I would like to simulate a rudder pedal that would be composed of a HEB with 2 plates at each end that sandwich it. They would be connected by threaded rods + bolts.
For this, I created everything in the same room, but what interests me are the threaded rods. I drew them as smooth rods and placed bolt connectors by selecting the top edge of the rod, the bottom edge of the plate hole as well as the inside of the plates in the "adjusted rod" option.
I am experiencing several problems:
-I get the message "contact pair is not defined for bolt connectors". I looked on the internet and you supposedly have to switch the contacts to "no penetration" but by doing this, my calculation ran more than 3 hours without finishing
-leaving a global contact solid, I decide to also give the tightening torque but this gives me an aberrant result compared to the paper calculation.
In the end, I don't know where I'm doing well and where I'm doing wrong. If I leave the connector preload at zero, do I have a result close to reality? Can we speed up the simulation by using a "no penetration" contact?
When you say that you are interested in threaded rods, it implies that you want to either measure the shear or the deformation of the two clevis during maximum loading. I don't really understand when I look at your screenshot.
On the other hand, I can't see anything on the tie rods that hold the upper and lower plates. In short, which threaded rods are you talking about because the image is not very explicit.
Can you post your ASM using the "pack and Go" function, especially attaching the simulation study (even if it is not finished).
Also specify what your intentions are in relation to your calculations, otherwise it is difficult to really help yourself.
The unfortunate thing is that Solidworks does not give the pre-stress in tension that it calculated from the pre-stress given in N.m. For my part, I find a double amount.
If I replace the torque clamping pre-stress with a tension pre-stress, and if I simulate it in parallel by a pure force on the diameter of the screw, I find more or less the same result (cf. pj.).
In any case, as soon as I use their bolt-type connection , I get the same warning message. But that doesn't stop me from doing the math to the end.
So for me you can leave the alert message aside and use an analytically calculated tension pre-stress .
Thank you for your contribution and the attached example.
if I may say so and if you accept it, for me your simulation is wrong (as shown by Von Mises and the travels)
Indeed you have omitted to create the contact with the lower part and in this case it is certainly not a bolt type contact and even less with a force, etc... etc...
If we compare it with a deformation in real life, you will have no chance that the deformations will be made as shown in the Von Mises animation (and the others).
Moreover, I don't really see the connection with the request of @julien.dildo. Especially since we don't think we have all the right information to answer @Julien.
If I'm wrong, which is quite possible and your simulation is correct, please explain to me and give me back the simulation in line with what would happen in real life ;-) ;-) ;-)
In my file, I had put two simulations. One with a force and one with a connector function. In each simulation, the unused element is deleted. Of course, I am not suggesting using both at the same time. Which seems to me to be the case in your screenshot @Zozo_MP.
For the representation of the screw in the deformed view, the fact that there is a mismatch between the screw and the thread surprised me every time. But it is clearly specified in the configuration of the function that the screw is caught in a thread (visible in my case by a purple coloring of the surface and by the fact that the screw goes all the way there). For me, Solidworks takes into account a contact between the screw and the thread. In any case, I have not found anything in the help that allows me to think otherwise (http://help.solidworks.com/2019/french/solidworks/cworks/r_connector_bolt.htm)
As for the fact that it doesn't fit in real life, I'm quite interested in sugestions of alternative solutions to make these results reliable (I have a study in progress where this can be important; that's what interested me in the post of @julien.dildo). Let's hope that the additional information from @julien.dildo will help to move in this direction.
Thank you for this positive exchange. I remain on my position on which I can argue easily and point by point. Position which is reinforced by the link on the Nut connector which seems very clear to me ;-) ;-) .
Simulation is not trivial, which is why it is exciting
Can you create a new topic so that we don't pollute @ kevin's topic. FOX
Kind regards
PS: can you post an image of the result of the deformation as well as the messages that appear during the simu. (in the new Corsican egg topic)
