Archive for the ‘SolidWorks’ Category

Material Properties in Analysis

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

Have you ever considered the importance of Material Properties to your Finite Element solution? What about the accuracy of the data provided by material vendors? As Designers and Engineers, we are used to dealing with tolerances. We usually provide default tolerances on our drawing title block. We may add tolerances to some of the model dimensions. For the really bold and daring – or wise and experienced – you might even add Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing to your designs. Do you ever see tolerances on material property data sheets? In my experience, the answer is somewhere between rarely and never, with never in the lead.

Let’s consider a material from the Simulation material database. Alloy Steel has the following properties (numbers rounded):
Young’s Modulus – 30 x 10^6 psi; Poisson’s Ratio – 0.28; Mass Density – 0.278 lb / in^3; Yield Strength – 90 ksi

What will happen to the Finite Element solution if one material property varies? I’m going to start with a simple model in tension and apply Alloy Steel as the material using the default property values. Then I will change Poisson’s Ratio and re-run the study several times in order to compare the displacement and stress results. Recall that Poisson’s Ratio is a measure of the lateral strain to longitudinal strain for a material, or E_lat / E_long (pretend the E’s are Greek epsilon’s). Poisson’s Ratio is relevant to the linear elastic portion of the stress-strain curve and is unitless. One thing to note, if you do not define Poisson’s Ratio for a material, Simulation will assume that Poisson’s Ratio is equal to zero. There is a pop-up warning, too, just in case you forget to enter a value. Note that if you do not have Poisson’s Ratio for a material, 0.3 is a good initial estimate. But definitely exercise all of your options to find out the correct value for your design materials.

2011-1012 Material Properties Blog-OctoberBlog-Results-Displacement1.analysis

For a ½” square bar, 4” long, I have fixed one end and applied a 10ksi force at the opposite end, putting the bar in tension. After running the analysis with default material properties, I set a baseline with Trend Tracker. After creating several custom Alloy Steel materials, varying Poisson’s Ratio from 0.0 to 0.5, I re-run the analysis with each custom material. Trend Tracker will record the details for maximum displacement and stress in the model.

2011-1012 Excel Chart

As you can see from the chart, the Von Mises Stress results vary approximately 16 ksi and the displacement results vary 0.00006 inches. As percentages, this is a 28% variation in stress and a 1.2% variation in displacement. I don’t think most of us would be concerned with 1.2% variation in our models, but 28% is an entirely different matter! I did, however, choose the model with this purpose in mind. The high stresses are at the fixed end at the sharp corner – something most Engineers would avoid in their designs. Now that a 28% variation has your attention, let’s look at a more practical model.

2011-1012-b Material Properties Blog-OctoberBlog-2-Results-Displacement1.analysis

This is a simple bracket, a modification of a part in the SolidWorks Essentials manual. I’ve applied a fixed boundary condition to the bolt holes in the base and a normal force to the counter bore face. I’ve repeated the rest of the analysis, just like the square tensile bar, including using Trend Tracker and varying Poisson’s ration from 0 to 0.5.

2011-1012-b Excel Chart

For this “practical” model, the Von Mises Stress results vary approximately 4,300 psi and the displacement results vary 0.0006 inches. The percent variation in this model is 5.8% for stress and 6.6% for displacement. If you’re designing for a large Factor of Safety, less than 6% variation in your stress results are not significant. Using SolidWorks Simulation, however, most of us are designing for the lowest acceptable Factor of Safety in order to save the maximum amount of money possible on material costs. In this scenario, a 6% variation can be significant!

So the next time you’re analyzing that awesome design, consider reviewing the sensitivity of your analysis by varying a material property or two. Now you’re armed with powerful information you can share in your next design review. Material property variations from your vendors are no longer an issue! Now go make your products better with SolidWorks Simulation!

Bill Reuss

Bill Reuss, CSWE, CSWST, CSPST
Application Support Engineer
3DVision Technologies

2012: Mouse Gestures that Save Time

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

I must confess, ever since mouse gestures were introduced a couple of years ago, I haven’t been using them.  The truth is that I’m too hooked on keyboard shortcuts.  Why try to do everything with your right hand when your right (on the mouse) and left hand (on the keyboard) can work together in perfect harmony?  Not only that, but you also had to memorize exactly where each mouse gesture command resided in each of the modeling states (Part, Assembly, and Drawing).  Much too hard for my scrambled mind to manage.

Well, SolidWorks 2012 SP0 (which was officially released earlier this week) has introduced an enhancement that will probably fly under most peoples’ radars, but it will finally get me using mouse gestures on a daily, hourly, minutely, and even secondly basis.  The enhancement is simple – you can now assign the ‘OK’ and ‘Cancel’ commands as mouse gestures (you also now have the ability to assign custom macros to gestures).  The ‘OK’ command as a mouse gestures saves me from stumbling my left hand all the way across my keyboard to the ‘Enter’ key which may or may not have been recognized as the ‘OK’ shortcut.

This enhancement is too great to be overlooked.  If mouse gestures were too much trouble for you to use in the past, try giving my ultra-simplistic mouse gesture mapping a try in 2012.

mouse_gestures

Jordan Tadic

Jordan Tadic

Application Engineer, CSWE

3DVision Technologies

follow me @TadicWorks

A Few Drawing Tips

Monday, September 26th, 2011

Here are a few drawing tips that might help you out.

Save a rotated 3D view

  • When you go to View>Modify>3D Drawing View, you can choose any view and rotate it any direction.  When you choose a view that you like, it will stay like that.  That way you can get a great view on the drawing with a short amount of time.

Combine notes

  • If you have multiple notes on your drawing but you want to combine them, before you would need to copy and paste the text.  All you really need to do is just drag and drop one note to another.  They get combined.  If the main note is numerically indented, when you drop the other note on it, it will follow the same order.

Edit multiple dimensions at once

  • If you select a bunch of dimensions, you can edit them all at once.  You can add tolerance information, text, precision, etc.

I hope these tips help keep you productive.  If you have any questions about these, please contact 3DVision.

Josh Spencer

Josh Spencer
Application Engineer
3DVision Technologies

Southern Kentucky Launches New SolidWorks User Group

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Launching anything new these days is a feat just in itself but Steve Fye from Span-Tech is taking on the challenge with energy and excitement.

Their first meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 20, and the Southern Kentucky SolidWorks User Group is planning BIG things.

With a goal to organize a local community of SolidWorks users who want to make the most out of their beloved software, Steve hopes to use this group to help spread knowledge, best practices and more.

Interested parties are asked to submit a simple online registration form which can be found here.

The first meeting is scheduled to begin at 5pm and will include food (always a plus), an open discussion between officers and new members, a presentation of SolidWorks 2012 “What’s New” by our own Chris Snider of 3DVision Technologies and most importantly, a raffle for a Nvidia Quadro 4000 graphics card.

As a supporter of all things SolidWorks, those of us at 3DVision Technologies encourages all users to join a SWUG near them.

For more information on the new Southern Kentucky SolidWorks User Group, click here.

Carrie Cavanaugh

Carrie Patrick
Marketing Manager
3DVision Technologies

SolidWorks 2013 Will Not Install on Windows XP

Monday, September 19th, 2011

It’s official – if you plan to upgrade to the latest and greatest version of SolidWorks next year, you will NOT be able to do so on Windows XP.

SolidWorks 2012 software (including CAD, Simulation, Sustainability, and Enterprise PDM) will be the last release that supports Windows XP.  This action is being taken as a follow up to Microsoft’s retirement of the Windows® XP operating system in April of 2009. SolidWorks 2013 will not install on Windows XP. For additional information please refer to the System Requirements page on the corporate website.

Chris Snider

Chris Snider
Application Engineer
3DVision Technologies

Solver Selection – Does It Matter?

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Choices. Everyone wants choices. We make simple choices like ‘paper or plastic’. Or one of my favorites, ‘domestic or import’! In SolidWorks we can be faced with decisions like ‘assembly or multi-body’! While these are simple examples, what do you decide when you’re faced with the decision ‘FFEPlus or Direct Sparse’? Which solver should you select? While this question does not have an easy answer, there are some guidelines you can follow to help in your selection. Understanding the two solvers is the first step in making a smart decision about which to use.

Before discussing the solvers, let’s recall the fundamental equation being solved by Finite Element Analysis, which is the resultant forces acting on a body are equal to the product of the stiffness and resultant displacement of the body. We express this with the following matrix equation: [F] = [K] * [U]. Regardless of the solver selected, this equation has to be calculated such that equality exists.

The FFEPlus solver is an iterative solver. After you have the CAD model set up with the appropriate boundary conditions, the FFEPlus solver makes an educated guess about the deformation, [U], of the model. Then it evaluates the matrix equations to see how good the guess was, and adjusts the deformation accordingly, depending upon the error in the calculation. This process repeats until the calculation balances.

The Direct Sparse solver is just that – direct. This solver will create the entire matrices used for the numerical FEA solution. This requires generating the stiffness matrix, [K], as well as the inverse of the stiffness matrix, [K]-1. Once calculated, Direct Sparse solver has to compute a simple multiplication problem, written out as: [K]-1 * [F] = [K]-1 * [K] * [U]. Computing the inverse of the stiffness matrix is resource (memory) intensive.

Now that you know what the solvers are, let’s discuss and compare the two solvers, at least as far as how they may relate to your Finite Element Model. If your problem has 25,000 degrees of freedom (DoF) or less, the Direct Sparse and FFEPlus solvers are approximately equal in terms of memory usage and solution time. For problems that approach 300,000 DoF, the Direct Sparse solver usually runs entirely in your system’s RAM, which provides for a “fast” solution. When you exceed 300,000 DoF, the FFEPlus solver is more efficient than the Direct Sparse solver in not requiring as much of your system’s RAM. There are times, however, regardless of the problem size that you may need to use one solver over another. In assemblies with a lot of contacts, assemblies with greatly varying material stiffness between components and contacts with friction, the Direct Sparse solver is usually a better choice. In frequency studies with Rigid Body Motion and problems exceeding 300,000 DOF, the FFEPlus solver is usually the appropriate choice.

What do you do now? You know what each solver is doing at the core. You have a general understanding of what each solver is good at. How do you decide? It’s actually a very simple answer – let Simulation decide for you! In SolidWorks Simulation, there is a system option to let the program decide. To access this, from your pull-down menus, select “Simulation… Options…”, then change to the “Default Options” tab and click on the line for “Results”. Then look at the section for ‘Default Solver’ – we have ‘Automatic’, ‘Direct Sparse’ and ‘FFEPlus’. Set your Simulation system options to ‘Automatic’, and let SolidWorks Simulation decide which solver is the most appropriate for your Finite Element Model. With that decision made for you, you now have time to make your products better with SolidWorks Simulation!

2011-0913 SimSolverOptions

Bill Reuss

Bill Reuss, CSWE, CSWST, CSPST
Application Support Engineer
3DVision Technologies

Simplified (McMaster-Carr) Parts in Assemblies

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

The following golden rule applies to 99% of you out there…

Never include fasteners with modeled threads in your assemblies.

This is the reason the SolidWorks toolbox comes with three options for thread display when inserting fasteners into your assemblies: Simplified, Cosmetic, and Schematic.  The popular and recommended choice is ‘Cosmetic‘ – a healthy combination of detail and efficiency.

toolbox-thread-options

There are quite a few factors that can contribute to clunky and inefficient assembly models, but two very obvious culprits are the quantity/complexity of features and surfaces.  You can apply this concept to any type of model, but modeled threads are a perfect example to discuss both of these slow downs.  Though there are times when it makes sense to model threads within a part file, it’s rare that those threads are needed within an assembly file.

One of the coolest things about McMaster-Carr (besides their same day delivery of just about anything you can ever dream of) is that they offer 3D models of a majority of their products in a native SolidWorks file (i.e. feature tree, dimensions, and relations are included).  McMaster-Carr customers with SolidWorks have a huge advantage over the rest, because they’ll be able to quickly edit these files however they’d like.  Here’s an example…

  • Download a 1” long ¼-20 SHCS from McMaster-Carr and notice that the part comes fully equipped with modeled threads.
  • Click Tools > Feature Statistics and note the 0.80 second calculated rebuild time.
  • Right mouse button (RMB) the “Cut-Sweep1” feature, and select “Configure Feature” from the menu.
  • Create a “Simplified” configuration with the thread cut feature suppressed.

  • Run the Feature Statistics tool one more time and you’ll see a 0.15 second rebuild time. Just by removing one feature, we managed to cut the rebuild time to less than a fifth of what it was.  This goes a very long way inside an assembly where many of these fasteners can exist.

Obviously, you can make “Simplified” configurations for any type of model (not just threaded fasteners).  You can suppress any type of feature that is not required to be present in the assembly (complex features, fillets, chamfers, etc.).  This is a great way to speed up large assembly performance.  All you have to do is activate the “Simplified” configuration of all the part files within an assembly.  “How?”, you might ask…

  • Click File > Open within SolidWorks and browse to an assembly file.
  • Before opening it, click the “Advanced” check box.
  • When you click the “Open” button, select the following options on the pop-up menu.

simplified-configurationOnce you click OK, SolidWorks will find any part within the assembly (regardless of the levels of sub-assemblies) that has a “Simplified” configuration and activate it.  Simple (no pun intended)!  Why not create a simplified configuration for every part file?

Jordan Tadic

Jordan Tadic

Application Engineer, CSWE

3DVision Technologies

follow me @TadicWorks

Free Weldment Profiles!

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

Back in January, when Jordan Tadic published his cut lumber library for use as weldment profiles, the CAD community went crazy! For a brief period of time there was concern that we may need to get a larger server to help handle the additional page requests.

Did you know you can get weldment profiles from SolidWorks? – significantly more than the few you get by default when you install SolidWorks.

Go to the design library, expand “SolidWorks Content” and browse for all kinds of free goodies to make your life easier!

DownloadProfiles

(You’ll also find drawing blocks, standard parts and Unistruts here too.)

Jeff Sweeney

Jeff Sweeney
Engineering Data Specialist
3DVision Technologies

Model Aircraft Control Surface Spacing and SolidWorks Flow Simulation

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

June 2011 AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) Model Aviation magazine had an interesting article Titled “Two of the Big Five model misadjustments” written by Dean Pappas. The two misadjustments were Hinge Gap, and Lateral Balance.

The article caught my attention specifically due to the “flow” diagrams drawn in the article explaining airflow over the wing section and aileron control surface. In the below diagram, taken from the article, Dean explains three cases of air flow relative to a control surface.

  1. Clean airflow at the neutral control surface desired for level flight.
  2. When up or down direction is applied to the control surface the air opposite the control surface direction of travel redirects the flow to reattach. This case shows a tight fit between control surface and main structure.
  3. Hinge gaps allow high-pressure air to leak from one side to the other. This weakens airflow on top of control surface partially destroying the bottom airflows ability to rejoin it. The result is poor control surface response during slow speeds.
AMA Article Diagram

AMA Article Diagram

According to the article ”The high pressure on top, as shown would leak through, given a chance. That chance would be a gap in the elevator and control surface. The result is a flat sheet of air that squirts through the gap and distorts the outside of the hinge line. This reduces the effectiveness of the elevator and creates extra drag.”

This section piqued my interest as the hinge gap shown is very large, probably for demonstration purposes. Being an avid RC aircraft modeler I suspected that the small gaps I have in my personal aircraft’s control surfaces may not cause this affect. My hypothesis is that a very large unrealistic gap will cause this affect however using standard hinge techniques this affect will not be as dramatic as the article states. According to the article large hinge gaps can be sealed with strips of MonoKote covering resolving the problem. MonoKote is a heat shrink Mylar covering that is a standard in RC Aircraft construction.

This blogs purpose is to investigate the hinge gap spacing required to cause an airflow disturbance and air leak through the gap area.

Before we get into the model specifics let’s talk a little about aircraft wing terminology. Below is a diagram explaining common wing dimensions and terminology. The chord length is the distance from the leading edge of the wing or elevator to the trailing edge. The model used in this Flow Analysis is a 5.5″ main wing chord. 0.5″ of the chord is the control surface . The airfoil is symmetrical so the upper and lower camber are equal. The model consists of an extruded wing section with one hinge placed in the middle of the wing.

Airfoil.svg

Three hinge types are standard in the RC modeling community. All hinges are typically spaced evenly across the control surface.

  • Standard plastic barrel hinge comprised of two halves held together with a pin. The hinge is typically screwed or glued into place with the barrel tight against both mating sections. Hinges are typically 0.25″-0.5″ wide by 0.5-1″ total length. The barrel typically ranges from 0.0625″-0.125″ in diameter.
  • CA hinges are flat woven wicking material that is inserted into a slot cut in the components. No or little gap is present with this style hinge. CA or Cyanoacrylate glue is used to wick through the hinge and bond with the hinged components.
  • MonoKote hinges are seldom used in modeling except for small aircraft. The MonoKote hinge is typically a strip of MonoKote that is applied to the top and bottom of the hinge area.

SolidWorks Flow simulation was used to investigate the control surface configurations of four models.

  1. A base line neutral control surface position using a no gap CA hinge Type.
  2. Upward deflected control surface using a no gap CA hinge type.
  3. Upward deflected control surface using a Standard plastic hinge with an 0.0625″ barrel diameter.
  4. Upward deflected control surface using a CA Hinge and gap of 0.25″

All configurations have a 10 ft/second flow rate and a 0 degree angle of attack. The flow analysis was an external flow problem. A localized mesh control was used for each run to capture refined accurate results across the model boundary. All other default conditions were used for the flow setup.

Mesh

Note All plots show a Pressure cut plot and Velocity Flow Trajectories.

Results:

  • The base line model showed a symmetrical pressure on either side of the wing at 14.6 psi and a hinge crossing velocity of 16.45 ft/sec. This is expected results for the area section, hinge, and aileron placement.

Neutral Velocity and Pressure

  • Flow Run Two shows a higher pressure on top of the aileron of 14.696 psi and a lower pressure on the bottom of 14.694 psi. The flow velocity across the top of the control surface drops to 5.9 ft/sec while the bottom speeds up to 11.2 ft/sec. As the article states the air “bends” to re attach to the flow at the trailing edge. This results in a turbulence on the bottom of the control surface aiding in the force of the air on the top of the control surface to push the trailing edge down.

Aileron Up CA Hinge

YouTube Preview Image
  • Flow Run Three demonstrates the 0.0625″ barrel hinge gap and the resulting air flow. The run does show airflow across the gap boundary, however probing the area the velocity in this gap is zero. The flow does extend past the wing trailing edge longer than the non-gap position, however the flow does fully rejoin. The same recirculation under the control surface is seen . The pressure on the end of control surface is however higher at 14.699 psi and lower on the bottom at 14.692 psi. The results show negligible flow through the gap and under most circumstances(slow flight) should not cause loss of control due to bleed through.

Aileron Up 00625 Gap

YouTube Preview Image
  • Run Four had the largest gap similar to the gap in the article’s diagram. The flow results show airflow across the gap boundary and a velocity of the airflow in the gap of 3 ft/sec. The flow does extend past the wing trailing edge longer than the non-gap position and does not rejoin. The recirculation does cause a pressure equalization under and over the control surface. Loss of control surface effectiveness would occur in this scenario.

Aileron Up 025 Hinge Gap

YouTube Preview Image

Conclusions: The article is correct to a point. The gap shown in his diagram would cause a control surface loss of effectiveness, however the gap is way too large to be considered realistic. Most experienced modelers know common practice is to get as tight of a fit between control surface and structure be it a wing, elevator, or rudder. A large gap is not only detrimental but is also unsightly and most modelers avoid them for the aesthetic reasons alone. If a modeler sticks to the new CA hinge or follows correct installation practice for a plastic hinge they will be alright in their flying endeavors.

Robert Warren

Robert Warren Application Support Engineer CSWP / CSWST / CSWI / CSPS 3DVision Technologies

Update Properties from BOM

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Here’s a tip that you might not know about.  You can update component/sub-assembly properties from a Bill of Materials.  Why would you want to do this?  Well in case you forgot to add the property when you created the component, maybe you didn’t know what it was at that time, or you see you filled out the wrong information.  Now you can add or change the property without opening it up.

All you need to do is double click in the cell of the BOM and then you will get a message about keeping or breaking the link.

Link

You will have to choose “Keep Link” to update the property.  Now whatever you type in the cell will show up in the component’s properties.

Josh Spencer

Josh Spencer
Application Engineer
3DVision Technologies

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera