I am trying to run a mesh on a baja vehicle frame but every time I try to run it, it says the mesh has failed for 1 part. But every time I remove or suppress, it continues stating this message for another part.
Without digging into it very deeply, I would be tempted to model this part as a weldment and use beam elements for the analysis.
I could be way off, but thin wall tubing is going to need a ton of elements to get decent results - I believe that one of the recommendations is to have at least 2 or 3 elements across the material thickness, which is going to drop your element size into the .020" - .030" range.
I'm afraid I can't help with Simulation, but I'm sure someone else will be able to. In the meantime please delete the other two Discussions you've started with the same question.
Edit: Thank you.
It looks as though some of the issues have to do with the fillets - Are these necessary for this study?
Have you tried running the Mesh Failure Diagnostic?
I think Todd may have figured it out for you. I have been having problems with a large assembly drawing and didn't get a chance to look at your model. But, when doing anything like this, it is easiest to start small. That model was almost 4MB. That is a lot of features, and more features means more of a chance for a meshing error. Start simple and build up to the full simulation. You can use the Roll-Back bar to roll back the part and run the simulation, then roll it forward a little more, run the simulation again, and troubleshoot your features that way.
I have tried that. Every time I remove the fillets, a new area with the same issue arises. Im really not sure what to do.
Im sorry, no the fillets are not necessary
The mesh is failing due to Boss-Extrude 16 'wall thickness' .0625" not matching the other tubes .120" wall.
I came to this determination by rolling back to first feature, and meshing, roll to second feature and mesh... jumped a bunch of features and tried to mesh, rolled up/back until it meshed.
Then I tried to determine what the issue was with feature Boss-Extrude 16, I changed the sketch to be smaller .999" tube and no mesh, so I changed the way 'Direction 1' terminated, then I created my own boss extrude and it meshed... so I looked at the other tubes and saw a wall thickness difference, made the change and it meshed.
I would recommend using the advantages of weldments features, it makes more work with simulation, but stronger documentation/manufacturing all the tubes.
I tried to change that option but it still gives the same message, just at a different area.
Your model looks like it has a storied past. The first features were modeled in October 2016 and the newest features this week. Looking at the construction of the model it is really built in a way that is for final production rather than a stress analysis (i.e. fillet welds are not typically included in a stress analysis). It is rare that a model built for production, like with all the weld fillet details, would immediately be used for FEA without some amount of model simplification. I liked Todd Blacksher's idea though of remodeling the design using weldments to then use with a beam analysis. He is absolutely correct in that creating the 2+ elements across the thickness of tubes will lead to a model that is difficult if not impossible to mesh in any reasonable amount of time. The idea of going back to the original 3D sketch and building a weldment model from there shouldn't take long. In fact, let's see...
Modeling 90% of the structure that was already present in the first 3D Sketch took, relatively speaking, little time at all. If you added the missing members to that first 3D Sketch you could have functional model for FEA very quickly. With just a little tweaking it was able to solve using beam elements in a few short seconds.
If your goal is rapid iterations on your design you may want to go the route of a weldment remodel.
Retrieving data ...