Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.
Modeling of Rotating Shaft
Posted Nov 8, 2010, 1:14 p.m. EST 1 Reply
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Dear All
I am modeling a solid rotating shaft.
Which approach is the proper choice:
1- Beam node with prescribed rotation along axis (z)
2- Solid Mechanics
I am trying to study the structural behavior of a solid shaft.
Reza Besharati Tabrizi
I am modeling a solid rotating shaft.
Which approach is the proper choice:
1- Beam node with prescribed rotation along axis (z)
2- Solid Mechanics
I am trying to study the structural behavior of a solid shaft.
Reza Besharati Tabrizi
1 Reply Last Post Nov 9, 2010, 1:43 a.m. EST
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
I would say it all depends what you are after ;)
The beam model solves quickly but is perhaps less instructive/demonstrative rather than a full 3D model. For a full 3D you could probably also consider 2D axi if you have a nice cylindrical symmetry, at least to start with (it solves quicker and allows to get a quick grasp of what is needed before attacking a full 3D model, which mostly solves much solver and is thereforefar more time consuming to fully debug from scratch).
mixing beam and solids are slightly triky, because 1) you must still dedouble the materials (have separate materials for 3D and for 2D) and the beam has rotation boundary conditions tha must be correctly linked to the 3D solid, that has NO rotary DoF's, so these must be defined first, locally
--
Good luck
Ivar
I would say it all depends what you are after ;)
The beam model solves quickly but is perhaps less instructive/demonstrative rather than a full 3D model. For a full 3D you could probably also consider 2D axi if you have a nice cylindrical symmetry, at least to start with (it solves quicker and allows to get a quick grasp of what is needed before attacking a full 3D model, which mostly solves much solver and is thereforefar more time consuming to fully debug from scratch).
mixing beam and solids are slightly triky, because 1) you must still dedouble the materials (have separate materials for 3D and for 2D) and the beam has rotation boundary conditions tha must be correctly linked to the 3D solid, that has NO rotary DoF's, so these must be defined first, locally
--
Good luck
Ivar