Jump to content
Mechanical Engineering Community
Juha-Pekka Ahto

Solidworks - Two parts joined together with table bearing

Recommended Posts

I've used Solidworks for simulation for some time, but started to wonder how to simulate two parts that are joined together by table bearing. Table bearing requires to leave a gap between two parts, but how would I simulate this in Solidworks? Let's say that we have YRT325 table bearing. Should it be excluded out of simulation between two parts and use some kind of contact plot between two parts?

YRT325.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically you design bearing using calculation (i.e. 20 years life). The other two components are analyzed separately. Their contact area with bearing could be considered as fixed support.

Alternatively, you could follow this tutorial. This would work on simple assembly with good geometry (on tutorial/example in books, not in real life components)

Mind you, assembly simulation with "special contact" usually doesn't work in complex assembly. So the first method usually applied. 

The tutorial is a very conservative way to handle things. A more PC way to handle connection shown here:

http://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2015/02/solidworks-simulation-bearing-connector/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me throw a ball here. When doing a simulation, I can suppress the bearing. But I've been wondering if I can define bearings contact faces and say to the solidworks: "This selected face is connected to this face and should pass the force to the fixtures through this connection." Or do I just do it as: "These faces are in fixed position and pass force of N to the fixtures"?59c4e09a1eab5_Withbearing.thumb.png.aa9da4d4fa9a592c013d0ef4f5c98894.pngFinal.thumb.png.d332359d6e7f4e5a341ab5ead37066cc.png

Trimetric.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do either.

Option 1 usually took longer simulation time and you need a good geometry for that to solve.(pic 1 and 2 of your attachment)

Option 2 is preferable when you design actual component (you need to know which has which support though) (pic 3 of your attachment). Btw, in this case, Your load should be modeled on the bearing contact area, instead of the whole flat area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that bearings that are available for solidworks are not perfect models. They are somewhat lacking in detail and their materials are not defined. So If I do a simulation it has to be done (option 2) as shown in this picture. But how do I set the fixtures and forces so that the stressed lower structure behaves accordingly?

How I understand it:

Force is only applied downwards. As the bearing is fixed on lower face it can not translate in X- and Z-coordinate direction but can only apply force in Y-coordinate direction. But how about the wall area. Do I define it also as fixed or leave it alone. The bearing is contact with the wall face, that much I understand.

 

Simulation.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let say the assembly consist of

A - contact area - A (one part)

Bearing (one part)

C - contact area - C (one part)

Make two simulations...

A with applied force on top; contact area as fixed support.

C with applied force on contact area; bottom leg as fixed support 

Contact area with bearing could be made by using "split" function. Defined as "face" in drawing below.

d3i65muqjnly.gif

 

Part_A.jpg

Part_B.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just upgraded from 2012 to 2014 recently but I haven't tried it since then. I suspected that it might have been because each part file has hundreds of configurations since it is one file for all sizes of a given type of hardware. You mentioned that you can have one file for each specific configuration so I wonder if that would make it perform better.

 

I knew that you could set custom properties for the toolbox component but I didn't know about that option to create a new configuration for each option of a given parameter. That sounds like a good way to handle materials (but still that just multiplies the number of configs you have for a given file).

 

Also I didn't know about that import/export for the custom properties, I thought you had to enter the properties in the toolbox manager. Importing from excel sounds way easier, so disregard my comment about the difficulty of adding custom properties.

 

The BOM functionality I was referring to was just having internal part numbers and descriptions be able to show up, so that can be disregarded too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×