PRO/MECHANICA

hI
I've only had some simple tutorials at uni for pro/mechanica, and I'd
like to use it on a beam
The beam I'm designing has a funny shape, otherwise I'd stick with
simple hand calc's.
To check whether I'm going down the right path, I started with a hand
calc of a square beam, simply supported.(Not cantilevered)
However, when i try and use mechanica, I dont get anywhere near the
same results.
I suspect that I'm not using the right constraints. however I havent
much expereince in picking them.
Can anyone give me some pointers on picking the right constraints on a
beam? I'm just wasting time at the moment

Cheers
Craig

 

rather than consider a square beam, why not use the section properties
for the beam, which are available in the model analysis - x sec
analysis tool? then your 'by hand' calc shouls be pretty well bang on
and you'll know if your mechanica model is predicting accurately

 

Thanks John
However, eventually i need to put the actual shape in pro/mechanica, it
is a thin extruded section with some funny details. I would like to
'benchmark" what i'm doing, so that I can be confident of the results
when i am doing the complicated shape. so i would like to do a simple
beam with the same constrints and loads, but preferably 3d

Cheers
Craig

 

The Zen of constraints say:
"You don't pick them; they pick you." So, you must ask yourself (perchance to tell
us, your spirit guides): 'what constrains my beam (really)' ~ if you can answer
that, Sensai Dave says, 'You'll know the chosen when you see them: Physics 101.'
(Or, are you having, as yet unrevealed, procedural problem [what button to push to
do suchandsuch]!?!) We wait to be enlightened.

 

thank you for your words of wisdom Sensei Dave. I have in fact worked
out the correct constraints for pins, ie allowing the z axis free to
rotate. Results line up with expected hand calcs. I now feel free to
move onto more esoteric shapes than simple beams, using sketcher to
draw them

Cheers
Craig