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)

6 Post by pavlo

dpryl wrote:

2. I don't get why the top surface of the slab could get connected to the top surface of the beam? The bottom surface of the beam gest connected to the top surface of the slab using Master-Slave - what do you suspect to be wrong with that?

I meant that this problem is referred to option #1 (on the top). However, I think that this should work, I will try.

5 Post by dpryl

Dear Pavlo,
1. the top of the 3 pictures should work (depending on the way of casting and reinforcement detailing, the middle picture may mean less work).

2. I don't get why the top surface of the slab could get connected to the top surface of the beam? The bottom surface of the beam gest connected to the top surface of the slab using Master-Slave - what do you suspect to be wrong with that?

Regards.

4 Post by pavlo

dpryl wrote:

In particular, I suggest to consider using IsoShell and Beam3D elements for some "far"/"bending-only" regions or/and orthotropic refinement (with edge aspect ratio about 2:1).

Dear Dobromil,
Since I have already modeled all members I would prefer to use the same macroelements which correcsponds to option #1 on the picture by the link.

However, I expect that this is wrong approach because top fiber of slab shouldn't be joined with top fiber of beam.

Then another options of modeling should be followed. Which one is better of them?

3 Post by dpryl

Dear Pavlo,
note the postrpocessing speed improvements advertised in the latest newsletter are related to the 5.7.0 pre-release being prepared (and not the current 5.6.1). If you wish to test the beta version as soon as available, please write us an email.

I would recommend to reduce the model size (see also Troubleshooting, 2.2.17 The analysis runs too long. How can I speed it up? and 2.4.1 Out of memory error during ATENA analysis). In particular, I suggest to consider using IsoShell and Beam3D elements for some "far"/"bending-only" regions or/and orthotropic refinement (with edge aspect ratio about 2:1).

Regards.

2 Post by pavlo

Video with Atena Studio performance

It took 10 minutes to check extreme residual forces of only 1 direction.

1 Post by pavlo

Hello!

I have quite large model (636K of nodes and 479K of elements - mostly hexahedra solids). I have big troublem with navigating the model in Atena Studio post-processor.

For example, by default structure window shows deformations and cracks. When I turn off cracks I have to wait about 1 minute while the program hides cracks. The similar situation is with all scalar results. It takes extremely much time to switch between results.

Another annoying thing is that program doen't respond up to one minute after selecting "Value" in Scalar results. E.d., I select Stress, then I have to wait 1 minute to select Z direction.

I expect that it is because step results are stored in one 4GB-file. However, I keep results in RAM but it doesn't help significantly.
I have enough space on SSD and RAM:

SSD free space: 130 GB
RAM 64 GB (usually only 50% is used)
Intel i7-8700K 3.7GHz
Windows 10
Video NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Can you advice me how to enhance performance of Atena Studio?

PS. It was stated that new version 5.6.1 increased visual performance about 100 times if compare to older versions. Frankly speaking, I don't feel any difference.

MODEL