Hallo Flecki,
das gleiche Problem hatte ich auch bis vor kurzem. Aus Amiland habe ich folgende Angaben. Hatte aber noch keine Zeit es selbst zu testen.
Bitte gib mir Bescheid ob Du damit etwas anfangen kannst.
Gruß Ralf
"Gentlemen,
After much hard work and a lengthy phone conversation with UG tech support, I have been enlightened in the proper way to do section analyses in UG.
Ralf, it turns out that there are UG tricks involved here. There are two ways to do this analysis: work-arounds in 2D, or faking it in 3D.
If you wish to do 2D, first you define a Trimmed Planar sheet body using your section curves (MUST be planar equations), then use Analysis + Area Using Curves + Boundary (Temporary) + Face and pick your Trimmed Planar face. I had some success with this, but it did not work every time. It provided either the same numbers as a 3D analysis. or numbers nearly zero; somewhat of a pass/fail method, not very robust.
I found it best to use 3D. Create a face using your section curves (for 3D it can be planar or cubic B-splines, it doesn't matter), then poke Analysis + Mass Using Curves and Sheets + Thin Shell, set your tolerances and/or accuracies, and then the trick here is to set density to one (1.0), and then pick your face for analysis. After UG gives a solution, generate the centroidal axes. Look at your listing window, use the values at the bottom for Principal Moments of Inertia, and compare what UG has shown to be the centroidal axes and what the actual construction plane axes are in your mind. UG may have flipped an axis notation; for example, in my analysis, UG listed I_x as I_yyp. So, use the numerical values that UG gives you, but you will prolly need to change the axis notation references.
If anything is unclear, please feel free to call. I know that the above description is confusing, but I am confident that I can provide the correct analysis results in UG."
Eine Antwort auf diesen Beitrag verfassen (mit Zitat/Zitat des Beitrags) IP
Foren auf CAD.de (alle Foren)
| 
