Well, I'm doing a static study on a model composed of a volume piece and 3 shells. I believe that I applied all the necessary constraints for the execution; where materials, fastening, workpiece contact and loading. And then, I use the hull manager to define these thicknesses (the hulls), but really I'm stuck now to find the problem that stops me from moving forward. I'm happy for your instructions to do the pleasure and to skip this problem. PS: this study for the preparation of CSWA-S Kind regards
If I understand your problem correctly , it seems to me that you are making a mistake on Sketch2, because you are making an extruded surface, but what you need to know is that a surface has no thickness , it is a virtual delimitation in space (that's why "typology" is called a surface) and that in software it is represented for example in yellow (or another color) otherwise we wouldn't see it.
In other words, you ask your simulation to make a mesh on a surface that has no thickness, which means that it does not exist even if you see a virtiual image: so it is impossible since the mesh and especially the resistance calculation is done in three dimensions at least.
(From the scholarly point of view (sorry ;-) ) you have first-order triangular shell elements instead of having second-order tetrahedral elements)
Brief! we're not going to bother with these considerations : you just have to modify the Sketch2 by drawing the thicknesses for your profile el L, ditto your tube (or your cylinder) above all use a normal extrusion instead of an extruded surface. After that, you just have to change your thickness dimensions to know which profile is suitable for each shape.
Last remark : You use "a force" which seems strange to me so I guess you don't confuse it with "a charge" since you are doing a static study. So choose between a weight or a traction force that is known and calibrated as well.
Another thing: you define contacts between contradictory components, it seems to me and above all unnecessarily redundant.
Global contact is sufficient from my point of view Contact Set-2 and Contact Set-3 are useless. You should choose "solidarity" instead of "no penetration". Because you are working in tension, you cannot have penetration, at worst a tear-off. No penetration is used when two components are not in contact at the beginning but can be as a result of deformation. CQFD
Totally agree with you! But this assembly is imported during the exam so no modification (Sketch,..) so the mind is directly towards the simulation. For the hull elements it is already well defined before the mesh by the management of the hulls, I defined the thicknesses of each one. And for contact; really there is a play between the shells and the plate, and since the constraint is that both are fixed so it's solidary yes.
I'm going to put the statement exactly so that things are clear.
I don't see any anomaly, it seems correct to me, especially since the addition of the different individual reaction forces (204.66, +13.551+851.72) gives 1069.93, which corresponds to the force indicated in the rounded rounds.