Simulate Early, Simulate Often... In Rhino
Bicycle disc brake
It took me about 12 revisions of the geometry to reach this final design because it's a typical model-test-adjust task where the form must be optimized in order to be as light as possible without collapsing under known possibile load conditions.
I believe it's a perfect task for Scan-and-Solve and I was able to verify my results in a couple of minutes!
The material used for the final test is an AISI430F Steel (I modified manually the materials.db file).
The 6 inner faces of the bolt holes are used as restraints.
The load is a single Vector force (0,-700,0)N applied to the inner face of a profiled hole.
Resolution is set to 50000 elements.
This conditions are a good setup for this kind of simulation and can be used confidently in place of a dynamic analisys involving friction based on a complex mechanical model.
The initial force of 700N is used because I was asked to study a real life disc that collapsed during a race, and after some reverse engineering that was the max force it was able to handle.
This particular design, under the same conditions, collapses with 2100N, that's a security factor of 3 to 1.
On the upper left is the disc that collapsed during a race.
On the right there're two well known commercial discs, also analyzed in order to collect more data on the typical collapse conditions.
Below is the first preproduction model.
I would like to encourage all the Scan and Solve team, this is a GREAT beta and I'll keep looking for every update.
Suggestions:
- when in View mode, it would be very usefull to know the min and max values of the Von Mises Danger Level, maybe with some spots in the geometry
- a list with the maximal (+ and -) values reached in N/mm2 (or N/m2) related to the graph would also be fantastic
EDIT: in the very first week all the suggestions were implemented, the team in SnS is doing and excellent job!
Best regards
Cristian Luca
Views: 727
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Freytag on
-
Very nice work!
Thank you for exhibiting this.
I wonder if we need to start a new sub-forum to collect and organize suggestions and proposed development directions?
~Michael
-
Permalink Reply by Cristian Luca Atzori on
-
It seems natural to me, the more we use the plugin the more we suggest :)
-
Permalink Reply by Vadim Shapiro on
-
I just created a new category for forums called "Wish list" -- specifically to propose and discuss new features. Please suggest!
Thank you for this great post! I hope that you tested at several different resolutions -- you should always do this anyway, just to see that the computed results are consistent and make sense. This may seem counter-intuitive, but very coarse resolution is not usually the best choice: not only you may be loosing on accuracy, but you also make the "scan" step work harder.
-
Permalink Reply by Armido Cremaschi on
-
It would be fantastic for beginners or user with scarse engineering background to have a default resolution, set on the basis of user inputs and choices of restrains and type/entity of loads. Would it be an impossible dream? You guys seem to be able to turn dreams into reality already. Thanks.
Armido
-
Permalink Reply by Philip Kronqvist on
-
I agree! This would be great!
Thanks!
Philip
-
-
No, it is not impossible, and I think that you should add a post to the wish list -- where it is less likely to be lost. But we are threading dangerous waters here. First of all, any such suggestion would be based only on rough estimates and heuristics; secondly, by the very nature of the problem, all solutions are only approximations; and thirdly, solving at different resolutions is usually required to gain any assurances that the solution is converged. This is not a comment on Scan&Solve -- this is a comment on any numerical solution. But all of this could be improved and much can be automated -- at some cost (time) to the user. ... tell us and post what you are solving! we really want to know!
© 2025 Created by Michael Freytag.
Powered by
