I only ran it as a quick-check, but it took about 19 minutes, to be compared with about 7 minutes with 1 contact + 2 bonded interfaces+quick check. So the 2+ hours it took for the model with SPA+one contact+2 bonded interfaces should be expected to take considerably more than 2 hours with 3 contacts + SPA. SPA is not good for non-linear it seems. My advice is to run quick-check + fine mesh. Not "Creo-kosher" but what do you do...?
↧
Re: ANSYS - Creo Simulate discrepancy
↧
Re: Calculate stress intensity factor...?
I ran this model when this functionality was first introduced just to see if it would work. I've always used StressCheck for SIF, but I don't do facture mechanics often. I attached the model. Hope this helps.
↧
↧
Re: Non-symmetric results for symmetric model and load?
John,
Can you upload the model?
↧
Re: Water animation in pump
You could use FloEFD with Creo for CFD analysis.
↧
Re: Titles on Creo 3.0 Simulate Results Windows
Hello Colin,
presuming your agreement (based on your last post), I will mark Charles' answer as Correct Answer, to signal this issue has been clarified
Thanks,
Gunter
↧
↧
Re: Non-symmetric results for symmetric model and load?
Here is a simple model. Just a cone fixed at one end with an internal pressure. Results are good if the angle of the cone is 0 deg (tube) but as the angle of the cone increases, the displacement results get more un-symmetric.
↧
Re: Calculate stress intensity factor...?
Thanks Steven, I had gotten it wrong how to model the crack...
B.R. Mats L
↧
Re: Non-symmetric results for symmetric model and load?
I thought this was the model you were going to upload. I already have the cone model.
↧
Simulate Idea
Hello,
Simulate lets you perform analysis using symmetries (either cyclic or mirror). The problem is that in order to use symmetries, you have to create the part or assembly using Creo.
It should be cool if simulate allows you to cut or remove material from a non-creo model. In that way, you can simulate a turbine modeled in Catia or Solidworks using symmetries, avoiding that your computer fries with each blade.
That's all.
↧
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
You can easily cut a model created in non-Creo CAD system, this works fine. If it's a surface model (i.e. iges), you might need to patch up your surface so that it becomes "water-tight", then solidify it. With STEP, if exported as a solid, you can add/remove geometry, add rounds/holes etc. as usual. With the "feature recognition tool" you can "parameterize" rounds, chamfers, holes etc. so that you get features in the model tree, with parametric control.... I don't have experience from other tools, but in my view Creo is a great tool for manipulating imported geometry. Provided you have a Creo Parametric license of course... Otherwise you can just ask the creator/owner of the orignial CAD-file to cut it for you.
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
Now I realize that I can (as an assembly part).
Can you explain me how this work: "With the "feature recognition tool" you can "parameterize" rounds, chamfers, holes etc."
Thank you.
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
The feature recognition tool is under the "Get data"-menu, see picture below. For example, if you want to turn a fillet into a regular round-feature that you want to modify or delete, click "Search fillet", click on the fillet, and then "OK". Your model will appear identical, but in the model tree, you will see two new features. First a "remove"-feature that removes the fillet. Then you will see a new "round" that reproduces the previous fillet with a new parametric "Creo-round".
I mostly use it to delete fillets,chamfers etc. from an imported model. In such cases I first use the "feature recognition tool" and then I simply delete the round/chamfer etc. and keep only the "remove"-feature.
I hope it helps...
B.R. Mats L
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
Excellent information.
Thank you!
↧
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
I don't think this Feature Recognition is part of standard Creo/Parametric.
In any case, I do not have it in my Creo2 here at work, which has the following options:
| 347 | Freestyle_Design_Extension | ModelCHECK | |
| 4DNavigator | HARNESS-MFG | NOTEBOOK | |
| AE | INTERFACE | Options_Modeler_Basic | |
| ASSEMBLY | INTF-CADDS5 | PHOTORENDER | |
| Behavioral_Modeler | INTF-CADDS5 | PIPING | |
| CABLING | INTF_for_STEP | PLOT | |
| CDT | Import_Data_Doctor | PROCESS_ASM | |
| COMPOSITE | Interactive_Surface_Design | REPORT | |
| Collaboration | Intralink_8_0 | SCAN_TOOLS | |
| DATA_for_PDGS | LEGACY | SHEETMTL-DES | |
| DETAIL | LIBRARYACCESS | SURFACE | |
| Design_Animation | Layout_3D_Integration | Truly_Heterogenous_Assembly | |
| ECAD | Manikin | WELDING | |
| FEATURE | Mechanism_Design | Web.Link | |
| Flexible_Modeling | Mechanism_Dynamics | Web.Publish |
↧
Need help regarding 3 point constraint system
I created a simple analysis with a 3-point constraint system for a plate with hole in it (the part is attached in zip file with this post)
However whenever I try to analyse the part, it keeps throwing the following error:
The unconstrained degree of freedom can be seen by running
a constrained Modal Analysis with rigid mode search.
Animating the rigid modes will display the unconstrained
degrees of freedom. If the error still occurs, then the
issue could be caused by material properties or unattached
spring/mass idealizations.
How do I fix this problem?
↧
Re: Simulate Idea
Yes, it's in Creo 2. I use it all the time when I deal with imported geometry. Even if it is native Creo geometry, it is sometimes convenient to export a step-file that I then re-import to work on that instead of the original Creo file. When I prepare a CAD-model for analysis, it is sometimes a lot of work to change something if the model tree lights up like a christmas tree when you try to change something. With a step export-import, you eliminate all dependencies.
↧
Simulate, through thickness average stress also called membrane stress
Hi,
I am running Creo 3 Simulate, I am trying to determine the stress within the walls of a pressure vessel from external pressure, linear Von Mises has been run successfully, but we are now instructed to do membrane average stress, my question, is this possible and a different output menu pick for the analysis run. I am relatively new to Simulate.
thanks anyone
Geoff.
↧
↧
Re: PTC Simulate changes file type of other programs
Thanks, David, for your response. I am taking steps to make the changes you discussed.
However, there is a related problem.. When I do a manual change procedure, shown in the second screenshot (above), It does not have the option of selecting a choice that will associate Creo Parametric 3.0 files instead of Simulate files. Do you know how I can get to the Creo Parametric 3.0 files? In particular, I am looking for an option that can associate files with the *.PRT extension.
Regards,
Steve Ferns
↧
Re: PTC Simulate changes file type of other programs
Did you miss "Browse"? I suppose one should go to the batch file that is typically used to prep the environment. Still, I find it useless to have any files related to Creo.
Additionally, PTC doesn't create files with a .prt extension. They create files with a .1, .2, .3. ,4, ... .999, ...1xxx extensions.
If it looks like that in your folders, uncheck the 'Hide File Extensions" button in the folder properties.
↧
Re: Simulate, through thickness average stress also called membrane stress
If you have a shell model, then you can request shell membrane and/or shell bending stress results. This basically means that the stress in the shell is a combination of a tensile, or "membrane"-stress plus a bending stress, and Creo can separate these two and report the results individually. For shell elements the stress distribution through the shell is assumed to be linear. This is true for "thin", relatively flat structures.
If you are running a solid model, (more appropriate for "thick" structures), the resulting stress distribution through the thickness might not be linear. Then you can request linearized results. This means that the actual stress distribution is approximated with a linear distribution that gives the same section force/moment as the actual distribution. From this linearized stress result you get the membrane stress (i.e. pure tensile/compressive component) and bending component.
The reason (I think) for separating the stress distribution into membrane and bending components, is that norms/standards such as ASME, Norske Veritas etc, require bending and membrane stresses to be evaluated differently.
See help/support documentation for "linearized stress results" or "linearized stress query"...
↧
