I’m not CAD modeler but I can see how they proceed when preparing the 3D models.
When I read about partitions in the forum, they typically refer to lines splitting surfaces in half by connecting opposite edges.
Is it possible to create a partition but fully contained in the face?. I don’t know if that would be the proper name. Kind of import what modelers call the “sketch” .
¿Could I import directly the 2D geometry in which there is a partition (Sketch) of the beam for later extrusion. I could get a much better fully structured mesh if I’m able to directly extrude the beam to one side and the plate to the other.
They would be perfectly merged sharing nodes (no need to tie) and all the inside volume would be structured.
I can do this with manual meshing but I don’t know if this could be integrated in the standard workflow in Prepomax.
The goal or desirable behaviour would be to import just a face with the sketch, mesh with coincident nodes on the perimeter for later extrusion of each part to the desired direction and thickness.
I have been trying to learn how to make conformal meshes and have tried playing around with a section like this. I normally make simple geometry like this by manipulating a simple mesh then extrude that in various ways. This time I looked at trying to mesh the 3D model
so i looked at trying to get a conformal mesh on a shell part (grey) and a solid part (purple). The shell proves more challenging for me. In PPmax I had to split up the section then use the compound function in PPmax
but to get a conformal mesh in quads i would be constructing a mesh manually that would be a bit of a fiddle. I have, however, been messing around with Salome lately and that will produce conformal quad meshes on parts like this
The approach with partitions and Thicken Shell Mesh can help with it. Of course, you could also slice the heck out of it, use Compound and Transfinite algorithm, but it’s much more work if you can’t easily automate it:
there’s possible workflow in PrePoMax to whom interested, simple copy the mesh regions at the same place known as imprint commands in CAD. It’s combined operation of element sets, convert to parts, translate with copy options, merge parts and node.
Or duplicate the whole surface then remove unneeded face, separation the part by grouping element sets still required.
The sketch is an overlaping new surface. You thicken previous offset of 1/2 the thickness in the direction of interest.
Then I just need to merge once finished. right?
Mesh is clean and structured. Really cool. Thanks.
Sorry if I abuse asking but, what about if the sketch is just a line?.Let’s say the mid surface of the beam.? That would be in case someone wants to work with shells. Something like an stiffened panel in which you have the stiffening pattern?
Yes, you could also move the two surfaces away from each other to make the offset easier.
Yes, in the FE Model tab use the Merge Coincident Nodes tool, select the nodes within the interface (with box selection so that nodes on both sides are picked) and apply. It should connect them.
No problem.
You can use Boolean fragments in FreeCAD also to partition a face with an open contour/line. But PrePoMax doesn’t recognise such face partitions if they don’t go across the entire face (splitting it into subfaces):
manual extrusion of existing mesh is an old ways FE approach, node to line (1D), line to plane (2D), plane to solid (3D). Duplicate using imprint face of profile in CAD for preparation sometime cannot maintaining edge division and/or mesh pattern. Mesh based extrusion can guarantee the edge division, mesh pattern and node position to keep exactly the same. Fortunately, PrePoMax capable of both modeling approach so thanks for implementation.
Yeah, that (creating two extrusions from a single surface and limiting one of them to selected elements) also works, but can be trickier for more complex shapes when it comes to element selection.
no, it just duplicated meshed surface at whole. Create parts from element set is easy no mater complex of beam profile. Step by step in process is available in history.
personally, i’m not using these old ways in modeling just exploring the capability. When analysis needed using solid element, so there also solid preparation in CAD not plane. Sweep in PrePoMax integration with Gmsh look great even for complex geometry. I can deal non-conformal mesh by tie constraint or tied contact type; there’s weld part commonly in steel connection which continuous mesh does not appropriate due to stress averaging.
You thicken previous offset of 1/2 the thickness in the direction of interest.
