Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,194
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
The internal solver's beams assume shear center = centroid, so they're not really correct for asymmetric sections. The general section doesn't necessarily correspond to any rectangle though because you can define I and A in a way that isn't a rectan…
-
As shown in this picture
-
Interesting idea about open-ended edges. I wonder if there are cases where they'd still be useful though, like a square to round transition.
-
Thanks for the suggestions everyone. Looks like a good way would be: Top priority: Global text note field that gets written to the top of the CCX/OpenRadioss input files too. Lower priority: Configurable title block Lowest priority: Text notes on…
-
It doesn't currently have any functions to select things. Do you want to select them then exit the script so that selection is available in the GUI, or do some script things on the selection? If the latter, then you can keep a list of faces in the s…
-
A few other issues besides the collapsed hexes Sergio identified: 1. Nodes of the slave surface, which includes the axis nodes, typically can't have constraints. They don't need them anyway because they're tied to the master surface. 2. An excepti…
-
There are still only 3 elements around the 180 degree cone at the vertex so it's still coarse/highly curved there. To be honest, I never pay attention to the output of Netgen, nor understand it. It might just be saying that it found a special case …
-
Sorry about that. I don't know why it got stuck. Might need a page reload or cache clear. I've added the .FCStd extension to files allowed for attachments.
-
Those thick lines in unexpected places can be a hint that the mesh is disconnected but they don't generally mean that. They're just placed where there's a large angle between adjacent faces. That's typically on actual edges but when the mesh is coar…
-
That's interesting. It seems like CCX avoids you having to specify convergence criteria by using ratios with the whole model. So it does sound suspicious if you have some other part that skews the test. The way I solve mysterious convergence proble…
-
Yea that's right elastic support connects to ground so springs may be more realistic if the parts move together. Ideally, you'd use such low stiffness that it doesn't matter but that might not always be possible. It does sound strange that 0-stiffn…
-
It looks like the common problem of rigid body motion of unconstrained parts. To reliably converge, the rod should be constrained in all 6 degrees of freedom. Elastic support with both normal and tangential stiffness (tangential stiffness is zero he…
-
I'm not sure the best way this should work. I wonder if you two or anyone else could suggest how it might look? Some thoughts: 1. One notes field for the whole model? 2. Plain text, or allowing images and/or formatting, even embedding some other d…
-
I'm not sure what those warnings mean. I didn't know there was a DOF 0 in CCX. Normally there are similar but different warnings for nodes that aren't connected by the contact, such as if one surface extends beyond the edge of the other, which is ha…
-
Since you've already scaled it up enough to avoid the negative Jacobian error, I don't think there's any value in scaling it up beyond that. It might push something over the limit in the other direction. Pyramids are mostly bad for boundary conditi…
-
Is that supposed to be E+15 instead of +15?
-
I'm not seeing the 0.05 s offset you described - maybe it's just when the display changes as you slide the slider? However, after 0.7 s, the time values in the solution deviate from 0.1 s increments. That's because the the solution time steps are r…
-
With Mecway, the solver converts everything to the same units for solving anyway so 1000 mm ends up numerically the same as 1 m. However, you could scale everything so that it's numerically smaller/bigger, like specifying 1 mm for something that's …
-
That's certainly not normal. I'm not sure what could have caused it. Maybe Move/copy of faces, deleting elements with CTRL+DEL, or quadratic quad dominant shell meshes with Gmsh which generates midface nodes, and then remeshing which generates more …
-
Thanks @Fatmac. It looks like the accuracy parameter fixes it. I get a reliable 88.88 1st mode with 1e-5 whether requesting 1 mode or 3. This is with the MKL solver and no Pastix but I did see a difference without setting accuracy (89.01 and 88.88).…
-
You're right that it shouldn't do that. Some ideas: Are you using the CCX binary that comes with Mecway or another one? The Mecway one has automatic shift point searching and most others don't. It shouldn't make much different here though because b…
-
I agree and intend to include compression-only 2-node elements in a future version. Probably with a spring stiffness (k) rather than E and A the way tension-only currently is.
-
If this is CCX, then Mecway only uses nodal values. It doesn't currently import integration point values from the CCX solution. Including integration point values wouldn't be trivial since it doesn't currently have any way to store or display them, …
-
The renumbering of non-sequential nodes is a bit complicated, sorry. When Mecway reads a .inp file, it creates dummy nodes to fill the numbering gaps, then deletes them in reverse numerical order. Deleting a node means replacing it with the node of …
-
It looks like you have a much older version. Only the latest one (26) has the OpenRadioss support.
-
Turn it on in Tools -> Options -> General -> Labs first. What's the script downloading path?
-
Here's one approach using spring elements for the wire and pre-tension section. You have to define the preload as a length adjustment rather than a force so you'd need to look at the axial force in the solution and modify the pre-tension section to …
-
To be clear, this is only a problem if you're going to do mode superposition or otherwise using the mode participation factors from the CCX output files, not for general frequency analysis, is that right?
-
I'm not sure using the higher stress at material boundaries is the right way. While it might be practical and conservative, it wouldn't be obvious that it's doing that and there's ambiguity about how to order tensors. I'm not sure what you mean in …
-
Yes, since version 25, in part because you pointed out the need. Sorry it slipped by. The Y-rotation constraint is for the reference node (ROT node), but structure itself is free to rotate about the line of nodes because there's no way for a rigid …
