Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,777
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
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…
-
Awesome. thanks for that confirmation.
-
Yea I got stuck on "tangential" at first too, but it must be relative to the SCL, not the pressure vessel. ASME also calls the meridional direction "normal" which is no less confusing I'll probably name them 1,2,3 or x,y,z or even ASME's (3rd nami…
-
Thanks @kuhl. Looks like it clearly needs linearized components too. The trouble with them all being option is there are a lot of options (44). Maybe it can just be a giant table or list of checkboxes for maximum freedom: TT MM …
-
Turns out there's a bug in the input box for that value. Clicking cancel sets it to zero! Sorry. It's possible it was already zero (which is treated as 14.4) before solving in those cases.
-
This is amazing - it seems like it can properly use all that memory! I never thought it would be able to. I wonder if it should always be set to ~infinity. I'm not even sure there was ever a good reason for having that 14.4GB limit. @MikeMcMullen …
-
Another question, which values should be displayed together on the graph? For example, I think the 6 components of total (non-linearized) stress should be on the same graph because AMSE requires you to compare them with each other. But what about th…
-
Modification. Not the linearized components (membrane/etc.) because ASME pressure vessels uses the components but not the linearized components. If I can get a clearer picture of what these other codes require, I'll add linearized components too. F…
-
Here's my concept of how it would look. Any comments? It's an extra option that shows the 6 components in the SCL coordinate system, interpolated along the SCL, and not linearized. This requires you to specify one other axis (I chose M) of the SCL …
-
@disla. Not on purpose.
-
@kuhl. Not sure. I made several optimizations (in Assembling and Allocating matrices stages) subsequent to the bonded contact one.
-
I don't really know either I suspect P-9 might happen both for too low and too high. From what I understand, OOC requires some RAM too, and it's not allowed to use more than this value. A 2 million node model might require more than 14.4 GB of RAM…
-
solution.element_shape(element_id) is in the Mesh tools section.
-
@German oops, that old confusion again. Thanks for fixing it.
