Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Sergio
About
- Username
- Sergio
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,633
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
If I remember well, when we create lower order sub meshes in Salome to adjust/force the mesh to some pattern, number of elements or wathever, this submeshes are keeped in the main meshes, in some cases I had to delete manually those kind of element …
-
Hi @denissps , I was able to mesh with line elements in Salome and export succefully to Mecway lot of models. All my meshes were only line elements, maybe you can try exporting as two separated meshes (one for beams and the other for solid or shell …
-
Now that the program has the preload boundary condition, maybe a new "hexagonal plate with circular pattern at the middle with no triangles at all" and "hexagonal plate with circular hole" could be usefull to build precise bolts and nuts with hexa e…
-
Thanks! In fact for conformal meshes still I prefer Salome.
-
Nice trick from the SimCommons team! It´s a simple picture imported with the text, and attached on the back plane. Very smart :-)
-
Hi Dave, maybe if you could upload the initial step we could get a better idea or try by ourselves. I usually use Salome to create hexa meshes, but is not very friendly :-)
-
There is a difference in this FEA model against the P-Veng, look in the plane zone bellow the pipe, that is present in the results but not in the drawing. I will fix as soon as I have a little of time, saddly I don't have the editable geometry, but …
-
These are the project files in case someone one to try https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qlSoiOQNtQe6HhbdEVFaHbAQojy6SB7s/view?usp=sharing Still I have to finish to understand why Pveng report shows Pl+Pb+Q mostly and not Pl+Pb, this makes hard to …
-
Hi @disla , as far as I remember I have used frictionless support for taking in count the axial simmetry
-
As far as I know we cannot replace the version of netgen that is included with Mecway. Would be nice to have a way to do it, so we could chose mesher program and version, the same as today with the solver. There is a very usefull feature on Netgen s…
-
Nice results, will try this new 2.18 version. As you say, I have noticed in the past that CCX with Pardiso doesn't take a lot of CPU while is running, and that for more than 6-8 cores there is no significative improvement in performance. Also, what …
-
Yes it is, sorry for my mistake. For creating contact, plastic material and dynamic analysis, the options are ready to use in the GUI without manually writting the cards.
-
Hi, in the CCX examples, there is a file called BALL or something like that with DYNAMIC, EXPLICIT and CONTACT cards included.
-
You must use the CCX solver, then define a local coordinate system using CCX Custom Model Definition and *TRANSFORM card relative to a node set, then the loads applied on that node set in the GUI will be related to this new CS
-
There you have it. Seasoned with CCX custom card to achieve faster convergence. I would replace the contact with TIE in bolt head and nut interfaces.
-
@JohnM , thanks for the advices. Which component (Exx, Eyy...) of strain should I look? I will definitely model the strain gage and attach to some flat area as you say. Attached some pics of the part, the pressure is applied on the blue surfaces, si…
-
Editing directly the liml file can be very usefull, sometimes the GUI is slow or take several steps do a repetitive task as creating glue contacts or assign material when the model is big or has lot of components.
-
I was thinking in the same feature this week, a new option in the geometry to replace the part... You can made it just editing the liml file with Notepad, luckily the part definition is at the begining of the file.
-
Would be interesting to see the difference between a 100% quad vs 99% quad for this beam.
-
Mecway mesher (Netgen or Gmsh) doesn´t have "quad only" mesh capabilities. You could mesh in Salome and exporting to Mecway with full quads, or for this particular case you could select the edge of the elements in one end of the beam, and extrude to…
-
If your models will differ only in the transition area, you could do a first analysis with a medium size mesh, and then do a submodeling analysis with a finer mesh only in that area, the good news is that you can use the same first main analysis for…
-
Convert your .frd result file to some readable by Paraview format (as vtk, vtu, rmed...) and postprocess in Paraview. There you could have a clean cut of your part (hiding the element edges). Anyway will be more tedius than Mecway!
-
Sometimes for a huge mesh like I imagine that is your case, CCX PARDISO shows me as a succefull run, but not results are stored, this is due to the fact that you don't have enough RAM memory. You could try using the internal Mecway solver, that will…
-
I would sacrify a little of accuracy using half, or cuarter part if the loading is simmetric, best would be an axissimmetric model. Looks like your elements has not the best shape, I have a feeling that bad shape element can increase the time to sol…
-
I'm using CCX 2.17 with Pardiso, but as far as I know is "in core" version, that will try to fit all the model inside RAM, there are other cersion "out of core" that put some part of the model in disk if RAM is not enough.
-
Hi @disla , as far as I know all the postprocessors that I have used shows this same issue (look in Google images of FEA of shafts, and lots of them will show in this way, probably the ones that are not use less scale). Guess that is related to the …
-
Has somebody experienced the fact that a big problem was succesfully calculated (according to the CCX log), but there are no results at all? Today I solve a lineal problem that took about 30GB (of 32 available, all the rest was for Windows and Chrom…
-
Thanks @JohnM , have solved decreasing the scale of magnification, initial was x1000 but with x50 is enoguh to see the rotation and the other deformation is almost invisible.
-
@Victor, using the beta version, I have defined a quasi static no lineal analisys, but this definition is not keeped when I open again the analisys definition window. Have closed and reopened the model/program and the problem remains. EDIT: my mist…
-
Hi Victor, what a bunch of new features!. Have tested the hardening curve, and found a little weird that the Young modulus be defined from the points of the curve and not as the usual way of taking the first part from the defined Youn Modulus and on…
