Hello collages. I have done a simple test, where I have modeled a square hollow section 100x3, submited to a uniformally load on the top. I have checked results of this 2m simple beam with classical formulas, and the results of the internal solver of Mecway are very close. Calculix, I think because the methodology to expand from shells to solid, has more than 60% diference.
Is there intention to develop nonlinear capabilities for the internal solver? I want to evaluate stainless steel material analysis, for example, or non-linear buckling of shells.
Thank you for your time.
JJ
Comments
Nonlinear shells for the internal solver are not a priority, sorry.
I'm surprised at that 60% error. You might need more refinement with the CCX shells. Also make sure the mesh is quad-dominant, not linear triangles.
You can also use the OpenRadioss solver which has more traditional nonlinear shells. Use damping to obtain a static solution.
Thank you very much for your reply, and of course sincerity. Bad news from you about that... I need to work with stainless in some projects, and as you know the Ramberg-Osgood model is the material law to be considered.
Aditional options could be:
1- Posibility about Opensees as solver https://opensees.berkeley.edu/
2- Posibility about OOFEM as solver https://www.oofem.org/doku.php?id=en:oofem
What do you think about these options? Would be very nice.
I have used the same mesh for both softwares, and it is quad-dominant. I am not confident with this procedure
Using the same mesh could be the problem and you might need to refine it for CCX.
Very good news, to know that you are thinking about to include Code Aster as an option. An industry recognised software, be possible one of the most (if not the most) on the Open Source world.
OOFEM is a software implemented in NextFEM.
OpenSees I think would be a very interesting option: it is very recognised for seismic analysis. Today is implemented by different pre and post processors (NextFEM and STKO), but also in commercial software (Cype).
And what about Nastran: this is also a very recognised software in industry. After your implementation of Mystran, I think won´t be very difficult to do that
@Mishal yes you are right, documentation is very good. But graphic interface is always wellc@Victoroi
After several attempts over the years to get a handle on Code Aster, with great success lately (thanks to the help of LLMs to get through the language barrier and near-vertical learning curve), I can say the juice is well and truly worth the squeeze. Brilliant solver.
I have been long time looking for a nice GUI for Code-Aster. I have been using Salome-Meca, but always find it too tedious to use. In the first half of this year I established the working principle of a bridge between Mecway as pre-/post processor and Code-Aster as a solver. That structure proved to work. After that I didn’t have time to spent on it until last week. My son is programming a lot with Claude Code, and this week he didn’t have time to use it because of his homework 😊. So I was allowed to spent his weekly limit. Unfortunately, it worked out quite well and I decided to unlock more of Code-Aster than I normally use. As a result, the MecwayAsterBridge grew quiet large in capabilities. You can find it here: https://github.com/trednuK/MecwayAsterBridge
I have added a lot of validation checks and documentation. However, since it is build by AI, it still needs human verification to find edge cases which only appear in daily use.
Enjoy using it and please let me know if you have any suggestions or find some bugs.
Kind regards,
Kundert