Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Andrea91
About
- Username
- Andrea91
- Joined
- Visits
- 33
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
@Victor I also tried to introduce flexible joint on beams: - For the two outer bearings, that provide vertical support only, vertical truss elements should work. - For the central bearing, which provides both vertical and transverse restraint, how …
-
I have tried using constraint equations, but they seem to work only partially. In fact, constraint equations appear to transfer forces, but not moments. To clarify the issue, consider the bridge with one of the two spans removed. Because of the ecc…
-
Yes, this is the only way I have found out. But in my specific case I have many nodes and it becomes coumbersome to deal with. I hoped there would be another method.
-
I've sorted out. Results are equal now. Can you please clarify the termis of the unittriangle() function? unittriangle(0.5, (0.9*1.565)*t-40/(0.9*1.565)-x ) 0.9*1.565 = velocity 40/(0.9*1.565) = it looks like space /velocity, but the unit of mea…
-
Provided that the function result unit is set correctly, the two functions should provide equal results. [function in Pa] -(180/4.3) * unittriangle(0.5, (0.9*1.565)*t-40/(0.9*1.565)-x ) [function in MPa] -(180/4300/1000) * unittriangle(0.5, (0…
-
I'm not understanding the formula properly. The unit triangular function should have an unit area. Since I am simulating a 180 N travelling load, shouldn't I keep the same length (0.5 m) both in the unit triangular function and in its amplitude (500…
-
Thanks for your reply. I get better results now. With the load formula you proposed, the traction is applied over a length of 1000 mm instead of 500 mm, isn't it? Secondly, is it possibile to run a similar analysis on a beam model? I also have a …
