Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,651
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
I see what you mean. I think the target audience of the manual, at least chapters 1-5, was taken to be engineers who haven't used FEA before. So engineering terms like stress-strain relationship and buckling may be just plonked there while FEA terms…
-
Hello @BenDragon81037 and welcome. Regarding chapter 6, I'll try to summarize all the mechanical analysis types in terms of vehicles: Static - Least powerful. Essentially Hooke's law (F=kx) generalized to 3D. No momentum and no displacements large…
-
@Sebastianmaklary I forgot to mention, you can re-enable *DISTRIBUTING in Tools -> Labs. Appreciate the feedback @JohnM
-
@Sebastianmaklary Only Spooles, sorry. The MKL files are just to make compiling it with that easier. *DISTRIBUTING seems to give wrong results in some cases so I don't want to include it. You can make a remote force using moment applied to the face…
-
It needs 3 values - start time, end time, and increment size. Perhaps I need to make that clearer somehow.
-
You had me even more worried there, but I think your example is actually OK because the displacements are huge (~100000 x mesh size) and would be swamped by any actual constraints. So I wouldn't worry about the position dependence or inconsistent ro…
-
It looks like some of the shell elements with certain curved shapes are leaking moment to ground. It improves slowly with mesh refinement. I don't understand what's causing it and maybe I need to replace the entire shell formulation to solve this an…
-
Hello ehoule I think you might be running into a problem that the internal solver's shell elements have with some curved geometries. You can see that the solution is wrong because it isn't converging with mesh refinement: 6342 elements. Max. displ…
-
Everything is reflected at symmetry boundary conditions, so fibers at an angle would have a kink along the symmetry line/plane. Yea, probably not useful for general laminates.
-
> which in real world should build tension in the surface that opposes to the pressure, That sounds like a problem since the first iteration will have the applied pressure but none of the tension caused by that will have appeared yet, so the ent…
-
I know this is kind of theoretical, but fairly generally, failure to converge happens at a point in time when the loads can't be balanced by reaction forces at constraints so no static solution exists. A tension-only material would be at risk of thi…
-
@disla, the message "Pressure load requires too many sampling points. Using 1001 uniformly spaced time values for *AMPLITUDE." comes from Mecway converting the formula to a table of discrete (time, load) pairs for CCX. Mecway chooses time points for…
-
Thanks Disla. I thought I should post a screenshot because it looks so beautiful. I added the triangular load function because it tends to produce a more mesh independent load whereas the step function used here can have bigger errors as it trans…
-
Yes, there are two *SHELL SECTIONs for the same elements, so they can conflict. Remove the material from the component in Mecway to prevent it generating that. Catenaries are pretty difficult but it is possible to model a straight line and let grav…
-
@MikeMcMullen Yes
-
The (ever)upcoming version 15 of Mecway will be able to export solutions to Paraview .pvd + .vtu format. I agree with disla that the free version can be used as a viewer.
-
You should be able to drag and drop .png or .jpg images into the editing window. ? I still don't understand what the domain of the inner integral is. But if you can evaluate that using the table data, then great. If the only obstacle is obtaining …
-
That is a pretty clear paper, @disla! I'm confused though about what volume ∆V the inner integral is evaluated over. The equation for risk of rupture of a volume V is The sum is over the elements in V. The outer integral is over the volume of a s…
-
No others.
-
Here's an example of an extra *STEP section. It adds another 50 s of time, changing the total period from 100 s to 150 s. It looks like the contact is being released and the parts suddenly move further at 100 s. Time-dependent displacement doesn't …
-
It generated a mesh for me with the default meshing parameters (press Reset button in Meshing parameters to be sure). Some elements were badly shaped (red X) but turn off Fit midside nodes to geometry for a quick dirty fix of that, or reduce element…
-
Mecway doesn't have that option, sorry. You would have to place the nodes in the offset location and connect them to the rest of the structure with additional beam elements or constraint equations.
-
Great hack! I didn't know you could do that This is a tricky problem of simplifying the model for zoom then somehow knowing when to unsimplify it. If you have a Spacemouse, that zooms the smoother way with simplifications because it knows when you'…
-
Just concurring with how disla's example does it. You don't need anything complicated like multiple steps or restarting the solver to apply different loads in sequence. Just define their time dependence with a table or formula. Do that with Nonlinea…
-
Fantastic. Thanks. There are a lot of redundant hidden face selections that are just there so that if you add a new one from the geometry, it'll know which mesh faces it is without remeshing. It's safe to delete them like you did.
-
Hello RPP. Unfortunately, this is currently a limitation with named selections. But there are some shortcuts to redefining everything: 1. Don't remove or import the STEP file again. Just replace it with the new version and regenerate the mesh and …
-
Haha and incredibly similar too!
-
I would do it like this: * Start with a refined 2D plate for the plan of the whole structure. * Delete elements for the holes (shown partially done in the picture). * Adjust rows of coordinates at a time to position everything correctly. * …
-
Easy to not notice with such an incredible coincidence occurring! The same thing confused me while I was checking it. @disla You've run into an even more insidious problem in that there are two different conventions that both use the same name and …
-
There's a difference in the definitions. The Poisson's ratios in CCX are nu12, nu13, nu23 whereas in Mecway they are nu12, nu23, nu31 For exporting to .inp, Mecway converts nu31 to nu13 using the formula nu13 = nu31 * E1 / E3 It's just a surp…
