Is this correct way to get a fixed-fixed connection?

Is this correct way to get a fixed-fixed connection?

cagosi4788
Enthusiast Enthusiast
652 Views
7 Replies
Message 1 of 8

Is this correct way to get a fixed-fixed connection?

cagosi4788
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I have two big plates, and inbetween there is a smaller plate connecting the two bigger plates. I want the small plate to be fixed to both sides, and was wondering if I have done it correctly as seen in the attached picture?

 

I ask because I am working on a model someone else made, and their definition of fixed does not match what I think fixed end should be (displacement and rotations fully restricted). 

0 Likes
653 Views
7 Replies
Replies (7)
Message 2 of 8

Rafacascudo
Mentor
Mentor

Completely wrong. That full released bar on both ends will give you lots of instabilities warnings and results will be wrong.

Model the small plate also as a panel or at least as a non released bar with full rigid links from bar end nodes to big plate nodes within bar width

Rafael Medeiros
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature

Message 3 of 8

Krzysztof_Wasik
Autodesk Support
Autodesk Support

Hi @cagosi4788 

Release defined in your model has all defress of freedom free.

In your case small plate is simulated by beam. Remove release from beam (default beam /slab connection is fixed, no need for release definition).

To avoid stress concentration in slab/beam connection point I would recommend to connect each beam endnode with neighbouring slab nodes using rigid links. It will transfer force from beam to slab edge segment corresponding to beam width

 

Krzysztof_Wasik_0-1634049400874.png

 

 

 



Krzysztof Wasik
0 Likes
Message 4 of 8

cagosi4788
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Thank you for the reply Krystof; have I fixed the beam to be fixed-fixed now? 

1.png

In reality the bar is supposed to be a small plate that has been bolted underneath the two plates. Its supposed to prevent horizontal movement of the two bigger plates. I am not sure if it needs to be fixed-fixed, or fixed-pinned?

2.PNG

0 Likes
Message 5 of 8

cagosi4788
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I seem to have misread how the connection works . You seem knowledgeable at this topic, if I may also ask; In reality the bar is supposed to be a small plate that has been bolted underneath the two plates. Its supposed to prevent horizontal movement of the two bigger plates. I am not sure if it needs to be fixed-fixed, fixed-pinned or some other type of connection?

 

2.PNG

0 Likes
Message 6 of 8

Krzysztof_Wasik
Autodesk Support
Autodesk Support

Hi @cagosi4788 

If small plate is supposed to prevent horizontal movement I would use pinned pinned connection (in vertical plane). Small plate will not transfer significant bending moment if it is bolted like on the picture



Krzysztof Wasik
0 Likes
Message 7 of 8

cagosi4788
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Do you think there might be some instability issues if we dont fix one side? And if it is expected to carry some moment, do you think fixed-fixed or fixed-pinned could be a good idea? Would be hard to know which side to pin though...

0 Likes
Message 8 of 8

Krzysztof_Wasik
Autodesk Support
Autodesk Support

HI @cagosi4788 

I see only model part with mo supports and other connected members. I cannot sayif releases will cause instabilities. You can just run calculation and check with different releases setting.



Krzysztof Wasik
0 Likes