Re: Parts on top of fasteners
Yes there is a contact constraint between the frame and panels & nothing strange shows up with review geometry.
View ArticleRe: Parts on top of fasteners
No I can't. Several problems: 1. I can't work out how to properly describe the problem in only 225 characters.2. I can't find out what the datecode of the software is (which is required)3. I don't know...
View ArticleRan analysis but can't see results
I ran a static analysis on a small part and the status window says the run completed successfully, but when I click on the View Result icon or use any of the "Results" drop downs nothing happens. It...
View ArticleRe: Ran analysis but can't see results
Richard, Could you post the contents of the status window?
View ArticleRe: Parts on top of fasteners
I have run into a similar issue where another part touches the head of a Mechanica fastener and fails.As far as I know if you need a part to touch a fastener you will need to fully model the fastener...
View ArticleRe: Ran analysis but can't see results
Well, I had to switch servers (we are using Intralink) to work on a different project, and when I got back to my analysis the results display was working again. Just a software glitch, I guess.
View ArticleRe: Parts on top of fasteners
Perhaps is something to do with the annular surface region that is created to connect the fastener element via weighted links? Adding your extra parts over the top covers this over and may upset this...
View ArticleRe: Ran analysis but can't see results
Did you confirm the run settings are pointing the the right location? This is the usual reason results get 'lost'.
View ArticleRe: Elastoplastic Curve Generation
Paul, I too have used the Ramberg Osgood relation, it seems to be generally accepted. Could TAD D confirm or correct the following please? the material curve input is interpretted one of 2 ways...
View ArticleHave lost confidence in mass properties calculations
Just can't rely on results. Going to have to simply use spreadsheets (which is terrible... but reliable). I've had various problems over the years so yesterday I sat down and rely analyzed things. Have...
View ArticleRe: Have lost confidence in mass properties calculations
Interesting observation and certainly worth reporting as a customer service case. There has to be an explanation. Just out of curiosity, are there interferences between the parts?How do you account...
View ArticleRe: Have lost confidence in mass properties calculations
The PTC customer support rep figured out what was going on... and an acceptable (I think) work around. For the masses of "fully assigned" components to properly roll-up (and sum up) to next level...
View ArticleRe: Have lost confidence in mass properties calculations
This is indeed critical knowledge for those of us who use these properties. How do you: For the masses of "fully assigned" components to properly roll-up (and sum up) to next level assemblies you MUST...
View ArticleRe: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!
Hi Chauncey, Could you please file a case with Technical Support if you have not already done so (if you have, could you let me know the case id ?). I'm guessing such corruption may point to an issue...
View ArticleRe: Have lost confidence in mass properties calculations
You can literally type the values in the fields. I had been using 1 [for density] and 1 [for volume] for all objects regardless of the mass I had wanted to "roll-up" to next levels. The "mass field"...
View ArticleRe: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!
Case # 11507002.Nothing remarkable about parameter names (caps, underscores, numbers).I am more creative with measure names though, do you really think that could create problems? I'm thinking "if it...
View ArticleRe: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!
Right, these names should not be a problem. I can't run A130717_1856_OPT2 because some of the shells are not part of the 2D model definition. Made a number of edits to resolve this, but didn't...
View Article