“A hinge connection in structural engineering, such as a pin or shear connection, is designed to allow rotation, resulting in zero bending moment capacity at the joint (M=0). Because it cannot resist rotation, it does not transfer bending moments between members, often causing the bending moment diagram to fall to zero at that point”
That’s why an E Retaining Ring is enough. It’s just to prevent the pin to fall. There is no out of plane moment .
Another thing is the bending of the pin itself (in plane bending) but that doesn’t compromise the convergence. One need just 1 out of plane point BC=0 to remove rigid body motion of the whole piec e.
That’s a different problem. From my point of view that’s not “a convergence issues”. The problem is the same you will find in real life if you use a pin in a connection with out of plane bending moment. If the pin and plates are not stiff enough it will rotate and the plates will eventually fall apart. A pin is not designed to sustain tensi on.
By other hand, Coupling Kinematic only constraint DF 1,2 ,3.
You could find a suitable set up and show pe ople.
two plates with single bolts cannot resist out of plane bending? eccentricity due to in plane loads (shear or tensions/compressions), non-uniform contact or bearing stress also, i don’t think so.
your example can be similar to truss element assumption and still stuck in old theories; it unstable and will be failed when point loads placed at mid spans of element.
i prefer anyone to go through physical laboratory test or modeling FE with full solid at least to proof.,simplification by ignoring did not it means to be not existed or failed.
defining single master nodes and large slave nodes cannot be useful to modeling pin or bolt simplification in generates spring or gap element instead one by one two nodes only? probably votes need to create and let anonymous user chose its usability.
But man,…. if you can’t tell the difference between the pin on a Crimpage hand tool and a critical Crane connection, there’s no point in continuing to talk about the potential of this approach.
in math and physics size and units doesn’t matter i think, also no separation one is critical another is not.
p.s
hinged connection has been proposed since early implementation of rigid body constrain to connecting parts as complementary. Surface with master node reference, kinematic coupling and cylindrical coordinate system being used for this type of connection, example problem available at GitHub CalculiX example and YouTube links. It’s more convenient and simpler than any spring/gap element modeling approach, for two-dimensional element still can be okay but began complex for three-dimensional solid element.
for advanced modeling of spring and gap element, two node line element also been proposed, add option to select single main or master nodes and group of slave nodes can be useful to generate such a spider line element. It’s required due to extra nodes separation to eliminate averaging in post processing.
Another example to support the implementation request.
The Vid shows the problem with off-centered lugs compared to the approaches that are around in the forum. (Note this is not strictly a pined connection).
If the pin itself bends due to large span and low stiffness of connected parts, the pressure at the inner contact face of the hole is in opposite direction to the pressure in the outer face. This Only compression aproach don’t cancel overall balance in the LUG allowing the moment to develop. That generates a moment on the connecting plates that open the connection. This only compression effect can only be captured with this approach without the need to model the pin. KINEMATIC and spider most probably would fail here without an additional element linking both sides.(Not pressent here)
As an additional advantage and difference with previous approaches, the hole is not made rigid. That allows measuring reactions directly on the hole nodes (detecting undesirable tension in the pinned connection). Important: without additional out of plane members.
It can also be useful when evaluating Ball connections. There has been some help requested on various posts about that kind of connections without a clear solution on how to face them.
I’m not saying this is the ultimate solution but certainly can help and could be implemented without major changes.
It’s enough to split the Compression only base nodes one for each Compression only definition and allow the user to reference that nodset to a REFERENCE NODE as an option in a Rigid Body definition.
It presents it’s own limitations (More suitable for close fit tolerance holes) but, in my opinion, less than the actual ones while allowing to capture properly the pressure distribution of the pin on the hole.
The user can later exploit and extend its usage based on skills and comprehension of the new feature.
if you can’t tell the difference between the pin on a Crimpage hand tool and a critical Crane connection, there’s no point in continuing to talk about the potential of this approach.