Line2 - Beam - parameters needed for stress calculations

JMF11

Hello,

I'm afrais that this is a very stupid question. However, I did not found the answer by myself browsing the documentation, the forum and doing some researches on the net. I model a beam made of line2 elements, clamp on one side and apply a force on the other. I use the "Circular tube" geometry, and the internal solver. It calculates the displacements, but I can't get the stress.

I tried to add manually some of the stress items to the solutions. But they are not calculated ans stay red "Field variables that it depends on exist - NO".

What would be the missing variables ? How to get some indications of stress (and Forces domain to stay in to stay in material elastic domain) ?

And sorry in advance if this is a stupid question.

Best regards,

JM

JMF11

With attachment

cwharpe

Try Solution / New stress and strain / Stress in element coordinates. Previous versions listed this with (beams, shells) after the description. Similarly, look under / New force and moment to activate your bending moment, shear, and axial force outputs.

I often find the orientation of beam element cross-sections need to be checked (and adjusted). You may already have noted how the Show element surfaces (cube) is a great visual clue. Also, the Show element axis can illustrate whether the green element V axis is oriented as you intended the green (V) arrow in the Material geometry definition.

A range of FEA knowledge exists among forum members. Keep asking questions.

~Cheers.

disla

Hi,

If you are dealing with pipes and solid bars look at this recent post about accuracy of circular sections.

https://calculix.discourse.group/t/psa-always-use-pipe-not-circ-for-circular-beam-section/1286

Not sure yet if this apply to the internal solver too.

Maybe Victor knows ¿?.

Regards

JMF11

Thanks a lot cwharpe for the indication. It was under my nose, but I had not seen it. True that it was written (I'm using v16), but was only looking at categories I had alread used in previous simulations.

I can now move forward with those indications.

@Disla: for the moment, I'm still on the qualitative side, and I'm not too picky about accuracy. But I will be cautious when I will try to squeeze quantitative values out of my simulations.

Best regards,

JMF