Can you retype that in other words please, I do not understand what you mean?
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
↧
Manikin field of view problem
Has anyone had a problem with Creo manikin extension where manikin vision window sometimes shows wider FOV?
Wider one seems to be peripheral vision of manikin. But there is no rule when it shows up instead of regular one except it usualy happens when more then one manikin in use in model.
↧
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
Hi Patrick,
Oops, sorry, I do not speakEnglish, I pass by an automatic translator.
I triedboth of yourmethods, butit does not work.
If Iconstraineda pointin the centerof the beam,I have noarrow.
Simply supported, by symmetry,I am notsufficientlyconstrained.
Sincerely.
Denis
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
Denis,
Ca serait plus facile à comprende si tu téléchargerais un image, un fichier etc. Moi non plus comprends ton question... Même une image dessiné par main va le faire...
/Mats L
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
Bonjour Mats,
Merci.
Comment simuler une poutre en appuis simple des deux cotés.
How to simulateasinglebeamsupportson both sides.
Sincerely.
Denis
↧
↧
structural and modal analysis using creo
Dear friends,
Share standard documents of creo elements for static structural and modal analysis.
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
I don't have that problem... see example attached
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
2 modèles, une piece 3D et une modèle coque.
Dans le modèle 3D, j'ai utilisé des "rigid link" (je ne sais pas le mot en francais - lien rigide?) pour eviter une singularité. La contrainte est théoriquement infinie sur le bord.
Puisque Creo Simulate est un logiciel adaptatif, if faut utiliser des "rigid links" (ou des liens pondérés) pour eviter des hauts contraintes vers des singularités. Dans autres logiciels on peut en eviter par faire des elements trop grands. Comme ca, le maillage n'est pas capable de correctement répresenter la contrainte.
J'espère cela vous aidera...
/Mats L
↧
Re: How to add a curved coil spring in Pro-E mechanism
Hello,
Here's alink.
It seems to methat there aredemoson the PTCsite.
Sincerely.
Denis
↧
↧
Re: How to add a curved coil spring in Pro-E mechanism
I suspect the OP wants the spring to compress during the simulation.
Have a look here:
Feder in Animation darstellen? Create a Spring in Animation mode?
↧
Re: Temperature Dependant Material Properties
Hello Ben,
has Christopher's answer solved your question?
If yes, please mark his answer as Correct Answer. This will mark the thread as answered and helps the community identify whether help is still needed or whether the thread provides an answer.
Thanks,
Gunter
↧
Re: Thermal Analysis of our Solar System
I assume you want to add movement to the simulation (in your case probably planets circling)?
Unfortunately this is not possible with Simulate. You can only vary conditions and loads over time.
Mechanism allows to simulate movements, but I doubt it can be combined with Simulate in a way you can have movements there.
Anybody with an idea how such a thing could be done?
↧
Re: Manikin field of view problem
There was a difference in the vision range between Creo Elements/Pro 5.0 and Creo Parametric 1.0 - could it be related in some way?
The option manikin_vision_in_emb_layout no allows to use the legacy vision, but I do not assume that you switch between the settings...
↧
↧
Re: structural and modal analysis using creo
Could you explain in more details, what you mean with standard documents? Do you mean result templates?
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
HelloMats,
Hello Patrick,
Sorry for notspeakingEnglish.
Thank youfor yourexamples.
I do notknowall these methods.
Butthe beamshould not stayon his feet.
Itshould slide.
Simulaterequiresconstraintson his feet.
Sincerely.
Denis
↧
Re: Contact surface area error
Steven,
I took your advice and built the model using the beam idealization. It was faster and much easier to run the simulation. It took me some time to learn how to do it but it is easier.
Thanks.
↧
Re: Manikin field of view problem
No I didnt use that setting. Its hidden option? Cant locate it with find.
Actually sometimes I need periferal view from manikin to give my client screenshots of entire facility from certain viewpoint.They are planing to put cameras on certain places so they need to see what camera will see from those points to decide. Is there a way to set vision range or Field of view?
↧
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
Hello,
Thank youfor your veryspecific answers.
ActuallyI have notchosen the rightdesign formy question.
It is asimplysupported beamlaidplans withoutrestraint.
Seethe attacheddrawing.
Sincerely.
Denis.
↧
Re: Simulation of a beam on two simple supports
The same constraints would be appropriate, even so.
To ensure 'necessary and sufficient' constraint, we assume that one end will slide and the other end will remain fixed.
↧
Results coordinate system, is there a default off?
Since Creo, we have this ugly coordinate system that appears in every result window, in the origin of the model.
I know how to switch it off, but have to do that for each and every result window again. it's still there in Creo 3.0, but I have not yet found a config option to set the default to off. Who knows how to do that?
Thanks in advance
Erik
↧