Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,724
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Cheers and no problem
-
local max/min with a button sounds like a good idea. I should get that in for version 8.
-
No but it really should be there. I'll add it to the next version. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
Yes, all correct. It looks like it should be on the Z-axis to have any effect because there's no rotation about the X-axis. And yes, the massive beam elements have their own rotational inertia which allows it to solve. Otherwise "I" would be zero in…
-
I see. That makes a lot of sense. Yes, I'll also get the refine x2 to update the nodes. This is a common problem.
-
This kind of geometry with thin parts with lots of exterior surface is especially bad because it has more faces to render compared to the number of elements. As Sergio said, turning off element edges can help a fair bit, so can turning off "Show mo…
-
To view the interior stress, use the Cutting plane slider at the top-right of the toolbar. To get the data in table form, you'd have to align some nodes into the plane you want before solving. You can then make a node selection of them and that'll …
-
I'm trying to keep the manual fairly minimal and factual. Targeting a broader audience is more difficult to get the balance right.
-
Oh, thanks for spotting that bug DaveStupple! It'll be related to the DPI setting in Windows. I'll fix it for the next version.
-
Since this is a statically indeterminate support, the elasticity of the parts is important. By using spring constraints, you're substituting the stiffness of the gantry and its rails with those springs. That might be OK if you have a way to find wha…
-
Two things: 1) There are two meshes over the top of each other. Select the Default component which doesn't have any constraints and press delete to delete its elements. 2) The prescribed displacement is too aggressive. CCX reduces the time step si…
-
It still only works with solid elements. Though that includes the solids generated by CCX from shells and axisymmetric models as long as their nodes are properly connected.
-
Thanks for telling me that about the red line. I never considered that possibility before! It's not an error, though when the text is red, that is an error. Right click it to see the error message. In Mecway, each displacement (or node rotation) co…
-
For nonlinear, use contact instead of compression-only support. You'd need to make a mesh of the platform too. It could perhaps just be a single big element. I don't know about your other questions, sorry.
-
Use displacement and node rotation constraints to allow you individually constrain each direction. In the attached picture, I accidentally put in a redundant Z constraint which I removed from the liml file.
-
I see. I think it's at least partly because of an approximation in how the pressure load is applied in the internal solver - uniformly across the element instead of concentrated near the larger radius. They both approach the same solution with mesh …
-
Once you have an elastic contact, it's already pretty much a complex nonlinear analysis, so I'd say, just use that directly. Shell shear force per length is enabled by Tools -> Labs -> Output extra shell stresses. However, the values are some…
-
This is tricky. I don't really know how to do that, or even if you can. *EQUATION only does linear equations, so if you connect displacements, they'll have the same problem of not rotating properly with large rotations. *MPC does nonlinear equations…
-
Since it's a linear analysis, rotation angles have to be small. Under this small angle assumption, rotation of a mesh is really a linear translation of each node in the direction tangent to its circular path. If the angle is bigger, then the transla…
-
Oh, I see that mode now. Surprisingly very low compared to the unconstrained one! Makes sense now since it's dominantly a flywheel mode compared to the higher one being mostly a shaft-only mode.
-
Don't use constraint equations. Those will artificially stiffen the element adjacent to the axis. Just use the X-displacement constraint on the axis. That also constrains rotation about Z. This way, for the model you sent, there's no need to adjust …
-
I don't have an intuition for the magnitude of those high frequency torques. I tried refining the mesh but it didn't change it. I suppose that's just how it is. If you look at longitudinal stress, and turn on the animation, you can see the shaft twi…
-
That vibration will be higher frequency modes above the fundamental natural frequency. The sharp edge of a pulse contains high frequency components that will activate them. You can change the analysis type to Modal vibration with about 10 modes to …
-
There's no simple way to do backlash. I expect you could use a compression-only or tension-only material, which CCX has. You'll have to enter the definition manually. It's a nonlinear problem so at least you'll need to use the CCX solver with nonlin…
-
Mecway doesn't have an API but you can edit the .liml file with a text editor or batch text or XML editing tools. Search for the numerical value of the force you want to change. I don't know about the hyperelastic question. I hope someone like Serg…
-
Constraining the on-axis edge in the X direction like you have done also constrains it against rotation. So it's already OK and there's no need for any extra constraints. If you refine the mesh, you'll see that boundary's displacement looks more re…
-
1) Yes, you can add more rotational inertias as separate loads. It just doesn't allow a single one to be spread over more than one node. 2) Yes, you can couple torsion between, say, nodes 1 and 4 with a constraint equation like 0 = 1 rx4 + -1 rx1, …
-
Yes, trial and error. A reasonable starting value is young's modulus divided by a characteristic thickness, such as the thickness of an element. Or you can imagine there's a thin layer of extra material between the two parts, and use the thickness o…
-
In principle, yes - they have the same physical meaning. Here are some differences: * Elastic support requires you to tune the stiffness parameter to be high enough that it's almost rigid and low enough that the solver doesn't fail. * Elastic …
-
Probably not, at least not for a while because of other priorities. Also, that would only be if Netgen (the "internal" mesher) is already available multithreaded.
