Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
VMH
About
- Username
- VMH
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,143
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
davefo, which version ccx were you using. I tried the rerun my original model attached in above message and didnt see your error message.
-
Is this mesh generated by Netgen in Mecway or imported? I haven't encountered this before.
-
can you share us your files?
-
lilchief, same as Victor comment, which CCX version are you using and where did you get it from. Seems like you have Windows 10. If you have 64-bit operation system, try CCX version 2.10: 1. Complied by Kwip (I tried "ccx_2.10_MT.exe") at https…
-
Victor, adding the Mecway version on the top showing the filename + Mecway v5.0 would be nice. Currently it show filename + Mecway
-
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 dim…
-
Victor, thanks for your explanations and helps.
-
Thanks Victor, I'm always interested in deformable rigid body/link. It's like dummy member I used in structural analysis software like SACS by Bentley that transfer loads but removed from the stiffness calculations (save and delete joints/members f…
-
Victor, this is what I was looking into: http://www.femnews.pl/en/2016/04/18/benefits-of-using-beam-models/
-
kwip, Do you know the differences between "ccx.exe" and "ccx_MT.exe". And are these the same as the one you complied? Thanks
-
Victor, my apologizes: setting a custom scaling in Windows of 149 got the icons the same as what I had in version 4. Thanks.
-
Victor, Thanks for letting us know on the convergence criteria in Mecway analysis option. I was under the impression that they were applicable to CCX because changing them did give different results when I tested them with barrti model.
-
Great to hear that!
-
barrti, In the analysis option for the convergence criteria, I noticed that you only have "Work" checked. Check either "Default" and "Work" (default) or "Displacement" and "Work" or "Force" and "Work".
-
screenshot. hopefully there would be a fix later.
-
Victor, setting a custom scaling in Windows to 149% got the icons smaller than what I had in Version 4 (which was a great size) but this is okay for now. Thanks
-
barrti, when running a full geometric and material nonlinear analysis with +50 steps and larger model, it requires a much stronger CPU and a fast solver. The CCX2.10_MT complied by kwip solve about 3 times faster than bConverged ccx 2.8p2 on my new…
-
Thanks Victor. I tried axial, bending, and also combined axial and bending. They all had localized stress concentration from the beam to solid element which wouldn't exist if they are all beam elements or all solid elements. Thanks
-
This will be an interesting topic for many who are using beam elements for the global modeling connecting to shell/solid elements for the connections/parts they are interested in. This give a better boundary conditions for more complicated structur…
-
Thanks for the responses. I had the same thoughts but just want to verify it. Thanks
-
Attachments
-
Forgot to mention: click on the interested node and the graph will appear. The popup window will indicate the value of the selected node at the selected time. Move the scroll to a different time and click on the selected node again and the popup w…
-
Barrti, see attachments. Hope this help. I did it quick test on a simple free-standing column on Mecway version 5.0, CCX2.8p2 using 4"x4"x36"; E=29e3ksi, Poisson ratio=0.3, Yield=36ksi, Tangent Modulus=210.3ksi, Horizontal Force at top of column …
-
protontim, can you provide the .liml file for better understanding?
-
65mustang, it's from this forum on January 24: http://mecway.com/forum/discussion/155/general-contact-nonlinear-hard-contact-in-ccx
-
attached
-
Mario, hope this is somewhat helpful. See video below and also attachments. This is just a quick video/analysis of a rotating blade into a block testing the CCX contact feature. The nonlinear analysis in the video clip used only 4 steps. This cas…
-
Got it to run correctly. Need to increase the numbers of step and adjust the contact parameter.
-
I created a quick model to have the .step files. I added the chamfer on the block so the blade could contact and possibly side but was unsuccessful using ccx on my few quick tests. My files are attached.
-
I did the run and used beam element with young module (E) of 10x200GPa to make them somewhat rigid elements. Due to no chamfer, it direct impacted as what Sergio mentioned instead of sliding.
