Damian,
Glad it worked out for you. I've been so busy, I haven't had time to dig into the problem. If beams didn't work for you, I was going to mention using shell elements instead of solid elements, if you wanted to keep the fasteners in the joints (if fastener analysis was a requirement).
Yes thank you.
That's howIalways do.
I thought itcouldbe anothersolution.
Denis,
See if the attached files will assist you. This is a simple beam analysis using the beam tool and checking the reaction loads at the supports. File is Creo 3.0, and there is an attached Word doc showing the reaction loads compared to an existing problem, but supports are fixed on both ends. Just modify one end.
Steventhank you,
I already have theWord documentopenon the desktop.
I'll watchtheCreofile.
Sincerely.
Denis
Erik,
You're talking about turning off the Coordinate Systems in the Visibilities window permanently with a config option (shown below). I don't know if any way to do this, as I have searched for it myself. I can call tech support, and if there isn't a way to do it, then a Product Idea needs to be submitted.
You're right Steven, that's the one I would like to turn of using a config option (or for that matter: an Environment setting or whatever).
Can you ask them? Would be great.
Erik
Erik,
Try this:
mapkey toc @MAPKEY_NAMEsim pp turn off csys;@MAPKEY_LABELsim_pp_toc;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Select `pp_main_dlg` `ResMenuBar` 1 `FormatMenu`;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Close `pp_main_dlg` `ResMenuBar`;~ Activate `pp_main_dlg` `FormatDefBtn`;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Activate `pp_definition_format_dlg` `CoordSysCheck` 0;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Activate `pp_definition_format_dlg` `OKBtn`;
Yes, mapkeys work when looking at results. To create, open the mapkey editor before entering simulate results.
Regards,
Rod
Yes, the option is hidden in the UI, but there is a published document: CS116969 : When Wildfire4.0 is compared with Creo Parametric 1.0, the vision range of "Vision Window" is different in manikin mode.(Creo Parametric).
For camera views, it is probably better/easier to use the Render functionality (the settings allow to specify from-to locations for the perspective)
Erik,
There isn't a way to turn this off with a config option. If you try the config option display_coord_sys and set to No, it doesn't effect the post-processing results. I checked with PTC Technical Support, Case C1256637.
Rod,
Simple yet briliant!
I've used $F7 (Shift F7) to put it under 'cause I don't know which key "toc" is.
I've just edited it into the config.pro, so now it's always there.
Thanks a million
However: In the way I have it now, it seems to only work for the first results window. The second result window that I define and show has the coordinate system again, and the mapkey does not remove it?
Erik
Hi Steven
you sent me a message which strangely enough doesn't appear here.
You wrote: How did you edit it in the config.pro file and what did you edit?
I've just added the lines of text that Rod Giles gave us to my config.pro, that's all the editing I did.
To be more precise: I added the following lines:
!
! ***** Mapkey proposal by rod Giles to turn results CSYS off *****
!
!
mapkey $F7 @MAPKEY_NAMEsim pp turn off csys;@MAPKEY_LABELsim_pp_toc;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Select `pp_main_dlg` `ResMenuBar` 1 `FormatMenu`;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Close `pp_main_dlg` `ResMenuBar`;~ Activate `pp_main_dlg` `FormatDefBtn`;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Activate `pp_definition_format_dlg` `CoordSysCheck` 0;\
mapkey(continued) ~ Activate `pp_definition_format_dlg` `OKBtn`;
After restarting Creo-Simulate and creating a result window, pressing Shift-F7 removed the coordinate system.
After adding another result window, that had a coordinate system, that would not go away after pressing Shift- F7.
Erik
gkoch - Thanks for the input.
Ok the published document explains somewhat. Thanks
Paul,
I have made exactly this in Matlab and uploaded the *.m file here: https://www.ptcusercommunity.com/docs/DOC-6935
The matlab script extracts the max- and min- principal stress, and calculates the stress range for a series of load sets. In my case, I had a rotating load.
You need to request ASCII-output files ("Run-settings") . As it is now, it only extracts results for shell elements.
FYI I discovered a bug; according to PTC's support documentation, stresses in the "Analysis1.s01" files should be reported in a 9x6 matrix (tab delimited text).
As it happens, beam elements give a 7x6 matrix. I filed this to PTC Support, and that support case is now raised to an SPR (software performance report).
It took me some time to figure out what was wrong, but the matlab script now handles this. It identifies 7x6 stress martices and ignores those.
I hope this helps...
Best regards
/Mats Lindqvist
The original coordinates are in a different file... the *.neu file if I remember correctly.
/Mats L/
Hello,
I have a simple case of a cylindrical section beam with double all fixed constraint.
I made a straight line in parametric, and in simulate i put an idealization with a circular section beam, as in the picture:
The problem are on results, it seems that is not estimated the shear stress, indeed value of Von mises stress is the same of the Beam bending stress!
Thanks!
Hello,
I am working with creo parametric 2.0 and I would like to use a manikin to make a packaging note!
My problem is that when I insert it in my assembly, the manikin has no surface.... it's transparent!
I even downloaded one file found on grabcad and the manikin still transparent. only the shades can be seen with the option "NO HIDDEN".
Does anyone know how to tune my settings, in order to see my manikin?
Thanks
Design rules:
A) don't weld it
B) if you must, minimize welding
If you are looking for full blown transient analysis of welding with contacts&friction, weld deposition and temperature depended material properties, consider yielding of material, possibility to consider tag welds and fixtures - in order to know residual stresses in structures and deformation during welding - which you would use as an boundary condition for actual utility load. Then you will soon find that there is maby 2-3 software that can do most of it, somehow.
Then, on the other hand if you really look at hand calculationstandard and the assumptions there is - you will quite fast notice that most, if not all stress concentrations are just neglected from computation - since weld material is hoped to have enough plastic reserve (yield before break) which will even out worst hot sports. Also the total stiffness of structure is very hard to handle in manual computations.
If you just want to get a bit more accurate solution than your hand calculation you may use the FEM stress (components) from plates "near" welds and scale them with plate thickness and allowed stress (and some factor of safety) in order to find the throat size. Just be sure that you model the stiffness of welds correctly. This way the singularities caused by weld beads&plates can be omitted (and sometimes even the weld geometry as well).
No guarantee.
Analyzing welds using FEA (and by other techniques) is a large and complex topic. Unfortunately there are no easy shortcuts.
The international institute of welding (IIW) lists four techniques to analyze welds, in order of increasing complexity/difficulty of use:
1. The method of nominal stress
2. The hot spot method
3. The effective notch method
4. Fracture mechanics
1. Using the method of nominal stress, you don't model the weld itself. The calculated nominal stress in the shell (or solid) elements is then compared to a series of standardized weld connections where the allowable nominal stress has been obtained through extensive testing. Advantage: simple to use. Disadvantage: you can only analyze weld joints that are identical, or very similar to the the listed/tested weld joints. The IIW method of nominal strress is very similar to that of Eurocode 3.
2. Hot spot method. Same type of FEA model as in method 1: the weld geometry is not modeled. The stress at the weld toe is derived by linear extrapolation of the stress in the shell/solid elements to the location of the weld toe. This stress is called the hot spot stress. The allowable stress level, derived from testing is compared with the "hot spot stress". This is more general than method 1. but requires more work.
3. The effective notch method. The actual weld geometry is modeled using solid elements. The radii at the weld toes/weld root are modeled with a standardized 1 mm radius. The stress at those "notches" are compared with a value derived from testing, I recall its 225 MPa for welds in steel.
4. Fracture mechanics. This is only applicable for failure analysis and when you can measure the length/geometry of existing cracks. To my knowledge it is primarily used in nuclear, aircraft and pressure vessel engineering.
The stress levels derived from testing according to methods 1-3 are called "fatigue classes" abbreviated FAT. That stress level is the stress evaluated using each method, that results in a fatigue life of 2 million cycles. IIW provides S-N the entire curves derived from testing, for all methods, as well as suggestions for fatigue life estimation using damage theory.
These methods (1-3) by no means cover all cases and are not perfect. The effective notch method for example, has been proven to be non-conservative, at least for plates thicker than those used in the tests to derive the FAT-class for this method.
As I said, analyzing welds using FEA is a large complex topic that can not be covered here.
/Mats L
I was referring to "The method of nominal stress" with my comment. Thank you for complete answer.
More on fatigue: www.eurofitnet.org/FITNETBasicTrainingPackage.pdf