SOLIDWORKS Desktop<\/p>\n
- \n
- Trick to detach segment without end point relationship<\/a><\/li>\n
- Sheet metal corner modeling problem<\/a><\/li>\n
- \u201cMates have been reversed\u201d \u2013 Can I turn it off?<\/a><\/li>\n
- Creating a Solid Feature from Surfaces<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
SOLIDWORKS PDM<\/p>\n
- \n
- User Account Settings Overriding Group Settings<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
SOLIDWORKS Simulation<\/p>\n
- \n
- Taking Sheet Metal Welds into account in Simulations<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation<\/p>\n
- \n
- Quick customization of the color legend<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
So go explore the forums. If you find other good tips and tricks, let us know so we can feature them here in this blog.<\/p>\n
When NOT to use Beam elements in SOLIDWORKS Simulation<\/h1>\n
By Julien Boissat
\n<\/em><\/p>\nMost if not all of the writings <\/a>about beam elements focus on telling when to use beam elements<\/a>. They tell you something like this:<\/p>\n
The basic guidelines for when to use a beam element are:<\/em><\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
The length of the element is much greater than the width or depth.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The element has constant cross-sectional properties.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
They don\u2019t tell you, however, when NOT to use beam elements. That\u2019s precisely what I\u2019m going to do
![\"Smiling](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Screen-capture.jpg\")
.<\/p>\nAlthough SOLIDWORKS Simulation automatically treats as Beams all the Structural Members in your model, this absolutely doesn\u2019t mean that you have to blindly accept this default setting. Using beam elements to represent a solid geometry has drastic consequences on the representation of the actual structure, the mesh and results: extreme simplification of geometry, different types of stress outputs, connections with other components. Choosing the appropriate type of element to represent a body requires an engineering sense only humans can have. Don\u2019t let the machine do it for you!<\/p>\n
![\"Solid](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Solid-and-beam-meshes.png\")
<\/p>\nAs a matter of fact, when a solid is treated as a beam, the actual geometry is completely inaccessible to the simulation, and it is replaced with a simple line (straight or curved depending on the case). Therefore, each cross section of the beam is represented by a single point on that line. A set of values (called section properties) represent the mechanical properties of the cross section. They give the beam mesh a behavior that is equivalent to that of the solid mesh taken as a whole.<\/p>\n
There are many more consequences to treating a body as a beam or as a solid. The table below aims at giving the main ones:<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Solid Mesh<\/td>\n Beam mesh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \n - \n
- Computationally expensive<\/li>\n
- Geometry preserved<\/li>\n
- Shape of cross section remains<\/li>\n
- Mechanical behavior derived from solid mesh<\/li>\n
- Results at all locations<\/li>\n
- All 6 components of stress<\/li>\n
- Stress hot spots can be taken into account<\/li>\n
- von Mises stress<\/li>\n
- No-Penetration contacts are available<\/li>\n
- Local variations of the cross section are possible (holes, stiffening plates, etc.)<\/li>\n
- Detailed interactions with the rest of the structure are possible<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n - \n
- Computationally cheap<\/li>\n
- Geometry replaced with line<\/li>\n
- Section reduced to a point<\/li>\n
- Mechanical behavior from section properties<\/li>\n
- Results at neutral fiber, extrapolated to bounding rectangle of cross section<\/li>\n
- Special stress components (axial, shear, bending)<\/li>\n
- Stress hot spots are ignored<\/li>\n
- von Mises stress not available<\/li>\n
- No-Penetration contacts are not possible<\/li>\n
- Cross section cannot be modified locally<\/li>\n
- Interactions with the rest of the structure are unrefined<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/p>\n
You will find examples below of cases where Beam elements are not the preferred type for various reasons:<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n \n Example 1<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the image below, the vertical I beam should not be treated as a Beam if it is important to take into account the triangular stiffeners.<\/p>\n
![\"Exemple1\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Exemple1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/td>\n
\n Example 2<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the image below, the horizontal C channels should not be treated as Beams since it would then be impossible to represent the connection with the pin.<\/p>\n
\u00a0
![\"Exemple2\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Exemple2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n \n Example 3<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the image below, the I beam should not be treated as a Beam if it is important to take into account either the superimposed rectangular flat plate or the other stiffener.<\/p>\n
\u00a0
![\"Exemple3\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Exemple3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/td>\n\n Example 4<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the image below, the I beam should not be treated as a Beam. The bonded connection of the plate onto the flange of the I beam cannot be accurately represented if a beam mesh is used..<\/p>\n
\u00a0
![\"Exemple4\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/Exemple4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/p>\n
SOLIDWORKS 2017 Beta<\/h1>\n
![\"SOLIDWORKS](\"http:\/\/blogs.solidworks.com\/tech\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/SOLIDWORKS-Beta-216-image1.png\")
<\/p>\nThe SOLIDWORKS 2017 Beta <\/strong>has ended. We want to thank you all for your participation and your precious feedback.<\/p>\n
Check out the leader board <\/a>with the most productive users and VARs of the contest.<\/p>\n
Simulation Step-Up Series<\/h1>\n
- \n
- \n
- Quick customization of the color legend<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Taking Sheet Metal Welds into account in Simulations<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Sheet metal corner modeling problem<\/a><\/li>\n