Stuck? 
support@mecway.com
support@mecway.com
Mecway
FEA
Victor
About
- Username
- Victor
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,659
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
OK, I'll add it to the list. It might end up as a new kind of contact rather than released DOFs.
-
Before meshing it, put the lines that define the holes in a different component, then the holes will end up in that component after meshing too so you can easily select and delete them. To move the elements to a new component, select them, right cl…
-
Great example of how terrible the linear elements are for bending. Here's the same mesh but with a tensile load instead. Now they're all about the same.
-
Thanks for the suggestion VMH You can release rotations at just one end by applying it to one end face of the beam element. That's sometimes a bit tricky to select. Either: A) Select the end node then switch to face select mode or Turn on Show ele…
-
From the CCX manual, it seems to be about an order of magnitude more than the slope of the pressure-overclosure curve. I think I've used the same value for both. That should at least be a useful starting point.
-
I should have the visible line bug fixed for version 5 without the need to tweak any values. I'll contact both of you privately about this soon. This thread's starting to cover quite a lot of varied things and could get hard to follow so please bri…
-
That's odd VMH. 150% works alright for me. I'll have to study up on this to find out why it's not consistent. Can you show me the dialog box with the scaling settings? Also, what version of Windows is it? For the mesh lines showing through the face…
-
Sorry I forgot to respond to that. Probably not unless there's a very important need that can't be done another way. I'd like to add some element quality metrics which might use Gauss point stresses though. For now, you can get some idea of stress e…
-
I understand about the cursors. It's going to be a tricky decision. More options means more time wasted understanding all the options, and more risk of problems from setting them badly by accident. Hopefully I can find a nice way to do it, perhaps i…
-
VMH, your point 2 is absolutely the most important advice for anyone new to FEA. By far the most common problems I see are caused by that. I'll just restate it here: - No mesh convergence study = no estimate of error = probably wrong. - Peak stres…
-
Those are some good points I didn't think about. CCX's node-to-face contact has a SMALL SLIDING option to tell it to search for contact pairs only once per increment. Face-to-face contact (the default, and what Mecway's Contact (CCX) exports as) see…
-
That's an interesting idea for a feature "mesh selected surfaces". For now you can still do it by meshing all the surfaces then deleting the ones you don't want. To aid in deleting them, you can make a named selection of the faces to keep, then swit…
-
Using a single bonded contact for many contact pairs should be perfectly OK. The solver breaks the slave surface down into nodes and the master surface into element faces so it has no concept of whether they are continuous or many separate parts. S…
-
You can still use bonded contact in nonlinear with CCX but: - It's not available in the menu so you need to switch to Static 3D then back again. - It becomes *TIE in CCX, which requires the surfaces to be very close together, unlike Mecway's bonded …
-
Hello Robert. Mecway doesn't have a hex automesher. Here are some other ways that might do: Make a surface in FreeCAD and export it (not the sketch) as STEP and import to Mecway. Under Meshing Parameters, check Surface mesh and Quad dominant. That …
-
It's caused by the collapsed elements in the cap. They're hex8 but shaped like wedge6. I converted them to wedge6 using Mesh tools -> Correct collapsed elements. That has a side effect of removing their faces from the bonded contact so I also add…
-
Hello kam33mitch, the file seems to be truncated. Could you please attach it again? If it has solution data, clear that to reduce the size - Right click Solution in the outline tree then click Clear.
-
I agree it's tedious. It'll need a redesign at some stage. In the mean time, there's another workflow that might be a little easier, mainly because it doesn't require any renaming. 1) Right click a surface in the CAD geometry 2) Loads & Constra…
-
Excellent video! I've added it to the Mecway YouTube channel.
-
You're right, it is adding them! I'd bring this up on the CCX forum. I seem to remember it has a bug with OUTPUT=2D on beams too so I'd guess that's a little used and poorly tested feature.
-
Thanks for describing the Abaqus CAE plotting. It sounds fantastic but Mecway probably won't have that for a long time because it would be a major new part. For now, it'll just provide the raw data so you can do those things with a spreadsheet. I'm…
-
Components - yes. Materials - almost certainly.
-
I wouldn't think so. The side effects I'm thinking of are geometric nonlinearities appearing when they would have been hidden in a linear analysis, and bonded contact behaving in a more restrictive way. In nonlinear, it becomes *TIE which doesn't al…
-
It only appears in the menu when nonlinear or dynamic response analysis types are selected. I guess this is quite confusing and other people have had trouble finding it too. I did that because it triggers a nonlinear solve in CCX so it would introdu…
-
Stefanos, you can do that using the Table tool - make a face selection of just one face before solving, then in the table, pick that to limit the nodes to the few nodes on that face. Sergio, that's a good idea about using reaction forces to show th…
-
I see the same alternating stress by opening the .frd file in CGX. I think this is a CCX issue that you could ask about on the CCX forum https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/calculix Bear in mind that OUTPUT=2D removes out-of-plane bending stresse…
-
Hi Stefanos. Do you mean input load values and the output displacements listed together for each time step? At the moment you can export them separately if that's any use. Save a file as .inp format and delete everything except the *AMPLITUDE blocks…
-
Using a fixed multiple of Youngs modulus, which is also suggested in the CCX manual, only really works when the geometry scale is constant. Here are two models with the same material properties, the same contact stiffness and about the same strains…
-
Quick note. VMH is a different person from me
-
Acknowledged the new 24-28. They all sound quite reasonable. It's going to be a matter of time and priorities what I get done. Thanks for suggesting these things that will surely help a lot of people.
