Assignment 3

Objective:-

To compare the results of simulations of both the Raw model and the model with the properties being changed.

Procedure followed:-

Import the geometry which is to be simulated.

CASE 1

Check the properties for case 1 and without changing proceed by saving the radioss file

Energy and mass error is as per the criteria taken from rad_001.out i.e. the energy error varies in between 0% to -11%.

Mass error is 0.1659E-03 and it is acceptable.

Post case 1 we were provided with some property criteria which we have to change in the cards of the second file and then run the simulation.

CASE 2

In case 2 we will change the property as well as the run time and animation frequency of the component. Post changing the property and card we will run the simulation and will compare the result.

The following property parameters need to be assigned in case 2.

Parameters		Comment
Ishell =24		QEPH 4 nodes shells are best combination of cost and accuracy.
Ismstr=2		Full geometric nonlinearities (default)with possible small strain formulation activation in RADIOSS Engine.
Ish3n=2		Standard 3 noded shell (C0)with modification for large rotation(default)
N=5		Number of integration points set to 5 for accuracy bending.
Ithick=1		Thickness change is taken into account for accuracy.
Iplas=1		Iterative plasticity for good accuracy.

Changing the properties of both hat section and close out panel.

Changing the run time using cards from 60 to 55:

Animation file changing using cards from start freq as 25 and end frequency as 60:

Energy error and mass error screenshots are attached below for the case 2.

As we can see that there is a huge difference in energy error compared to case 1 component in which the properties are not changed (i.e. I shell,Ismstr,etc)

Now using hyper-view running the H3D file Side by side of both case 1 and case 2.

Using hypercrash running the simulation side by side of the following energies and forces.

Internal energy for both case 1 and case 2

Rigid wall forces, Normal force, tangent forces, and resultant forces

Hourglass energy

Contact energy

Total energy of simulations

Conclusion:-

On changing the properties of the simulation various changes were found in the energies as well as forces in the components. Like from the above attached files it can be seen that hourglass energy was far more better in Case 2 than Case 1. Also in case 1 the contact energy was near to 25000 where as in case 2 the same contact energy is near to 6000. And the maximum internal energy graph seems to be more better in case of case 2 than case 1, like in case 1 the max internal energy was 2.25E07 where as in case 2 the max internal energy was 2.00E07 .