lens. The variation of the dimension that I try to analyse is 2.036 (refer to the attachment). The dimension that affect the measurement chosen is 18.5±0.2. Hower, CETOL 6 Sigma does not recognize the dimension 18.5±0.2 (CETOL usually offers automatically to choose the dimension which affect the measurement). I wonder, why it does not recognize it. Could anybody help?
P.S. I do know that it is a pure simple case and can be done by hand but to have a notion of how CETOL works in such cases (or how to solve such situations) will help analyse more complicated cases.
dears
i make a cabinet have loaded with 100kg per shelf
please help with start for learning this domain
thank , have a nice day
Hello All,
Would anyone else find it useful to 'gather' elements in the Post Processor and determine useful statistics such as Average Stress?
atb
Hello:
I am working hydraulic pumps' dynamic mechanical simulation by your mechanism module. it is very good and successful to built dynamic mechanical model by your module. but it can not impose the hydraulc flow force on the model and could not get a useful dynamic simulation result. If we only impose some ideal force or function force, it have not any actual value, the simulation goal is for simulating the actual situation, right?
AMEsim is a good hydraulic simulation software and can calculate a detailed force result, if Creo have co-simulation interface, I can add hydraulic flow force to the mechanism and can get a useful result. by the way, ADMAS have this interface.
Evening All,
When post processing it is sometimes useful to pick just a surface, for example, to view vectors on.
If that surface is on a component buried in an assembly then one could look at just that component.
But perhaps only one surface is required. Or perhaps a capping plane is desired using 3 points that are vertices on a component.
Creo then presents the entire assembly in a new window and one has to 'click through' (struggle) to find the desired geometry.
Very awkward.
The fudge, (English for work-around but also a kind of soft toffee often purchased when on holiday at the seaside), for hiding the datum features is to move the PP window to one side and access the view menu in parametric where the datum features can be turned on/off (the in window tool bar won't work for this)
But how does one hide components to de-clutter the assembly such that the relevant geometry can be easily selected?
'Hide' was and is great and I am sure that in the recent-ish past, those components 'hidden' before entering the PP would remain hidden. One simply had to remember to hide things before post processing ... and when I have a spare moment I will take a trip back in time and check this to see if my memory is still ok.
Thanks
Hi all,
do anyone know how creating a Custom Load into Mechanism?
I've read what the PTC help says (link) but I'm not very practice of C-programming and anyway the procedure remains to me not clear.
I wonder if it is possible using this method to create a feedback loop linking proE with an external software that analyze datas in output and resends in input tothe motor force/momentum within pro/mechanism.
The purpose is to obtain something like you can have with LMS AMEsim or Maplesim.
Can someone just confirm or deny my finding that you can't re-use a computed measure (Mechanica, sorry, Creo Simulate) in another computed measure? 'Simple' measures show up as available components, but not previous computed measures...
Assuming you can't, is there a line continuation character to allow complicated expressions to be split over several lines (or does it just work anyway, as it does in Excel)?
Thanks!