Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
VMH
About
- Username
- VMH
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,143
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
I personally like to model 3D solid using FreeCAD and then export the .step file to be imported to Mecway. I have a few videos on it on my youtube channels. Due to someone keep download my videos and uploaded them to different sites for unknown reas…
-
kam33mitch, the bonded contact didn't work for your model if you choose the pipe surface (smaller) as "master". You need to choose the cap surface (larger) as "master" for the bonded contact to activate. See youtube video below (click on the link). …
-
I didn't model anything. It was all your model. I just defined the top cap as a new component which is not needed and created the bonded connection.
-
Here's the model. For the elements, I would use quadratic elements (with midside nodes) for better results. I would also divide the pipe and cap more to get a better aspect ratio instead of having long strips.
-
Hi, is the cap welded/attached to the pipe? Currently in your model, cap is not attached to anything so the pipe and cap will not interact together; therefore the pipe would want to collapse at the top open end instead of bending. I bonded the cap…
-
Victor, Thanks
-
The purpose for this model was trying parametric modeling in FreeCAD for surface modeling. For this model, I can change any dimensions and any referencing dimensions to that dimension will also update. For example, if I can the diameters for the bra…
-
If u can have a view that they are separated, you can turn off the view for element surfaces and turn on the view for nodes. Then window select the interested nodes. After that, click on the select elements icon (one of the three icons in the top mi…
-
Victor, See attachments. I did a test on quadratic shell elements model solving with Mecway and CaliculiX solvers. The results are about the same. However, I noticed that the number of nodes in the results of CalculiX solvers increased and also …
-
http://mecway.com/forum/discussion/149/blurry-on-1920x1080-screen#latest
-
rwhirley, did u try using more than one thread in CCX. It made a different in the runtime when I was testing a 325k nodes elastic material model, linear static analysis.
-
I would like to request for components to be included in the solution instwad of grouping all as default when using CCX to be able to turn them off and on.
-
Thanks! I think "User-defined Max. and Min." would do.
-
I think the reason for not seeing anymore improvement in CCX runtime using 4 threads vs 8 threads is because at 4 threads my 8GB RAM is at 97% unitlization during the CCX run. I think I need more memory to make use of the 8 threads (RAM bottleneck)?
-
Images
-
I just tried "open with" option by right clicking to select the executable Mecway versions x64 and then x86 (see attachments). Both gave me the same error message. So this is not the case.
-
Attached include the results of another test case using linear static analysis. I'm curious if SSD would improve the runtime though.
-
.
-
I transferred the buckling mode displacements to use as the initial imperfection for the nonlinear buckling analysis. The displacements used in the model were alot and unreal. It was just a test. If you would like me to run your model on this new …
-
I did a few tests to see the run-time improvement using multi-threads in CalculiX CCX and found there were little differences for the test example I used (attached). Also attached is the results of the tests using 2nd and 6th Generation Intel i7 pr…
-
Thanks Sergio, my laptop has 8 threads so I put value of 8 (see attached screenshot). Nice! There's no total run-time in ccx so I'm not sure how much faster is it now.
-
Victor, thanks! It works great (see attachment). Sergio, have you able to set the environment variable in Mecway? Can you show me how? Thanks. I was reading this: http://www.bconverged.com/calculix/doc/ccx/html/node3.html
-
I modeled half of the block 75mmx150mmx450mm and used symmetry for the other half. I assumed linear elastic material as the PDF mentioned (assumed E=30MPa based on Mecway provided model). As for the "cohensive bonding", I used frictional contact …
-
I read through the referenced paper. In my opinion, the simulation section is very limited and doesn't say much on the different modeling approach for the different cases. It seems like "cohesive" bond is just a general type contact (nonlinear).
-
I think one of the reasons for the different could be assuming linear elastic material instead of taking into account of material nonlinearity at the bonded interface for the bonded material. In general, once the area of high stress exceeded the li…
-
Can the .step file be provided so we can take a look at it?
-
Sorry Victor. I've been putting *EL FILE and PEEQ in the wrong place all this time that's why equivalent plastic strain never show up. I see them now.
-
Victor, after trying CCX for material nonlinearity tests, I feel that Mecway being able to read CCX equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) output is very important and am hoping that this would be implemented. Thanks
-
I think the reason why Mecway doesn't report error because there seems to be no error in regard to element type and connecting nodes (no open). They are just poor quality/skewed. Mecway currently doesn't check for those. If you mesh in Netgen, yo…
-
Victor, thanks for the reply. 1. Having components will be great for turning on and offto see the results of each component individually and also interface results of the connecting components. I agree that it's not a priority. 2. Can we include a…
