Hello
After doing a static simulation in order to have a gripper in a deformed state, I want to adapt the profile of my gripper in this state. So I've exported the body of my warped gripper as a setup and I can work in it.
However, is it possible to link this configuration with the open state of the clamp (i.e. the original configuration) in order to obtain the profile of my clamp created in the closed state in the open state?
After some research I did not find any elements. I'm thinking of doing a simulation again to re-deform the part in the open state, but it seems "wobbly" to me.
Thanks in advance!
Hello
Logically the gripper is composed of several parts (perhaps identical to a rotation of 180°), it is the deformed body of this gripper arm that must be used. From there, I don't see what would prevent you from using the deformed configuration in the assembly (select the 2 arms/right-click/configure the component/choose the deformed configuration for each arm).
Hello
First of all, thank you very much for the quick response!
In my case I use a "machining" type pliers so rather deformed type (ER pliers, push...) and not an activated pliers.
At first I designed the pliers in the open state since it will be made like this. However, during manufacturing, the gripper will need to have a geometry at its center created from its closed state but which will therefore have to reflect in the open state (in order to be able to manufacture it). And it is this "repercussion" that poses a problem.
In fact in the design timeline I have: Clamp open --> simulation of deformation --> Clamp closed --> modification Clamp closed --> opening clamp.
In short, I want to get an open clamp with a profile created from the "solid" closed clamp. So that's why I wanted to know if modifications of a body extracted from a simulation could have repercussions on the original body directly without having to go through a second re-opening deformation.
I have attached screenshots of the clamp according to the states.
Thank you very much!
pince_etat_ouvert.pngpince_etat_ferme.pngpince_etat_ferme_avec_profil.png
Hello
In simulation you have a simple trick! You switch from the Simulation tab to the Model tab to see the deformation.
You can also save the warped part.
But if I understand correctly what you want to do, I don't see how a configuration can be useful.
From my point of view, the simulation software is independent of the SW part modeling software.
Obviously, as these two software programs are fully integrated, they exchange information to work.
But!!!
As anyway, every time you modify the model (SW's model leaves) you will have to restart the simulation (or even the mesh and the simulation) to obtain the new deformation. From there, you have hardly any options! The one that would consist of making automatic scenarios is not suitable in your case since the creation of the part to be deformed is not trivial.
Kind regards
OK, I see the idea even if I don't understand the usefulness: this kind of pliers can be machined in the closed position, it seems to me.
To answer the question, we would have to do an inverse simulation: starting from the clamp tightened, we apply a load to be defined to simulate the open clamp.
A question comes to me: will the machined pliers have the same deformation as the rough pliers?
Hello and thank you both.
To Zozo_mp, knowing that I can extract a deformed body, I wondered if two configurations (open clamp and closed clamp) could interact with each other. Your conclusion is indeed what I feared.
For Stefbeno, first of all, the reasoning is good: the gripper is closed. But in the case of a prototype realization, in this case in 3D printing, the reasoning is different and that's what I'm getting at.
So that's what I was proposing, to do an "inverse" simulation. I'm still afraid, as your question implies that the deformations don't apply in the same way since the internal volume of the clamp will become much more hollow.
By changing tack, would the deformation function be conceivable?
Kind regards
The "deform" function is not suitable in my opinion because it is a false deformation that does not take into account the reaction of the material as a real PEF simulation does.
It's as if you were making your parts with a modeler such as Rhino, it gives an outer envelope (modeling clay) but says nothing about the RDM interactions within the material itself. However, for your application, what matters is how the material will really react when pinched.
I note a point "a prototype realization, in this case in 3d printing" I don't know if it's plastic or metal. Be aware that depending on the technique used (wire, powder, fusion, etc.) you will have big deviations from Simulation which calculates on a homogeneous material and strong atomic bonds. As much as you can trust metal sintering, while for plastic you can have very big differences in solidity depending on whether you have the wire technique (the worst one) or whether you use the powder technique like the Multi Jet Fusion from HP (to name a few) which is much more homogeneous in terms of quality.
In other words, you will have a finished part that will not correspond to the results of the rigorously obtained simulation.
Kind regards
1 Like