What I'm doing wrong?
>....."28 mm shaft will move inside 30 mm hole"
You did not state if you are trying to test with friction between the faces - so I assumed that the shaft will slide the 1mm to contact the cylinder.
Moved the parts to tangent contact and ran the test in a SolidWorks and another program (did not try to converge mesh elements and nodes).
If your analysis intent was to try to determine if the downward force (considering friction) is enough to counter the sideways force from imparting motion (sliding to tangent contact) - that is an entirely different (simulation) problem.
Define fixed base face of cylindrical. And define no penetration with two face of eje , two faces of cylindrical part.
Cilindro is already fixed in this way:
Is it correct?
I have not defined Contact set, but I have defined in Component Contact a Global Contact... what should be more.
Where is my missunderstanding of SW?
Do not confuse a Fixed assembly constraint with Fixed Geometry in FEA environment.
Fix assembly constraint removes all degrees of freedom on every face of the part in the assembly environment.
But in FEA environment you usually only want to remove specific degrees of freedom on specific faces - therefore the assembly constraints are ignored.
You must specify what part faces you want to remove degrees of freedom.
I have fixed the cilindro with fixture and I have had defined two contact sets, for concentrical faces and for contact faces at the end of the shaft.
I supress large displacement and gave me another error:
312 visits and nobody have an answer??
I would like just to know if somebody has tested and get also error message.
The better new for me should be that works in other computers and I just have a pc or SW installation problem.
You need to add a surface to the fixtures I locked the bottom surface. If none model will be free floating...
also need to change flat face to cylinder for 100n force
and change solver to direct sparse and remove large displacement tick, it then ask to use this is clicked no in info box
and I locked the concentric mate to ensure model was full constrained before starting simulation, just in case....
I then got:-
Not sure if this is right as I have not check input data-material etc.....
Thank you for your effort, but whith these modification model doesn't represent what I was looking for.
a good idea to include with what your direct problem/error is to describe what you're trying to achieve in this analysis.
in general when you get errors you should break the problem down into smaller parts and add elements one by one, that way when something breaks down, you can easily identify what changed and address them.
this case sounds like insufficient restraints or connections, you may need to add the next component if you can't agree with the additional fixture that has been added
As you suggest in the second paragraph, I've simplified the problem to the minimum, to avoid " cross discusions".
The problem is to analisy the contact between a 28 mm shaft and a 30 mm hole.
I can't add the concentric mate that suggested Dominic because this is not the real live.
28 mm shaft will move inside 30 mm hole.
Yes, this was what I expected to view.
Thank Mr. Matter.
so the problem was lack of BCs? or missing contact?
What means BCs?
To be honest, I don't know the original problem.
Mr. Matter suggested me to include a tangent contact and that solved the problem.
But today I've tested again with concentric mate and has work also.
My doubt is if, in the middle, I have change something in the mesh that also effect the solution.
If I coarse the mesh, it gives me "fixture error" but the fixtures are the same.
Also can give me a Equilibrium is not achieved message.
When I refine the mesh, even without mate, it works.
with a standard mess, 5 mm global size it works always, regardless of the mates, but takes more than 3 minutes to solve! ( with Intel Core i5, 2,3 GHz and 8 GB RAM)
I don't know how the people works with a little complex problems!
BC is boundary conditions, forces, restraints..etc.
Retrieving data ...