erikisolator
Mechanical
Hi all,
Long time SE user here (since version 2). I just upgraded my seat of SE to ST5 premium with the intention of using the more powerful Simulation package to do more of our FEA work in house. I previously only ever had access to Simulation Express (FEMAP express before that) and was aware of the limitations, the biggest for us being the lack of ability to analyze assemblies.
So I understand that Simulation is sort of in between the full version of FEMAP and FEMAP (simulation) Express. It is not quite as simplified as Express, but much simpler to use than FEMAP. Is this a correct assumption? That is what I was lead to believe.
So I have had some issues with Simulation. I kept getting errors of various types while trying to analyze fairly simple parts. Gtac support has be quite helpful and courteous, however, I have some concerns:
I intend to use Simuation to analyze all up assemblies of several tens of parts. I am trying to run a static loading test on just a few plates that are bolted together with covers attached. (like a big box with thicker top and bottom) The plates have some holes that are needed to make the structure work. Simulation is meshing them with incredible density, such that it takes almost 45 min to just mesh. It has tried to solve for over 3 hours and no results. Turning down the subjective mesh size slider has no effect. Is the only option to simplify the part to the point of having no holes? Are there settings in there that would help this? This seems counterproductive.
I also need to be able to analyze flexures that have thick and thin sections. Comparing a uniform fixed/free cantilever with hand calcs and Simulation checks out nicely. However, comparing a cantilever beam with a thin section near the fixed end produced differences of up to 5 times. This is troubling. Increasing the mesh density to something like 8 or 9 helps get the value closer, but it never quite matches. Is there some trick to doing this? Is Simulation not up to the task? There have even been instances where inceasing the thickness of the thin section has made the deflection under load go UP. This is backwards. Not too confidence inspiring.
Is anyone here actually using Simulation on assemblies (large or small) that contain real-world levels of detail and getting good results? Is there a better forum for me to be asking this within?
Thanks in advance,
Erik
Long time SE user here (since version 2). I just upgraded my seat of SE to ST5 premium with the intention of using the more powerful Simulation package to do more of our FEA work in house. I previously only ever had access to Simulation Express (FEMAP express before that) and was aware of the limitations, the biggest for us being the lack of ability to analyze assemblies.
So I understand that Simulation is sort of in between the full version of FEMAP and FEMAP (simulation) Express. It is not quite as simplified as Express, but much simpler to use than FEMAP. Is this a correct assumption? That is what I was lead to believe.
So I have had some issues with Simulation. I kept getting errors of various types while trying to analyze fairly simple parts. Gtac support has be quite helpful and courteous, however, I have some concerns:
I intend to use Simuation to analyze all up assemblies of several tens of parts. I am trying to run a static loading test on just a few plates that are bolted together with covers attached. (like a big box with thicker top and bottom) The plates have some holes that are needed to make the structure work. Simulation is meshing them with incredible density, such that it takes almost 45 min to just mesh. It has tried to solve for over 3 hours and no results. Turning down the subjective mesh size slider has no effect. Is the only option to simplify the part to the point of having no holes? Are there settings in there that would help this? This seems counterproductive.
I also need to be able to analyze flexures that have thick and thin sections. Comparing a uniform fixed/free cantilever with hand calcs and Simulation checks out nicely. However, comparing a cantilever beam with a thin section near the fixed end produced differences of up to 5 times. This is troubling. Increasing the mesh density to something like 8 or 9 helps get the value closer, but it never quite matches. Is there some trick to doing this? Is Simulation not up to the task? There have even been instances where inceasing the thickness of the thin section has made the deflection under load go UP. This is backwards. Not too confidence inspiring.
Is anyone here actually using Simulation on assemblies (large or small) that contain real-world levels of detail and getting good results? Is there a better forum for me to be asking this within?
Thanks in advance,
Erik
