Ok, I've done that, but didn't change anything. The variable I was looking at before, was RF1. In cyl coord, I defined R as X, therefore I'm still looking at RF1 and that output hasn't changed.
In Abaqus/Standard, the Reaction Forces for half the nodes look like in the photo:
For the other half, it's the same signature, but magnitude ~8N. The stent is not quite positioned centrally, so I suspect that's why the values are not identical.
To solve the problem in a reasonable amount of time and to be able to make iterations, I used mass scaling. I didn't do a natural frequency extraction analysis, I tried a factor of 10 initially, then picked a factor of 400. The kinetic energy looked low, but maybe not low enough. I think that's...
This is how the reaction force vs. time looks. It's not correct... I requested Reaction Forces (History Output) for the crimper set (16 nodes). I added up the absolute values for each node per time increment. The time for the whole step is 1. Crimping goes from 0 to 0.5, uncrimping 0.5 to 1.
Thanks for your support, Dave. The stent is braided, the contact is pretty difficult, all researchers as far as I know have used Explicit. However, I managed to get the simulation running in both Standard and Explicit. The analysis is quasi-static as you've mentioned, I checked the kinetic...
Sounds pretty straight forward, but I can't seem to be able to do it. If I use a Smooth amplitude for applying the displacement, I get a wave curve for the RF at each node of the crimping tool. If I sum up the absolute values of these forces at each time increment, the values are around 1 order...
Hi guys,
my question is pretty similar. I'm using Abaqus/Explicit. The crimping tool in my case is octogonal in cross section. I used 3d deformable part and meshed it using SFM3D4R elements. One node on the stent is fixing it in the Z axial direction (cyl coord) and tool is crimped by inward...
