I don't really understand the purpose of your modeling. What do you want to highlight exactly?
My first piece of advice: SIMPLIFICATION!
Your assembly is much too complex to start! simplified as much as possible!
Removes unnecessary parts from the simulation.
Remove all screws.
Replace your engine with a rigid part.
If there are planes of symmetry (geometric and effort) then cut your model in half.
Please note that the addition of weld beads on welded parts implies a different logic in the application of the FEA boundary conditions. (maybe it's better to redesign them in "monobloc"
I don't want to discourage you but given the context you describe, I have the impression that you risk being seen as a clown by your professional entourage. Let me explain: to do simulation, without mastering it, to present a file for a test test, is to risk having a false result, without realizing it except at the time of the test... In this context, a simple manual calculation is sometimes sufficient, as simulation can allow for optimization. It's a bit like you're learning to ride a bike and want to climb a big pass.
It's autoditacticism (sorry for the neologism) but it takes time. So 2 possibilities: - you do a training course and are "quickly" operational; - You learn on your own and wait until you master the tool before claiming to deliver results.
It's easy to self-train in 3D modeling with software like SW, simulation is a whole other field, not at all intuitive.
Very funny when you say "for the day when the wreck comes"" and yet it is not Ricard less than a quarter ;-)
More seriously! Just for the record (excuse me @Icome ;-) ) the welds are virtual information in the model and for the MEP. Welds are not taken into account for the simulation. The information is not transmitted between the two softwares so no problem with that.
Simplifying the model is always something to do and in particular all the screws which serve no purpose except to complicate the mesh. Explanation: In simulation, when you declare that objects are solid, SW doesn't care at all about what makes them integral (screws or welding, only spot welds are taken into account if they are declared). Solidworks then considers these two parts as a single part.
So in your case, if you remove all your screws, you can do your simulation. However:
1°) interference between two square tubes must be removed (see attached image)
2°) make a separation line on the hook support2 since you put your force on the screw (which we just removed) You should never make a pull like the on a screw head but on the part that is blocked by the bolt.
Tentative conclusion:
- 4 minutes to remove all the screws - 4mn to remove interference between the two tubes - 3mn to create the dividing line on Crochet2 - 6mn to correctly set up the simulation - 22 seconds for the mesh.
On the other hand, I lack an explanation about strength or weight. As you say lifting system, I guess it's about mass. Your model indicates that the mass of the engine is only 53 Kg, which is nothing at all in view of the sections of the tubes and other reinforcements. As it stands, you must have a safety coeff greater than 9 at least So how do you want to test this mass because you are missing the lifting eye in your model?
Well, I followed the advice and I redesigned a new piece that reflects the whole lifting system. It's simpler indeed and I can simulate but I have the impression that it's as if I'm going to do this on SimulationExpress...
So I have something that is similar to what I was looking for.
Afterwards, I will resume my assembly and remove the interference to be able to do this "same job" on the assembly and not on a part that is so apparent
Here is the simulation that does not show excessive deformation.
The inclination is the one required by the center of gravity that I retrieved from the first file you provided us.
Your play had several flaws that I still had to correct in order to be able to do the simulation.
(I wonder when I see the use that is made of SW : but hey I answer your request ) Exceptionally I do :-( :-(
Brief!
1°) this simulation, even if done by you, is insufficient for the APAVE because AMHA lacks security elements. 2°) the simulation is not accurate because for the U-shaped part it is reinforced by the engine mount so the deformation that appears in red would not be there. The 1.6 mm deformation will disappear with the rigidity of the engine and especially given the very low weight. To illustrate my point, I put in a part of the engine, which obviously stabilizes the gap. The simulation is not exact because in the absence of a motor I distributed the load equally (25 kg on each side) between the circle and the U 3°) my opinion in these simulation cases (I can never say it enough) you have to reason from the overall CG of the editing. The forces which are here a mass that is oriented between the point of attachment and the CG is why the image is tilted. The red arrow indicates the direction of gravitation.
In informative conclusion
- your displacements are less than 2 mm and with the motor it would probably be equal to 0. - the safety factor with the indicated inaccuracies is already 4 and would surely be higher with the engine inside the handling dummy. - There are no localized constraints requiring volume changes. -etc...
Kind regards
PS: you have attached an image with your model to which I added a part of the engine to stiffen the whole. We are thus closer to the initial model.
PS bis: what version of SW do you have I am in 2019. If you want the example, I can send you the ASM with the results.
A huge thank you to you for your efforts and all these tips.
Yes I certainly made mistakes in the drawing again (I'd like to know where if it's not too much to ask) so I'd know if it's not stupid or if I'm not doing things correctly out of ignorance.
I use SW2017 and yes I want the assembly. I'm going to try to do a simulation on the assembly.
I have the 2019 version, which means that you will not be able to use a version higher than 2017 in this case.
For the mistakes, it would be a bit long to explain in writing, although the number of mistakes, rest assured, is only 5.
I'm still making a little off-topic ;-)
[ HS On] I can't help but remind you that a bolt or screw should not replace a shouldered axle because a screw is not designed to work in shear. Although this is very common on a daily basis, unfortunately, but as you were talking about Apave and lifting equipment: it would be good to take this into account. You can use a 10.9 steel BTR shoulder screw that can be used as a shoulder pin. [HS /Off]
I did the assembly for the tests this morning at work and I naturally put screws in 10.9 quality as you specify.
I'll put you a little picture so you can view it.
For future designs, I will no longer put shear screws
Thank you again for all your efforts, advice and especially for your coaching. Fortunately, there are still people like you when others throw in the towel or say that "it's not possible".
I'm coming back after this simulation test where you helped me a lot.
Following the advice of some, I would like to know how to take simulation courses or other on SW. It's a 2021 goal for me at work. Yes, they would like me to be able to make these RDMs so that I can design lifting gear. For example, for extracting more or less heavy parts from production machines. For your information, these are not parts that weigh hundreds of Kg, no, but they are too heavy to be handled by a person without one day hurting your back or elsewhere.
So what do you have to do to get this "diploma"?
Thank you already for all the advice you will give me.
Nice goal. Without indiscretion, what is your training, your experience (basically your CV without the summer jobs and the names of the companies)? It's just to get an idea of your theoretical technical background. @Zozo_mp will probably talk about it better but I believe that a thorough knowledge of the theories of RDM is a first basis, then come the theories of finite element calculus.
Watch the training courses that Visiativ offers on the use of Solidworks simulation. It takes at least two internships to achieve results.
Two internships of 3 or 4 days spaced two months apart are enough for those who already have solid professional experience. After that, it is imperative that you have simulation (preferably pro for frequency analyses).
