3DCADWorld Network | 3DCADTips | 3DCADTutorials | 3DCADForums | 3DCADSearch | 3DCADBooks | Design World






Get CAD tips and tutorials on your desktop when you register at 3DCADTips.com!

3DCADTips Weekly
Latest Issue
Archive

3DCADTips Forum Update
Latest Issue
Archive






Visit 3DCADSearch.com - The CAD & Graphics Search Engine!!




  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 3rd, 2008, 12:00 PM
atomic_duck atomic_duck is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Default uniting surfaces for finite element analisys

first of all hello

well, I'm not a frequent english speaker so the spelling can be wrong

I took a serious crash course in catia (2 wheeks and counting) because I needed to make this project until june.

I am using CATIA V5R17 to design a bicycle frame and ansys to analise it
I'm using thin tubes (surfaces) that i will later model as shell elements. I used the generative shape design and sweeped/revoluted surfaces. the surfaces are intersecting eachother but the intersections aren't recognised and the tubes are considered independent entitys (in catia and ansys-doesn't glue 'em-).
the tubes are created as separate parts and copyed in one part file
If I'm creating a shape fillet with both bodys trimmed it "magicaly" unites them......but if I'm trying to create the same fillet with only one of the supports trimmed (as it should be) it's not uniting the 2 surfaces.......
other surfaces splited and filleted to the tubes are also considered independent entitys (even after the fillet!).
I tried with join but the conexity check gives an error and even with the check off it doesn't recognises 'em as a single surface.
I tried with add too but, even so, it's moving the surfaces under the add command and not doing anything to them.
as I mentiond above I'm a newby in catia an I'm sorry if the question is trivial........
I attached the files in .igs and .model also
Attachments Pending Approval
File Type: zip drawing.zip
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Link


  #2 (permalink)  
Old April 17th, 2008, 11:39 AM
andy.parrow andy.parrow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7
Default

I created a dune buggy frame once. I designed the whole thing drawing just the wireframe centerlines, then create solid tubes later and trimmed and filleted afterwards. Seemed to work pretty good. I think solid modeling is easier then surfacing.

I imagine the same thing could be done for a bike frame.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old April 18th, 2008, 10:41 AM
atomic_duck atomic_duck is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3
Default

thank you for the answer
well yes, I dit draw it (at first) as lines and then modelled them as beams but that was really only to determine the right geometry for a minimal imposed deflection.
finally I gave up, I created the solids and annalised it but the results on shells would have been much more accurate then the sollid elements on thin tubing.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0