Typically, truss elements are used for such applications but you could also use beams. The difference is that beams have bending stiffness while trusses don’t. The connection can indeed be tricky and might be easier with beams than with trusses. Tie constraint should handle the connection. Check this thread for some examples:
I was able to validate a catenary problem with beam elements some weeks ago.
I failed on my first attempt when I tried with truss and only tension.
There is a post in the forum with the reference to the files.
I recommend you using a strip (flat beam). Respect the overall section to recover the right stresses but reconfigure the shape to minimize the bending resistance. Don’t go too thin in thickness or it will fail. Start with some pre-shape and add damping in case you go to dynamic.
Prepare some hot Tea and patience if you go to nonlinear dynamics. Find a link to a vid with the result.
I have tried to validate a suspended Cable under uniform load with an initial set up in which I’m using Only tension Truss elements but, the cable stresses are way off.
Once I have request Output 3D I can see the reason. The truss is deforming considerably, altering the section of the element.
Stresses are distorted because elements vary its initial section from almost ½ in the extreme to twice in the middle.
¿Would it be possible to define a zero Poisson ratio for a Truss element?. I have tried ccx 2.21 and 2.22. Pardiso & T3D3. (T3D2 is not converging properly).
Video shows the cable response.
T3D3 Truss section can be seen side by side with a T3D2.
T3D2 helps when it’s used in the connection/support area but not for the whole cable as convergence fails.
Axial Force/ Tensile Stress in the cable is reported as expected in the T3D2 (Result 93.55 kN / Expected 94,86 kN) .
T3D3 reports Axial force properly but Stress is reported wrong as explained before. There is some stiffness issues in the three nodes Truss element
