Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Sergio
About
- Username
- Sergio
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,545
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
About the material parameters, we determined in the past for rubber using only compression tests on a simple molded test sample (in fact the same as in the animation) and using a comercial tool. We had tested all our hardness range and determinate M…
-
For microcelullar rubber I have used in the past (automotive door sealing) Abaqus hyperfoam material. CalculiX also includes this material, take a look at a simple comparation between hyperelastic (solid rubber) and hyperfoam (microcelullar rubber).…
-
For extruding such elements you must select the "border" and not the faces.
-
Sometimes you need to include the test devices also in your simulations to take in count the shape and contacts that cannot be represented by simple boundary conditions. Can you extend a little more on the failure modes that you are not seeing in th…
-
Due to the large impossed displacement, this problem must be solved with geometrical no lineal activated. Your material is a sponge, so a propper hyperfoam material must be defined using CCX custom model definition like this *SOLID SECTION, MATERI…
-
Have you used the special material *HYPERFOAM in your simulation? Also, maybe using hexa elements with reduced integration can help, 30% of deformation is a lot for the mesh.
-
In CAD, I export every component of the assembly as an individual file. Some components that are made in the same material can be exported in a single file, very often for bolts I do that, one component with all the bolts, is easier to manage that w…
-
If Is an step file, it must have only one component per file. Mecway doesn't recognize assembly steps
-
In Mecway parts are called components, and if I remember well they are imported as element named selections (sets or groups in Prempomax). Look in the model tree under Named Selections, choose the one that you need (all the elements of that named se…
-
You need to ask to compute the stress components before requesting the stress linearization, they are not included by default. Go to Menu/Solution/Stress and Strain/Stress, and then try again with the linearization. You must first select two nodes, …
-
Mecway solver has become better for shells and beams than CCX imho, maybe that extra no lineal material option could atract more users. Whit this last upgrades such as the posibility to glue different meshes with TIE or couplings makes more suitab…
-
Have tested the new node-surface coupling features on the internal solver and they are great, is a big advantage for working with with real shell elements. Have you thinked in adding no lineal materials to the internal solver as well?
-
Well... just don´t do too much zoom :-) In my experience works razonably well for being a free software (probably the best of the open source world if we put in the scale the easy setup and having so good preprocesors available as Mecway and Prepom…
-
Thanks for this update, the new simmetry bc for beams works really good, attached first test with a security cage
-
Just a newbie question, why the MFRONT library of materials (and others) is not directly integrated in the standard CCX distribution? There are a lot of post here and in the CCX forum on how to install/compile this feature
-
@Victor, probably the easier way to get a midsurface would be adding to the move/copy tool an extra option to use the normal+ or normal- as direction at a specific distance, the same as the extrusion tool have it today. After that the user should d…
-
I found today this nice paper about reinforced concrete, maybe could be redone in Mecway/Calculix https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aymanelfouly_els-software-progressive-collapse-validation-activity-7148028782396719104-3Dno?utm_source=share&utm_m…
-
@kuhtip there is no way by the moment to identify the user unit system, so you must work in meters and Newton in your script as is the internal unit system that use Mecway. Would be great to have a custom tool bar (floating?) to add this kind of sc…
-
@cwharpe about putting different spiders from different fasteners in different components, have sense? I meant, is a resource to connect to the beam that simulate the bolt shaft, only those beams must be in different component in case of different b…
-
Hi @cwharpe ! Thanks for taking time to fix my poor man script. I think that the logical is that all the beam elements share the same material and component.
-
I have made something similar, I use two scripts, one for create a node in a circle based on three selected nodes. The second one takes the selected nodes and creates the spider and material. The user must select the center node as the last one in o…
-
@Victor , I have seen that you mention that there are some internal check of element shapes and topology, could it be implemented in future version some kind of reporting on this elements checks? At the moment the only way to have an element quality…
-
Hi, the new slider control for the edge threshold is very nice, now we can pick complex face selections very easily. Can you implement the same kind of control for the cutting view? I feel that the actual slider is not so accurate.
-
I would mesh carefully every element separately, maybe using Salome to get more control on mesh creation and node/element count, trying to use hexa elements where is easy to set up. Could take one, two, three days, but will finish with a model that…
-
It works very well, have tested with a simple aluminium rim. Thanks for this update
-
I just note that you need the hexagonal nuts. I would model separately as solids and join with TIE boundary conditions to the tube. For more accuracy, in the CAD the surface around the nuts could be splitted in order to be selectable in Mecway for d…
-
I just recreate the basic tubes as surfaces in Solidedge (I would not consider the small hexa features, too small compared against the tube, at least for an initial analysis), using a simple sweep with parametric sketchs (circle and elipse for the p…
-
Can you show or share the geometry? It's a lot of elements!
-
I have removed the tangential stiffnes of the contact definition, and works razonably well, I would check if there are some penetration or not
-
The "Save view" is a relly nice addition, thanks for this update @Victor!
