Simulate Early, Simulate Often... In Rhino
Hello Scan-and-Solve community,
I am currently seeking additional materials that users would like to see added to the Scan-and-Solve material library http://www.intact-solutions.com/resources.php
There is already a solid foundation of metals, plastics, and woods, as well as the option to customize one's own material, however if there are any materials you wish were included please post them here.
Good to see you are on the ball around here. I have already added 99.5% alumina for myself.
What about starting with the basics such as porcelain, bone china, pyrex/borosilicate?
Concrete (that will be hard/impossible as it has aggregate in it, multiphase, unsure). Portland cement.
E glass. S glass.
Here are the most common advanced engineering ceramics for bulk applications:
alumina, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride (reaction bonded, hot pressed, sintered, properties vary a lot) , aluminium nitride for the electronics people.
Other types of ceramics are used in thin coatings. So I'm not sure how your model copes with that.
PET. Engineering plastics such as UHMWPE, PTFE, PEEK.
Sort of on the same subject, are you able to change the way exponent values are displayed?
I'm not really talking about significant figures. I'm talking about the way the exponents appear in the table. Ideally they should appear in multiples of three for such big numbers. I don't know about the engineers, but materials people like to use Mpa and Gpa (and I suppose other scientists use kPa). Or ksi and msi for Americans.
What I mean is, say it now it shows a property og 1.10 x 10^10, for example. So every single time I look at the list of properties and see 10^7, 10^8 or 10^10, I have to do a quick mental calculation to get the answer into MPa or GPa.
It's easier to just see 11 x 10^9Pa, swap out the 10^9 part for Giga, and you have 11GPa.
The reason I do this is because it is very easy to make mistakes when dealing with large numbers and base units. I know the values are already there. But I already know what the ballpark values are of many materials, and I suppose I just like to double check things are accurate.
Maybe adding more concrete type materials... like GFRC or SFRC... that would be great!, also light concrete...and more architectural construction materials to simulate precasted concrete parts for example.
by the way....I think there is an error in tensile strength of concrete materials @ default library (actually 10 times lower than suposed tensile strength of these two materials, as midstrength concrete is about... 1,05 E^6 Pa)
Thanks in advance
Thanks for pointing out the error. For the time being, you can fix it by adding your own custom material. Also, is there a good source, in case you have come across, for properties of such construction materials?
Thanks again for the feedback.
I think there are lots of info on this but this article is a brief introduction for GFRC.
I'll try to find more technical data and come back here with the links
Here atached a pdf with something else on tensile and compresive properties of SFRC and GFRC
I also notice 316 stainless steel is missing.
It would be nice to have some 3d printed materials as well, as they are not usually the same as their bulk counterparts:L
It could be a bit tricky to get some of the specs, but it just makes sense that a 3D modelling/fea package should have properties for various 3d printed materials...