Wish : Poor man's non linear ?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vadim Shapiro on November 18, 2010 at 4:02pm

SnS does not maintain separate geometric model, which means that we would have to update Rhino model based on calculated displacements from the previous step. But this may or may not be possible, depending on how the geometry is represented -- and this is entirely up to the user of course. Another alternative may be is to maintain a separate representation of "deformed geometry" -- which is doable, but may lead to other complex geometric issues. Definitely something to think about in the future, so thank you for suggestion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivier Suire on March 6, 2013 at 11:17am

Now that SNS can analyse meshes, I suppose that it brings us closer to making a "poor man's" non-linear analysis :

-Apply 1/10th (for example) of the load

-Analyse -> deform the mesh

-Apply the next 1/10th of the load on the previously deformed mesh

-...and so on, until all the load has been applied.

Cheers,

--

Olivier

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivier Suire on May 16, 2013 at 11:21am

Typically, around a hole designed as a bolted fitting, there are huge stress values :

If we strictly limit ourselves to having no areas over plastic limit, the over-engineering on those assembly becomes completely crazy.

Steel building code has verification formulas which allow a certain amount of plasticity to take place, and end up with reasonable thicknesses / hole diameters.

There really should be a way to ease-off these local stresses.

I suggested iterating on deformed shapes because it quickly leads to a slightly plastified geometry which spreads the stress around nicely, but you might come up with other ideas...

Anyway, something should be done so that SNS failure criteria gets closer to that found in building codes, otherwise it can hardly be considered useful in this field.

Cheers,

--

Olivier

• ▶ Reply