If I use a "2D axsissymmetric component" respresenting for example a cylinder.
Then Definitions/Component Couplings/Average results in the average of the 2D cross-section but does not calculate the average of the 3D component represented by the "2D axsissymmetric component" approach. As this is a simplification for faster modeling with less resources, I feel that the result is misleading - not to say incorrect. In the true 3D world the outer areas of a cylinder have more volume per radius unit than the inner areas. This fact is neglected as an average over the 2D cross-section weights each radius unit equal.
What is the inteded way to correctly calculate average values within the "2D axsissymmetric component"
I attach a file with this calculations.
Then Definitions/Component Couplings/Average results in the average of the 2D cross-section but does not calculate the average of the 3D component represented by the "2D axsissymmetric component" approach. As this is a simplification for faster modeling with less resources, I feel that the result is misleading - not to say incorrect. In the true 3D world the outer areas of a cylinder have more volume per radius unit than the inner areas. This fact is neglected as an average over the 2D cross-section weights each radius unit equal.
What is the inteded way to correctly calculate average values within the "2D axsissymmetric component"
I attach a file with this calculations.