framed beam

[marziana]

I apologize for the question that may seem trivial.. but I am struggling with ansys for the application of distributed load on beams stuck on one side and free on the other... maximum arrow calculation (then the long nodal shift y) ... and analytical comparison with the results obtained from the science of constructions. .
what is the most suitable procedure to use? I have to approximate a polymer membrane... what elements do I use? plane82?

 

[gerod]

Hello Martian
the first thing to do when entering a forum for the first time is the reading and understanding of the rules you have accepted at registration.
then there is to respect an unwritten golden rule: the presentation.
Last but not to randomly throw out arguments that do not fit (the post was moved from where you had inserted it).
another thing, since you put your post in the discussion on ansys links: give an eye to tutorials.
Thank you.

 

[marziana]

Hello, I'm a mechanical engineering student.
I apologize for the intrusion of asking the question and not respecting the rules.
I looked at the tutorials but the analysis with the software does not coincide with the physical reality.
That was the doubt I asked her. Anyway thank you the same.I think there is enough "freedom" to ask questions since it is a forum ... the answer can also be not given without irony.

Hello.

 

[diegovens]

even if I am a junior user, I find the moderator ungreat. I mean, we all deserve respect.
Martian, I think the answer to your question is very simple:
analysis with beam3 beam elements. Remember to introduce the constraints and then the load... look on help the commands. I personally prefer batch working mode.

an example of how to define an element, in this case beam3, in the batch mode:
/prep7
et, 1, beam3
keyopt,1.6,1
keyopt, 1, 9, 3
r, 1, a1,i1, h1

remember initially to define the properties of the material.

for discretization you can divide the beam into small beams (in fact beam3), then define n points and then join them with lines.

 

[PierArg]

even if I am a junior user, I find the moderator ungreat. I mean, we all deserve respect. .

I take the "defense" of gerod even if, being moderator, you do not need it.
I feel like saying mine as a friend though.

diegovens, I'd like to ask you some questions:
Is it normal for a person not to show up?
- by chance from the gerod post leak a certain maleducation?

I see the only rudeness in the way you responded and the only rudeness I see her not to present herself in a community and just to ask "what you need for your comfort"

and then you also have the courage to write the word "respect"?
the respect we deserve all... starting with the presentation of new users.
and above all in not criticising those who seek to enforce the rules.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Hello Martian
the first thing to do when entering a forum for the first time is the reading and understanding of the rules you have accepted at registration.
then there is to respect an unwritten golden rule: the presentation.
Last but not to randomly throw out arguments that do not fit (the post was moved from where you had inserted it).
another thing, since you put your post in the discussion on ansys links: give an eye to tutorials.
Thank you.

It seems to me that there is enough "freedom" to ask questions since it is a forum ... the answer can also be not given without irony.

What irony?

 

[marziana]

The post doesn't come to be right or anything. I apologize for the rash, and the thing that I'm sorry was to have placed me in the center of attention as if I wanted help on purpose without presenting me. I didn't think about it.. and I apologize... said this... I accept the correction for the future of my behavior... and since it is a forum if you do not want to give a hand you can simply not respond. .
to me appeared ironic/pungent comment from me received and not for the purpose of the forum but for the purpose of a rule that I did not know for my lack.

 

[marziana]

by diegovens:
Hello! Thanks for the answer..I would pose another doubt though:treat the membrane as a beam3 is the only way to have a comparison with the analytical theory of the beams? ansys elements such as plane or shell do not confuse to such theory?
Thank you!

 

[PierArg]

The post doesn't come to be right or anything. I apologize for the rash, and the thing that I'm sorry was to have placed me in the center of attention as if I wanted help on purpose without presenting me. I didn't think about it.. and I apologize... said this... I accept the correction for the future of my behavior... and since it is a forum if you do not want to give a hand you can simply not respond. .
to me appeared ironic/pungent comment from me received and not for the purpose of the forum but for the purpose of a rule that I did not know for my lack.

Look, we don't have it with you for not showing up. It can be... even at some point.
what is not acceptable is that a pivellino user (just written) takes the arrogance to criticize a moderator for trying to enforce the rules.

I refer above all to diegovens, not to you.

 

[gerod]

@ Martian.
My intervention is correct in the sense that I have only reported to you that there are rules and that posts should be written and "signed" in the correct discussions.
Your post was posted qui. the first post of the moderator says:

I remember, however, that the first, the largest and most complete source of information about ansys is, listen to, his online guide.
in the guide of ansys is practically everything: theory, tutorials and, what few look at, the so-called "verification manuals".
in particular the "verification manuals" of classical ansys each have an input file in apdl language that re-proves all the problem.

I strongly hope that other users of the forum can integrate this list, and I propose that all the "news" of ansys study well these links! !

If you had left the post in that discussion probably nobody would have answered!

Anyway, I repeat, I didn't want to argue and iron, I just wanted to punctuate. No offense.

@ digovens.
I do not accept such judgments! you are new enough not to know me and therefore not to judge me. Did I judge you when I canceled your double discussion?
I, like other mods, are here for free!
if we try to maintain a certain rigour and give the forum a professional character is precisely thanks to the work of mods and those users who contribute constructively.
you did it by reporting a solution but the approach to the mod is not correct.
I have not offended Martian (if you feel offended by my post I apologize, it was not my intention also because it is not the first and will not be the last to which you will be asked to pay attention).
I stop here and discuss serious things, that is the solution to the problem of Martian.
Thank you.

 

[volaff]

to describe the membrane behavior is more likely to use a shell element.

 

[marziana]

@gerod:
thank you so much for turning the post in the place appropriate...in fact being new I just denied this kind of thing! I ask for venia this time! !


As for my problem, it's been about a week I've come across with the tutorials... nowhere we talk about comparing with the beam theory.. and I wondered if the comparison is plausible only for beam elements or even with other elements such as plane or shell that still offer to receive a distributed load.

 

[volaff]

Usually to describe the behaviour of the beams are used beam elements (3 and 4), while to describe the membrane behaviour (taste/plate) the shell elemtno.

 

[diegovens]

one of the reasons why I erased from facebook was just this.
I "returned" to a question and it didn't seem like I should introduce myself. Isn't my profile enough? (student engineering, thirty, etc.). I don't understand. I'll read the rules.
That said the discussion is going a little further and it was not what I was looking for in this forum.
Martian excuse but I really lost myself after all these messages that do not have to do with the question.. .

 

[gerod]

one of the reasons why I erased from facebook was just this.
I "returned" to a question and it didn't seem like I should introduce myself. Isn't my profile enough? (student engineering, thirty, etc.). I don't understand. I'll read the rules.
That said the discussion is going a little further and it was not what I was looking for in this forum.
Martian excuse but I really lost myself after all these messages that do not have to do with the question.. .

I have already said to close the controversy.
I clarified myself with Martian who is the direct interested.
Okay? I think I've been very clear, enough controversy and we contribute to the forum with technical and constructive aspects.
Thank you.

 

[marziana]

Bye!
I tried to evaluate the beam3 framed with distributed load ..I respected the size for the analytical theory ..i. the size of height and thickness smaller than at least 1\30 the length of the beam...the solution is not exactly made! I built the keypoints and then lines and from here meshato.after the disaster I applied the distributed load on beam...
How come?
I tried the procedure for beam4 and the solution is made but in post processing I do not see any deformation.
help!

 

[volaff]

have you assigned the properties of the material?

 

[marziana]

Hello volaff!
I actually tried. I made a dimensional error of some quantities!
I keep working on it!
Thank you very much

 

[marziana]

Hello, everyone!
kind participants I found my very similar solutions using beam3 elements and plane82... very close to the analytical case unless the deflection resulting from concentrated load to the extremity that in the analytical case gives me a double arrow of the length while ansys gives me an arrow equal to the length.. The questions are as follows:
1. Is my polymer pdms material right to approximate it with beam3 and plane82 that fit the elastic beam theory?
2. How come the results coincide for the distributed load and the load in half-carry ( comparing the deflections along the axis parallel to the application of the loads ) and not for the load to the free end?
3. Now my task is to create this element as part of a circular membrane and then to carry out a rotation around an axis that coincides with the free extreme..just change the keyoption in the case of plane82 and activate axisimmetry and then create a circumference? How do I tell him to make a revolution?

Thank you so much!!

 

[volaff]

a curiosity, but of the polymer material you have?