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

Yet another Mass Participation question

4 REPLIES 4
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 5
SerhanB
411 Views, 4 Replies

Yet another Mass Participation question

Hello,

 

I'm working on a model resting on elastic foundation which is also very irregular (tunnel underneath). For modal analysis, I'm converting 2 load cases to mass but I couldn't make mass participation to go beyond 70% in each direction even with 150 modes. 

 

What can be done in this case? I will be happy if you can check the attached model and share your opinions.

 

Thanks...

Serhan BAKIR
http://www.stand.com.tr/
4 REPLIES 4
Message 2 of 5
Artur.Kosakowski
in reply to: SerhanB

What about running the modal analysis for part of the model being above the top supports level only? You may set disregard density in its parameters and apply loads (including self weight) you want to convert into masses to the above the ground part of the model only.

 

If you find your post answered press the Accept as Solution button please. This will help other users to find solutions much faster. Thank you.

 

 



Artur Kosakowski
Message 3 of 5
SerhanB
in reply to: Artur.Kosakowski

Hi Artur,

 

Thanks for your comment. Since this model is a Mock Up of a larger structure, manually dealing with self weight would be really cumbersome. I thought of a similar approach as decreasing mass of foundation panels/walls to a degree that they shall not contribute to overall mass sum.

 

Eventually this worked and participation reached to ux:85% uy:95%. However increasing mode count do not effect ratios anymore. 

What is your opinion on this method (lowering mass) and I would like to hear your ideas how to participate more mass from upper levels.

 

Thanks

Serhan BAKIR
http://www.stand.com.tr/
Message 4 of 5
Artur.Kosakowski
in reply to: SerhanB

I'd consider this approach

 

 

 

If you find your post answered press the Accept as Solution button please. This will help other users to find solutions much faster. Thank you.



Artur Kosakowski
Message 5 of 5
SerhanB
in reply to: Artur.Kosakowski

Hi Artur,

 

Thanks for the effort, I really appreciate it. Your explanation is pretty clear and informative in many aspects! I see that both approaches reach to similar results and decision and modelling preference is up to the engineer.

 

Have a nice day!

Serhan BAKIR
http://www.stand.com.tr/

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report