5 Replies Latest reply on Jul 8, 2014 6:15 PM by Jared Conway

    Patterning in Simulation?

    Mark Egan

      I'm dealing with an assembly with 7 layers of identically repeating subassemblies (see attached picture). In doing these kinds of stack-level analyses, it would save me a lot of time to be able to pattern simulation features, meshes, etc. In NX, for example, when you insert a part into an assembly it imports its mesh along with it. Am I missing something, or does Solidworks lack both patterning in Simulation as well as importing meshes from subassemblies?

        • Re: Patterning in Simulation?
          Shaun Densberger

          Sadly, you cannot do this in SW (at least that I'm aware of); part level simulation features do to carry up to high assembly levels.

            • Re: Patterning in Simulation?
              Jared Conway

              Not clear on what you're looking for. Importing the mesh or bcs?

                • Re: Patterning in Simulation?
                  Shaun Densberger

                  I believe this is what Mark is looking for.

                   

                  Suppose I have two unique parts ("Plate with Four Holes.prt" and "Pin.prt") and I create an assembly ("Plate and Pins.asm") that has the part "Plate with Four Holes.prt" with part "Pin.prt" in each hole.

                   

                  Now, in NX (and Creo) I can open up "Pin.prt" and go into FEA add-on and define simulation features (mesh control, beam element, material property/orentation, load, constraint, etc.), save the part file, and then when I go back to my "Plate and Pins.asm" assembly and go into the FEA add-on, all four instances of "Pin.prt" will have the previously defined simulation features.

                    • Re: Patterning in Simulation?
                      Mark Egan

                      Yes, Shaun, that's what I mean.

                       

                      What I'm after is a method in Solidworks to reduce having to enter in a bunch of identical simulation features for an assembly that has a lot of repeating parts or subassemblies. In NX and other tools you do this by creating meshes and meshing features at the part level, which are then imported along with the part in the assembly that you're going to analyze.

                       

                      Solidworks doesn't have this. It also seems that Solidworks doesn't support patterning BC's, meshes, or any simulation features, really. This makes analyzing assemblies of *any* complexity laborious.

                       

                      Look, I know that Solidworks has a bit of a different approach to simulation. I'd describe it as "get er done." Ie, it's a good tool for quick, rough analysis that's going to be followed up with testing or for parts where failure is low-severity. It's also cheap, which is why my organization is using it. But if Solidworks is looking to expand their market share to organizations that need high-fidelity analyses (such as the aerospace market), they're going to have to address their simulation module quite thoroughly. The inability to directly manipulate the meshing, combined with problems such as this makes Solidworks very difficult to use for serious analysis.

                       

                      But in full disclosure I only have ~250 hours in Solidworks so far, whereas I have >1000 in NX, >200 in FEMAP, and some in Abaqus and ANSYS that is bound to alter my opinion. Perhaps my feelings will be more favorable as I learn to use Solidworks's strengths instead of comparing it to packages many times more expensive.

                        • Re: Patterning in Simulation?
                          Jared Conway

                          if it is a pattern, is there a way to use symmetry to reduce the problem down significantly?

                           

                          i think what you're talking about is similar to super node/super structuring. nto exactly teh same thing but close. it is actually avaialble in sim prem through geostar but i don't want to scare you.

                           

                          i agree that it would be nice to define things at the part level and have them suck into the top level and woudl suggest you submit an enhancement request.

                           

                          that being said, my experience is that the tools for defining idealizations and for meshing are so fast and userfriendly, the lack of these features is actually not that bad. having them would make us even faster, but with the way the tool is built, it is by default built to do the job pretty quickly and efficiently.

                           

                          also for BCs, there isn't patterning but you can create library elements of forces..etc that might be helpful. I haven't done it in a long time because most of my stuff is custom, but it is certainly an option to look into