modeling symmetry vs whole model
modeling symmetry vs whole model
(OP)
I have a 24" dia tubesheet plate 1" thick with 2" dia holes on a 60^ pitch on 2-5/16" centers welded on the OD. The tubesheet has a surface pressure on one side and zero on the backside. Also, there are surface loads around the hold diameters. I first modeled the plate as a quarter plate using Z & Y symmetry boundary conditions. This resulted in an extremely high stress point (twice the ultimate)at the intersection of the two symmetry planes; the center of the plate. I then modeled the entire plate. Same loads. The stress results were about half.
My question is: why do the two modeling methods produce such different results?
My question is: why do the two modeling methods produce such different results?





RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Check that your boundary conditions in both models are correctly applied.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Other than that, the boundary conditions check out.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
No, it shouldn't.
Perhaps you can attach an image of your model and the BC's applied
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I hate to ask a dumb question, but how do I attach an image to a thread. I have run the Algor report with the constraints listed and copied an image of the model. But I don't know where to go from there.
I just registered with Engineering.com, but can't figure out how to upload, as the message in the "Attachment" says.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I have uploaded the file below.
thanks for your time and assistance.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
One thing that strikes me as odd, is that you have rotational supports specified with solid brick elements. I have never used Algor, does it really have rotational degrees of freedom for nodes in its brick elements?
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
You are correct that the rotational degrees of freedom are meaningless in the context of the analysis.
Can you remove the stress results, turn on loads and boundary conditions and upload that picture? Color by surface, please.
Thanks,
Garland
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Thanks for all of your help.
For what it is worth, I also ran a full plate and then did a quick check using Roarke for a circular plate, no holes, with a uniform surface load. The Roarke formula fell in the area of the "full Plate" analysis.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Pressure load on the entire face
Load around the rim of the tube penetrations
Load inside the tube penetrations
Partially constrained boundaries
The boundary conditions should be as follows:
for the face perpendicular to the y-axis, the BC's should be TyRxz
For the face perpendicular to the z axis, you should have TzRxy
I'm assuming you are pinned (Txyz) around the outer edge
The center "corner" of the model should be TyzRxyz
I just looked at the report again and noticed you have multiple parts? What are the three parts? This looks like it should be a single part. Are there different materials for the parts?
When you get a chance, is it possible for you to upload an archive without results? It's a lot easier to troubleshoot when you have the actual model.
Garland E. Borowski, PE
Engineering Manager
Star Aviation
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I can confirm the following to you:
Applied loads are:
1. Pressure on the entire face
2. Load around the rim of the tube penetrations
Boundary conditions:
1. For face perpendicular to the y-axis: Ty, Rx, Rz
2. For face perpendicular to the z-axis: Tz, Rx, Ry
3. For the "center" corner: Ty, Tz, Rx, Ry, Rz
4. The outer edges are fixed. Although I did a "pinned" version that did not change the results.
There are (3) parts: the plate and then (2) fillet welds at the perimeter on each side of the plate. The materials are essentially the same: 316 SST for the plate and 309L for the welds.
The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the welds, and try to reduce the size.
You have requested an upload of "an archive without results". Could you be a bit more specific? I don't understand what you are asking for.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
If you are able to upload the .ach file, I can download it, extract it, and run it just to see what's going on, but it sounds like you have everything set up properly. As mentioned previously for brick elements, "pinned" and "fixed" are identical in the Algor context. Sounds like there is no reason why your results should be different, which is why I am curious about the model...
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I am having problems uploading the file to Engineering.com. The zipped file is 28 M. I don't know if this is too large, but the site "times out". I am trying to find an FTP site, or I can email the file.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I ran a larger mesh, which reduced the file size. Same basic problem though.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Also, your boundary conditions were a bit of a mess. You can select multiple surfaces against which to apply the boundary conditions by holding down the control key after selecting your first surface.
The nodes, elements, etc. look fine. Nothing that should cause problems.
When I deleted one set of each type of load (I maintained the higher loads in each case: 218 psi and 828 pounds), I ended up with deflections of 0.116 inch and stress of 114 ksi. Not sure how this compares to your full model results, but when I deleted the symmetry boundary conditions and copied the quarter around, cleaned it up and reran it, it compared well.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
The results do not come close to the full plate model. In the full plate model, stress at the center is 62,000 and displacement is .084".
So, I am not sure where to go from here.
Thanks for your input and assistance.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
Stating the obvious, did you contact the technical support folks at ALGOR. Usually when I see questions regarding software applications that would seem to be best answered by the vendor, I think about two things: 1. The technical support folks for the software package must be awful. 2. The software is bootlegged and the operator does not have a legal license.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
VM Stress = 1318.8 psi
Deflection = 0.0012196
Mirroring the 1/4 model about an axis and then the 1/2 model about the other appropriate, perpendicular plane to complete the circle, I get the following:
VM Stress = 1318.8 psi
Deflection = 0.0012152
Your 1/4 model isn't on the global axes, and I didn't take the time to mirror and then move, but the comparison that I ran suggests that the software is reasonably consistent.
RE: modeling symmetry vs whole model
I am expecting that the high standard of support will continue under Autodesk ownership.