Hi @ all,
I must have missed something: when I make a simu on a simple rectangular section bar for example with one of the ends fixed and the other with a perpendicular force the bar twists well but it also lengthens (to the point that with a heavy load the face often remains vertically aligned with its initial position while being very low from the initial position) and whatever the options (I've been there since the whole afternoon) while for example if you take a blade (spring blade style or totally different a fishing rod cone) well they will flex but not lengthen????????
In fact I can't (I presume) create a force that will change vector according to the bending of the bar; but is it possible or does it exceed the capacity of SW2017...
I give up, without your help lol
Thanks in advance,
Eric
Hello
Don't give up, we will try to help you. ;-)
- Can you make a screenshot so that we understand more easily
- Can you join your piece by attaching the result of your simulation (even if it's rubbish.)
The 2017 version has nothing to do with the problem: in vista de naz it's probably just a nano configuration error.
Kind regards
Hello
What you ask for is possible but with the "Non-linear" solver
SOLIDWORKS Simulation Stays in the Linear Domain in Loading and Deformation (Small Displacements)
I think there is a "Large displacements" option in the linear solver but I don't know if it's really usable.
Cdlt
Thank you @ both of you, indeed I didn't choose the non-linear mode and on the help of Solidworks you can see exactly a "beam" that I want to bend without stretching it and there again when trying in non-linear mode same punishment ...
we agree that with 1N and amplifying to 2000 times the red edge should not stretch... and be a little more to the left, right?
there I put the force only on a small area at the right end of the beam but I also tried again by putting the force on the whole surface (as on the photo of the help) and ditto it stretches ???
I'm persevering LOL
non_lineaire.zip
Hello
Can you tell me how you see that it is getting longer since the displacement is only 6/100th. The vision of the movement is exaggerated because it is set to 2000 times instead of, for example, 3 times or ten times.
I don't see what the problem is. Thank you for clarifying me where you see the PB.
Moreover, you have put a force and not a burden. The force is considered strictly vertical in its displacement (it does not follow the spillage or bending). So it cannot play with the lengthening.
Kind regards
Hi there:-)
According to my logic (which doesn't seem to be the right one lol) for me if we exaggerate the displacement coef the bar should bend lower but at the same time the edge should move a little towards the fixed side (left)
but I'm going to test with a load; indeed I understand my mistake and that it is more judicious a charge; it must come from there... By choosing force it creates a constant downward constraint (even in non_linéaire is it normal?) which "pulls" more or less hard and stretches the part accordingly...
On the other hand, there is "bearing loading" and lower and well separated from the other types of constraints "remote loading/mass" so which one will be the most suitable?
In any case, thank you very much!
I just tried it and it doesn't work with both types of load but with pressure it seems to stick; SAVED lol
there the edge of the bar has moved a little away from the column that serves as a reference ;-)
non_lineaire_2.zip
Hello
I think you are making a fundamental mistake, which is to rely on the image, which is exaggerated.
In the first example, with the force of 1N you have a URES of 0.06 mm, as much as "quedal".
For the type of constraints "remote loading/mass" the load alone does exist but it is at the bottom of the list and a coordinate system must first be created in the "model".
For your images, attach them rather than on the screen because it's unreadable. In order for you to see what you are doing, you have to attach the results and not just the room, otherwise it is difficult to help you.
Kind regards
it's clear that 1N is too little to have a torsional effect which then visually feels it with the famous offset but with the right load we observe it without worries even in x1
Indeed with a coordinate system in the "model" it also works
I take this opportunity to ask if it seems wise to you (or rather if the solver is suitable) to use this type of simu on a carbon composite cone as I just discovered the "composite" function that is applied on a surface (conical in my case) otherwise is there a SW module dedicated to composites?
Hello
Lack of luck: no composite with the non-linear option; SNIFF
On the other hand I come back to my first subject: now no worries to have a more realistic deformation but I must have had trouble setting up something because when I bend a conical tube fixed at its largest base well it always bends up to 90° then nothing (whatever the forces) while normally it should make a kind of spiral by exaggerating: the end with the largest diameter should flex just a little and the "tip" much more ???
instead it "wants" to stay vertical downwards as if the force seems to vary "correctly" at first according to the bending and then ends up "pulling" down the end of the conical tube ????
Note that in the last iteration the tube goes downwards but also to the left typical of a vertical pull.
365.rar