Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,251
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
That means the material is used by shell elements. It looks like you have a surface mesh instead of a volume mesh. That can happen either by setting the Surface mesh option in Meshing parameters or if the mesher failed to make the volume mesh and le…
-
Not really. There's node-surface coupling for the CCX solver which connects a node to a set of faces, making them all a single rigid body. There's also contact with the bonded and constraint equations options for face-to-face rigid connection whil…
-
Does it happen with the sample files too or just one model? All I can suggest at the moment is to re-install Mecway. It could be caused by some file missing or corrupt, not necessarily mecwayd.dll but perhaps another dll it depends on.
-
That sounds like what the cyclic symmetry constraint does. In case your geometry is different, like maybe linear periodic symmetry, then no.
-
Structural damping is only for steady state dynamics (frequency domain) according to the CCX manual. In case you want to use steady state dynamics, it kind of is possible but a lot more work. Some people have described how on this forum.
-
Thanks for posting that @disla. Response to your notes: 1 - Direction is away from the origin. Not sure what the reasoning behind this originally was but a more obvious first point to last point must have had some problem. 2 - The SCL direction itse…
-
With the CCX solver, you have to use external force instead of reaction force, and it includes applied forces. For nonlinear dynamic, even external force isn't available in the list. This might be because it's incorrect in some way. I'm not sure. Y…
-
@German you're right. There's a pop-up tooltip saying it but it's easy to not realize that's there. I'll add something.
-
Wow that's really pushing the boundaries. I'm not sure about multiple custom model definition and custom step contents because if you unsuppress more than one in a configuration, Mecway has to make a decision about the order they're applied in. It …
-
You can find it with Edit -> Select elements by... and enter its number. First thing may be to delete the element and see if the solver then complains about a different one. There might be many of them. You may see that it's distorted. If it's …
-
You can do it by deleting the input model and start and end tags from the .liml file. It normally has this structure: [ Input model is here ...] [ Solution model is here ...] and would end up containing only these parts: …
-
@Tibor yes, version 21 that's currently available has the 6 components in SCL coordinates, both linearized (membrane+bending/etc) and not linearized (total stress).
-
I'm not really sure, sorry. However, it's risky to use node-surface coupling on beams and shells. There's a warning about that because sometimes it doesn't work. Since you have a structured mesh, you could make the fasteners from solid elements sha…
-
You can set some convergence criteria using the *CONTROLS keyword for CCX. Add it in Mecway under CCX -> custom model definition. But really you shouldn't touch that unless your problem really is special and probably models some extreme physical…
-
CCX can do that with *PRE-TENSION SECTION applied to a beam element. The GUI in Mecway doesn't support that mode (beam element instead of section faces) so you have to write the card(s) yourself.
-
Hello Hengre. I don't think you're doing anything wrong. It's just that discretization error can be significant when integrating a field variable that changes rapidly over individual elements, as it does here. EDIT: The error is in the current densi…
-
Wow, that's definitely a challenge. I'd be skeptical of any solution from that mesh with the high aspect ratios of the elements. If these are shells, make a quad-dominant mesh instead to reduce the node count. They'll likely perform better with th…
-
I don't have any other ideas for improving the solver, sorry. 100 MB of STEP file sounds like a lot more opportunities to defeature it. Usually, there will be a lot of details like fillets or small holes that hog elements but don't affect the resul…
-
Thanks for confirming that it's easy! A lot of people are put off by the idea of compiling things because it's notoriously frustrating and time-consuming. You don't need to set the MKL environment variables since Mecway does that when it calls CCX.
-
I'm not sure about memory requirements, but your problem sounds like a similar size to kuhl's above and he seemed to need a little over 100 GB to avoid out-of-core. Without more RAM, you should compile MKL Pardiso CCX from the source included in Me…
-
I removed the setting from v21 and made it effectively infinite. Do you have a model which can solve in v20 but not in v21?
-
I got ccx_dynamic.exe 2.21 from dhondt.de to work by including all dlls from OneAPI 2023.0.0 from these two locations: C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\oneAPI\mkl\2023.0.0\redist\intel64 C:\Program Files (x86)\Intel\oneAPI\compiler\2023.0.0\windows\red…
-
@German Yes. I'm trying to keep the functions minimal. Internally, it only uses nodes. You can get nodes from an element using mw.nodes() or from a face using mw.face_nodes().
-
Mecway likely needs more than twice the file size in memory to open a .frd file, so it sounds like the heavy disk usage is Windows swap trying to cope with insufficient RAM. In that case, it should eventually succeed but even if it does, the memory …
-
Was that CCX or Mecway that got stuck writing? If Mecway, you should be able to at least recover the CCX output file (.frd) from the temporary directory unless it's been cleared by exiting or restarting Mecway. Then perhaps access the solution from…
-
This isn't easier but might have some advantage - You might be able to do it by defining two *STEP sections in the .inp file. The first step would do the 1st 2/3s of the time and have a high value for its FREQUENCY parameter to output only its fina…
-
The error is greater with stockier members and seems to approach zero as they become more slender. It's because the connections at the ends of the expanded 20-node elements seem to only be on the corner nodes so they deform incorrectly under load. …
-
Not sure. I tried again using c=1 m/s and only scaling the frequency according to my old reference, but it ended up the same with T=2.18 s.
-
Yes, it looks like I used g=1 m/s to give c = sqrt(0.5m * 1m/s^2) = 0.707107 m/s in that example.
-
If there are no binaries in the install directory, check ccx/src/x64/buildlog.txt for error messages, typically in the last few lines of the file. Disregard warnings because there are always a lot of them. A common reason it fails is if there's a s…
