cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Stay updated on what is happening on the PTC Community by subscribing to PTC Community Announcements. X

Gravity and beam releases...

jellis-2
4-Participant

Gravity and beam releases...

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me. I am running an analysis on a lifting fixture where I need a single point to lift from for moving the fixture around, not for moving its intended load. I set up an interface for a shackle located directly above the CG, provided by Creo, set up a rigid link between this interface and a point 1" above it and constrained that point in translation and kept all the rotations free. I applied a gravity load, vertically, and the results provided had wild displacements placed the CG no where near being under constraint. Not sure if gravity is working correctly or not in this simulation. I cant figure our why the CG moved so much.

 

I tried another method where I added a second point 18" above the first one over the interface and put a beam element between the two and fully released the beam at the lower part where the shackle would be and allowed rotation in all axis at the top. I also moved my constraint to the top point. Additionally I added a very light ground spring to the assembly to constrain anything I may have missed. I ran this case with gravity and while it looked more realistic than the first run but it still threw the CG well out from under the constraint point. Interestingly the beam still remained vertical and did not displace in any direction except a small vertical displacement which is to be expected due to gravity and from the beam releases not adding any moment into the beam.

 

Has anyone dealt with simulating a hanging load before under a single point or had any of these problems? Or is there anyway that simulate can calculate a different CG than when in modeling? I am lost as to why this is acting this way.

1 REPLY 1

I have just a few ideas.  I recall having an issue like this before for evaluating lifting tackle.

In the rigid link scenario did you have an element at the point 1" above?  A rigid link must always attach to an element.  I would also use a low k spring to any point like you mentioned.

Also, you may be under-constrained in one or both scenarios.  I would try a generic spring to add a small torsional stiffness to the points that have free rotation.

Check the COG in the analysis report to see how it compares to the CAD side.

Another maybe better idea is to constrain the point rather than allowing rotation and check the reaction moment at the constraint with a measure.  It would need to be a low number if you are truly over the COG.

 

 

Top Tags