You can, but keep in mind you should set up the problem as nonlinear for accurate results if you expect large displacement. Main elements involved are rotating. Rotations---->NLGEOM.
Check overall force balance.
No problem with your set up. This is a known limitation of the calculix S4R formulation. There is a strong shear MODE III present in the benchmark which S4R (Expanded C3D8R) is not suitable for.
Hi, Sebastian,
Have you take a look at Mortar contact?. I have obtain clearanes of 1E-35 with reasonable times. There is some limitations due to units conversion but results are really good when it works.
A good starting point is E*50 but there is no general rule. My recomendation if there could be one is to keep contact clearance at least of 0.1% of the caracteristic element size in the normal direction to the contact area.
I'm in particular referencing to this convention. Are shears (gammas) , ccx output strains x 2 ?
EDITED: SOLVED. I have seen in the FRD the value in the GUI is Twice the value in the FRD. Thanks. Is that for consistency with Openradioss?
Looks fine to me although the stiffness value of the base look unnecessary high.
I guess you are looking for a hard contact behavior?.
Note there is only compression in the part of the base that is pushed up and compressed against the base. Node…
Not the same.
Let's see if I can explain with my poor English. ChatGPT doesn't understand me.
An only compression support creates a set of elements in which the surface is supported. "Like" regular springs but nonlinear in this case. They only wor…
It works great transfering only compresion in between the parts in the hole area.
This machine has three of this set ups and it converge nicely.
Principal Stress 1 (Tensle) and 3 (Red_Compressive).The piece is free to move .
Yep, it would be a bit confusing.
Considering that w is the transverse direction, (also the normal vector for shells), maybe it would be more convenient to change the GUI input to Angle about W instead of U.
Kind of a "rotation of actual definition…
I think that for prismatic/cylindrical shapes it can be easier to set a general orientation like the one in my previous post and then play with the degrees option to adjust the +-45 or whatever for each layer.
It seems to fail much way sooner. Elements sizes below approx. 3mm (0.003)when the inp is expressed in meters.
I will post in ccx forum before github to confirm.
Hi Victor,
Once scaled (with all node dimensions bigger than 1) I have modeled MORTAR with pefect HARD. The agreement is so perfect that everithing black bloack
Clearance zero.
Mortar (ccx) has some issues when it deals with small numbers. Seems …
Regarding RF on the REF node , there is a bug in 2.22 that has been fixed in the last ccx version 2.23.
https://calculix.discourse.group/t/ref-node-of-pretension-section-reaction-force/3759
Thanks Victor.
I will pay more attention to the ramp.
Regarding the Pretension Ref Node I will also ask in the Calculix forum to see if someone has a clue of why RF value doesn't match.
It should be RF= Pretension section Load resultant.
This is not right sorry.
As RF contains the sum of external forces RF should be Zero. In any case the value is unnexpected.
Thanks for the comments .
There are still some things I don't fully understand.
Apart from the mesh and length adjustment possible incompatibility.
1-I'have been thinking for a long time that when analysis is performed with Automatic time steppin…
Hi,
I have always found the ccx output is kind of weird. Taking into consideration that looking at the reactions is part of any study's basic check , could you consider postprocessing that value internally subtracting the imposed forces to have onl…
Hi @Victor,
I had no issues with the actual way MECWAY does it. For this problem, Mecway Only Compression converges fine but doesn't capture properly the behavior of the system . Is not a MECWAY problem.
When I say is more stable and causes fewer…