simulazioni in ansys kickscooter

[giupen96]

Hello everyone,
I'm a trainee student at a company and I'm struggling with simulations in ansys 2021 regarding the frame of an electric scooter I made of creo.
I imported .stp files into ansys and now I should proceed with simulations;
As for mesh, do you know how to give me an indication of the maximum size to be attributed? and what form to give? do you also know if it is a problem if two pieces of different material come into contact? for example fork that is in steel with barge that is in aluminum alloys.
I correctly performed simulations in static environment where the maximum dim was 5 mm, but now that I have a somewhat more complex model with the addition of the fork I am experiencing problems.
Thank you in advance.

 

[Stan9411]

the minimum size will be the one that brings you to convergence the results in terms of deformation. . the greater the size of the mesh and typically the more rigid your model.. there will be a minimum size of the elements below which I no longer see an appreciable variation of the results .. a rule of common sense and that to reproduce well a phenomenon of bending, you must have at least 3 elements in the thickness of your interest.

the shape of the element will depend on the geometry to be discreteized. hexahedra are more precise, but they struggle to approximate complex geometries and full of fittings and curved shapes, on which the tetrahedra “calzano” better.

Since you are in trouble on these basic criteria, I would advise you to start by doing the simulation on a set that requires the modeling of contacts, frictions, games etc. model only the critical component (e.g. the fork) impose the loads and, instead of contacts with the other components, ponies of the constraints (inks, sleeves, hinges etc.). Obviously at the end the component will have to be at least isovinculated.

Always remember that the fem is a “approached” evaluation tool.. do not think that it can replicate exactly the reality. try to approach it as much as possible to pull out the numeral, but then critically evaluate it with your engineer brain: “In light of the approximations I have made, am I overestimating or underestimated? How can I be safe? ”

 

[Stan9411]

it goes that this ends in pole-position between my most thrown interventions to the wind...

 

[wert]

:lol:

 

[giupen96]

Thank you.

the minimum size will be the one that brings you to convergence the results in terms of deformation. . the greater the size of the mesh and typically the more rigid your model.. there will be a minimum size of the elements below which I no longer see an appreciable variation of the results .. a rule of common sense and that to reproduce well a phenomenon of bending, you must have at least 3 elements in the thickness of your interest.

the shape of the element will depend on the geometry to be discreteized. hexahedra are more precise, but they struggle to approximate complex geometries and full of fittings and curved shapes, on which the tetrahedra “calzano” better.

Since you are in trouble on these basic criteria, I would advise you to start by doing the simulation on a set that requires the modeling of contacts, frictions, games etc. model only the critical component (e.g. the fork) impose the loads and, instead of contacts with the other components, ponies of the constraints (inks, sleeves, hinges etc.). Obviously at the end the component will have to be at least isovinculated.

Always remember that the fem is a “approached” evaluation tool.. do not think that it can replicate exactly the reality. try to approach it as much as possible to pull out the numeral, but then critically evaluate it with your engineer brain: “In light of the approximations I have made, am I overestimating or underestimated? How can I be safe? ”

Thank you.