Mito125
Guest
Good morning, I should compare two solutions obtained by re-elaborating the problem in 2d and 1d (it is an exercise of a fem analysis book). I add an image to make you understand how I thought of solving the two parts:
part 2d I thought to solve it by only realizing the surface of the cone trondo, setting the model designer in 2d, then going to insert the f force, the fixed side and indicating how frictionless the axis of symmetry, also I set the 2d solution as axisymmetric.
the 1d solution I wanted to realize it by setting the model designer as lines bodies, creating the classic swing beam, but I don't know how to indicate the section. It's a cylindrical section that varies, it's a cone trunk. So I was thinking of inserting a single section and making the cone trunk a cylinder.
with these hypotheses, will I go to simplify the problem too much? Am I wrong in setting the 1d solution? Maybe even the 2d solution is wrong.
Thank you.
part 2d I thought to solve it by only realizing the surface of the cone trondo, setting the model designer in 2d, then going to insert the f force, the fixed side and indicating how frictionless the axis of symmetry, also I set the 2d solution as axisymmetric.the 1d solution I wanted to realize it by setting the model designer as lines bodies, creating the classic swing beam, but I don't know how to indicate the section. It's a cylindrical section that varies, it's a cone trunk. So I was thinking of inserting a single section and making the cone trunk a cylinder.
with these hypotheses, will I go to simplify the problem too much? Am I wrong in setting the 1d solution? Maybe even the 2d solution is wrong.
Thank you.