Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MNajeeb

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Are you University user?
  1. Thanks! I will try using P4_Spring properties with the delta_max defined.
  2. Thank you Pritam, I will look into this.
  3. Hello Pritam, That sounds like a possible solution. Have you tried this approach before? I have only used RADIOSS for explicit, since we have been using other solvers to do implicit analysis. Would this approach require you to make the changes manually in the *0001.rad file or can it all be done within hypermesh? Thank you for your suggestion. MN
  4. Hello Is it possible to model a 1D element that fails in either tension or shear? I would like analyze a breakaway feature on a structure that absorbs a portion of the impact energy and breaks off. Fracture can be either in tension (i.e cable) or in shear (i.e shear pin). Thank you
  5. Hello, Ah I see what you mean. I will give it a try. Thank you.
  6. Hello Thank you for your response. If I understand correctly this is only applicable if the target is a rigid body? What if the target is a regular element with typical properties (P1_SHELL, M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL, FAIL_JOHNSON). Would non-rigid body elements be able to turn off and on? Best Regards
  7. Hello I am using RADIOSS to simulate a crash test which I have previously done. The trajectory of the impactor before impact is complex and requires several linkages and mechanisms to set up. The area of interest is the post-impact behaviour (stress/strain) on the target component, as well as the trajectory of the impactor. When I run the impactor by itself, to see the launch trajectory, I get a reasonable run time of about an hour. When I run the impactor with a simplified initial velocity + the target with all the contact and failure cards defined, I get a reasonable run of about 3 hours. When I run the full model: impactor with the initial trajectory + the target with all the contact and failure cards defined, I get a run around 12 hours to reach the impact, and another 12-24 hours to get results from post impact trajectory. I believe this is partly due the finer mesh required for the target model. I was hoping there is a way I can split the analysis in two, using the results from a the first as an initial condition for the second. Consider the following scenario: Model A: Simple model with only what is required to set off the trajectory of the impactor. The target is not modeled. Run from T=0 to T=T_impact. The run is stopped at the moment where the impact would have occurred. Model B: The target, with finer mesh and contact and fail definition is introduced, and the analysis is "RESTART" picking up from where Model A left off. In other words the target (with finer mesh) only appears just before impact onwards. This should theoretically cut down the majority of the analysis time. Is there a way to set up a RESTART file with introduction of new elements / properties / fail cards, and linking it to a "Stopped" run? I hope the diagrams attached illustrates what I'd like to do. Please let me know if there is a way to do this. Thank you. Best Regards, MN
  • Create New...