Back to company website

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum updated

We have recently updated our forums system, and we have cleared all spam topics and users. In case we accidentally deleted your account, please register again. If you miss a topic you have posted before, please let us know.

Post new reply

Post new reply

Compose and post your new reply

You may use: BBCode Smilies

All fields with bold label must be completed before the form is submitted.

Required information for guests


Required information

Topic review (newest first)

2 Post by dpryl

Dear karim.attia.1,
if you wish advice on modelling your boundary conditions, please send us sketches/photos explaining the real setup (see also Troubleshooting, 2.1.1).

Just guessing: We recommend setting the Conditional Break Criteria such that the analysis stops when the errors are large at the end of a step, see also Troubleshooting, 2.4.2.1 Recommended settings.

1 Post by karim.attia.1

Hello,
I'm modelling a 4-point test. For me, It's important to model the full beam in order to compare between the cracks from the experiments and from the model.
The thing is, I don't know what boundary conditions should be applied.
Since I've to supports, I modelled one with constrains in x,y,z " to resemble a hinge support" and the other with constraints in y,z " to resemble a roller support". I put the constraints in the y direction in order to prevent in deflections in the out of plane.
From the model results, I see that the supports at the two reactions seems reasonable and the curves are coincide, but after a specific time the curves tend to diverge from each other and the results are completely un realistic.

What do you think about this modelling?
Thanks.