Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Version 4 beta
A beta version of Mecway 4 is available at http://mecway.com/download/app/mecway40beta1.msi
I welcome feedback from anyone who wants to try it. It expires at the end of December but the final version will be released before that. Otherwise it has the same license restrictions as the final version which means version 3 customers can make full use of it. Beware that files saved in version 4 aren't completely readable in version 3, especially the solution data.
Changes from 3.0 to 4.0 beta
Meshing and preprocessing:
Multiple CAD geometry faces can be selected together.
Open and mesh multiple .step files at once.
More reliable default meshing option “Fit midside nodes to geometry” turned off.
Plate mesh generators have mesh density controls and instant preview.
Torispherical and semiellipsoidal shells now include the knuckle and are moved to the Mesh tools -> Fit to curved surface tool
Nodes can be selected according to their position by a formula.
Bonded contact has a “swap” button to quickly swap the master and slave surfaces.
Solver:
More comprehensive support for the CalculiX CCX solver including importing solution data for post processing, custom text input, more features exported to solver and easy-to-use contact.
Centrifugal force can be time dependent in nonlinear static analysis.
Dynamic response and modal response (now called mode superposition) have more features in common.
Displacements on frictionless support in static 3D analysis. Useful for a press fit.
Static analysis with compression only support now uses an automatic, non-configurable convergence criterion.
Compression-only support can be used on the 2D faces of shell elements.
Line pressure can be applied to line2 elements as well as faces.
Nodes that aren't connected to any elements can be used in constraint equations.
Fixed support only constrains the DOFs that its faces have. So beam sharing a node with a solid element's fixed support won't have its rotation constrained. Existing files are given extra constraints to maintain compatibility.
Load and constraint values can be specified as formulas.
Normal pressure can be a function of position specified as a formula.
If you stop the static or nonlinear solver before it's converged, it retains the result from the last iteration.
Display:
Faster graphics with large models.
Option for the popular Z-up view orientation convention.
Out of range color is configurable.
Contour plot can also be displayed with smooth gradients.
Node numbers and element numbers can be displayed separately.
Components and geometry items have “Hide all but this” and “Show all” options.
New units: kip, kN.m, kip.ft, ksi
Customizable contour plot colors.
Other:
Solution data is stored in a more compact format reducing size and speeding up loading of large files.
Faster application startup for 64 bit.
Removed:
Ramp contour plot color option. Use the customizable colors instead.
VRML (.wrl) file format for saving.
Spherical shell tool. Use Fit to curved surface instead.
I welcome feedback from anyone who wants to try it. It expires at the end of December but the final version will be released before that. Otherwise it has the same license restrictions as the final version which means version 3 customers can make full use of it. Beware that files saved in version 4 aren't completely readable in version 3, especially the solution data.
Changes from 3.0 to 4.0 beta
Meshing and preprocessing:
Multiple CAD geometry faces can be selected together.
Open and mesh multiple .step files at once.
More reliable default meshing option “Fit midside nodes to geometry” turned off.
Plate mesh generators have mesh density controls and instant preview.
Torispherical and semiellipsoidal shells now include the knuckle and are moved to the Mesh tools -> Fit to curved surface tool
Nodes can be selected according to their position by a formula.
Bonded contact has a “swap” button to quickly swap the master and slave surfaces.
Solver:
More comprehensive support for the CalculiX CCX solver including importing solution data for post processing, custom text input, more features exported to solver and easy-to-use contact.
Centrifugal force can be time dependent in nonlinear static analysis.
Dynamic response and modal response (now called mode superposition) have more features in common.
Displacements on frictionless support in static 3D analysis. Useful for a press fit.
Static analysis with compression only support now uses an automatic, non-configurable convergence criterion.
Compression-only support can be used on the 2D faces of shell elements.
Line pressure can be applied to line2 elements as well as faces.
Nodes that aren't connected to any elements can be used in constraint equations.
Fixed support only constrains the DOFs that its faces have. So beam sharing a node with a solid element's fixed support won't have its rotation constrained. Existing files are given extra constraints to maintain compatibility.
Load and constraint values can be specified as formulas.
Normal pressure can be a function of position specified as a formula.
If you stop the static or nonlinear solver before it's converged, it retains the result from the last iteration.
Display:
Faster graphics with large models.
Option for the popular Z-up view orientation convention.
Out of range color is configurable.
Contour plot can also be displayed with smooth gradients.
Node numbers and element numbers can be displayed separately.
Components and geometry items have “Hide all but this” and “Show all” options.
New units: kip, kN.m, kip.ft, ksi
Customizable contour plot colors.
Other:
Solution data is stored in a more compact format reducing size and speeding up loading of large files.
Faster application startup for 64 bit.
Removed:
Ramp contour plot color option. Use the customizable colors instead.
VRML (.wrl) file format for saving.
Spherical shell tool. Use Fit to curved surface instead.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
1) When I try to download Chrome says me that this file can be harmful, and after my antivirus delete the file. I disable the antivirus (Symantec Endpoint Protection) in order to be able to download
2) I make an easy test using CCX as solver....automatic result converted to Mecway is amazing!!!! Is a feature that several people is trying to accomplish in other preprocessors without such level of quality!!!!. Can you add a legend in the graphic window like "CCX version ... results" and obviously for Mecway's results as well, because now is hard to tell who has solved the problem. Another good text would be the load case name as well.
Beat regards
Can we have the attached picture (views) docked/expanded instead of going into the view tab each time for them? I know we have the triad at the bottom right that do the same thing. Thanks
1) Harmful file warnings should become less severe after more people download it and Windows/Chrome learn about that. I'm also hoping to start using code signing which should help gain more trust with them too.
2) I'll look into showing how it was solved somehow. In the meantime, you can get a clue from the presence of FORC_F1 - FORC_F3 in the CCX solution which are the external forces (both reaction and applied).
VMH) Thanks for the suggestion about view buttons. I'll try it and see what happens. I'm afraid they'll end up dominating the tool bar but every other CAE program has that.
1) Is possibe to add simmetry boundary conditions? I know that is a fixed displacement normal to the plane, but for some people is more easy to have it directly. And what about a plane that's not coincident with the standard planes?
2) Displacement/loads/foces representations sometimes are "inside" the geometry, is possible to put always "outside" the geometry?
3) Is possible to define where is stored the ccx files (should be the same folder as the Mecway file maybe)
4) Could be the ccx files writted separately (nodes/elements/groups in one files and boundary conditions in other). For big models will be hard to scroll down on Notepad to edit the boundary conditions by hand
5) Is possible to have element and node values in CCX as well?
6) Is possible to see the CCX solver run time data during computing? For long runs is usefull to check the iterations and other parameters.
7) In the manual, it says that for read CCX results Mecway assumes that quantities are in m/kg/s. My step model also should be in meters??? We normally model in mm
8) I try to change the unit from results GPa to MPa in the pipe clip example but it doesn't work (keep in GPa), same for displacements
9) Now that there are several solvers availables (Mecway, Tochnog and Calculix), maybe could be a good feature to allow the user to choose first the solver and kind of analysis, and then disable all the features not supported by the solver.
10) What about supporting Nastran (now there is a free version available) and Impact in the future???
11) Is possible to edit the lower nolineal time plot (scales, add divisions, colors...)??? I start to use it and found it very usefull. A great feature that has Abaqus is the possibility of plot two variables at the same time, so I choose displacement in one node of the movil side and the summatory of nodal reaction at the fixed side... then the FEA becomes a virtual dynamometer, you can see the load/deflection curve in real time as the part become defomated (usefull in nolineal analisys with contact by example)
12) For the header in the results, what I have find usefull is (taken from NX Nastran)
File Name / Solver
Load Case Name / Kind of case and step number
Variable name / Ubication (nodal/element)
min/max of the Variable
Deformation variable (and scale)
Best regards
i try quick test for simple case, seem not working properly in reading *.frd results. i don't know where the trouble comes, is this my pc & installation problems or not.
attached comparison of both solver output respectively, results for SXX, SZX, Deflection and example case input files.
greetings,
Thanks for such detailed suggestions.
1) Frictionless support does this if all the faces lie in the symmetry plane, which they should do anyway. One weakness is quad4 shell edges which might be tilted if the element isn't normal to the symmetry plane. I agree a special symmetry boundary condition would be a bit nicer but usually not necessary.
2) Forces and pressures on faces already get shown on the outside. For constraints, node forces, etc. I'll add it to the list but can't promise.
3) They currently all get put in the temporary folder. You can customize things somewhat by using a .cmd or .bat file that runs CCX and also copies whatever files you want to another location. What do you want to do with these files? Would it be better for such a path to be specified in each model or globally for the whole program?
4) I'm reluctant have multiple files because it adds complexity. Ideally you wouldn't have to edit the .inp file by hand. Are you able to make the edits using the 3 new features (custom model definition, custom step contents and don't generate keyword) in the CCX branch of the outline tree instead?
5) I'm not sure how to get CCX to output element node values. It only seems to do nodal averaging or values at integration points.
6) The "CCX output" button shows the standard output from the solver. Is that what you mean?
7) STEP files can be in any units. The m/kg/s restriction is only if you've created an .inp or .frd file outside of Mecway and are importing it. It's because those file formats don't contain unit information. If you do it through the "Solve with CalculiX" button then the units get sorted out automatically. I'll see if I can clarify this in the manual.
8) It works for me. Do you mean if you save the file then open it again, it doesn't remember the unit setting? That's a common issue but not a priority yet.
9) That sounds like a much more sensible design. I hope to do that in a future version, and that would also allow the "what's wrong?" error messages to be appropriate to the solver which they currently aren't.
10) That free Nastran sounds like a great idea. I don't know if/when I'll be able to get to it though.
11) I'm reluctant to enhance the plot too much because I feel that's something which external software is probably always going to be better at. Showing two variables together is already on the list though, but both with the same time scale as the x-axis.
12) Where would this header be? Most of that information is already displayed on the screen.
Rhoka:
This looks like a bug reading the .frd file. It doesn't happen when I solve your model. Would you mind running this again and sending me a copy of the .frd file? After solving and while Mecway is still running, go to the folder %temp%\MecwayInstance#########\Ccx\ where # are random digits. Also, what version of CCX are you using?
i have little bit confused with inp files created by MECWAY, there's also has another file with *.copy names.
when i open up directly using CCX Graphics for frd files you mention, unexpected results same as displayed with MECWAY like my previous post.
when i open up inp files and running, the result are as expected. back reading frd of these result files with MECWAY are displayed as expected.
sorry Victor, not want to disturbing the forum with many of pictures i attached.. just want to show the problems.
greetings,
1) You are right, I could use frictionless support for simmetry on non ortho planes. Maybe a simmetry bc (that applies frictionless support) be a good idea then.
2) Great!
3) Normally I want to include boundary conditions not supported by Mecway, like contact with friction or specific material models. In my humild opinion should be saved in the same folder as the .lml file by default, allowing to change it if needed.
4) I found very usefull separating boundary conditions from mesh. Normally when we desing a new product we run several FEAs on the modified model until we get the good desing/results. Every simulation uses the same bc, so what we do now is just define the mesh and groups of nodes where the bc will be applied. Then we export and solve using always the same input file for the analysis (that "calls" the mesh file), this saves a lot of time and make sure that you are using the same bc (for complex analysis involving several loadign steps is easy to mess something using the GUI). Now for example I'm tring to define a rigid body in the fixed side of my simulation, and also need to define a different material model, is possible to do that with the two options available???
5) OK. I must investigate also how Calculix (and Mecway) are reporting the stress values, as they don't agree exactly.
6) Yes! For long runs is nice to see it during the calculus. The ultimate solver monitoring widget (?) would have two tabs, one showing that log (the same as if you will running on the comand line), and the second pointing to the .sta file that gives you a resume of the iterations on nonlienal analisis.
7) Great!
8) My mistake. I change the units in the max/min definition window, but now I realize that the unit label in the results also allow to change the unit, and works.
9) Great!
10) http://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12753
For the long future would be greate to have Nastran also as solver, is something that will gave you more trust to your customers
11) Yes, at the end for reporting we finish the work on Excell, but for postrocessing is really usefull. Is like if you were in front of the test machine and play with the displacement control knob, seeing the stresses and how deformed is the model. As I work with models with very high deformations, contacts and requeriments for a specific load/deflection curve, is a must for me.
12) Normally the header is on the upper left corner of the postprocessing window. For reporting what we do is take an screenshoot of the result area of the program, so having that info is good to avoid mistakes.
Regards!
I couldn't generate or make edits using the 3 new features (custom model definition, custom step contents and don't generate keyword) in the CCX branch of the outline tree. I can right click to create say custom model definition and enter in the inputs but couldn't save or create it (there not save button. see attachment). Can someone shows me a few screenshots of the process of creating one?
Overall, version 4 included almost all of my requests in just one update! Thanks Victor! This is great!
I think the .frd file you posted is faulty. The CGX 2.8 manual says the field variables should be in the E12.5 Fortran number format. That has 12 characters in each number. But the negative numbers in this file have 13 characters. The attached picture shows your .frd file side by side with one I generated from your .liml file. You can see that it has an extra digit on many numbers such as the final number on the highlighted line (-8.71629E-003 instead of -8.71629E-03). CGX seems to read this as 8.000000E+000 and Mecway sees it as 0 - probably because it can't parse it at all and defaults to 0.
Is there anything different in how you're calling CCX from Mecway compared to the command line? Maybe in your path there's another version that was compiled differently? EDIT: I see the output headers you posted show that it's the same executable. So this is even more mysterious.
The .copy file is copied from the original .inp file when you press the "Inp file" button in Mecway. That's because CCX may be busy reading the original .inp file at that time so it can't allow edits to it simultaneously.
Can we have the option to relink the geometry file if we rename our folder or relocate the project files to another place for archive (see attachment that the path to the geometry file was lost after I renamed and move the project files). Thanks
3 and 4) I have the philosophy that all the data should be defined in one liml file as much as possible. I realize that some people prefer/need to have multiple files so different tools can operate on them, and to manage unwieldy/changing mesh files. However, this is the opposite of what I'm trying to do with Mecway so it's perhaps is outside of its scope. I hope all the problems that lead to needing multiple files can be solved within the single GUI instead.
You can define extra materials and boundary conditions using the new "custom model definition" and "custom step contents" features. The manual has an example of a material with bi-linear hardening. There might be some things you can't do with these 3 features but I haven't found any serious ones yet. I haven't tried rigid body specifically, but if it can be inserted at the end of the model definition or step section then it should work.
Please let me know if this doesn't help. If you make multiple versions of meshes with other software and define BCs manually, it might be that Mecway isn't a good tool for that type of workflow.
5) One reason for different stresses is that on solid elements, CCX calculates stress at the integration points then extrapolates to the nodes while Mecway calculates it at the nodes directly. They should converge to the same values with mesh refinement though.
6) Thanks for pointing out the .sta file. I'll look into that at some stage.
12) I understand now. It's going to be tricky because I don't want to clutter the display with information that's useless most of the time. Even some kind of optional customizable summary header might be overkill. I'll see if other people ask for this sort of thing.
I'm surprised at such a big difference. I'll have to specify CCX 2.8 as a minimum or include those alternative names like DISPR instead of DISP in .frd files.
No OK and Cancel button on the custom model definition window is a bug. Thanks for finding it! A workaround is to set Window's resolution/scaling factor/'Change the size of all items' to 100% if you currently have it at 150% or something.
Good idea about changing the path for the file. I'll look into it. For now, you can edit the .liml file in notepad to change the path.
What should be the input units (lb, in) or (N,m) for the CCX input feature? I tried both. If I used (lb, in) same is what I'm using in my model, CCX stopped and said solutions diverge. If I used (N, m), CCX finished and give me the attached results.
The contour plots are identical if we run linear static with elastic material. For this particular test, linear static with elastic material and nonlinear static with elasto-plastic material should yield the same results since the loading are not high enough to yield the material.
Notice in the attachment, only the unit is off by 1x10^3.
Can you help with this? Thanks!
I was able to match the deflections using (kN, m) instead of the previous (N, m). However, the stress did not match and they different by about the same amount of 1x10^3 even though I already changed the input by 1x10^3 compared to the previous test?
Please see attachments. Thanks!
I'm not sure why I had my results different by 1x10^3 before and now I don't. It must be something wrong with the original install. Thanks!
Any time Mecway converts to or from an .inp or .frd file, it assumes that the file uses the m,kg,s system. However, since Mecway doesn't understand the meaning of what you enter in the custom model definition window, it can't do any conversion here so that needs to be in m,kg,s units regardless of what other units are used in the model.
I'll see if I can make this clearer in the program because it's obviously confusing.
I'm currently trying nonlinear contact using an example called "Advanced CalculiX Tutorial" by Eng. Sebastian Rodriguez at www.libremechanics.com.
*EL FILE
S, E
Now I will try with a geometric and material plasticity nonlineal to see If we can postprocess PEEQ as well.
Regards.
Victor, can be Strains (E) and Plastic Strains (PEEQ) turned on by default on nonlineal analysis? And if we want to know how much deformed/strained is the part after unloading, is possible to add another step using the actual input file modifiers? Or could be done by a time table definition for the load aplication?
Regards again :-)
Regards