Hello everyone
I have robot model which is properly running for linear springs. However when I run the model after changing the spring from linear to non-linear (i.e. uplift allowed in UZ+) it doesn't converge even for self weight. I tried applying rotational stiffness also, but that also didn't work. I am sharing robot model
Regards
Nitin Bansal
Hi @NNBL
Corect parameters for load case 1
Refer to
Non convergence while model calculation in Robot Structural Analysis
Helllo Mr. Wasik,
Many thanks for the solution. It worked for the load case 1, however it doesn't work for many other load cases. I am not sure how the tolerance is decided and what will its impact on the results? I have shared the robot file, can you please help in analyzing load combination 9100 & 9101?
Regards
Nitin Bansal
Hi @NNBL
Both cases converge with tolerance about 0.2
I see that you have used imposed loads. Keep in mind that they are not working when applied in nonlinear supports (with uplift defined). Only rigid or elastisc(no uplift) supports can be used for nodes with imposed loads applied
Hello @Krzysztof_Wasik
I am not sure if it is correct to say that non-linear spring and imposed displacement doesn't work together. I have analyzed multiple models in the past with such situations, they are running without any error. One of the models is attached for your reference. Please see and let me know if I am correctly understanding your message.
Thanks & Regards
Nitin Bansal
Hi @NNBL
I would recommend following Robot Help limitations. Imposed displacement applied in the nodes supported with supports with uplift can cause incorrect results.
Please have a look at the simple example below where imposed displacement defined for support with uplift, results in incorrect displacement
Example:
For two identical beams imposed displacement UZ=-10 cm was applied to nodes 1 and 3.
Nodes 2 and 4 are fixed.
Node 3 is supported with elastis support in both UZ+and UZ-.
Node 1 is supported with elastic support in UZ- (UZ+ uplift considered)
For both beams displacement equal to imposed value (close to uz=10 cm since support is elastic) is expected in nodes 1 and 3
After calculation expected results are obtained only for node 3 (supports with no uplift defined) while for node 1 (uplift defined) incorrect displacement is presented.
I would not recommend using imposed displacement, in nodes supported with supports, with uplift defined (following Robot Help description).
Thanks for your efforts!,
I created the robot model similar to what you had created. Contrary to your observations, I am getting the same results for both the beams (see the image below). If possible can you please share your model, as I am bit concerned about many similar models on which my team is currently working.
Please why i get same deformation in this example
M. Agayr
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.
Sorry,
my mistake!
M. Agayr
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.
Thanks for clarifying.
Can you please suggest any solution to this problem, as I to have change many models.
Hi @NNBL
As described in Robot Help, imposed displacement works when applied in the node with rigid or elastic support defined. Please keep in mind that when imposed displacement is applied to node with elastic support defined, structure displacement might be different that imposed displacement value, especially when imposed displacement is not uniformly defined for whole model (node displacement equal to imposed displacement is obtained only for rigid support).
Example
When you would like to define imposed displacement for nonlinear elastic supports, I would suggest definition of separate load case and simulating expected initial structure displacement/deformation with forces (not imposed displacements).
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.