Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
prop_design
About
- Username
- prop_design
- Joined
- Visits
- 14,263
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
ccx shells are actually solid elements. so in this case you are comparing mecway shells to ccx solids. differences are to be expected.
-
i think what you are seeing in the most recent model is just issues with the mesh. i would manually create the mesh in mecway, since it's a simple shape. you can make a circle and extrude it. then the weirdness should go away.
-
One thing that may be happening is you need to use the merge nearby nodes command. A lot of times, nodes aren't attached to each other, even though they are coincident. The biggest thing I saw was the geometry changes. I think you meshed the step fi…
-
I ran your model with quad8 and quad4 and didn't see the difference that you show. I did notice that some truss elements are connected to midside nodes. since the quad4 doesn't have midside nodes that could be an issue. however, it solved and produc…
-
Thanks for checking into that Victor. I think it was my mistake. The folders, filenames, and configs that I used were confusing me. I'm added config names to the files, rather than use the default names. That way, it's clear what the config was used…
-
there seems to be one problem. the v17 files, when opened in v18, don't have the configurations right. what was suppressed/unsuppressed seems to be all messed up. so i have to redo all the configurations, solve, and save again. i should say that all…
-
Just opened a model I made in v17 with v18. The new mass and damper graphics are awesome. Very nice improvement.
-
wow that was fast. i'm excited about the delete all option and the slow importing solution fix. i was still getting to know v17, lol. thanks for v18 though.
-
hi disla, i guess the issue here is i'm having problems with the ccx dynamic solver. i don't think i'll be able to use that analysis type. it is the analysis i was asking for though. i'm not sure what the problems are with ccx dynamic. it is just h…
-
@disla oh that's awesome. i will have to give that a try. thanks a lot.
-
hi disla, i haven't tried the dynamic 2d option yet. i am somewhat confused on what that would mean. i'm used to modeling in the 3d. my test cases have only 1 axis of motion, so that i can compare to hand calcs. i have tested 1 and 2 dof mass sprin…
-
hi don, it's funny you posted this. i've been doing the same types of tests for the last week or so. i haven't looked at your files, as my head is spinning with my own tests. however, i just wanted to say that yes it's possible and the results do m…
-
hi dculp, i'm not familiar with the type of analysis you are doing. i was just speaking in the general sense of what the solvers do. for your problem, i wonder if you can't use the dynamic analysis type. there is a mode superposition option that is…
-
hi jmf, if you have stress results in the solution tree and do a modal analysis, they should just come back as red. is that what happens for you? one thing i noticed, not related to modal analysis, is just having stress results in the solution tre…
-
i ran a modal analysis without loads and looked at the ccx output. mine says the same thing you showed. i'm guessing this is poorly worded output from ccx. you might have to ask this question on the ccx forum. someone there may know more. i solved …
-
one thought. i wonder if you have loads defined. it might me doing a prestressed modal analysis. if that's the case you can supress the loads.
-
hmm, that's really weird. by definition modal analysis doesn't have anything to do with stress calcs. i'm not sure what is going on there.
-
it sounds like you switched from a stress analysis to a modal analysis. modal analysis doesn't include any stress calcs. those are just left in the solution branch unless you manually delete them. this is annoying and i've asked many times for somet…
-
oh thanks. yeah, that is probably it. i didn't select those.
-
hi jmf, yes, i couldn't use victor's method for quadratic elements either. when you do the move it doesn't work right. not sure why.
-
thanks for the clarification. that's cool.
-
on the laminate question. it looks like ccx fails with jacobian errors unless i use 8 lams. i tried lower numbers and it fails. oddly it will run static and nonlinear with any number of lams and shells. so maybe it is doing an additional check for d…
-
ok. i finally figured out what was happening. in the original model only the ends of line2 elements were connected to the shells. so if you converted the beams to line3 for ccx the connections were still the same. so the midpoints of the line3 eleme…
-
hi jmf, your model is interesting to me, so I've been playing around with it. i was wondering if the attached images would be closer to an actual sail. are sails really connected to the entire mast? I don't know anything about sails. The reason I a…
-
update, just switching the sail to tri6 brings a lot of agreement. for ccx i use line3 for the mast and switch it to line2 for mecway. since meway is giving an error for line3. but they both agree pretty well and you can probably solve this model. …
-
hi jmf, that's odd about you seeing 6x diff. i'm seeing a 3x diff. i'll check again. but i'm sure i checked that a few times. i did change a few things though. basically, i couldn't find anything wrong with your model. but i saw a big diff in resu…
-
i also made a ccx nonlinear model. it's pretty close to the linear run. i normally see a big difference between the two. you can't run mecway nonlinear models for several releases. hopefully, that will be reintroduced. i agree with victor though. i…
-
hi, it looks like it has to do with mesh density for CCX. i changed the sail to a laminate and that helped a lot. then i did a x2 mesh refinement and it helped some more. the supported element types are different between solvers, do get laminates t…
-
I don't know the answer to your question. I download the Windows version of Netgen. There is a GUI for it. That's what I use. You import a *.step file. You export a *.vol file. Then import the *.vol file to Mecway. It's more of a pain to work with a…
-
hi dave, you should be able to use the SOLVER keyword, if using the CCX solver. I don't think the number of threads affects the memory. The memory is mainly set by the number of nodes. You can experiment with the number of threads. With new CPUs th…
