Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,723
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Sorry if you're going to lose work. One workaround may be converting to quad4 if there are separate parts having no triangle elements (due to lack of tri3 shells with internal solver). Or maybe the CCX solver if you install one of the higher-memory …
-
It's part of force per length but beware that it can have huge errors. Sometimes averaging the values on adjacent nodes corrects that.
-
Yea, it used to, but it was causing problems when there was too much data, especially in dynamic response where the all the time steps can make it huge. I probably won't get it to reuse existing stress. It's a good idea but too low priority. I thi…
-
1) You can do that using a face selection instead of a node selection. It's tricky to select the faces at the connection so what I did was select Plate's elements, use Mesh tools -> Disconnect elements, hide Flange, then select the now exposed fa…
-
The maximum number of nodes depends strongly on the connectivity of the mesh. I just solved a flat quad8 & tri6 shell mesh with 973000 nodes and it was OK. But if your model has a lot of T-connections or other ways that more elements share the s…
-
Sorry about that. It's been a frustration for others too. In some cases, it shows a warning, but probably not for velocity. Hopefully I can find a solution.
-
A few people have asked for this and I hope to later but it won't be in the next version (14).
-
This is a tricky design compromise. What happens now is if there are no field variables (such as first time solving a new model), it automatically adds most of the relevant ones that can't be generated after solving, and that includes velocity for …
-
Yes, the node values for UU, VV, etc. stresses are simply averaged from adjacent elements so they're meaningless at the join where U and V directions aren't uniquely defined. You should use element values instead (select Element values in the Table …
-
Can you be more specific about what stress data you want? Can it be derived from the existing stress or bending moment data?
-
You could add a table to model that's been solved then save it and copy that part of the .liml file to your unsolved file. It looks like this:
Default displx
-
You have some good points there and this is a behavior that several people have questioned. Some general principles I'm trying to adhere to: * Support means a connection to ground or constraint of rigid body motion, not necessarily without impos…
-
That's intentional. Pinned support is at a higher level of abstraction and it makes a single pinned support for the entire selection by coupling all the nodes with constraint equations. It's suitable for putting a pinned support on the end of a beam…
-
I think you might be able to do this with CCX by adding an extra *STEP initial section with gravity to load it separately from the loads for buckling. From the CCX manual: All loads previous to a perturbation step are removed at the start of the ste…
-
Sure, though CCX beams aren't restricted to beam theory since they're more general solids. They also have the Poisson effect changing the cross-section area, for instance. I agree it's not right for the end to deform like that though. I might count …
-
Beware that some versions of CCX have a bug that excludes modes with a buckling much below 1. The version of CCX 2.16 that comes with Mecway 13.1 is OK but other 2.16's might not be. Disla's way of adjusting it so shift point is 1 avoids this bug. …
-
Yes, I wonder if that's the cause of the problem. Maybe it's just not deforming the beam far enough. It's correct for a zero displacement and loaded by a force, which is consistent with that reason.
-
It does look like that, especially with the zig-zag deformation shape. So perhaps B31 isn't really a coding bug but a theory bug. The B32R (line3) case isn't helped by more cube-shaped elements though.
-
Intel MKL Pardiso files are included with Mecway 13.1. You just need to get the CCX version that has been compiled for it according to step 2 in this comment. https://mecway.com/forum/discussion/comment/4863#Comment_4255 Or you can download MKL (no…
-
I saw your post on CCX forum so just to clarify in case of misunderstanding, it works for both static and modal with elastic support, not elastic bonded contact. In case that's no good, another workaround is to extrude a thin layer at either the sl…
-
Add a formula to the solution of ( z*u.z + x*u.x ) / sqrt(z^2+x^2) I've attached an updated copy of your model that includes this.
-
I'm confused about the purpose of the constraint equations and springs. Does putting the Z displacement directly on the end node of the beam lose something important?
-
Thanks for posting that. I guess this shows a need for a proper distributed surface mass. What does that mass represent?
-
Oh, that's funny. It works if you have stress stiffening but not without. It seems like it requires the static *STEP that comes with stress stiffening and then remains active for the subsequent *FREQUENCY step.
-
Yes, it's having constraints on the slave nodes of the bonded contact. A workaround it to replace the frictionless supports with elastic supports with eg. 1e15 Pa/m Normal stiffness per area and 0 Tangential stiffness per area. I don't know why el…
-
Not currently available sorry.
-
Yea, you can't set stiffness too high compared to the rest of the model or it won't converge but as long as it does, it should be OK. 1e15 Pa/m isn't very extreme for a meter-scale model compared to steel having E ~ 1e11 Pa. Automatic bonding is on…
-
Thanks for solving that. Modal mass/etc is on my list as a few people have asked for it before but it probably won't be done for the next version, sorry.
-
As JohnM says, there isn't a simple reliable way to identify them. CCX's output of contact stresses is only on slave nodes, so you can't use that to spot zero-stress nodes. It's WarnNodeMissTiedContact.nam output file showing missed contact nodes is…
-
The CCX manual theory section (6.9.2 Frequency analysis) says the units for effective modal mass are mass*length^2 and from the formula for total effective mass, it looks like that also has the same units. I don't know what that means physically. T…
