Hello
Idoatestsimplywithawasher,seethesketchenclosed.
Idothesimulationwiththewholepuckand thenwithhalfofthepuckas well ashalfoftheload.
AndIgetnotthesameresulttoVonMises:
Entirepuck750.0[MPa]
Puck half 642.0 [MPa]
Whenyoucutapieceinhalftodomorethanthesymmetricalconnection.
Kind regards.
Denis
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!
Hi,
I set up an elasto-plastic study of a strut that is gradually squashed using an enforced displacement.
I did not know when things would get interesting and so applied a very long time history and monitored graph of reaction forces as Pass 1 iterations developed.
After 250 steps (of 500) the load levelled off (buckling).
Rather than allowing the study to run to the full 500 steps it is always quicker to stop the study and restart with fewer time steps.
I restarted as a new study (so I can keep the earlier results) with the same time history truncated to only 250 time steps. No other changes.
My expectation would be that the number of iterations and the residual norms would be the same as the previous study.
The 0th (no load) Pass 1 iteration is identical to the study I stopped.
Every subsequent Pass 1 time step has different residual norms and sometimes different numbers of iterations.
Why?
Thanks
Hello again,
Related to the earlier elasto-plastic question but also LDA, contact ...
It is useful to be able to monitor the progress of an iterative study by reviewing the Pass 1 results as they develop.
Pass 1 results carry a lot of useful information. Stresses may not be converged, forces and stiffness may be mostly ok.
Graphs of measures can be saved out as .xls etc.
But when Simulate completes the final iteration of Pass 1, it is then not possible to use the PP to look at Pass 1 information at all so if you haven't grabbed it before Pass 2 starts you have to wait.
Why can't we watch the info being updated step by step with Pass 2 results?
All the .s0x and .d0x etc. files for each step are still there and I have watched them sequentially update as pass 2 iterations complete.
A bit more info on how this works would be very useful.
Thanks
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.
我在分析的结果文件夹中找到了一个文件：study.ldc（study为文件名），这个文件的内容跟收敛图的数据很接近。
我对收敛图中的纵坐标不解，希望在这儿得到答案。
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.
Hello all simulation geeks...
Just for fun, I made a comparison between ANSYS and Creo Simulate 3, to see what the new frictional contact can do in Creo 3. A block with a slot, a plate is located in the slot. The block is squeezed with 20 kN, the plate is pulled out with a force of 1 kN. Coefficient of friction is 0.2, static and dynamic.
Two graphs showing the contact pressure, and frictional factor, i.e. shear stress at the surface/contact pressure. This should be =0.2 where the friction is fully developed, and <0.2 in the stick zone where friction is not fully developed. Similar results, no particular effort was made to refine the solution, except a slight mesh refinement compared to default mesh...
B.R. Mats L (*for the moment out of assignment*)
Hello.
I am facing a desperate situation right now.
We received from our customer a 3D model and an excel file containing a point cloud from their CFD analysis. The excel file is structured. There are the x-y-z-coordinates of each point and every point have also an information about the force that is applied in the particular point (also x-y-z-triplet).
With this information our aim is to make a FE-Analysis.
I managed to write a macro that exports the coordinates into an .pts file that Creo Parametric can handle. In the modeling environment I can see the points in 3D space.
But how can I import these information into Creo Simulate? I could import the point cloud and apply the forces manually to every point. But we have ~5000 points, that would be wasting of time.
My first idea was to use the excel macro to generate a file that Creo uses to read all the information about where the points are located and which load is applied. As far as i know Creo Simulate stores the "load information" in an .xml file inside the Analysis output folder. But in that file is no information about coordinates.
Is Creo Simulate even capable of "importing loads"? For me it seems to be a basic functionality that should be supported.
Thank you very much for any help you can give.
hi all,
I'm trying to figure out what beam theory is used in Simulate with beam elements.
Is it Timoshenko's theory is which a section can rotate or is it Eulers-Bernouillis theory in which a cross section is always considered to be perpendicular to the neutral viber?
Unfortunately i cannot trace it in the help-files (is the anwer very well hidden in there?) .
Thanks,
Peter
Happy new year!
Anyone have a link to any information regarding what's new/changed in Creo Simulate 4.0?
Thanks,
Andy
I get this warning message any time I'm working with weldments larger than 2 parts: "the angle between the normal to the shell and the normal to the solid face at a shell-solid link must be greater than 45 degrees. The link(s) will be ignored". Can anyone tell me what Simulate is doing? The diagnostic tool highlights elements around these connections but as far as I can tell connectivity is maintained.
Why it takes too much time to run an optimization study while the design variable is only one and the problem is simple.I have run a static anlysis of a gear and i now i want to minimize its mass by optimizing it thicness.It has been 24 hours of running and still no results.I think it should take time but not this much time as the problem is not complex.what can be the possible cause?
While trying to run a static analysis, an error prompt pooped up soon after I hit start. I have run multiple static analysis runs on models for the past 3 months, I am not sure why this has just recently started occurring.
Please help
thank you
I need to apply a load on a line (force per unit length) which should locally depend on the displacement of the line in a given direction; as for an elastic foundation.
Is there any way to realize this kind of mixed boundary condition along lines?
Hello!
I am trying to assemble a mechanical device that contains one body (an axle, body A) that is free to rotate in relation to ground and then on this body there is a new body (a ring, body B) that is free to rotate in relation to the first body but with its axis coincident with the first axis.
My idea to model this was to constrain body A with a pin connection to ground and then constrain the body B to the first with a new pin connection. I am allowed to do this but it doesn't behave as expected because when I try to drag the body B around its axis on A it to starts to rotate around its own axis to ground so that both rotates in relation to ground. I understand that this behavior doesn't contradict the connections but it is still odd behavior and when performing a dynamic simulation later I don't want the extra mass of B to effect the inertia of A.
Do anyone know why it behaves like this and if there is anyway around it?
Kind Regards
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
Hi all,
I'm wanting to run an FEA on the attached assembly. It consists of a wedge block which a load is applied, it slides in a track until it comes in contact with a block in which the load is transferred through. My question is how do I constrain the wedge assembly to mimic a sliding contact?
Thanks!
Hi,
Is there a good, current source for downloading Creo Material files? I am looking for commonly used metals and plastics. It seems crazy that every individual or organization has to create their own material library. I'm assuming this has been done many times, but cannot find a definitive source online.
-Scott
I was wondering if anyone had any pointers on how to begin a simple vibration analysis in PTC Simulate 3.0.
What I've done so far:
Modelled: A plate, attached to a mass using 4 bolts (in red) as shown in the simple diagram below.
Applied Loads: Applied 1g (where g is gravity) loads in X, Y, and Z directions
Preformed a Modal Analysis
What I would like to do:
I would now like to apply vibration loads in X, Y and Z directions to the model. I would then like to view the stresses and deformation in the plate as a result of these vibrations. How do I do this.
Baby steps would be much appreciated.