16_alex_85
Guest
Hello, everyone.
I don't know if my question can suit this category, please let me know if I was wrong.
I wanted to carry out static analysis of two components together.
I'll explain my case:
I have a component 1, which is a section a u rod, which on its side face has a passing hole,
the component 2 is a rectangular section rod having a passing hole on the side wall.
I, in catproduct I have bound the two holes, respectively of component 1 and of that 2, with a constraint of coincidence of the axes. I carry everything back in an analysis environment and, in the constraint of coincidence, I insert a rigid virtual component. from what I understand, this component connects together the two elements with a virtual element without taking into account its deformability (please correct me if I'm saying cable). when I insert this virtual element I also have the possibility to insert the degrees of freedom transmitted; if I choose to eliminate all degrees of freedom is as if I had a single rigid element consisting of: element 1, element 2 and virtual component (correct me). Now, if I bind my overall with an ink, I will have an isostatic structure, so adding the load I can start static analysis.
If what I said is correct my problem is that by doing the analysis, catia considers that the virtual component does not have length equal to the entire length of the hole, but only a part of it, precisely half length of the hole. I have circumvented the problem by putting in catproduct another constraint on the other side of the same holes (always of component 1 and 2), ignoring the window that tells me that the bond is redundant. I put another virtual component into the analysis environment on the opposite side and I repeated the analysis, which gave me more satisfactory results.
My question is: is it okay to do this? I know that catia allows me to also insert a virtual bolt, but always remains the problem that the virtual pin is not passing. How do you solve this? Is my approach right? Is my reasoning correct? if, hypothetically, I choose to break the rotation around a axis, in choosing the degrees of freedom of the virtual element, I bind the two elements (1 and 2) as if they were uncertain?
I apologize if I've been prolisso and if I haven't explained my best, I would be eternally grateful if someone gave me an answer to my thousand questions, or at least to a part of them, I would also settle for some advice.
Thank you.
p.s. if someone reads the post and notices that it is not in the right category, can you inform me and tell me where to resell the conversation? Thank you.
I don't know if my question can suit this category, please let me know if I was wrong.
I wanted to carry out static analysis of two components together.
I'll explain my case:
I have a component 1, which is a section a u rod, which on its side face has a passing hole,
the component 2 is a rectangular section rod having a passing hole on the side wall.
I, in catproduct I have bound the two holes, respectively of component 1 and of that 2, with a constraint of coincidence of the axes. I carry everything back in an analysis environment and, in the constraint of coincidence, I insert a rigid virtual component. from what I understand, this component connects together the two elements with a virtual element without taking into account its deformability (please correct me if I'm saying cable). when I insert this virtual element I also have the possibility to insert the degrees of freedom transmitted; if I choose to eliminate all degrees of freedom is as if I had a single rigid element consisting of: element 1, element 2 and virtual component (correct me). Now, if I bind my overall with an ink, I will have an isostatic structure, so adding the load I can start static analysis.
If what I said is correct my problem is that by doing the analysis, catia considers that the virtual component does not have length equal to the entire length of the hole, but only a part of it, precisely half length of the hole. I have circumvented the problem by putting in catproduct another constraint on the other side of the same holes (always of component 1 and 2), ignoring the window that tells me that the bond is redundant. I put another virtual component into the analysis environment on the opposite side and I repeated the analysis, which gave me more satisfactory results.
My question is: is it okay to do this? I know that catia allows me to also insert a virtual bolt, but always remains the problem that the virtual pin is not passing. How do you solve this? Is my approach right? Is my reasoning correct? if, hypothetically, I choose to break the rotation around a axis, in choosing the degrees of freedom of the virtual element, I bind the two elements (1 and 2) as if they were uncertain?
I apologize if I've been prolisso and if I haven't explained my best, I would be eternally grateful if someone gave me an answer to my thousand questions, or at least to a part of them, I would also settle for some advice.
Thank you.
p.s. if someone reads the post and notices that it is not in the right category, can you inform me and tell me where to resell the conversation? Thank you.