MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
(OP)
Can MPC RBE2 with 6 d.o.f. be used correctly to simulate bolt in FEM instead of bar and other things.....The mpc shape i'm talking is to create from a 3d model an indipendent node at one face and all dipendent connected in an umbrella shape...the other face of the same solid the other node and the other solid nodes (hole nodes all around instead )....
| | /|o
| |/ |
| | |
| /| |
|/_|o |
|\ | |
| \| |
| \ |
| |\ |
| | \|o ?????
| | /|o
| |/ |
| | |
| /| |
|/_|o |
|\ | |
| \| |
| \ |
| |\ |
| | \|o ?????





RE: MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
Jxc
RE: MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
RE: MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
I'm using a beam to model the bolt, and an RBE connection of the bolt to the shell elements.
this way the connection is stiff, but the bolt has the real material properties.
for extremely precise calculations, model in 3D bolt and body, but I think it's overkill.
RE: MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
See also post about CBUSH rotational stiffness (dated today).
RE: MPC_RBE2 vs. FASTENERS SIMULATION
You can't use a rigid body element (infinitely stiff) to model a bolt (finite stifness). The load path will be wrong.
IF you don't (or can't) use continuum elements, you can define a rigid body on both solids and linked each master node of the two rigid bodies by a bush element (to simulate a prestressed bolt).
An easy way to choose among the different proposals would be to compare 3D model and "bush" models especially if you often simulate the same bolt connections.
Regards,
Torpen