In my assembly of two solids, I have defined an imposed displacement of the "bolt" type and a contact (of the type between sets) between the two faces concerned of the "no penetration" type, these faces do not physically touch each other in my assembly, can this distort the results?
Hello
Already there is an error in your simulation intent.
What for?
Simply because you never put a physical bolt in a simulation (you have to remove your dark blue bolt on the image).
It is all the parameters contained in the choices that must be mastered since you can even put a preload on the bolt or define if there is an adjustment between the rod and the bore.
No adjustment with the rod in tone because the bolt rod will not be in contact since the sky blue piece is in pivot type contact with the tight bore of the gray.
You will only be able to see, on your simulation, the deformation of your gray part under the bolt head.
I don't know you but I tell you anyway: Be careful not to confuse bolt and anchor bolt.
Last note, the bolts as such are never put in simulation because they must meet strict standards that define all the limits, so there is no need to simulate what we already know.
This is why SW simulation uses these standards to do the simulation instead of the bolt, which means that from then on only the two parts held together by the bolt are the subject of the simulation.
The main reason is that it simplifies the simulation a lot and especially the mesh (and the complexity of the calculations) especially when you have a lot of bolts on a ring for example.
Kind regards
Hello Zozo_mp;
Thank you for your answer!
So the bolt is not physical, it's the virtual representation of an imposed displacement of the "classic" bolt type (and not anchor bolt indeed) I let it appear so that it is understandable in my capture.
So I'm a newcomer here ^^ I must have phrased my question wrongly:
The faces that the bolt is supposed to make touch are not in contact in my model but I have defined a contact between them of the "no penetration" type in case they touch each other after deformation.
Is it annoying to define contact (in a general way ) between two faces that do not touch each other during initialization but are likely to touch each other later?
Thanks in advance!
Ps: I feel like I'll be asking for your help a lot in the coming months:p
Hello Dorian
No, it's not annoying, but be careful how to define contacts.
It is in "contacts between ensembles" that everything must be defined. You have to check "Clearance" then "Always ignored the clearance" so if your gap between the two parts is for example 2 mm the fact that it is two surfaces, then the two sides will not be able to get closer than 2mm since without penetration.
Also check in "Advanced" "surface to surface" in your case.
OTHER THAN YOURS (but which could be because we only see a part of your editing
On the other hand , if you had for example 2 edges with a distance of 2 mm and a distance of 5 mm, then you would have to choose "ignore the play if the space is less than" 2mm. Thus, the first edge would stop at 2 mm and the other edge could continue to move until it closed completely (i.e. 5 mm).
Just for the record: Node to surface corresponds to the case where it is a point that will come into contact with the surface. For the rest, it's more complicated to explain.
Kind regards
PS: You can close the topic if the answer is okay with you. You can create another topic later. This allows people to enjoy your experience on a single specific topic.