I'm looking to optimize the sizing of a very simple sliding gantry with the only tool Simulation Xpress (I'm not in premium). In particular, I would like to be able to compare its deformation under load according to the cross-section of the profile. It is a sliding platform on rails measuring about 5.5m by 2.8m with a simple sheet metal on its entire surface that will receive the load. I have already had to merge all the bodies I had drawn in welded mechanics to satisfy SimulationXpress. Then, the 6 castors on rails provide 6 point supports, allowing a degree of freedom in static rotation. But I can't find how to impose anything other than embedding under Xpress simulation, so the results are totally wrong. When I materialize a small surface that is an integral part of the structure that would represent the rail, systematic meshing error. But even if it is a little closer, it is not very representative of reality. Small screenshot in PC to illustrate.
Notice to Xpress simulation users, but I have the impression that there are few of them...
Afterwards, if others have free tools that can perform the same function, I'm still interested, so easy to use (I tested RDM6 but I'm skating a bit, it's very far for me from RDM).
By creating a dividing line on your castors, and using the area thus defined for the recess, you should be able to get closer to the linear connection.
If it's just to compare different solutions, it may be enough as an approximation.
Thank you for this proposal. I tested, result quite far from the truth (see attached image). Unusable except for comparison, but I would still need a realistic starting value. I'll have to find another solution than SW I think. It won't be the first time...
The extra cost, I will only amortize it if I use it often. Especially since having had it for a few years, I know that without regular practice, there is no automatism on the simulation function. So too time-consuming, it would be an impossible investment to make a return not only at the upgrade but also monthly with maintenance. I've already been fuming since the implementation of Dassault's new extortion policy, to the point where I'd rather learn how to use external software than continue to invest in partially reliable software ... Especially since, as you say, this calculation seemed quite basic to me.
You talk about "Dassault's new extortion policy", but unfortunately it's the same with all the other publishers (Autodesk, Siemens, PTC, ....) and this has been the case for much longer than Dassault, or even worse with some with only monthly rental and the software never belongs to you...
After I understand perfectly that for self-employed people it represents a large annual or monthly sum.
You tell me that this method of financing is the same as the competition, so I don't have to go and ask them. So Dassault Systèmes is no better. If at least the software was... I tend to see the glass as half empty since I've been struggling with real unsolvable bugs since the beginning of the year. I've been practicing SW since version 97 and since I need a bit more advanced features offered by the software (families of parts, equations...), it's getting stuck. When I was working on a maintenance-free version, I assumed the bugs (I only had to pay for the maintenance) and saw the glass as half full. Now that I have to pay for maintenance every month, I don't have the same requirements.
To come back to my problem, I think I'm going to ask a student to simulate this for me on his free education version, it will be a good beginner's exercise and will cost me less than a month of maintenance (to avoid the term extortion ;-)).
In the absence of "audience opinion", the "super half-and-half" not being suitable, I used the joker "call to a friend". I sped away, my tank was in double file...