Marc & Structures
Course index

Save your progress

Enter your email and we will send a secure sign-in link. There is no password and the first link creates your account.

Bolted joints

CERIG, MPC184, BEAM188, pilot nodes, and force extraction

On this page
  1. Objectives
  2. Prerequisites and downloads
  3. How to use this lesson
  4. Session map
  5. Prediction — What happens before SOLVE?
  6. Mental model — Head, thread, and connector
  7. Step 1 — Geometry and mesh
  8. Step 2 — Captured regions and CERIG
  9. Step 3 — MPC184 and BEAM188 connectors
  10. Step 4 — Postprocessing and CSV
  11. Bug hunt
  12. Verifiable challenge — Stiffness or length
  13. Self-assessment
  14. Learning evidence
  15. Exit checklist
  16. Technical traceability

M11 introduced 3D contact between meshed bodies. M12 opens the third optional specialization: connecting two SOLID185 plates through pilot nodes, rigid regions with CERIG, and a comparable 1D connector (MPC184 or BEAM188). You will extract local forces to CSV for checking the bolt outside MAPDL under the applicable standard.

Your mission

You will idealize the head and thread with two pilot nodes, compare a rigid connector with an elastic one, and document equilibrium and forces with reproducible CSV evidence.

Guiding question: can you prove that the load passes through the bolt rather than through a numerical bond between the plates?

Objectives

After completing M12, you will be able to:

  • Select nodes captured by the head and thread using auditable components.
  • Apply CERIG,pilot,ALL to captured regions of three-dimensional solids.
  • Build MPC184 (Lagrange KEYOPT) and BEAM188 (CSOLID) connectors.
  • Avoid accidental bonding with a documented interface_gap.
  • Extract connector SMISC results and interpret the local 1D coordinate system.
  • Export forces to CSV for code verification outside the model.

Prerequisites and downloads

  • M03: BEAM188, sections, and beam degrees of freedom.
  • M06: global equilibrium and reaction summation.
  • M02: selection with NSEL, CM, and SELTOL.
  • M11 (recommended): gap criteria and diagnosis before trusting stresses.

How to use this lesson

PathDurationCoverage
First win20–25 minGeometry, CERIG, MPC184, and the first force CSV.
Complete70–75 minBEAM188, comparison, debugging, challenge, and mastery.

Session map

  1. Mission: objectives, downloads, and prediction.
  2. Mental model: pilots, CERIG, connectors, and external standards.
  3. Demonstration: gap, selection, solution, and CSV.
  4. Debugging: five common faults.
  5. Challenge: stiffness or effective length.
  6. Mastery: final M12 test.

Prediction — What happens before SOLVE?

Two 80×40×12 mm plates with a 0.1 mm gap and Fx=4000 N, Fy=−3000 N applied at head_pilot.

QuantityValueInterpretation
Interface gap0.0001 mNo shared nodes between plates
Captured head/thread nodes25 + 25Auditable selection with mesh_h=0.004 m
Topology1848 nodes / 1200 SOLID185 elementsTwo blocks meshed separately
Loadhead_pilotMain load path through the 1D connector

Prediction: if you omit the gap, the plates share nodes at y=plate_t and some of the load bypasses the bolt. With the gap, the local forces must balance the applied Fx and Fy.

Mental model — Head, thread, and connector

Two plates with CERIG pilot nodes and a 1D connector
Figure 1. Head on the upper face; thread on the lower interface; connector between pilots.
  • Head: head_pilot + head_dep at y=2·plate_t+gap.
  • Thread: thread_pilot + thread_dep at y=plate_t.
  • CERIG: with ALL on SOLID185, only active translations (UX, UY, UZ) are coupled.
  • Standards: MAPDL provides forces; code-based sizing is performed externally.

Step 1 — Geometry and mesh

BLOCK,0,plate_x,0,plate_t,0,plate_z
BLOCK,0,plate_x,plate_t+interface_gap,2*plate_t+interface_gap,0,plate_z
VMESH,ALL

Document interface_gap in the README and CSV. Confirm that there is no unintended continuity between the plates.

Step 2 — Captured regions and CERIG

NSEL,S,LOC,Y,2*plate_t+interface_gap
NSEL,R,LOC,X,bolt_x-head_absorb_r,bolt_x+head_absorb_r
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,bolt_z-head_absorb_r,bolt_z+head_absorb_r
CM,head_dep,NODE
*GET,head_pilot,NODE,0,NUM,MIN
CMSEL,S,head_dep
CERIG,head_pilot,ALL

Repeat at y=plate_t for the thread. With SOLID185, ALL is valid: MAPDL uses only the solid's active DOFs. Verify counts of 25+25 before creating the connector.

head_dep and thread_dep regions with numbered nodes in MAPDL
Figure 2. head_dep and thread_dep selection before CERIG and the 1D connector.

Step 3 — MPC184 and BEAM188 connectors

Comparison of rigid MPC184 and elastic BEAM188 connectors
Figure 3. Same local N/V; BEAM188 shows greater compliance in uy_head.
ET,2,MPC184
KEYOPT,2,1,1
KEYOPT,2,2,1
E,head_pilot,thread_pilot

ET,2,BEAM188
SECTYPE,1,BEAM,CSOLID
SECDATA,bolt_d
E,head_pilot,thread_pilot

MPC184 case: rigid beam with Lagrange multipliers to recover SMISC. BEAM188 case: finite axial bolt stiffness. Load: F,head_pilot,FX and FY.

MAPDL deformed shape with rigid MPC184 connector
Figure 4. Deformed shape with MPC184 (rigid connector).
MAPDL deformed shape with elastic BEAM188 connector
Figure 5. Deformed shape with BEAM188: same load, greater head compliance.

Step 4 — Postprocessing and CSV

ETABLE,N_local,SMISC,1
ETABLE,V1_local,SMISC,6
*GET,N_local,ELEM,conn_elem,ETAB,N_local

Write m12_bolt_forces.csv with forces in the connector's local coordinate system. Measured reference: N_local=−3000 N, V1_local=−4000 N; study_passes=1. The file includes the note export_for_external_code_check.

Bug hunt

Five scenarios documented in 12_bug_hunt.mac:

  1. Pilot incorrectly included only as a dependent node without a valid mesh.
  2. Pilot included in the CERIG dependent set.
  3. MPC184 with KEYOPT(2)=0 and empty SMISC output.
  4. BEAM188 without SECTYPE,BEAM,CSOLID.
  5. Trusting bolt forces without global support equilibrium.

Verifiable challenge — Stiffness or length

After validating the base deliverable, choose Challenge A (increase bolt_d) or Challenge B (increase plate_t and connector length). Predict the change in uy_head_beam before running.

Self-assessment

> Quick questions
  • Why is interface_gap introduced?
  • How does rigid MPC184 differ from BEAM188 in this lesson?
  • Where is the bolt's code compliance check performed?

Learning evidence

  • m12_connector_audit.csv — two rows with passes=1.
  • m12_bolt_forces.csv — forces for external code checking.
  • m12_summary.csvstudy_passes=1.
  • Brief note explaining the connector's local versus global coordinate system.

Exit checklist

  • 0.1 mm gap documented; no numerical bonding.
  • n_head_dep=n_thread_dep=25.
  • CERIG,pilot,ALL at the head and thread (active solid DOFs).
  • MPC184 and BEAM188 with local N/V consistent with the load.
  • Global equilibrium <0.5% in both cases.
  • study_passes=1 in a clean run.

Technical traceability

Commands: CERIG, MPC184, BEAM188, SECTYPE, SECDATA, ETABLE, SMISC, *GET. Reference: Structural Analysis Guide; Element Reference. Inherited from: M03 (beam), M11 (gap). Next: M13 modal analysis.

Show that you can do it without hints

You need at least 80% and every critical check correct. You can retry without a limit; each attempt gives you a focused review path.

6 checks

Competency

Idealize bolted joints with CERIG, comparable 1D connectors, and force-resultant export.

Expected evidence

CERIG pilot+ALL; 25+25 absorbed; N_local/V1_local consistent; documented external regulatory verification.

Save mastery across devices

Enter your email to receive a secure link. Your account stores only progress, attempts, and scores.

1.What happens with CERIG, pilot, ALL in SOLID185 nodes? Critical
2.What is interface_gap=0.0001 m used for in the deliverable? Critical
3.MPC184: KEYOPT(2)=1 versus KEYOPT(2)=0. What does it enable for postprocessing?
4.How many head_dep nodes does the base deliverable contract require? Critical
nodes
5.Enter |N_local| measured (N) of the MPC184 (1 significant digit ok). Critical
N
6.Where is the M12 bolt code check performed?

The assessment is scored and progress is saved in this browser.