The most important part of an analysis is the interpretation
of results, also called post-processing. Too much focus is often put on
problem setup and solution – load magnitudes and directions, mesh
particulars, solver choices, material properties – but all that effort
is totally worthless if you misinterpret the results! Here are the most
common mistakes, still made by the best of us.
The Singularity
The
most common source of numerical error is still the most common source
of interpretation errors. This is when the solver divides by zero,
resulting in erroneously high stresses as it tries to solve for
infinity. The most common singularity locations are at zero-radius
corners (sharp corners), and zero-area loads/restraints/contacts (edges
and vertices), and zero-displacement fixtures.
The best defense is to always run your study a second time, with a
different mesh size, and ensure your results are similar. This technique
is called “mesh-independent results”, and is the single best way to get
confidence in your answers.
Displacement Scale
You might think your parts interfere when they don’t. Or the other way around.
At SOLIDWORKS World 2005, the star of American Chopper, Paul Teutel Sr., famously quipped, “Red is bad, blue is good.” True for SimulationXpress, but outside that app it isn’t always so straightforward.
Yes, the default Von Mises Stress will reliably give you red colors
at highest stress values, since it always represents a scalar value
greater than zero. However other stress types, most notably Normal
Stresses and Principal Stresses may have their most significant value in
a compressive direction, a negative number that will be blue by
default. Similarly, the regions of zero stress might end up in the
yellow-green portion of the spectrum.
I already talked about singularities. This one is about numerical
values that accurate, but are wrong because they are too large for real
life. I’m referring to stresses above yield. Designers in a hurry may
glance at where the stress concentrations appear and forget to
double-check the stress values. If you have any values that exceed the
yield stress of your material, then your study violates your assumptions
of linear static equilibrium. You need to perform a nonlinear
plasticity study, or at least view your results with a very high degree
of skepticism. All you really know is that your part probably yields;
you don’t actually know where or how, because the FEA is simply finding
force over area that balances equilibrium. It doesn’t matter to the
solver if that equals 1,000,000 psi and your aluminum can only take
50,000 psi.
A nice tip is to change your settings so values above yield are given a different color entirely, like gray. Go to Simulation – Options – Default Options – Plot – Color Chart to turn on that setting which applies to vonMises plots.
By GSC SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation offers some great tools for analyzing rotating region problems. There are a lot of capabilities within the tool but, often times, there isn’t a lot of information about these capabilities. This article is meant to be a comprehensive guide to everything related to rotating region problems within SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation. This will include explaining the different types of rotating region problems as well as the best practices associated with each one of them. There are two main types of rotating regions in Flow Simulation; global and local rotating regions. Both of these types are available for all fluid types; Newtonian and Non-Newtonians fluids. Global Rotating Region The global rotating region assumes you have a model that is completely symmetric about the rotating axis and all the components within the computational domain are rotating at the speed of the rotating reference frame. Due to the fact this type...