Thickniss shell structure

Hello,

I want to increase the shell thickniss of a structure when i`m reaching the supports

is this possible?

Regards,

Jeroen

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by j koeken on October 29, 2012 at 9:55am

with a beam you can use: optimize crossection, i want to do the same with a shell element, the optimalisation is than the thickness of the element. But i don`t know how to do it.

Permalink Reply by Robert Vier on October 29, 2012 at 10:12am

hey,

at the moment karamba does no cross-section optimization for shell elements, this is a feature yet to come.

though you can alter the thickness of every element manually when exploding the mesh and giving each face a dedicated element-id for which you each define a different cross section.

the example shows that.

you can either manually play with the thicknesses or let e.g. galapagos do it / hoopsnake etc.

best,

robert

Attachments:

121029_shellThickness.gh, 20 KB

Permalink Reply by j koeken on October 29, 2012 at 11:24am

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your comment,

I understand the principel of exploding the mesh, but it isn`t working, probbably I do something wrong.

I put the gh. file in the attachment. The mesh and the shell thickness I put downstairs in the gh. file.

maybe you can have a look at it.

Thank you.

Regards,

Jeroen

Attachments:

shell.gh, 101 KB

Permalink Reply by Robert Vier on October 29, 2012 at 11:34am

i already posted an example..!?

you need uto's mesh edit tools, i forgot to say. is it not working in the example?

Permalink Reply by j koeken on October 29, 2012 at 12:29pm

I have the mesh edit tool now, but the problem is that the thickniss is increasing from left to right, but it needs to inrease from the center to the corners of te shell structure.

I put the gh. file in the attachement. the problem is downstairs in the gh. file

Attachments:

shell.gh, 116 KB

Permalink Reply by Robert Vier on October 29, 2012 at 12:55pm

the problem is somewhere with the generation of your surfaces.

I dont know if this issue really is the one cause, but shows some inconsistencies in modelling. the structure of one of your surfaces is different from the others.

why dont you generate one surface instead 4?

or try reducing the problem as far as possible

Permalink Reply by j koeken on November 8, 2012 at 11:28am

Hey Robert,

The result of my Karamba calculation does not match whit the results of my final element
program DIANA, i know the results in DIANA are correct. The reaction forces are the same in grasshopper+karamba and DIANA so the geometry is correct. But the principial stresses don`t match at all.
See the attached pictures and gh. file

Regards,

Jeroen

Attachments: