I'm doing simulations of a part that is basically part of an assembly, I applied remote loading to it, because in reality the force is applied to another part of the assembly. I would like to know if possible the displacement at the point where I applied the remote loading in order to know the rigidity of my part at this point. The problem is that this point is not part of my room and I can't find a way to connect it to my room. I was able to work on a 3D experience where it was possible to do this manipulation by making a connection that created a virtual rigid bar between the points to be connected.
Does anyone have an idea to succeed in measuring this displacement?
Two solutions: you put a rod of 1mm in diameter (or less) and therefore the length is equal to the distance of the remote loading.
When the remote load moves, the rod will do the same for the same value. All you have to do is add a probe on the top of the stem to the result to have the displacement.
Note that in SW you also have the possibility to put a virtual rigid bar, but as it is virtual I don't know if you can hang a probe in the result. I have never used a rigid bar in this very particular context. ;-) To try although I find the first proposal simpler! And by adding a mini-mini sphere at the end of the rigid bar to hang the probe.
I'm not sure if zozo's solution works if the remote connection is not rigid but flexible (it's an option of the remote connection).
After testing on a simple example, the rigid or distributed connection type option does not seem to have much of an impact on the movement of the virtual fulcrum.
It should be noted that in distribution and on my example if I draw 3 rods on my surface, the displacements are not homogeneous at the end of the 3 rods (it must depend in particular on the mesh (and the point of application of the force) since I was on a simple example of a parallelipedic beam so it is not related to the geometry of the part in my example (but maybe that of the point of application because not centered in relation to the thickness of the beam)).
The weird thing is that I have the same behavior in rigid (which doesn't seem logical a priori because if the chosen face is considered to be rigid, my 3 bars should move in the same way while remaining well paralleled).
NB: the differences in displacements are not huge either in proportion to the total amplitude: we are in the middle of the
But if someone has a better solution than the rod I'm interested too.
For the point defined for a remote connection to move, in fact, it depends on the deformation that is the opposite of this point. If the point shifts a lot, it means that there is a desired or unintended problem on the non-virtual part on which the virtual part is supposed to rely.
Hence the displacement pouillèmes. ;-)
Kind regards
PS: I've never used the flexible remote connection! Do you have an example at any chance ;-) Let me take the opportunity to educate myself ;-)
I come back to my proposal which is simple, does not disturb the simulation and above all gives a direct reading of the displacement in X, Y, Z.
In my example, I chose "rigid connection" and applied the load to an area defined by separation lines.
Why I chose the solution of the mini pointed baguette, you may ask! 1°) the very small diameter rod has no impact in terms of weight or stiffening property and therefore does not influence the deformation of the inspected part.
2°) The fact of having a single point during the meshing of the rod gives a single knot made it will move in space according to the deformation of the part.
3°) the advantage is that we can have the precise values to the micron if we wish of the displacement X, Y, Z of this point.
Why did I come to use a "wand" artifact?
This is not the first time I have been confronted with this problem and the results of the simulation are purely graphical and with virtual volumes on which there is no possibility to make direct measurements except by placing probes on specific areas or nodes. Apart from the selection of a node, there is no salvation!
In the case of remote charging, the graphic of the position of the remote charge and a fictitious visual allowing you to see if you have made a mistake between the pluses and minuses. But once the position is set, Solidworks no longer updates this pink chart. Moreover, if we switch from deformed to undeformed, we see that the remote mass position indicator does not move. On the other hand, it is possible to know in the results the xyz position of all the nodes of the model. (see the images)
My system may be unorthodox, but it gives me the result I'm looking for without disturbing the result of the overall simulation.
that's what I remember and use with my KISS method
The difference between rigid connection and soft connection is that if you choose 'rigid connection' the entire selected face is rigid (so this is the same as applying your external load on a rigid plane glued to your part. If this surface is far from rigid (because it is a thin thickness with a rib behind it for example), the choice of this option can significantly modify the results. The soft connection will be a bit more realistic in this case.
The vocabulary of the simulation module is rather confusing. Are they connector connections or loads? The initial question was about remote loading ( menus [External Loads], [Loading, Remote Loading]), which distinguishes between two options: [Loading (Direct Transfer)] and [Moving (Hard Connect )]. At this stage, it is far from clear!
I think that this distinction [Loading] / [Displacement] is not related to the deformable part under study, but rather to the "virtual object", symbolized by the pink segments, which transmits its action to the part studied. In the case of a [Displacement], this virtual object is non-deformable and the surface of action on the part under study undergoes a displacement of solid. This "action" is also defined in mm and degrees. A flat surface will remain flat and of the same shape. In the case of a [Loading], the virtual object "distributes" the force (defined in N and Nm) to the surface of the part under study by following an apparently linear law, inspired by the principle of distribution within a beam in rdm (see help). In this case, the surface of the part under study shifts and deforms. A flat surface will not remain flat.
It should be noted that in the case of a [Loading] type action, the sounding rod principle is not suitable for evaluating the displacement of the point where the loading applies, since the movement of the sounding rod depends on its point of embedding in the surface where the action is exerted. On the other hand, the principle is suitable for an action of type [Displacement], but it is useless since displacement is a given...
When I read the content of the previous post I tell myself that I'd better not answer anymore about the simulation.
Before implicitly saying that a solution is inept by claiming that the probe rod is useless , we should understand the approach from A to Z.
It is not forbidden to propose a solution that corresponds to the request: instead of exegesis on the translation of the American's online help by a Japanese working in China and translating according to the Ordou.
If I say nonsense and the proof is provided, I am ready to give up posting on this forum and even not to set foot there or the keyboard anymore
