Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,724
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
It's the other way round (reference temperature is the initial temperature) so it will already be doing what you want. Yes, you can reverse the effect by negating the 6 stress components in linear analysis because stress is proportional to load and…
-
Oh, good point about the rotation. That itself is suspicious though because of symmetry and it might be taking energy away from the linear motion. Normally, I'd say it's not reasonable to expect the same results from the same inputs with different …
-
Does the CCX one rebound above its starting height, violating conservation of energy? I got a little bit of that with an orthotropic material but mostly it won't solve that far and I lost the special material that worked! One source of a difference…
-
I got it to bounce off the surface before it fails with these changes. Not sure if all of them are necessary: * Removed back surface of plate from contact. * Changed plate to quadratic elements. * Refined plate. * Turned on Automatic time s…
-
tk1537, I don't see why not, it just hasn't come up much. You can write the formula in a spreadsheet though and copy and paste the table to Mecway. You have to put a column of commas between the two values though.
-
I hope to add a simple option to turn on cavity radiation in future. In the mean time, here's an example doing it by hand. It's a bit of work, something like: * Make the model using ordinary radiation. * Solve. * Open the .inp file and copy …
-
I don't intend to make it a more general PDE solver like COMSOL/etc. But CCX's radiation between surfaces would certainly be a good fit. Not quite yet though. For now, you'd still have to define that by hand.
-
Oh, that's a good point cmmcnamara. I don't see a problem with that. The CCX manual has a little table listing the relationship between thermal and diffusion variables too.
-
It's just a different sign convention. Mecway follows what seems to be common for FEA software. I'm not sure if there's an important reason for that difference (something to do with being 3D?) or just legacy. Consistency with bending moments like yo…
-
Not that I know anything about Salome, but that whole mesh looks like just a first pass without some optimization or shape improvement steps that would normally smear out those perfectly regular grids and high aspect ratio triangles or split them in…
-
No mass participation, sorry. Thanks Famous_Mortimer
-
That's probably more of a question for Guido from CCX. If you can afford a few hours, you could have a go at compiling CCX which would be the first step to writing a user subroutine. There are step-by-step instructions along with the source code inc…
-
I'm not sure if there's a way to get CCX beam results per element. There's element stresses at integration points available in the .out file using *EL PRINT though. This might be a lucky accident but if you assign a section shape to the spring mate…
-
I think it would be possible by writing a user subroutine for a load, such as a concentrated load. Section 8.4.2 (or 9.4.2) Concentrated load (cload.f) of the CCX manual says that node displacements for the whole model are available to the *CLOAD us…
-
Hopefully by the end of February. No new meshing options but some new features will be: - A built-in Python interpreter and partial API for writing scripts to read solution data and a few other basic operations. To be extended in subsequent releases…
-
Yep, that one.
-
Not unless there's enough demand. The reason for removing the integration was that nobody seemed to use it and it was complicating the code. Note that Tochnog Professional is different from TOCHNOG. From what I understand, TOCHNOG is older and less…
-
Here's an example with just a Z-direction spring. You would need to repeat it for the other two directions. The two beams are only separated for clarity and the spring element's length and orientation should be ignored by the solver. What's going o…
-
This sounds like what the SPRING2 element in CCX is for. You'd have to define them using CCX -> custom model definition. See SPRING2 and *SPRING in the CCX manual for details. I don't know of any limit on the number of equations, but the GUI wil…
-
Hello Mishal - Soil only as a linear elastic material, as far as I know. You might look at Tochnog Professional for soil which is now free. It used to have an interface in Mecway but they are now only compatible by some common file formats. - No. T…
-
That's a good point. There will always be some difference in their normal displacement due to the contact stiffness. If you think the error is too high, then increase that. Beware though that it's only the normal displacements that should be equal.…
-
Just in case it's something simple. Is that 10 in the lower left corner the deformation scale factor? If so, change it to 1 through Solution -> Deformed view settings for the accurate shape.
-
That looks a lot more fun than physics class! Thanks for posting it.
-
I don't have a solution but a few suggestions if you're going ahead with explicitly modeling the slings. CCX shells can be finicky with rotational DOF constraints as well as some connections between shells where thickness or orientation change. The…
-
hamit, could you post the .liml file?
-
No, sorry unless you open the .msh file using File -> Open/Import.
-
I've simplified that code and got it working in Mecway. I think the key is to specify the full path to the STEP file. Here's the code to add to Custom Gmsh Commands: SetFactory("OpenCASCADE"); a() = ShapeFromFile("C:\Full\Path\To\bracket_assy.STEP…
-
I've tried to solve it and, like you say, it still didn't work. It does look like the contact stiffness might be the issue because it can solve with small loads before contact occurs. I got it working on a with a coarse mesh by making these changes:…
-
I'm not sure what the convergence graph looks like for excess contact stiffness, but it could be that. However, the contact stiffness here looks reasonable (10 E/t). Did you add more constraints to both parts? If not, then I wouldn't expect to get …
-
A couple of problems: A ) The contact won't be working because one surface is on the outside of the outer tube, instead of the inside. It probably happened because when you select a surface in the geometry view, it only allows one side to be chose…
