![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi all...
Many moons ago I worked at place doing finite element modeling....and the work I did was with solid objects...dont worry..I get back to the rag and tube question eventually... The way that works (for a solid object, say like a crankshaft, a bracket, etc,,,) is you build your big object outa lots of little objects...lets call them bricks.....Now, with lots of nasty math, physics, and engineering you can develop equations that say if you put this much force or displacement (or whatever) on this part/side of one brick, then such and such will happen here and there and there on the "brick".....now the corners/sides of that brick are mathmatically tied to the next brick and so on and so on.....and what you end up with in the end is a GIGANTIC mass of equations (often thousands if not tens of thousands of them) that the computer works hard to find the solution to... Now, its not quite as bad as it sounds (as long as you werent the poor soul who had to write the program in the first place) because what you generally did was use another program to make a geometric model of the object of interest (kinda like a fancy autocad)....and that spit out another nasty file that got feed into the first program I described above... The nice thing about this was you could input ALL kinds of material properties describing each brick like strength, rigidity, fracture toughness (and MANYmore) and as importantly it allowed an object to "constructed" with different materials....and then you told the program where to put forces, or displacements or whatever....and off it went to crunch numbers.... Once all the computing was done, you used a third program to visualize stresses,deformations etc etc...and with that you could "see" where you had more material than you needed, or where the stresses were too high, or where something was likely to buckle etc etc....so it allowed you to optimize a part in ways standard textbook engineering equations never could... The other cool part is you could even do things like create a "crack" here and see if was likely to propagate....or "break" a part there and see how the load was redistributed among the remaining parts.....allowing you to check out lots of "what if" scenarios you'd never have the time or money to do otherwise) Now, I never used this capability of the program...but it also had the capability to construct objects out of plates, shells, infinitely thin rods (wires?), and hollow tubes.... It occured to me the other day that virtually all the rag and tube designs being built today were designed before this computer capability existed (or at the time only at the real high tech computer power houses of the day)... So, 2 questions...does anyone know of any small plane "rag and tube" designs where any significant computer modeling was used? And secondly....any guesstimates on how much weight percentage wise you could shave of the typical tube structure by using such modeling and still maintain the same structural margins....? take care Blll |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|