Review Total (Bearing) Loads

[JonathanHodgson]

Has anyone else come across bearing loads not summing correctly in Review Total Load?

If I RTL on a single bearing load, in most cases there seems to be a small percentage error when compared to the force components originally entered.

However, I've got one (out of four) in my current model which is showing a significant error: the load applied is 0, 11695, 94868 (with the hole axis being parallel to X), but RTL gives it as -115.264, 15329.4, 94420!

All the loads show some percentage errors, including introducing a non-zero force along the axis; but that 3.6 kN error in Y is ruining my attempts to check that I've calculated and applied the loads correctly.

Thoughts?

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[346gnu · Accepted solution]

Evening,

My immediate thought - Are the holes 'complete' holes?

The distribution is a bit 'dumb'. If you have a complete hole (360 deg of surface) and a bearing load pointing striaght up, then the lateral load comonent pointing left will exactly cancel the lateral load component pointing right.

If you remove part of the 360 deg of surface eg. for an oilway, and this hole isn't bang on 12 o'clock, then left and right won't add up. The distribution is scaled to continue to yield the total load vector in your desired direction ... but now with a bit of sideways.

Do you get the message '...resultant loads may differ...' or similar cryptic message alluding to there being a missing bit of surface to which the bearing load would otherwise be applied?

ttfn

[JonathanHodgson]

Thank you - that's got it!

The loaded bores are machined out of a casting, and the offending one was extending into a couple of ribs, so the width of the ring wasn't constant around the circumference.

A surface region fixed it.

Cheers!