Inventor Nastran Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’sInventor Nastran Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor Nastran topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Nonlinear-Transient Analysis Drop Test for Assembly

4 REPLIES 4
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 5
Anonymous
865 Views, 4 Replies

Nonlinear-Transient Analysis Drop Test for Assembly

Anonymous
Not applicable

Hello, I am currently trying to drop test a model I made in Inventor Nastran, and have setup a non-linear transient analysis for it based on the Ball Impact Exercise directions. However, once I setup all of the idealizations, contact, meshing, constraints, etc. When I run the model no matter how I define the contact, the model will simply pass through the floor and keep going down until it hits the time limit.  Does anyone have any ideas on how to define the contact/constraints so the model hits the floor and then rebounds like it would in real life? 

I can provide files if needed, see attached for animation of the issue.

 

Ball Impact Exercise: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-nastran/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018/...

0 Likes

Nonlinear-Transient Analysis Drop Test for Assembly

Hello, I am currently trying to drop test a model I made in Inventor Nastran, and have setup a non-linear transient analysis for it based on the Ball Impact Exercise directions. However, once I setup all of the idealizations, contact, meshing, constraints, etc. When I run the model no matter how I define the contact, the model will simply pass through the floor and keep going down until it hits the time limit.  Does anyone have any ideas on how to define the contact/constraints so the model hits the floor and then rebounds like it would in real life? 

I can provide files if needed, see attached for animation of the issue.

 

Ball Impact Exercise: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-nastran/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018/...

Labels (2)
4 REPLIES 4
Message 2 of 5
Roelof.Feijen
in reply to: Anonymous

Roelof.Feijen
Advisor
Advisor

Hello @Anonymous ,

 

Please attach your model. That would make it much easier to see what is wrong with the analysis.

Roelof Feijen

If my post answers your question, please click the "Accept Solution" button. This helps everyone find answers more quickly!
0 Likes

Hello @Anonymous ,

 

Please attach your model. That would make it much easier to see what is wrong with the analysis.

Roelof Feijen

If my post answers your question, please click the "Accept Solution" button. This helps everyone find answers more quickly!
Message 3 of 5
Anonymous
in reply to: Roelof.Feijen

Anonymous
Not applicable

Here is the link to the folder on Google Drive: 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YyJYZ0cHyQlMrRjIjn4Avb8EbODdf2qc?usp=sharing

 

Please use the drop.iam file for the Nastran test, and update me with any suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks,

Marcus

0 Likes

Here is the link to the folder on Google Drive: 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YyJYZ0cHyQlMrRjIjn4Avb8EbODdf2qc?usp=sharing

 

Please use the drop.iam file for the Nastran test, and update me with any suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks,

Marcus

Message 4 of 5
Roelof.Feijen
in reply to: Anonymous

Roelof.Feijen
Advisor
Advisor
Accepted solution

Hello @Anonymous ,

 

You have a contact issue and you needs to make some other changes.

1. Contact between the Binder Base + Support and the efficentfloor. The Activation Distance can be calculated from SQRT(mesh size ^2 + distance^2) = SQRT(0.1^2+0.136^2) = 0.33 in.

2.  I would add a solver contact > bonded type, because you are missing contacts between the other parts and the Binder Base + Support.

3. This solver contact doesn't create a contact between multi bodies. Binder Base + Support is a made up of 3 Solid Bodies. Use the Combine feature to combine them to one single body.

4. I added an extra Mesh refinement (0.15 in) to part Circle Cover v2.4 L:1  because of meshing issues.

5. I changed the time step size to 0.00004 sec (1/(100* dominant frequency). 

 

Below an animation of the result. 

For some reason I can't attach a simple zip file with a size of 4 MB to this post, so you can download your modified model here. (The link is valid until June, 4th, 2021).

 

Instead of Structural Damping I would suggest Rayleigh Damping. Take a look at this post.

Roelof Feijen

If my post answers your question, please click the "Accept Solution" button. This helps everyone find answers more quickly!

Hello @Anonymous ,

 

You have a contact issue and you needs to make some other changes.

1. Contact between the Binder Base + Support and the efficentfloor. The Activation Distance can be calculated from SQRT(mesh size ^2 + distance^2) = SQRT(0.1^2+0.136^2) = 0.33 in.

2.  I would add a solver contact > bonded type, because you are missing contacts between the other parts and the Binder Base + Support.

3. This solver contact doesn't create a contact between multi bodies. Binder Base + Support is a made up of 3 Solid Bodies. Use the Combine feature to combine them to one single body.

4. I added an extra Mesh refinement (0.15 in) to part Circle Cover v2.4 L:1  because of meshing issues.

5. I changed the time step size to 0.00004 sec (1/(100* dominant frequency). 

 

Below an animation of the result. 

For some reason I can't attach a simple zip file with a size of 4 MB to this post, so you can download your modified model here. (The link is valid until June, 4th, 2021).

 

Instead of Structural Damping I would suggest Rayleigh Damping. Take a look at this post.

Roelof Feijen

If my post answers your question, please click the "Accept Solution" button. This helps everyone find answers more quickly!
Message 5 of 5
Anonymous
in reply to: Roelof.Feijen

Anonymous
Not applicable

Thank you so much for the help. I appreciate it.

 

-Marcus

Thank you so much for the help. I appreciate it.

 

-Marcus

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report