Chassis calculations for Frame design...

Department of Management and EngineeringDivision of Mechanics

Chassis calculations for Frame designFU14-116

August 2, 2015

Erik Olofsson

LIU-IEI-TEK-A–15/02319—SE

Copyright

The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible re-placement –from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances. The on-line availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, todownload, or to print out single copies for his/hers own use and to use it unchangedfor non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copy-right cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditionalupon the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and ad-ministrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility. Accordingto intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/herwork is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement. Foradditional information about the Linkoping University Electronic Press and its pro-cedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to itswww home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.

c© Erik Olofsson

1

Abstract

This is a Masters Thesis report of a project carried out at Scania AB in Sodertalje.The project concerns rationalizing Chassis calculations for use in truck Frame design.The subject for analysis is a six-wheeled articulated truck, and the load cases understudy is Lateral Loading, Frame Torsion and Vertical Load on Kingpin. Makingrobust deformation and stress models with a calculation time sufficiently short andaccuracy consistently high for efficient design work is an arduous task. This reportpresents several approaches to tackle this type of problem. By means of simplifyingcontemporary modeling approaches and methods and automating the setup process,a method that enables short calculation iterations on a chassis frame of a truck isachieved. This is done using the Catia GAS framework in conjunction with severalother licences commonly used by designers.

2

Acknowledgements

A lot of support has been put in to this project, both from the university and fromScania. The author of this report is therefore eager to show his appreciation.

First of all Martin Hede (Scania) deserves to be shown gratitude for the helpfuldiscussions and support throughout the project. So too does Uno Andersson (Scania)for the generous availability of courses and software. Also the supervisor of theproject, Bo Torstenfelt (LiU) deserves a special mentioning for the sound advice andencouragement. A special mentioning also to the members of the steering commiteeat Scania: Henrik Bruce for all the valuable input, Jonas Hagsjo for all the help withverifying models and to Mikael Thellner. Thank you also Christian Skoog (LiU) forthe corrective reading, fresh perspective, and excellent opposition.

Erik OlofssonSodertalje, August 2, 2015

3

Contents

1 Introduction 81.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3 Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 Problem specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.5 Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.6 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.7 Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 Theoretical Background 122.1 Sources of Nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2 Submodeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3 Element formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Method 153.1 Element formulation for beam structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Script aided analysis setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.3 Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.4 Load Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 Results and Discussion 294.1 Verification of Load Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.2 Overall methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.3 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 Conclusions 38

A Appendix IA.1 General Analysis Connection and Rigid connection property . . . . . IIA.2 One-Click-Publish A Series of Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIA.3 One-click-create a series of General Analysis Connections and Rigid

Connection properties between series of publications . . . . . . . . . IXA.4 Submodeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV

4

List of Figures

1.1 Picture of the Chassis Frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Principal sketches of elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Picture showing principle of load case application. . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Picture showing 10-node Tetrahedron mesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Picture showing 10-node Tetrahedron mesh combined with a Beam

element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.4 Picture showing 6-node Triangle mesh combined with a Beam element. 173.5 10-node Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.6 Procedure for running submodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.7 Picture showing coordinate system alignment and points used for

elimination of rigid body rotations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.8 Picture showing principle of Cornering load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.9 XY-view of free body diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.10 ZY-view of symbolic axle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.11 Boundary conditions for Lateral Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.12 Boundary conditions for Frame Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Lateral Loading LoadCase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference LateralLoading Load Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.3 Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due to LateralLoading according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Frame Torsion LoadCase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.5 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due to theFrame Torsion Load Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.6 Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due to FrameTorsion according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.7 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from the Catia Vertical Load onKingpin case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.8 ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference due toVertical Load on Kingpin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.9 Comparison of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due toVertical Load on Kingpin according to method in Section 3.3 . . . . 34

4.10 Collocation of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due totaking Nonlinear geometry into account in Lateral Loading loadcase 35

4.11 Difference in nodal displacement due to taking Nonlinear geometriesinto account in Lateral Loading loadcase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5

LIST OF FIGURES

4.12 Collocation of nodal displacement on top right flange edge due totaking Nonlinear geometry into account in Frame Torsion load case . 36

4.13 Difference in nodal displacement due to applying Linear Perturbationto Frame Torsion load case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6

List of Tables

2.1 Governing parameters of the beam element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Mean deflection in loaded direction of nodes on edge face due to unitforce [N] or torque [Nxm]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 100U−Uref

Urefusing 10nodeTET as reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3 Convergence study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Scania AB is one of the world’s leading manufacturers in the heavy transport seg-ment. The company has been developing Trucks and associated support systemssince 1911 and has a sales and service organisation spanning more than a hundredcountries.

An integral part of the truck is the Chassis frame. Being the main load bearingstructure of the truck, well-conditioned design of the Chassis frame is paramount tothe success of the truck as a whole.

The Chassis frame, pictured in Figure 1.1 is the foundation on which the restof the truck is mounted. It comes in many configurations, where the needs of thecustomer are reflected in the payload that the Frame is fitted with and what combi-nation of driving condition and speed it is to handle. The Frames varies in length,thickness of members and number of crossbeams but has several governing charac-teristics.

• Characteristics

– Steel and cast iron is used for both cross and lengthwise beams

– The lengthwise beams have a “C” shaped cross section

– The crossbeams run in an orthogonal direction between the lengthwisebeams

– Rivets are used, where applicable, for attaching non-removable geometries

– Bolts are used for removable geometries

8

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1: Picture of the Chassis Frame.

The Frame is subject to continuous improvements, where any development whichleads to a more light-weight structure enables bigger payloads and less fuel con-sumption. This goal, while also considering the requirements on stiffness, price andrespecting the modular boundary reserved for the Frame, makes for a complex task.It is worth mentioning that the production methodologies and fundamental designprinciples of the Frame can be considered mature, seeing as the Frame, in its manyvariants, has been iterated upon for decades.

In construction of Chassis frames there is great demand for exploratory and ver-ifying calculations complementing the experience and testing schemes guiding thedesigners in their effort. In contemporary methodologies calculations are performedby designers, generally with limited and usually linear models, and calculation en-gineers, using more intricate and often non-linear models. A central challenge is toshorten the iteration time, i.e. the time from identification of the need for calculationand the result, in order to make reviewing of changes to the design configurationmore effective. This can be done by either increasing the computational power orrelaxing the computational problem and thereby cut the amount of CPU-hours re-quired. The current computer aided design tool (CAD) used at Scania is Catia [1] ,where simulation is performed in the Catia Generative Assembly Structural analy-sis tool (GAS). In this tool, geometries can be assembled for analysis directly fromthe CAD interface, whereupon structural, modal and thermal calculations can beperformed on the structures [2].

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate ways of simplifying frame calculationmodels currently being used for verification into something that can be used iter-atively during design. Furthermore, the thesis is to meet the requirements for adegree project - Master’s Thesis at Linkoping University.

1.3 Goal

The goal of the project is to, at the conclusion of the project, present a recom-mendation on how to approach using finite element (FE) analysis when designing

9


chassis frames. The recommendation is concerning both the effective setup of theanalysis, verification of the model using comparisons to a similar model in Abaqusand handling the result.

1.4 Problem specification

The geometry for investigation is a six-wheel truck frame mounted with a Kingpinsubjected to a 210 [KN] vertical force representing a standard trailer. Three loadcases that historically have proven to be dimensioning for side- and crossbeams,Vertical Load on Kingpin, Lateral Loading and Frame Torsion, are investigated.Can simplifications to contemporary analysis setups for the investigated load casesbe used to enable both the accuracy and computation times that is needed foreffective iterative frame design using a standard computer?

1.5 Restrictions

Well posed restrictions are crucial in order to attain a depth of detail sufficientenough to be both comprehensible and universal so that the methodology presentedherein can be mimicked on similar problems.

1.5.1 Restriction on physical magnitudes for investigation

The analysis is restricted to only obtain deformation and stress levels. This is inpart due to limitations in the software. The results are intended to give a goodbasis for verification but at the same time limit the amount of theoretical knowledgeneeded to use the method compared to, say, cycles-to-failure-estimations.

1.5.2 Restriction on material- and deformation models

The analysis will assume small deformations and linear stress-strain relationshipsonly. This is in part due to limitations in the software. This is a reasonable assump-tion for the three load cases in question. The method and result of the investigationof the well-posedness of this assumption is presented in Section 3.4.5 and Section4.1.4 respectively.

1.5.3 Restriction on software

Apart from the verification only the tools and methods found in Catia GAS andassociated licenses are used in the analysis. No external tools will be used formeshing, post-analysis or other. This is intended to keep the method close to theone envisioned to be the standard method for future design work at Scania.

1.5.4 Restriction on domain of investigation

The geometry and boundary conditions are restricted in order to, for the three chosenload cases, describe the deformation and stress with sufficient accuracy for the side-and crossbeams. All other geometry is considered to be of secondary importance.

1.6 Method

The method is to, with Scania best practice documents for load cases as a guide,establish load cases in Catia GAS, and find ways of making the calculation time suffi-

10


ciently short and accurate for efficient design work. The verification comprises com-parisons of deformation and stress levels with similar results provided from Abaqusmodels. In addition, analytical calculations are performed on particular geometrieswhere applicable. In addition to this exploring ways of enhancing the speed at whichthe analysis case can be established via automating parts of the analysis setup willbe explored.

1.7 Other considerations

No ethical or gender related questions are raised by the thesis. It has no directconnection to environmental or social effects.

11

Chapter 2

Theoretical Background

In the following chapter, the necessary theory used in the method will be displayed.

2.1 Sources of Nonlinearity

In linear analysis [K]{D} = {R} has a unique solution where the deflection islinearly proportional to the applied force. In the instance of nonlinearities, whereeither of or both [K] and {R} are functions of {D} a solution to [K]{D} = {R} canonly be found using methods where [K] and {R} are updated iteratively [3]. Thefollowing section describes the relevant types of different terms.

2.1.1 Geometric Nonlinearity

Geometric nonlinearities are stiffness variations caused by large deformation or ro-tations during loading or unloading of a structure. FE-softwares generally gives theoption of making “small-displacement” assumptions. This means ignoring geomet-ric nonlinearities in the element calculations, and linearizing the kinematic relation-ships. The elements are formulated in the initial configuration and does not updateduring the analysis. In the case of Catia GAS, this assumption is the standard [4].Using Abaqus on the other hand this is only optional. Abaqus gives, even in the caseof linear element formulations, the option of utilizing large-sliding contact trackingalgorithms to account for rotations and large displacements [5].

2.1.2 Material Nonlinearity

Material nonlinearity is present in all material formulations where the stress-strainrelationship is not linear. Factors like plastic flow, where a loading induces changeto the microscopic structure of the material or history dependence, i.e. a material’sresponse being sensitive to previous loading are sources to nonlinearities.

2.1.3 Boundary Nonlinearity

Boundary nonlinearities stem from either gaps opening or closing or sliding with orwithout friction occurring between surfaces of two structures, or between internalsurfaces of a structure. Such nonlinearities are prevalent in analysis using bolttightening. The accuracy, robustness and computational complexity varies with thediscretization and sliding tracking approach [6]. In Catia GAS the only availablemethod for approximating slider connections uses a “node-to-surface” discretizationcombined with a “small-sliding” tracking approach [7]. Because the Elfini solver,the Catia standard issue solution engine, does not allow for large displacement[4],

12

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

all sliding and rotations are considered infinitesimal. Abaqus/Standard allows fora plethora of different approaches to contact discretization, tracking approach andenforcement. The general contact formulation in Abaqus/Explicit utlilizes ”surfaceweighting”-, ”surface polarity”- and ”finite sliding”-approaches by default [8].

2.2 Submodeling

Submodeling is a technique that enables studies of a local region of a large modelusing boundary conditions based on an interpolation from the solution of the largemodel. In the case of nodal deformation-based submodeling, according to Cook[3]the procedure usually is as follows: A global model with a mesh refinement suf-ficient for ensuring confidence in accuracy of the global deformation is run. Thedisplacement of the nodes surrounding the local region designated for subanalysisis exported. The exported displacement is imposed on the boundary of the localregion via an interpolation scheme. This allows for mesh refinement in the localregion to an extent which can give a very high resolution description of the stressfield, at a relatively low computational cost. The submodeling approach is suitablein cases where the detail of modeling in the studied region has a small effect on theoverall solution. If changes are to be made to the submodel structure, they need tobe sufficiently small as to not change the overall stiffness of the adjacent structure,else they invalidate the submodel, calling for another global analysis[3]. Catia doesnot support node-based export of deformation to submodel by default. There are,however, methods of exporting and imposing nodal deformations. Such capabilitiesin conjunction with a palette of possibilities of assigning master and slave node rela-tionships, with both kinematically and least square approaches, opens up for, albeitsomewhat reduced, methodologies that are similar in effect to submodeling.

2.3 Element formulations

The following elements are used:For 3D-elements, 10-node iso-parametric Tetrahedrons as seen in Figure 2.1a are

used. This element has four gauss points [9].For shell-elements, 6-node Parabolic Triangles as seen in Figure 2.1b are used.

This element has three gauss points [10].For Beam elements, a two-node straight beam element with traverse shear based

on Timoshenko theory is applied[11]. The principle sketch of the beam can be seenin Figure 2.1c. Catia presents several methods of assigning the governing parametersseen in Table 2.1 of the beam element according to different types of cross-sections.One of those, the ”Beam from surface” approach allows for the selection of anarbitrary cross-section as basis for an automatic assignment of the beam parameters[12].

The Kinematic spider, or rigid spider, connects a series of slave nodes to a mas-ternode using kinematic relationships[13]. A kinematic spider-element containingonly one slave node is called a kinematic beam-, or rigid beam-element.

13

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Table 2.1: Governing parameters of the beam element

Symbol Unit Property

A m2 Cross-sectional AreaCy m y-coordinate of the shear center of the beamCz m z-coordinate of the shear center of the beamqxy − Ratio of Y shear area over cross-sectional areaqxz − Ratio of Z shear area over cross-sectional areaIxx m4 xx-component of the inertia matrix of the beamIyy m4 yy-component of the inertia matrix of the beamIzz m4 zz-component of the inertia matrix of the beam

(a) 10-node Tetrahedron (b) 6-node Triangle

(c) Beam (d) Kinematic Spider

Figure 2.1: Principal sketches of elements

14

Chapter 3

Method

3.1 Element formulation for beam structure

Analysis run times are closely related to the number of unknowns in the structure.Computation times can therefore be reduced by, where suitable, utilizing elementsthat use fewer nodes while still accurately describing the structure. As the modeldescribed in Section 3.4 is comprised of mainly beams with a more or less nonvariable cross-section in different constellations, the analysis run time can be reducedby utilizing the less heavy beam element formulation. The studied beam is a typicalcast iron beam used for stiffening the structure immediately surrounding the bogiesuspension. It has a somewhat uneven cross-sectional area, making it an interestingspecimen for investigating the effect of different discretizations. The beam is studiedusing three levels of complexity. All three setups has one side clamped at the holeedges, while the other side’s face is subject to four sets of forces. The four load casesapplied are unit loads (1 [N]) in the X-, Y- and Z-directions and torque (1 [Nm]) inY-direction applied evenly distributed on all nodes of the beam’s end face as shownin Figure 3.1. The evaluation is in the form of measuring the displacement of theend - face nodes separately for all the loads applied.

Figure 3.1: Picture showing principle of load case application.

15

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

3.1.1 10-node iso-parametric Tetrahedron

This element formulation follows the CAD- geometry of the beam as shown i Figure3.2. Setup times are short, seeing as the procedure for applying an auto-mesh andapplying the appropriate boundary conditions is trivial. This approach also has acertain intuitiveness, since stress field renditions can, when studied critically, givea hint of the well-statedness of the studied problem. The convergence of the endface displacement with respect to element size is studied. The setup time for thisconfiguration is approximately 15 minutes.

Figure 3.2: Picture showing 10-node Tetrahedron mesh.

3.1.2 10-node Tetrahedron / Beam element

This setup utilizes the 10-node Tetrahedron for the parts of the beam with a variablecross section area, and the Beam element formulation for the more or less constantcross sectional mid portion of the beam as seen in Figure 3.3. The beam propertiesare established to mimic the cross section at the mid portion of the beam using thebuilt in “Beam From Surface” tool in conjunction with kinematic spider elementsconnecting the beam to the end surface of the Tetrahedron portions of the structure.The converged mesh density of 10-node tet-element were used for the variable cross-section portion. The setup time for this configuration is approximately 90 minutes.

Figure 3.3: Picture showing 10-node Tetrahedron mesh combined with aBeam element.

16

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

3.1.3 6-node Parabolic Triangle / Beam element

This setup utilizes the 6-node parabolic triangle element with a shell property formodeling the end plates of the beam. A beam element connects the two end platesusing a property established with the ”Beam from Surface” tool in conjunction withkinematic spiders connecting the beam end nodes to a delimitation of the end surfacemesh that is a projection of the mid cross section of the beam onto the end plates.The setup time for this configuration is approximately 90 minutes and the mesh canbe seen in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Picture showing 6-node Triangle mesh combined with a Beamelement.

3.1.4 Element choice Evaluation

The following section is an evaluation of the three discretization approaches.As seen in Table 3.1 and visually in Figure 3.5d the difference in end-face defor-

mation is negligable when comparing the 10-node TET to the Beam/10-node Tetformulation. The differences in deformation is, as seen in Table 3.2, not consistentbetween the four load cases.

The effect from using a kinematic spider to connect the beam element to theend piece structure does not seem significant for this type of composition. Sincethe kinematic-spider approach effectively creates an infinitely stiff cross-section, itis likely that such an approximation would be unsuitable for beams where the localdeformation at or near the cross section is important to the global behaviour. Thiscan be seen in comparing Figures 3.5a and 3.5b where the local stiffening from therigid spider affect the deformation and stress distribution in close vicinity to thespider.

Another source to the difference in stiffness is that the beam element formulationassumes a constant cross section. The Tri/Beam configuration, seen if Figure 3.5cis affected to a greater extent from this compared to the Tet/Beam seen in Figure3.5b. The cross section is more uneven and gets progressively thicker closer to the endplates. This could be better described by using a multitude of cross-sections as basisfor the beam elements, giving a greater stiffness closer to the end plates. Anotherapproach could be some form of linear scaling of the stiffness. The suitability ofsuch approaches could be put into question since the setup-time of such endeavoursfar exceeds the gain in computation time, as seen in Table 3.1.

One important item to consider is the fact that the Tet10/Beam configurationtakes longer time than the pure Tet10 approach to compute. This is in spite of

17

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

having 4/5 the amount of nodes. This is likely due to restrictions to the Catia solverwhere multithreading (i.e. parallel computation) is restricted to the factorizationcomputation, Direct method and frequency solution steps. All other solution steps,namely the ones associated with setting up the problem, are single threaded [14].This punishes approaches where one part is replaced by several less complex parts,as theese attempts show. The computational time cost saving from reducing theamount of degrees of freedoms is more than made up for by the additional timespent in the slower single threaded solver steps on one hand and the considerableextra time spent on analysis setup on the other hand. One can therefore argue thatthe most efficient way of shortening the analysis iteration time is to streamline theanalysis setup process. If, on the other hand, a less strict criterion for convergencewere to be used, the difference in the amount of nodes of the mesh between the10-node TET to the Beam/10-node Tet would be bigger. See Table 3.3 for theconvergence study. This is due to the a behaviour of the automatic mesh procedurewhere regions of the structure with sharp surface curvatures are prioritised overnon-complex parts of the structure in the mesh distribution. In the example using10-node TET elements, the mesh refinement is mostly focused at in the structurethat is not approximated by the beam element. The Beam/10-node Tet-approachwould with this reasoning be more efficient at lower degrees of mesh refinement.

(a) Tet VM stress in de-formed state.

(b) Tet/Beam VM stressin deformed state.

(c) Tri/Beam VM stressin deformed state.

(d) Tet : BlueTet/Beam : RedTri/Beam : Green

Figure 3.5: 10-node Tetrahedron

18

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

Specimen Ux[m] Uy[m] Uz[m] αy[◦] CPU/Walltime [s] Nr of nodes [-]

TET10 6.37e-8 -2.74e-9 0.89e-7 3.23e-5 70.3/35.3 158197TET10/Beam 6.33e-8 -2.78e-9 0.89e-7 3.17e-5 72.7/35.4 132469TRI6/Beam 8.86e-8 -2.13e-9 1.28e-7 3.84e-5 1.98/1.47 2864

Table 3.1: Mean deflection in loaded direction of nodes on edge face dueto unit force [N] or torque [Nxm].

Specimen Xfault[%] Yfault[%] Zfault[%] αyfault[%]

10nodeTET - - - -10nodeTET/Beam/Rigid -0.6198 1.3589 -0.2608 -1.79706nodeTRI/Beam/Rigid 39.2541 -22.2929 43.5319 18.7680

Table 3.2: 100U−Uref

Urefusing 10nodeTET as reference.

Prescribed element width [m] 7e-2 4e-2 2.5e-2 1.5e-2 7e-3

Number of nodes [-] 41341 81474 141999 158197 277866

10nodeTET CPU-/Wall time [s] 12.7/7.6 24.6/13.9 53.9/28.2 70.3/35.3 187.0/85.5

10nodeTET Ux[m] 6.2770e-8 6.3074e-8 6.3513e-8 6.3649e-8 6.3692e-8

Table 3.3: Convergence study

3.2 Script aided analysis setup

The results from attempts described in Section 3.1.4 suggest that the amount oftime spent running the analysis is small compared to setting it up. Given Catiaswell documented integrated macro script functionality, one method of speeding upthe setup process is automating repetitive or time-consuming steps of the process. Itis conceivable to automate most if not all stages of the analysis setup, as the humaninteraction with Catia can be substituted with scripting, given the right input. Thefollowing section is dedicated to descriptions of the automation developed duringthis thesis. The codes can be found in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Automated Analysis Connections, Connection Properties

In Catia the interconnectivity between different mesh bodies is governed by differ-ent combinations of analysis connections and connection properties. The connectionkeeps track of what parts of the structure are to be connected while the connec-tion properties determine the type of connection (sliding, kinematic, spring, etc.).Making one Analysis Connection/Property couple is a procedure that when donemanually takes 8-12 mouse clicks. In the case of the kinematic spider, the proce-dure found in Appendix A.1 reduces this to two (2) clicks. This principle can beused to automate all legal combinations of analysis connection and properties.

3.2.2 One-Click-Publish A Series of Publications

In Catia geometrical features can be assigned tags which, among other things, allowsfor geometries with similar function to become interchangeable. This operation iscalled publication. The script and procedure found in Appendix A.2 enables estab-lishment of publication series, where the features shares a common name, followed

19

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

by a unique index. This allows for quick-switching a geometry subjected to a mul-titude of analysis connections with another in the analysis context in an effectivemanner, or applying a large quantity of analysis connections in one operation asdescribed in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.3 Automated Analysis Connections, Connection Properties be-tween Series of Publications

The script and procedure found in Appendix A.3 combines the principles of thescripts found in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. The result is an example of a script thatapplies a series of analysis connections and properties between two series of publishedgeometries. The example can be modified into supporting any legal combination ofconnection and property.

3.2.4 Submodeling

As seen in Section 3.4.4 most beams are connected using kinematic spiders at eachscrew hole. The rigid spider element, as described in Section 2.3, has the propertythat it connects a masternode to any amount of slave-nodes as if fastened by infinitelystiff beam elements. This property, in conjunction with the capacity of exportingand/or enforcing any nodal displacement and rotations enables a method similar inprinciple to submodeling as seen in software like Abaqus. There are however a fewlimitations. The portion of the structure that is the subject of the submodel mustbe entirely delimited by either or a combination of:

1. Connections that use a master-slave node relationship. In Catia, examplesof these are rigid connection properties, smooth connection properties, rigidvirtual parts and smooth virtual parts.

2. Boundary conditions of any kind.

Any use of other connections like gliding with friction, surface pressure or surfacecontact will not render a result analogous to that of submodeling. The method goesas follows and has been automated to some extent with scripting, see AppendixSection A.1.1 for the code.

1. Run the global analysis.

2. Export the displacement and rotation on the master nodes of the connectionsdelimiting the structure of the submodel from the global model.

3. Enforce the displacement and rotations on the masternodes of the submodelmanually or by using the script in Appendix A.1.1.

4. Run the submodel

See Figure 3.6 for a graphical visualization of the procedure.

20

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

(a) Global analysis (b) Export displacement

(c) Enforce displacement (d) Run Submodel

Figure 3.6: Procedure for running submodel

This approach allows for changes to the mesh definitions of the submodel, givingaccess to stress pictures of great detail. Increasing the mesh density of the geometryfeature subject to a connection property increases the amount of slave nodes inthe master/slave relationship. In this respect, the method is totally analogous tosubmodeling interpolation schemes used in, for example, Abaqus.

3.3 Verification

For verification of the three load cases the global deformation of the side beams isstudied. The Catia models and their respective Abaqus reference is compared. Tothis end, a generalized method of comparing global deformations have been estab-lished. The method is comprised of applying a limited amount of post processingusing nodal deformation data. The following are the intended effects:

• It allows for comparisons between two different post processors.

• It enables comparison between two local deformations, with the option of elim-inating any rigid body translations or rotations from the result.

• As long as the node numbering goes unchanged, it can be rerun, offering aquick way to quantify the effect on deformation from a change.

In the case of the three load cases at hand the following procedure is used:

1. The nodal deformations are exported in whatever coordinate system that isthe default one.

2. Three nodes, A, B and C, are chosen in an area of small local deformation. Ais the origo, norm(B-A) acts as the e1 direction and norm(B-A x C-A) is thee3 direction. (B-A)x(B-A x C-A) is the e2 direction.

21

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

3. Both the non-deformed and the deformed coordinates are translated into thecoordinate system.

4. Plotting the non-deformed and the deformed state in their respective coordi-nate system renders a deformation picture which effectively has the rigid bodyrotation eliminated.

3.4 Load Cases

This section starts with a description of the three load cases under study. Thereare several governing characteristics of the models. All descriptions of vectors likeforces and displacements will be notated in RH coordinate system with principaldirections according to Figure 3.7, i.e. with the x-direction in the negative drivingdirection, and the y-direction aligned in the right. Furthermore, unless otherwisestated, the method of coordinate system transformation presented in Section 3.3have been applied using the points A, B and C marked with blue arrows in Figure3.7 on the data of all data plots displaying nodal deformations. This has the effectthat point A acts as origo for all data plots. After the description of the load casesfollows a description of the considerations made during the establishment of themodel. The section ends with a description of the method for gauging the effect ofthe non-linearities not taken into account by the Catia model.

Figure 3.7: Picture showing coordinate system alignment and points usedfor elimination of rigid body rotations.

3.4.1 Cornering

The cornering load case stems from the phenomenon of considerable lateral bendingoccurring when driving vehicles with three or more axles slowly in sharp corners,visualised in Figure 3.8. Lateral reaction forces on the front axle wheels increaseas they are being steered into an angle. This, in conjunction with the back wheelsbeing aligned rigidly in the forward direction, generates large lateral forces on allwheel pairs as seen in Figure 3.9. This results in a considerable z-aligned torqueon the bogie as well as a lateral bending of the frame. The severity is increased inconfigurations with non-steered rear axles, as this increases lateral forces on the rearaxles and thus the z-aligned torsion of the bogie.

22

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

Figure 3.8: Picture showing principle of Cornering load.

Fy1r + Fy1l − (Fy2r + Fy2l) + Fy3r + Fy3l = 0 (3.1)

− (Fy1r + Fy1l) Ad + (Fy3r + Fy3l) Bd = 0 (3.2)

WhereFyn = µgenFzn (3.3)

(Fynr + Fynl) Wrd − (Fznr + Fznl)Tnd

2= 0 (3.4)

Fznl + Fznr = 9.81Pn (3.5)

Where Pn is the technically allowed weight on axle n. Assuming center of gravity ofboth truck and trailer are centered gives equal contact pressure between wheelpairson all axles.

Fznl = Fznr (3.6)

Figure 3.9: XY-view of free body diagram.

23

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

Figure 3.10: ZY-view of symbolic axle.

Figure 3.11: Boundary conditions for Lateral Load

24

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

3.4.2 Frame Torsion

The frame Torsion Load Case is used to dimension the frame to handle the twistingdeformation that is associated with uneven road conditions. When the truck drivesover a bump with one wheel, the frame deflection is dependant on the frame torsionalstiffness. The established method of testing this property is for articulated trucksdivided into two steps. For the first step, a forced displacement couple is applied onthe front wheels, and in the second step, the displacement is reversed, see Load CaseVertical Load on Kingpin. As a mid load, force equivalent to 1g of the motor, caband bogie weight is applied in each center of gravity respectively. See Figure 3.12for a description of the boundary conditions. The resulting stress tensors are thenused to identify the mean and amplitude of the stress levels of critical components,which can then be compared to material data to ensure the expected load cycles tofailure related metrics.

Figure 3.12: Boundary conditions for Frame Torsion

3.4.3 Vertical Load on Kingpin

The Vertical Load on Kingpin load case is, while most commonly used as a mid loadin fatigue-analysis Load Cases, in itself interesting. The load case is often used as a”first probe” when deciding upon whether to attempt a new type of configuration.To this end, tools have evolved around the idea of automating calculations usingcustom built software to solve this load case specifically. The ease of implementa-tion and comparison to other configurations is it’s major advantages. The forcesequivalent to the weight of the motor, cabin and trailer under the influence of 1gare applied to their respective centers of gravity. In this implementation, the midload is investigated by using the mean tensor field of two load steps from the frametorsion load case according to Equation 3.7.

Tmid =T1 + T2

2(3.7)

25

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

The first load step is the one described in Figure 3.12. The second load step hasreversed enforced displacements in the vertical direction compared to the first, and isidentical in all other respects. This results in a non symmetrical deformation seeingas the boundary conditions of the Frame Torsion Load Case is not symmetrical.

3.4.4 Modeling considerations

The model is comprised of 35 unique parts discretized by 245271 TRI- and 358561TET-elements. The parts are connected by 763 spider elements, 18 bar elementsand 4 springs.

Non-script assisted setup of such a model would take approximately one week’stime. The run time of the Cornering and Frame Torsion load cases analysis is 60minutes for a mesh density sufficient for converged deformation along the sidebeams.The Vertical Load on Kingpin load case takes 120 minutes as two load steps areneeded for the result. During modeling, several considerations have been made.The following section describes them.

Constant thickness geometries

All structure with a predominately constant thickness were modeled using 6nodeTRI elements. This is intended to give a reasonable estimation of the stiffness whilealso enabling renditions of the stress field, a feature not available for beam elements.The alternative, i.e. modeling for example the sidebeams using TET10 elementswould require a large amount of elements if a healthy element width ratio is tobe maintained. This is especially true if more than one layer of elements is to beapplied across the cross-section, which could be useful if studying stress fields ator around screw holes. It would be possible to succesfully model the deformationof the structure using beam elements and springs only. Such an approach would,while efficient computational-time wise, be impractical in other respects. For one,doing this would not allow for pictures of the stress field, making the result usableonly as far as comparisons using global deformation goes. Secondly, this wouldeffectively nullify the biggest strength of the Catia GAS calculation engine, i.e. theclose connection with the Catia Enovia Geometry database that contains all partsof virtually all Scania products. This connectivity allows for quick analysis wherethe mesh definition can be applied directly onto the geometries using the pre-definedpositioning of the parts from the database. The geometries modeled using TRI6-elements include: Side-beams, 1:st through 3:rd cross beams, rear plate, rear axlehousings, bumper and 5-th wheel brackets.

Variable thickness geometries

The 10node TET elements were reserved for geometries with uneven cross sectionsthat could not easily be satisfactorily modeled using beam elements. This includesfront axle and leaf springs, parts of the cab and bogie suspension brackets. Followingthe result in Section 3.1 no additional attempts (except the beam already simplified)were made to break up parts into sub-elements, as the returns in terms of shortenedcomputational time was small compared to the increase in setup time.

Stiff structure

Kinematic spider elements were used to simulate the bolts and rivets holding thestructure together. While Catia offers several options for estimating screw connec-tions, these other approaches were not used in order to keep the complexity of the

26

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

model at a minimum. The kinematic spider elements is a representation that isfar more stiff than any screw or bolt can possibly be. Kinematic spiders were alsoused to transfer forces from their application point in space onto the structure. Oneexample of this is the wheels. This approach more or less behaves as expected inthe sense that the force is transferred along with the resulting torque. This is rea-sonable in loadcases where the force is applied directly and not through an enforceddisplacement. In the case of enforced displacement however, the non-deformation ofthe kinematic transferal can lead to a disproportionally large resultant force on theactual frame. Kinematic elements are also used in the motor-node and the kingpinas those parts of the structure were initially considered high-stiffness areas.

Suspension

The front suspension was modeled with a shape and positioning of the blades andlinkage that represents normal, straight road driving conditions. No pre-tensioningwas applied to the springs. The stress result of the spring blades should thereforenot be expected to be accurate. The suspension blades transfers a predominatelyvertical load between the blades while gliding against each other when subjected tolateral loading. This gliding and at what loads it is initiated in conjunction with thelarge deformations associated with pre-tensioning of the springs is a complex andnonlinear phenomenon. With the solver being limited to small deformations andrudimentary contact definitions the following scheme is applied: The spring bladesare discretizised using TET10 elements. The blades are fastened directly unto thefirst axle using kinetic spiders. Furthermore the spring is connected to the framein the front using a pin connection with one rotational degree of freedom released,and the rear using a link that transfers vertical and lateral load along with x-alignedtorsion. Because only small deformations are defined in the used solver, the linkageis not expected to rotate in a fashion resembling any real life event.

3.4.5 Evaluation of nonlinearites

Seeing as the Catia solver is strictly linear an attempt is made to visualize the effectsof nonlinearities on the Abaqus reference. This is intended to give a measure of themagnitude of the effects that the Catia solver does not account for. It is importantto note that these nonlinearities are far from the only difference between the Abaqusreference and the Catia models. Nevertheless it can act as a gauge of the impactfrom the differences in assumptions that are permanent restriction due to the choiceof software.

Geometric nonlinearities

In terms of geometric nonlinearities, Abaqus gives the option of not taking intoaccount the geometric nonlinearities geometry for a certain loadstep by togglingthe property NLGEOM=yes/no. NLGEOM=no closely mimics the procedure usedby the Catia solver and NLGEOM=yes is the one used in the Abaqus referenceof this thesis. It should be noted that toggling NLGEOM=no does not render awholly linear analysis, since this procedure still allows for time dependent effectslike contact initiation, large sliding and other nonlinear phenomenons. In orderto make the comparison the nodal displacement of the top flange on the right sidebeam is plotted without any coordinate transformation. This was chosen so as to noteliminate any rigid body motion, seeing as such behaviour is integral to geometricnonlinear phenomenons.

27

CHAPTER 3. METHOD

Boundary- and Material nonlinearities

In order to study the effect of boundary nonlinearities as well as material nonlin-earities a similar setup was chosen. By performing a static linear perturbation step,which assumes linear elastic material response as well as linear contact formulationsand infinitesimal deformation a linear problem is achieved[15] (albeit a linearizationaround a pre-tensioned state). The initial load step involved with pre-tensioning ofbolts and initiating contact is performed without any modifications. The resultingtensioned state is then used as basis for a transient load step that is linear. No con-tact can be initiated, and a linear material response is assumed [5]. The comparisonis made by comparing the nodal displacement of the top flange on the right sidebeam and this time using the procedure of eliminating the rigid body motion of theframe as seen in Section 3.3. This is done because sliding is expected to occur inand around the suspension structure.

28

Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

4.1 Verification of Load Cases

4.1.1 Lateral Loading

Figure 4.1: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Lateral LoadingLoad Case

29

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 4.2: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus ReferenceLateral Loading Load Case

−4 −2 0 2 4−0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Deformed X Coordinate [m]

No

da

l d

isp

lace

me

nt

in Y

dire

ctio

n [

m]

Abaqus Uy

Catia Uy

(a) Displacement in Y di-rection

−4 −2 0 2 4−0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035


No

da

l d

isp

lace

me

nt

in Z

dire

ctio

n [

m]

Abaqus Uz

Catia Uz

(b) Displacement in Z di-rection

Figure 4.3: Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due toLateral Loading according to method in Section 3.3

As seen in Figure 4.3 the nodal displacement of the top right sidebeam’s flange-edgeof the Catia model follows the characteristic of the Abaqus reference in the LateralLoading case. This indicates that the models have a similar lateral stiffness, atleast insofar as this set of boundary conditions are concerned. It should be notedthat this metric can be unintuitive in the sense that the cause of a region with a

30


large difference in nodal displacement can lie in a wholly other part of the structure.For instance, the difference in the x = −1 to x = −4 section is likely due to amisrepresentation of the stiffness in the region around the fifth wheel. It shouldalso be noted that this load case is likely considerably less sensitive to inaccuraciesin stiffness surrounding the front suspension than the Frame Torsion case becausethe principal force is applied in the form of force vectors as opposed to enforceddisplacements. The Von Mises stress rendering in Figure 4.1 exhibits the samecharacteristics with a few notable exeptions. Many screw holes connecting crossbeams with side beams shows considerable stress concentrations in the Catia model.The Abaqus model has more continuous stress fields close to side beam hole patterngroups. This is likely due to the relatively high stiffness of the Catia rigid spiderscompared to the more fine tuned screw approximation models used in the referencein Abaqus.

4.1.2 Frame Torsion

Figure 4.4: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Catia Frame TorsionLoad Case

31


Figure 4.5: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference dueto the Frame Torsion Load Case

−4 −2 0 2 4−0.07

−0.06

−0.05

−0.04

−0.03

−0.02

−0.01

0

0.01


No

da

l d

isp

lace

me

nt

in Y

dire

ctio

n [

m]

Abaqus Uy

Catia Uy

(a) Deflection in Y direc-tion

−4 −2 0 2 4−0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05


No

da

l d

isp

lace

me

nt

in Z

dire

ctio

n [

m]

Abaqus Uz

Catia Uz

(b) Deflection in Z direc-tion

Figure 4.6: Collocation of deformation on top right flange edge due toFrame Torsion according to method in Section 3.3

As seen in Figure 4.6 there is a great discrepancy between the Catia result and thereference. Figure 4.6a shows that Y-aligned displacement of the Catia result is morethan three (3) times that of the Abaqus equivalent. The lateral stiffness of the frontsuspension, axle and wheels are disproportionally big, leading to the vertical push ofthe enforced displacement translating into a lateral deformation. The effect of this

32


disproportionate twisting is propagating along the frame and is visible in Figure 4.6bwhere the local stiffening of the crossbeams yields a distinct waveform of a largeramplitude than the one that can barely be made out on the reference. ComparingFigures 4.4 and 4.5 it can be seen that they tell the same story. All stress levelsof the Catia model is above what can be expected. This is especially prevalent inthe zones surrounding the interface between side- and cross-beam. However, whendisregarding the actual stress-level, the distribution is very much similar betweenthe Catia model and Abaqus reference.

4.1.3 Vertical Load on Kingpin

Figure 4.7: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from the Catia Vertical Loadon Kingpin case

33


Figure 4.8: ISO view of Von Mises Stress field from Abaqus Reference dueto Vertical Load on Kingpin

−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035


No

dal dis

pla

cem

ent in

Z d

irection [m

]

Abaqus Uz

Catia Uz

Figure 4.9: Comparison of nodal displacement on top right flange edge dueto Vertical Load on Kingpin according to method in Section 3.3

The vertical load in the Kingpin load case does, as seen in Figure 4.9, result in arelatively small deformation in the front portion of the frame in the Catia model.The effect is, however, not as pronounced as it may seem from the graph alone.The dominant force in this load case is applied vertically onto the structure veryclose to the node that acts as origo of the coordinate system, i.e. the A-node seenin Figure 3.7. Therefore, what may seem as a problem with the front portion ofthe structure is the result of a poor ratio of vertical stiffness between the front-and bogie-suspensions. The relatively high vertical stiffness of the bogie suspension

34


pushes up the mid section of the truck to a disproportionate degree. Likewise, therelatively low vertical stiffness of the front suspension also adds to the phenomenon.Lastly, the stiffness of the frame could be overestimated due to the stiffness addedfrom the motor- and/or kingpin-node being too high. The stress rendering seenin Figure 4.7 has a similar distribution to that of the relevant Abaqus reference inFigure 4.8 albeit as expected from the deformation result, the overall stress level islower.

4.1.4 Evaluation of nonlinearities

−1 0 1 2 3 4 5−5

0

5

10x 10

−3


Nodal dis

pla

cem

ent in

X,Y

&Z

direction [m

]

Nlgeom=yes ux

Nlgeom=yes uy

Nlgeom=yes uz

Nlgeom=no ux

Nlgeom=no uy

Nlgeom=no uz

Figure 4.10: Collocation of nodal displacement on top right flange edgedue to taking Nonlinear geometry into account in LateralLoading loadcase

−1 0 1 2 3 4 5−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3x 10

−5


Diffe

rence in N

odal dis

pla

cem

ent [m

]

Nlgeom=yes ux − Nlgeom=no u

xNlgeom=yes u

y − Nlgeom=no u

yNlgeom=yes u

z − Nlgeom=no u

z

Figure 4.11: Difference in nodal displacement due to taking Nonlinear ge-ometries into account in Lateral Loading loadcase

As seen in Figures 4.10 and 4.11, no significant difference in the global deformationof the side beams were introduced from assuming linear geometries. This does notnecessarily mean that there is no effect at all, as large movements of for examplethe front springs could affect the stress-levels in close vicinity to that part of thestructure. This result does lend some credence to the validity of the assumption ofsmall deformations made in Section 1.5.2.

35


−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−0.03

−0.02

−0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05


Nod

al dis

pla

cem

ent in

X,Y

&Z

direction [m

]

LnPerturb=no ux

LnPerturb=no uy

LnPerturb=no uz

LnPerturb=yes ux

LnPerturb=yes uy

LnPerturb=yes uz

Figure 4.12: Collocation of nodal displacement on top right flange edgedue to taking Nonlinear geometry into account in Frame Tor-sion load case

−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−20

−15

−10

−5

0

5x 10

−3


Diffe

rence in N

odal dis

pla

cem

ent [m

]

LnPerturb=yes ux − LnPerturb=no u

x

LnPerturb=yes uy − LnPerturb=no u

y

LnPerturb=yes uz − LnPerturb=no u

z

Figure 4.13: Difference in nodal displacement due to applying Linear Per-turbation to Frame Torsion load case

As seen in Figures 4.12 and 4.13, the effect of the Linear Perturbation is moresevere than that of geometrical nonlinearities. The effect seems to affect the lateraldeformation response at a significant rate. This could be due to the front suspensionbeing sensitive to change from large to small sliding assumptions. The lack of wavyshape in the Z-aligned deformation can be explained as an effect of the relativelysmall lateral deformation and is not a separate phenomenon. The ”waves” are dueto the otherwise continuous deformation of the top right side beam flange beinginterrupted by the local stiffening where the side beam meets the crossbeams. Thisis only visible during large lateral deformations.

4.2 Overall methodology

After it became apparent that the setup time of the analysis was significantly morecostly than the simulation time, and that simplifications to the discretization re-sulted in minor gain to simulation speed, a shift in focus occured. Instead of only

36


focusing on finding simplifications to the discretization an effort was made to auto-mate the analysis setup, and later evaluation, using scripting.

4.3 Future work

The following items could be appropriate focuses for future development of themethodology that has been developed during this thesis.

During the verification phase of the project, several points were revealed wherethe Catia model behaves differently than the Abaqus reference. One idea for futurework is therefore adjusting the lateral and vertical stiffness of the front suspension.This could lead to better results on load cases where the load is applied via enforceddisplacement.

Another approach could be to investigate the notion of replacing the whole frontsuspension with kinematic relationships coupled with spring elements. This couldbe made effective for load cases where the deformation is induced via load vectors.

37

Chapter 5

Conclusions

A method for performing design oriented calculations investigating the three loadcases, Lateral Loading, Frame Torsion and Vertical Load on Kingpin have beendeveloped.

• Three load cases have been established in the Generative Assembly Structuralanalysis module of Catia (GAS). The setup of the model is by a large marginthe most time consuming part of the process.

• The load cases have been verified by comparisons to Abaqus references. Thedifference in deformation and stress levels between the Catia model and Abaqusreference are varying depending on the load case. The Lateral Loading caseshows less sensitivity to the differences in suspension stiffnesses compared tothe Frame Torsion case.

• The impact from differences in calculation software have been considered andhighlighted. The effect on the global deformation of the Abaqus referencedue to Geometrical nonlinearities is negligable. The effect due to contactnonlinearities is considerable.

• The analysis setup time have been made considerably shorter by use of scriptbased automation. This approach to analysis setup is a potent time savingpossibility. Implementing fully automated analysis setup is conceivable.

• A method of utilizing submodeling for reducing the computation time has beenimplemented. The method allows for importing deformations from other FEMsoftware.

38

Bibliography

[1] Scania Supplier Portal. Scania CAD/PDM Standards. url: https://supplier.scania.com/wps/portal/Home/Supplying-to-Scania/CAD-PDM/Engineering-

Platform/.

[2] Dassault Systems. Product Highlights Catia GAS. url: http://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/v5/portfolio/domain/Analysis/

product/GAS/.

[3] Michael E. Plesha Robert D. Cook David S. Malkus and Robert J. Witt.Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis. 4th ed. John Wiley &Sons, Inc, 2002.

[4] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. What Type of Hypothesesare Used for Analysis? url: http://catiadoc.free.fr/online/estug_C2/estugbt0614.htm.

[5] Abaqus Analysis User’s guide. 6.1.3 General and linear perturbation proce-dures. url: http://abaqus.ethz.ch:2080/v6.14/books/usb/default.htm?startat=pt03ch06s01aus44.html#usb-anl-alinearnonlinear (vis-ited on 06/21/2015).

[6] Abaqus Analysis User’s guide. 38.1.1 Contact formulations in Abaqus/Standard.url: http://abaqus.ethz.ch:2080/v6.14/books/usb/default.htm?startat=pt09ch38s01aus177.html (visited on 06/21/2015).

[7] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. Creating Slider Connec-tion Properties. url: http : / / catiadoc . free . fr / online / estug _ C2 /

estugbt0602.htm.

[8] Abaqus Analysis User’s guide. 38.2.1 Contact formulation for general contactin Abaqus/Explicit. url: http://abaqus.ethz.ch:2080/v6.14/books/usb/default.htm?startat=pt09ch38s02aus180.html (visited on 06/21/2015).

[9] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. Obtaining Section Parame-ters. url: http://catiadoc.free.fr/online/femug_C2/femugbt0206.htm.



[12] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. Obtaining Section Parame-ters. url: http://catiadoc.free.fr/online/ucfug_C2/ucfugbt7505.htm.


[14] Martin Roswall - Senior Technical Specialist at SIMULIA Nordics CSE. privatecommunication. June 22, 2015.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[15] Cambridge University Engineering Dept. What is the difference between Gen-eral and Perturbation steps? url: http://www-h.eng.cam.ac.uk/help/programs/fe/abaqus/faq68/abaqusf10.html (visited on 08/02/2015).

[16] Catia V5 R20 Generative Analysis Documentation. Analysis Assembly Method-ology. url: http://catiadoc.free.fr/online/estug_C2/estugbt1603.htm.

40

Appendix A

Appendix

Appendix A contains codes and instructions for the automation scripts.

I

'------------------------ Språkval, dokumentval ------------------------- Language="VBSCRIPT" Sub CATMain() Set analysisDocument1 = CATIA.ActiveDocument Set analysisManager1 = analysisDocument1.Analysis Set analysisSets1 = analysisManager1.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet1 = analysisSets1.ItemByType("ConnectionDesignManager") Set analysisSets2 = analysisSet1.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet2 = analysisSets2.Item(analysisSets2.Count,1) '------------------------ Etablering av G_A_C --------------------------- Set analysisEntities1 = analysisSet2.AnalysisEntities Set analysisEntity1 = analysisEntities1.Add("SAMGenericConnDesign") Set basicComponents1 = analysisEntity1.BasicComponents Set basicComponent1 = basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner1.1") basicComponent1.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1 Set analysisLinkedDocuments1 = analysisManager1.LinkedDocuments Set productDocument1 = analysisLinkedDocuments1.Item(1) Set reference1 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).Value '---------------------------- reference1 läggs in i ruta 1 -------------- Set product1 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct basicComponent1.AddSupportFromProduct product1, reference1 '---------------------------- reference2 läggs in i ruta 2 -------------- Set basicComponent2 = basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner2.1") basicComponent2.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1 Set productDocument1 = analysisLinkedDocuments1.Item(1) Set reference2 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).Value Set product2 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct basicComponent2.AddSupportFromProduct product2, reference2 '---------------------------------- namn sätts --------------------------

APPENDIX A. APPENDIX

A.1 General Analysis Connection and Rigid connectionproperty

A.1.1 Code

II

analysisEntity1.name=("G_A_C - ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to "&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))") '------- SLUT C_G_A_C , C_R_C_P börjar - Analysmodell etableras --------- Set analysisModels3 = analysisManager1.AnalysisModels Set analysisModel3 = analysisModels3.Item(1) Set analysisSets3 = analysisModel3.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet3 = analysisSets3.ItemByType("PropertySet") Set analysisEntities3 = analysisSet3.AnalysisEntities Set analysisEntity3 = analysisEntities3.Add("SAMDistantRigid") '-------------------Ersätts med analyssettet från C_G_A_C --------------- Set analysisEntity4 = analysisEntity1 Set reference1 = analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4) Set reference2 = analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4) Set reference1 = reference1.Parent Dim bSTR1 bSTR1 = reference1.Name Dim bSTR2 bSTR2 = reference1.Name Set reference2 = reference2.Parent Dim bSTR3 bSTR3 = reference2.Name Dim bSTR4 bSTR4 = reference2.Name analysisEntity3.AddSupportFromReference reference1, reference2 analysisEntity3.name=("R_C_P - ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to "&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))") End Sub


III

Used License: MD2+MDN+GAS+SPA

Used Macro: C_GAC&RCP.catvbs

One-Click-Connection

General Analysis Connection &

Rigid Connection Property

in CATIA GAS

2015-06-09 RTCB / Erik Olofsson / Simulation Driven Design

1

Introduction

In this guide you will learn how to apply a General Analysis

Connection and Rigid Virtual Property via the use of a

macro.

For efficient use of this method it is recommended to assign

this macro to a hotkey.

1. only has to be performed if no Analysis Connection set

exists.


2


A.1.2 Instruction

IV

1. Create Analysis

Connections Set

1. Right-click on Analysis Connection

Manager

2. Select Insert Analysis Connections

Set

3. The Analysis Connections Set is

now created


3

2. Execute macro

1. Select (Ctrl + Click) any two

features you wish to connect

2. Run Macro

3. The General Analysis Connection

and Rigid Virtual Property is now

created


4

2 Standard procedure


A.1.3 Instruction

V

Language="VBSCRIPT" Sub CATMain() Set partDocument1 = CATIA.ActiveDocument Set part1=partDocument1.Part fileName = part1.Name Set product1=partDocument1.Product Set publications1 = product1.Publications publname =Inputbox("Namnge publiceringen") Set oSelection = CATIA.ActiveDocument.Selection For i=1 to oSelection.Count Set reference1 = product1.CreateReferenceFromName(part1.name&"/!"&oSelection.Item(i).Value.Name) Set publication1 = publications1.Add(publname&"_"&i) publications1.SetDirect publname&"_"&i, reference1 Next Set publications1 = product1.Publications Set publication = publications1.Item(1) End Sub


A.2 One-Click-Publish A Series of Publications

A.2.1 Code

VI

Used Macro: One_Click_Publish.catvbs

One-click-Publish

A series of features

using macro

in CATIA


1

Introduction

In this guide you will learn how to publish a series of features

in a part via the use of a macro.



A suffix index is applied in the publication name on the form

”_#” starting at #=1 and increasing with the number of

publications in the series.

The order of selection determines the order of #.


2


A.2.2 Instruction

VII

1. Select features for

publication

1. Open the Part in New Window

2. Select (Ctrl + Click) the features to

be published in the tree or in

feature window.

Note: The selection order

determines the suffix index.


3

2. Execute macro

1. Run Macro

2. Name the publication series by

typing in the window

3. Press OK

4. The series publication is made


4

1 Standard procedure

(See separate guide)


A.2.3 Instruction

VIII

'------------ SprÃ¥kval ----------------------- Language="VBSCRIPT" Sub CATMain() '----------------- Dokumentval ----------------------- Set analysisDocument1 = CATIA.ActiveDocument Set analysisManager1 = analysisDocument1.Analysis On Error Resume Next Set analysisSets1 = analysisManager1.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet1 = analysisSets1.ItemByType("ConnectionDesignManager") Set analysisSets2 = analysisSet1.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet2 = analysisSets2.Item(analysisSets2.Count,1) 'Produkterna sniffas frÃ¥n selection Set product1 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct Set product2 = analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct Set publications1 = product1.Publications Set publications2 = product2.Publications publname1 =Inputbox("Ange publiceringarnas namn 1") '---------- Kan avkommenteras ifall två olika publiceringsserienamn skall kopplas ihop ---- 'publname2 =Inputbox("Ange publiceringarnas namn 2") '---------- Skall avkommenteras om rad ovan bockas ur publname2=publname1 For i = 1 To publications1.Count Set publication1=publications1.Item(publname1&"_"&i) Set publication2=publications2.Item(publname2&"_"&i) If Err.Number = 0 Then '--------- Etablering av G_A_C ------------ Set analysisEntities1 = analysisSet2.AnalysisEntities Set analysisEntity1 = analysisEntities1.Add("SAMGenericConnDesign") '----------- Namnsättning ----------- Set basicComponents1 = analysisEntity1.BasicComponents


A.3 One-click-create a series of General Analysis Con-nections and Rigid Connection properties betweenseries of publications

A.3.1 Code

IX

Set basicComponent1 = basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner1.1") basicComponent1.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1 'Set analysisLinkedDocuments1 = analysisManager1.LinkedDocuments 'Set productDocument1 = analysisLinkedDocuments1.Item(1) basicComponent1.AddSupportFromPublication product1, publication1 Set basicComponent2 = basicComponents1.GetItem("SAMConnectionDesigner2.1") basicComponent2.SetDimensions 0, 1, 1 basicComponent2.AddSupportFromPublication product2, publication2 analysisEntity1.name=("G_A_C - ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to "&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))") '------------------------ '------ SLUT C_G_A_C , C_R_C_P bÃ¶rjar ----------- '-------------------- '--------- Analysmodell etableras -------- Set analysisModels3 = analysisManager1.AnalysisModels Set analysisModel3 = analysisModels3.Item(1) Set analysisSets3 = analysisModel3.AnalysisSets Set analysisSet3 = analysisSets3.ItemByType("PropertySet") Set analysisEntities3 = analysisSet3.AnalysisEntities Set analysisEntity3 = analysisEntities3.Add("SAMDistantRigid") '------ ErsÃ¤tts med analyssettet frÃ¥n C_G_A_C --------- Set analysisEntity4 = analysisEntity1 Set reference1 = analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4) Set reference2 = analysisManager1.CreateReferenceFromObject(analysisEntity4) Set reference1 = reference1.Parent Dim bSTR1 bSTR1 = reference1.Name


X

Dim bSTR2 bSTR2 = reference1.Name Set reference2 = reference2.Parent Dim bSTR3 bSTR3 = reference2.Name Dim bSTR4 bSTR4 = reference2.Name analysisEntity3.AddSupportFromReference reference1, reference2 analysisEntity3.name=("R_C_P - ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(1).LeafProduct.name&") connected to "&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.definition&" ("&analysisDocument1.Selection.Item(2).LeafProduct.name&"))") End If Next End Sub


XI

Used Macro: Crawler_for_GAC&RCP.catvbs,

One_Click_Publish.catvbs

One-click-create a series of

General Analysis Connections &

Rigid Connection Properties

using a series of publications

in CATIA GAS


1

Introduction

In this guide you will learn how to create a series of General

Analysis Connections and Rigid Connection Properties

using a macro.

The macro works best using publication series made with the

macro One_Click_Publish.catvbs.




2


A.3.2 Instruction

XII

1. Publish two series of

features on two parts

1. Open a part from your analysis in a new

window.

2. Publish a series of features to be used as

supports for one end of the connections

using One_Click_Publish.catvbs.

3. Redo 1 and 2 for the other end of the

connections. In 2, reuse the same name

for publication name.


3

2. Execute macro

1. Open Analysis

2. Select (Ctrl + Click) a random

feature on both parts that is to be

connected and run Macro.

3. Input the name of the publication

series used previously in the box.

4. Press OK.

5. The General Analysis Connections

and Rigid Analysis Connections

are now applied.


4


A.3.3 Instruction

XIII


A.4 Submodeling

A.4.1 Instruction

In order to export deformation the following is necessary:

• Sub Analysis on one or more components, see [16].

• The subanalysis where the submodel is to be applied must only be allowed tointeract with the surrounding structure via analysis connection of point type.

• The handlepoints is to be published as a series. Use the script described inSection 3.2.2.

• Two sensors, one of deformation, and one on rotation is to be placed on thehandlepoints.

• In the subanalysis the handle point is to be made the masternode in a vertialpart that transfers the deformation to the submodel structure.

The procedure of the export is the following:

1. Run the global analysis

2. Export the deformations and rotations from the sensors

3. Copy the deformation and rotation data and paste it into the excel interfaceconnected to the code. Write the name of the publication serie containingthe handle points in the cell to the right of the cell containing ’StartDispl’command.

4. Run the macro ’Feuil1.CreationDisplacement’ from the excel file while simul-taneously having the Analysis document activated in Catia.

5. The deformation is now applied in the analysis.

A.4.2 Code

XIV

'//================================================ '//Script for enforcing displacement '//================================================ Const Cst_iSTARTDispl As Integer = 1 Const Cst_iENDDispl As Integer = 11 Const Cst_iSTARTLoft As Integer = 2 Const Cst_iENDLoft As Integer = 22 Const Cst_iSTARTCoord As Integer = 3 Const Cst_iENDCoord As Integer = 33 Const Cst_iERRORCool As Integer = 99 Const Cst_iEND As Integer = 9999 Const Cst_strSTARTDispl As String = "StartDispl" Const Cst_strENDDispl As String = "EndDispl" Const Cst_strSTARTLoft As String = "StartMulti-SectionsSurface" Const Cst_strENDLoft As String = "EndMulti-SectionsSurface" Const Cst_strSTARTCoord As String = "StartCoord" Const Cst_strENDCoord As String = "EndCoord" Const Cst_strEND As String = "End" 'Const publname As String = "R_V_P_H" Public publname As String 'Temporary solution Public Displ_ind As Integer 'Temporary solution Function GetTypeFile() As Integer Dim strInput As String, strMsg As String choice = 0 While (choice < 1 Or choice > 3) strMsg = "Type in the kind of entities to create (1 for points, 2 for points and splines, 3 for points, splines and loft):" strInput = InputBox(Prompt:=strMsg, _ Title:="User Info", XPos:=2000, YPos:=2000) 'Validation of the choice choice = CInt(strInput)


XV

If (choice < 1 Or choice > 3) Then MsgBox "Invalid value: must be 1, 2 or 3" End If Wend GetTypeFile = choice End Function '-------------------------------------------------- 'Get the active cell '-------------------------------------------------- Function GetCell(iindex As Integer, column As Integer) As String Dim Chain As String Sheets("Feuil1").Select If (column = 1) Then Chain = "A" + CStr(iindex) ElseIf (column = 2) Then Chain = "B" + CStr(iindex) ElseIf (column = 3) Then Chain = "C" + CStr(iindex) ElseIf (column = 4) Then Chain = "D" + CStr(iindex) ElseIf (column = 5) Then Chain = "E" + CStr(iindex) ElseIf (column = 6) Then Chain = "F" + CStr(iindex) End If Range(Chain).Select GetCell = ActiveCell.Value End Function Function GetCellA(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellA = GetCell(iRang, 1)


XVI

End Function Function GetCellB(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellB = GetCell(iRang, 2) End Function Function GetCellC(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellC = GetCell(iRang, 3) End Function Function GetCellD(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellD = GetCell(iRang, 4) End Function Function GetCellE(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellE = GetCell(iRang, 5) End Function Function GetCellF(iRang As Integer) As String GetCellF = GetCell(iRang, 6) End Function '-------------------------------------------------- 'Syntax of the parameter file 'Example: '-------------------------------------------------- 'StartDispl R_V_P_H '-8,90E-06 -5,59E-05 -1,432685473 0,000606487 0,965693485 -2,86E-05 '-3,20E-06 -4,19E-05 -7,472345473 0,000923487 0,125432185 -7,12E-05 'EndDispl 'StartDispl Virtual_Part_Handler '-8,90E-06 -5,59E-05 -1,432685473 0,000606487 0,965693485 'EndDispl 'End '--------------------------------------------------


XVII

Sub ChainAnalysis(ByRef iRang As Integer, ByRef X_D As Double, ByRef Y_D As Double, ByRef Z_D As Double, ByRef X_R As Double, ByRef Y_R As Double, ByRef Z_R As Double, ByRef iValid As Integer) Dim Chain As String Dim Chain2 As String Dim Chain3 As String Dim Chain4 As String Dim Chain5 As String Dim Chain6 As String Chain = GetCellA(iRang) Select Case Chain Case Cst_strSTARTDispl iValid = Cst_iSTARTDispl publname = GetCellB(iRang) Displ_ind = iRang Case Cst_strENDDispl iValid = Cst_iENDDispl Case Cst_strSTARTLoft iValid = Cst_iSTARTLoft Case Cst_strENDLoft iValid = Cst_iENDLoft Case Cst_strSTARTCoord iValid = Cst_iSTARTCoord Case Cst_strENDCoord iValid = Cst_iENDCoord Case Cst_strEND iValid = Cst_iEND Case Else iValid = 0 End Select If (iValid <> 0) Then


XVIII

Exit Sub End If 'Conversion string -> double Chain2 = GetCellB(iRang) Chain3 = GetCellC(iRang) Chain4 = GetCellD(iRang) Chain5 = GetCellE(iRang) Chain6 = GetCellF(iRang) If ((Len(Chain) > 0) And (Len(Chain2) > 0) And (Len(Chain3) > 0)) And ((Len(Chain4) > 0) And (Len(Chain5) > 0) And (Len(Chain6) > 0)) Then X_D = CDbl(Chain) Y_D = CDbl(Chain2) Z_D = CDbl(Chain3) X_R = CDbl(Chain4) Y_R = CDbl(Chain5) Z_R = CDbl(Chain6) Else iValid = Cst_iERRORCool X_D = 0# Y_D = 0# Z_D = 0# X_R = 0# Y_R = 0# Z_R = 0# End If End Sub '-------------------------------------------------- ' Get CATIA Application '-------------------------------------------------- 'Remark: ' When KO, update CATIA registers with:


XIX

' CNEXT /unregserver ' CNEXT /regserver '-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Function GetCATIA() As Object Set CATIA = GetObject(, "CATIA.Application") Set GetCATIA = CATIA End Function '-------------------------------------------------- ' Get CATIADocument '-------------------------------------------------- Function GetCATIAAnalysisDocument() As Object Set CATIA = GetCATIA Dim MyAnalysisDocument As Object Set MyAnalysisDocument = CATIA.ActiveDocument If MyAnalysisDocument Is Nothing Then MsgBox "No Catia Active Document found " End If Set GetCATIAAnalysisDocument = MyAnalysisDocument End Function '-------------------------------------------------- ' Creates all usable points from the parameter file '-------------------------------------------------- Sub CreationDisplacement() Dim AnalysisDoc As Object Set AnalysisDoc = GetCATIAAnalysisDocument ' Get the restraint analysisSet Dim Analysis_manager As Object Set Analysis_manager = AnalysisDoc.Analysis Dim Restraint_analysis_entities As Object


XX

Set Restraint_analysis_entities = Analysis_manager.AnalysisModels.Item(1).AnalysisCases.Item(1).AnalysisSets.Item("Restraints.1", catAnalysisSetSearchAll).AnalysisEntities Dim Load_analysis_entities As Object Set Load_analysis_entities = Analysis_manager.AnalysisModels.Item(1).AnalysisCases.Item(1).AnalysisSets.Item("Loads.1", catAnalysisSetSearchAll).AnalysisEntities Dim Linked_docs As Object Set Linked_docs = Analysis_manager.LinkedDocuments Dim Prod As Object Set Prod = Linked_docs.Item(1).Product Dim Publs As Object Set Publs = Prod.Publications Dim iLigne As Integer Dim iValid As Integer Dim X_D As Double Dim Y_D As Double Dim Z_D As Double Dim X_R As Double Dim Y_R As Double Dim Z_R As Double Dim Point As Object iLigne = 1 'Analyze file While iValid <> Cst_iEND 'Read a line ChainAnalysis iLigne, X_D, Y_D, Z_D, X_R, Y_R, Z_R, iValid 'Not on a startcurve or endcurve -> valid point If (iValid = 0) Then 'Här stoppas inlägget in Dim Restraint As Object Set Restraint = Restraint_analysis_entities.Add("SAMRestraint")


XXI

Dim pubnum As Integer pubnum = iLigne - Displ_ind Dim Publ As Object Set Publ = Publs.Item(publname & "_" & pubnum) Restraint.AddSupportFromPublication Prod, Publ Dim Restr_basic_comps As Object Set Restr_basic_comps = Restraint.BasicComponents Dim Restr_basic_comp_axis As Object Set Restr_basic_comp_axis = Restr_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMRestrainAxis.1") Restr_basic_comp_axis.SetValue "Values", 0, 0, 0, 1 Dim Restr_basic_comp_DOF As Object Set Restr_basic_comp_DOF = Restr_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMRestrainDOF.1") Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetDimensions 6, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 1, 1, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 2, 1, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 3, 1, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 4, 1, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 5, 1, 1, 1 Restr_basic_comp_DOF.SetValue "Values", 6, 1, 1, 1 Dim Forced_disp As Object Set Forced_disp = Load_analysis_entities.Add("SAMEnforcedDisp") Dim reference2 As Object Set reference2 = Analysis_manager.CreateReferenceFromObject(Restraint) Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comps = Forced_disp.BasicComponents Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp1 As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp1 = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispEntityPtr.1") Set reference2 = reference2.Parent Forced_disp_basic_comp1.SetReference "ConnectorList", 0, 0, 0, reference2


XXII

Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_X_D As Object Set basicComponent4 = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispTransX") basicComponent4.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(X_D, ",", ".") & "mm" Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_D As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_D = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispTransY") Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_D.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(Y_D, ",", ".") & "mm" Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_D As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_D = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispTransZ") Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_D.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(Z_D, ",", ".") & "mm" Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_X_R As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_X_R = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotX") Forced_disp_basic_comp_X_R.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(X_R, ",", ".") & "deg" Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_R As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_R = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotY") Forced_disp_basic_comp_Y_R.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(Y_R, ",", ".") & "deg" Dim Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_R As Object Set Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_R = Forced_disp_basic_comps.GetItem("SAMEnfDispRotZ") Forced_disp_basic_comp_Z_R.SetValue "", 0, 0, 0, Replace(Z_R, ",", ".") & "deg" End If iLigne = iLigne + 1 Wend End Sub '-------------------------------------------------- 'Main program '--------------------------------------------------


XXIII

Sub Main() Dim TypeFile As Integer TypeFile = GetTypeFile ' Warning: Active document has to be an Analysis Document Dim PtDoc As Object Set Analysis = GetCATIAAnalysisDocument CreationDisplacement End Sub


XXIV

Date post:	10-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	41 times
Download:	10 times