SAMPLE MODELS FOR REFERENCE AND TRAINING

apadzak

Hi Everybody. I think it is going to be quite useful to have some library of analysis for future guidance. Jumping from thread to thread is time consuming but having here a list of models with brief explanation what is what and what MY version was used may be quite useful. It may be quite interesting having models from various backgrounds

apadzak

Mecway5BETA with CCX 2.8p2. Hyper-elastic analysis with Moony-Revlin material model. 3 contacts, one of them selfcontact, symetry constraints and rigid body motion. Reference only as 1000 node limit used so results can't be treated as correct. 2 studies with different rigid displacement.

Sergio

Guess that the best would be to have the NAFEMS test cases, as they are the standard reference for FEA. Having that cases solved whould remove any doubt on the results of the both solvers, Mecway and CCX.

Also you can try with the Abaqus examples available on several sites, they came in INP format that can be easily imported in Mecway.

apadzak

I meant more software functionality than accuracy, NAFEMS doesn't explain how to model plane fuselage to achieve the same effect on two different software with different capabilities. I have such example which I was hoping to post ages ago but I would like to tweak it to achieve good analysis results but don't have time yet to spend some time on it. This was uni exercise of a friend and there was requirement for mid surface extraction and beam elements offset which is not always achievable in Mecway, but there are workarounds and this I was hoping to post here. Functionality and tricks, settings etx. We can also try to do NAFEMS here for public use. I have done one modal vibration long time ago in LISA but it "just" confirms solver capability. The benefit of that is potential marketing advantages for engineers and Victor as well. Hmmm... let's create NAFEMS BENCHMARK thread

Sergio

You said, "potential marketing advantages for engineers and Victor as well" :-)

They are two different thing, both usefull, one is best practices to use the tool, and the other is the trust in the tool itself.

Regards

apadzak

Indeed, it could be usefull for everyone using Mecway and for the product itself. With regards to trust in the tool, it should always be less than 1. Wise people validate analysis by other means (standards, experiments...) and vice-versa.

Would you be interested in creating such list of NAFEMS benchmarks made in Mecway? This could be quite interesting but running all of them will require time, depending on participants. I am quite up to it but up to the end of July I can't offer to much time.

Thanks,
apadzak

Sergio

Guess that will be great to have this list of NAFEMS benchmarks. I could participate in several, I'm interested in the matter. Yes, will require time, but is something that will be usefull.