Native Calculix windows version released by General Electric

svingegneriasvingegneria
Dear Mecway users,
at the following link GE repository with latest certified CalculiX Windows version:

https://github.com/GeneralElectric/CalculiX

Best Regards,
Stefano

Comments

  • SergioSergio
    Stefano, excuse my ignorance, but can you point me exactly to the Windows executable file? I have download several of them and can't find any .exe

    Regards!
  • kwipkwip
    Hi Sergio,

    https://github.com/GeneralElectric/CalculiX/blob/master/releases/CalculiX-GE-OSS-2.10-win-x64.zip

    unzip --> bin folder (ccx.exe and ccx_MT.exe as well as several dlls you might copy/move together with the exe-files)

    regards
  • VMHVMH
    kwip,

    Do you know the differences between "ccx.exe" and "ccx_MT.exe". And are these the same as the one you complied? Thanks
  • kwipkwip
    I did not try it so far, but I expect them to differ in the same way as my binaries.
  • svingegneriasvingegneria
    Dear Sergio,
    kwip answered greatly...sorry for delay!
    Regards,
    Stefano
  • VMHVMH
    edited May 2016
    FYI. I did a test to check out the solvers.

    See attachments for a comparison among several CCX solvers: ccx2.8p2 complied by bConverged, ccx2.10_MT complied by Kwip, and ccx2.10 complied by General Electric (GE).

    A cantilevered flat plate with dimensions of 1/2" x 24"x 36" loaded with 1 kip at the cantilevered end was selected for the test.

    Component 1: Linear Quad Shell Elements (Quad 4)
    Component 2: Quadratic Quad Shell Elements (Quad8)
    Component 3: Quadratic TriShell Elements (Tri6)
    Component 4: Quadratic Hex Solid Elements (Hex20)
    Component 5: Quadratic Tet Solid Elements (Tet10)

    From the results, ccx2.10 version from Kwip and GE has identical results. ccx2.8p2 and ccx2.10 versions had slightly different results for the shell elements.
  • SergioSergio
    One thing that I found in the kwip version 2.10 is that when I ask for writing data in an external file (*NODE PRINT), if the value exced 9.9E+99 or 9.9E-99, it became 9.9+100 or 9.9-100 (so I has to edit by hands to plot in Excel)

    Regards
  • rhokarhoka
    edited May 2016
    hi,

    version 2.10 from bConverged has been publish by Jeff B., but only for 64bit. i'm still wait for my 32bit OS and i hope for his kindliness to build and provides.

    http://www.bconverged.com/data/content/CalculiX_2_10_win_001.zip

    greetings,
  • apadzakapadzak
    edited May 2016
    I have installed 2.10 from bConverged and couldn't perform PipeClip analysis from Mecway's samples folder done in Mecway v4 and v5. Comming back to 2.8 bConverged made it working once again.

    Is it just me?

    Thanks
  • avicoavico
    It is not just you.

    Linking to ccx.exe I have no result (ccx output in Mecway is empty) and linking to ccx.bat (in bin directory) I get error (divergence with values in second iteration like

    average force= 12138039319532977555217129289274518421059859334854355145602367488.000000
    time avg. forc= 12138039319532977555217129289274518421059859334854355145602367488.000000
    largest residual force= 219404421944374718847865764582127078647926855741908179593220990173184.000000 in node 254 and dof 3
    largest increment of disp= 8.811454e+18
    largest correction to disp= 8.811454e+18 in node 254 and dof 3


  • SergioSergio
    I can't solve the clip and others models that I have done before (on a fresh install of Windows 10, Mecway and CCX suite) on , even if I setup a bat file. I will back to the kwip version that runs smooth.

    Regards
  • AndresLTAndresLT
    Sergio

    I have the same problem with Calculix 2.10
  • VictorVictor
    edited June 2016
    Thanks everyone for bringing this up. I find it won't work or show any output if you use ccx.exe. Instead, use ccx.bat which sets some environment variables. With that, I was able to solve the pipeclip example. It might be because it depends on dlls that are in another folder.
  • kwipkwip
    the latter one is the reason why I've built ccx statically. Sergio, 9.9E99, 9.9E-99 ... you are pushing the limits infty vs. zero ;)
  • SergioSergio
    Kwip, you are right, but in my example of the snap belt I has those kind of results for loads, obviously they are zeroes, but I has to fix it by hand in order to plot on Excel. Who knows, maybe somebody test a nuclear reactor and fails due to this little numbers
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register