Jump to content

Sherdil.Leo0

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sherdil.Leo0

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Country
    India
  • Are you University user?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Pranav Hari Thank you. I will follow the documentation!
  2. Hello. Inside /INTER/TYPE7 I understood that for most of the crash applications, we use Ifric =0 (Static Coulomb Friction). However what are the applications of other flag values? = 1 Generalized viscous friction law = 2 (Modified) Darmstad friction law = 3 Renard friction law Is TYPE 7 an ideal contact setup for contact between brake pads and brake disk while the disc is rotating? Is there a flag to represent dynamic friction factor? Thank you! Regards,
  3. Hi, Thank you. So after making Ifric = 2 and Iform = 0 on both models, I am getting energy errors -37.6 % for tetra and -36.4% for bricks. I think that's a fair match. However, why is there so much negative energy percentage in both cases? Recommended limits are -15% to +5%, isn't it? Also, from T01 files, if I compare energy plots for Internal, Kinetic, Contact, External forces work and (Total - Global External Work), all of them are different except for the last one (total - external). Why this difference? Then which element type is better in this case? Since energy errors are same and (total energy- external) is also maintained. Regards
  4. Hi I am running an analysis on a brake assembly and I am trying to learn use of 3d elements in this case. When I use hex elements, I see only -3% energy error at the end of simulation whereas for tetra it is -43%. Why is there so much difference? Tetra-20190515T164530Z-001.zip Brick_Elements-20190515T164534Z-001.zip
  5. ok. I will try that. From the comments so far, it seems this kind of issue wasn't seen ever before. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with computer configurations. Thank you!
  6. Bingo! It seems adding single precision flag made it work! Thanks a lot! Why was it not working without it? Double precision runs were working fine so far.
  7. @Ivan @Pooja S Thanks a lot for looking into this. I tried removing and making sure that ENG_INTER is not being used. I am still facing the same issue. I tried clearing all intersection and penetrations, still facing same issue. I had also tried running the reduced file you attached. Even that is showing me the same issue while running it. Running clueless. Kindly help.
  8. Hi Pooja, Thank you for looking into this. I tried adding details to the INTER card. I also tried deleting the INTER card altogether. In both cases, I am still facing the same issue. Moreover, if INTER card was the issue, I thought I should have seen it in the Starter Output file Errors and Warnings. Can values inside the Radioss model (material parameters) effect into this consequence? What could be the other reasons?
  9. Hi, I downloaded the neon model from Altair University and tried reducing it to below 100,000 nodes to use it with a student edition. However, I am facing an issue with the engine file. The engine run just doesn't start. The engine run seems to begin with the Software titles and then these lines appear. ROOT: test RESTART: 0001 NUMBER OF HMPP PROCESSES 8 14/02/2019 ==== End of solver screen output ==== ==== Job completed ==== I am attaching the file where I am facing this issue. Any hint on what's wrong? I was also trying to create a few sections. They might have gone wrong but even if I delete those problematic entities, this file just doesn't run. neon_front_0001.rad neon_front_0000.rad
×
×
  • Create New...