I often work with large plate structures with many overlapping parts that are welded or bolted. Using midplane mesh should be the best way to achieve this to achieve a reasonable run time/accuracy compromise. With the help of your support staff, we have explored the many ways to achieve this but have found that midplane meshing is too hard to use (see my posts or history with subscription centre).
I found that I have to resort to using 20 node brick elements often only 1 element thick to achieve a reasonable run time/accuracy compromise.
What would be very helpful is to add a way of adding contacts between midplane meshed parts just like between solid elements (i.e. bonded, welded contacts etc). Hopefully this could be done automatically or manually.
In addition, It would be great if we could add bolts to midplane meshed parts just like solid meshed parts.
Along with this, it would be wonderful to have an easy method of adding welds between midplane meshed parts.
Fatigue tool is great in many sense but the currect application is 32bit and fails to work on large models. Can we upgrade the fatigue tool to 64bit so one can work with larger models.
Alternatively, the interface can be adjusted to selectively transfer parts to fatigue tools. Currently this can be done only after whole model is read into the fatigue wizard application, which creates the bottle neck. It may be just easier to add this filter funtionality to enable working with larger models.
I frequently model structures that have thin cross sections but are welded and oriented in ways that make plate/shell elements undesirable. It would be nice to be able to define requirements for meshing brick/tet elements such that one could have greater control over their generation.
An example of this is a welded structure of thin walled square tubing where von Mises stress is important to the design. The ability to control the meshing so that there are at least 3 elements through the thickness of the tubing but the elements are long and slender enough that there isn't too many elements would be advantageous. Additionally, this may help minimize the issue when the mesher goes into the mode where is "Closes Remaining Voids" ad infinitum.
Perhaps one way of doing this is to select two surfaces and define a minimum number of elements that must be placed in between them for standard brick/tet elements. Thoughts?
I would like to be able to export the results from a "parametric dimension" static simulation and/or be able to view my contraint values for each simulation at once, rather than having to use the little scroll bar to view the results for each individual configuration. Also, it would be nice to be able to generate cross/overlay plots for multiple constraints, ie convergence of min. weight and max safety factor.
A user I was speaking with proposed that Simulation Mechanical/Multiphysics be able to display the material color when a material is chosen for a part, instead of the parts of an assembly all just being gray (unless it has been assigned to a cad model and imported with it). So, for instance - say there was an assembly that you obtain from a step file. If you assign a material of gold to one or more parts, those parts would display in a gold color... cast iron a dark gray and so on. I like the idea, it would mimic what Inventor currently does.
ABAQUS has a results feature in their 2D models that provides the contact pressure between two surfaces. This would be very useful when determining how much two surfaces are in contact (i.e. gaskets for instance). Currently Simulation only has a feature for 3D.
I would like to be able to lay out my mixed model (wireframe+solids) in Inventor and then export wireframe and solids into a single model in Autodesk Simulation Mechanical.
Today we can only import Surface and Solid parts from Inventor to Simulation Mechanical.
It would be great if we can import Wireframe geometry in addition to Solids and Surfaces directly from Inventor to Simulation Mechanical, instead of having to convert the wireframe objects to an IGES file.
In the same time than it has been proposed in the 2014 version the keeping of the nodal joints,...it should be great to keep the loads applied on nodes, after a remeshing.
This could be easily made by defing any nodes that support a force as a construction nodes and so to be kept..
My short wish list:
1) The program to be reconfigured so that when you kill a meshing session, kill an analysis the program QUICKLY,
completely terminates such that you can proceed with your changes.
2) All windows are closed at the same location ie at the lower RH of the window is where the box to click would be located.
3) A part in the model can be updated from the solid model instead of re-importing the entire model and re-establishing all the node based features that were lost.
4) The bugs that I found and were reported to the developers were actually corrected.
I am going to stop there. Thanks.
I often analyze assemblies that has 10 or more parts. I need an easy to use postprocessing tool that can show me the minimum and maximum results for a given result type (such as von Mises Stress or Temperature) on a per part basis.
Submodeling is a powerful tool available in many analysis tools. Even if the model sizes can be increased with currently technology, there is still a need for submodeling capability to analyze certain areas of a design. Development team can start with extending the interpolation tool for temperature results to displacement results and such.
I would like to be able to use the groups, defined in FEA EDITOR, also for the post processing
in the same way, on a model, when some probes are defined, it could be very useful to have the same ones on a scenario (with the same mesh) created by copying the originial one (where the probe is present)
It would be very nice for the Results - Load Case Options - set, popup window to stay open. Often times I have to guess at the load case I want, currently I have to open the window every time and type in a new one if I want to jump around. If there could be an "apply" button added to this popup, it would solve the problem.
Some very mechanical things have to be validated against a code. In Europe we have the Eurocode for example. Soon this will be nececary for everything that is bolted to the ground (and a lot of machines are). So the ability to perform studies in a philosophy like Robot would be great to do in Mechanical so you get a really nice set of tools.
I build my 3D models using Inventor. I want to be able to run multiple Linear static stress analyses to understand the effect of a given set of parameters on my model in order to optimize my design for such criteria as weight, stress or deformation.
It would be helpful to add an option to orient orthotropic thermal brick elements to the UCS rather than only to three reference nodes. With the nodal reference requirement not only must you run a check, look up the node number (challenging on very large models), then go back to the preprocessor to input the nodes, but if you ever modify the model resulting in nodal renumbering, you must redo that lookup process.
Most of our models are built in orthogonal to the UCS, so a simple UCS alignment would save a lot of time. My recollection is that older versions (Algor) worked that way.