remote mass and virtual bolt

[Spa]

Hello everyone!!! I noticed that in simulation there is the possibility to treat all bolts or screws present in the axieme as virtual connections (avoiding to go to create mesh in such small components). for the same reason there is also the voice "treated as virtual mass". in my opinion these two functions are very comfortable but...unfortunately they are not present in the fall test!!! Does anyone of you know if you can put them in the fall test? or if there is any method to lighten the calculations by making sure that some cmponents are considered only for their weight and not for their form? I thank in advance anyone who can give me useful advice on this! Have a good day! !

 

[Spa]

No idea??? ? ? ? ?

 

[ballino]

Bye to all,
I think your problem begins with the implementations contained in the version you use:
of version in version the additions of the pluses you ask for info are different.
try to see in the guide if the remote masses are employable.

in general, some beard is always admitted and exploiting various symmetries and shortenings models are never heavy.

try posting the file.

Hello,
dancer

p.s. to avoid being yelled at by the moderators waits for an answer and do not pin constantly.

 

[Spa]

Hello dance!!!! you are right...maybe I have been a little too frantic!! I apologize! I have the simulation professional version but it seems to have seen that these options are not even present on the premium version. I'm currently performing an internship within a company so I can't post the file. I'm sorry!!! in the fall test it is not even possible to exploit symmetry because you can not set symmetry constraints. that is, all those shortcomings that you can use in static case seem that in the fall test you cannot use!!! so I find myself working with the model practically complete getting some simulations of a few days!!!! is there anyone who had to deal with fall test??? ? thanks again to all those who will help me to carry out this project of thesis!!!! Good evening! !

 

[ballino]

Hello spa,

"My suspicions were founded... by the fact that we had already passed for certain swallows!

Let's start with symmetry and as you drip your problem (which doesn't have to be your studio) I'll try to make myself available.
symmetry is a suitable facilitation on flat faces.

1
How do you do if you have elements like rods? simply reproduce the constraints of hand symmetry (and always takes them). (the online guide is very complete)
ex sim piano xy. rx blocks, fy, fz

2
try to traffic with the surfaces roughing the problem.

3
last but not least. use mesh appropriately and variable according to zones.

dancer

 

[Spa]

Good morning dance!! Meanwhile...thank you very much for availability!!! As far as mesh is concerned, I have already stuck the most stressed areas, leaving a mesh more "grossolan" on the rest of the structure. the constraints instead are not really present in the fall test because if I did not understand bad to get good results with the fall test it is necessary to analyze the entire structure because the stresses that receives after the impact are almost never symmetries. considering that the constraints cannot be applied and that I have already used a mesh control the only idea left to lighten the simulation was to apply a virtual mass going to replace with only one point all those components that I do not want to analyze (as stresses) but to consider for their mass. Another idea that I had come to mind was to lead the fall to a static case, for example an equivalent force. only that a static force does not have the same effect on the structure of a dynamic force. it would take an impulsive force but in simulation I did not find. I'm a little desperate....