Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.
why in solid mechanics module there not a option for a no rotation boundary load
Posted 2024年3月22日 GMT-4 18:05 API, Structural Mechanics, Physics Interfaces Version 6.2 2 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
currently I have a model, for the cube I want it to have a no rotation constaint on it, However there is no option for a no rotation boundary load is there a workaround for this type of problem? I uploaded the mph file and the image of the cube where i want a no rotation boundary load
Attachments:
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
In a stationary mechanical setup you need to suppress rigid body movement to get an unambiguous solution. That means you suppress all 6 DOF, translations and rotations.
You only want to suppress rotations and still allow translations. I think the system is underdefined this way and the solver would not converge, even if you found a formal way to do that.
Second, what real physical arrangement would be constrained this way? It seems to be unphysical to me.
Maybe you want to analyze your problem again in order to see if the constraints you need can be achieved in a more realistic way.
-------------------Edgar J. Kaiser
emPhys Physical Technology
www.emphys.com
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
In a stationary mechanical setup you need to suppress rigid body movement to get an unambiguous solution. That means you suppress all 6 DOF, translations and rotations.
You only want to suppress rotations and still allow translations. I think the system is underdefined this way and the solver would not converge, even if you found a formal way to do that.
Second, what real physical arrangement would be constrained this way? It seems to be unphysical to me.
Maybe you want to analyze your problem again in order to see if the constraints you need can be achieved in a more realistic way.
got it i take a look at my problem again and see what need to be done.