Simpel concrete element example

Hi Daniel and the rest of you.

I am trying to something pretty simple with the new Kangaroo 2 solver. I want to show how a simple concrete element can/should be lifted.

Meaning that I am simulating the rigid body of the element and then a "chain" between two anchor points on the element and an anchorpoint at e.g. a crane. This way it will be possible to simulate the way the element is lifted and might be tilted if the placement of anchors are not "correct".

I have some problems.

What is the best way to apply gravity?

One load from the centroid, makes my model go crazy. I have tried different approaches, but it doesn't really work. I also believe that another way of adding the gravity should be used, I am just not sure which one :)

I believe that I am missing a simple point here.

Cheers Rasmus

(Also if someone has a cool idea about the "chain" being able to slide to the crane anchor please let me know)

Attachments:

RigidBodyTestElement.gh, 30 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rasmus Holst on June 12, 2015 at 1:49am

Would it be better to move this discussion to the general discussion forum...?

Permalink Reply by Rasmus Holst on August 7, 2015 at 2:27am

Hi all.

I am just trying to give this a little attention :)

It's simple, but it would be cool to solve anyways.

Rasmus

Permalink Reply by Lorenzo Franceschini on August 7, 2015 at 3:51am

here's the addition of gravity,

You need to mesh the brep, then add vertical load to each vertex.

I'll try to help with the rest later today if i find some time ;)

Attachments:

RigidBodyTestElement_gravity.gh, 34 KB

Permalink Reply by Rasmus Holst on August 7, 2015 at 5:55am

Hi Lorenzo.

Thanks.

However I am not sure that meshing the brep and adding node forces is the correct way to go? This will not give an even contribution of loads. Maybe a very regular and controlled mesh could to the trick with this idea, but here you get a big concentration of load e.g. around windows (as the thickness surface is small), but in reality the opening should mean less weight/force.

Let me know what you think? I might be missing a point? :)

Rasmus

Permalink Reply by Lorenzo Franceschini on August 7, 2015 at 7:57am

I see your point, and it makes sense. In the previous version of kangaroo there's the unitary load component, but i'm not familiar with that. I ll try to work on it later and see

RSS