Timeline for Lagrange Multipliers in Multi-body Finite Element Code
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 21, 2014 at 14:58 | answer | added | Peter Greaves | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 14:55 | comment | added | Peter Greaves | Hi @Stefano M, The reason I'm doing it in this way is to keep the joint forces like you suggest. I've just realised I'd made a programming error and what I've written above actually works fine. | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 12:57 | comment | added | Stefano M | I agree with @BillGreene: unless you have to compute the internal forces $F_J$ (which could be useful for correctly engineering the joints), it is much more easy to have a single "node" at the joint with 9 degrees of freedom: 3 translational DOF and 6 rotational ones (i.e 3 rotational DOFs for each beam.) This will ensure that the beams are always correctly connected. | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 12:34 | comment | added | Bill Greene | If all you need are simple spherical joints, this can be done easily without Lagrange multipliers. It is just a matter of defining the same equations in the global matrices for the translational DOFs at each beam end at the joint. The rotational DOFs for the two beams at the joint are independent. | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 10:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSciComp/status/502403527030108162 | ||
| Aug 21, 2014 at 9:10 | history | edited | Peter Greaves | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed equations
|
| Aug 21, 2014 at 9:04 | history | asked | Peter Greaves | CC BY-SA 3.0 |