In the linear statics solution sequence (101), is there a way to get the results of each subcase to feed into the following subcase, similar to the way it automatically happens in the non-linear statics solution sequences (specifically 106)?

I read up on Sol 400, and it looks like it would ​have worked, but unfortunately we don't have it as part of our license.  I am beginning to think it will have to be via DMAP.  By QA, are you referring to running some check cases against the DMAP altered solution?

 

Also, a little more background.  I am doing a gravity release analysis similar to what was done on NASA's Chandra observatory (I can mention that much since there was a paper presented on this analysis back in the 1995-97 time frame that is in the public domain).  That was long enough ago that they were using Solution 66.  The intent of the analysis is to see what the level of residual strain exists in the payload after going through its assembly sequence and then placed in a zero G environment analytically.  Their approach consisted of creating two subcases for each assembly step; the first is to have both unconnected subsystems kinematically fixed via base point SPCs on one subsystem and lift point SPCs on the second subsystem in a one G environment, and the second step is to join the appropriate subsystems' connection DOFs with MPCs and remove the one G environment.  I am emulating that process using solution 106.  After looking at the description of what the authors  did, it seems clear that while the overall process is non-linear, the two individual subcases are both linear; they are simply using the non-linear solution because it automatically feeds each subcase results into the next subcase.  My problem is that the way the current model's materials and properties are set up, the 106 solution sequence is giving me fatal errors because it apparently requires the 12 I/t^3 field on PSHELLs to be unity or blank (several PSHELLs have a different value to provide greater bending stiffness resulting from the use of layered composites as opposed to a homogeneous shell) and it didn't like (as in FATAL error) the materials specified - apparently you are restricted to a MAT1 and MATS1 combination.  In my latest attempt, I specified ANALYSIS = STATICS in each of the subcases hoping to force it to treat each individual subcase as linear, but that didn't work - I still got the same fatal errors.  This was quite long winded, but I felt like it might direct everybody's recommendation in a more specific direction,

I read up on Sol 400, and it looks like it would ​have worked, but unfortunately we don't have it as part of our license.  I am beginning to think it will have to be via DMAP.  By QA, are you referring to running some check cases against the DMAP altered solution?

 

Also, a little more background.  I am doing a gravity release analysis similar to what was done on NASA's Chandra observatory (I can mention that much since there was a paper presented on this analysis back in the 1995-97 time frame that is in the public domain).  That was long enough ago that they were using Solution 66.  The intent of the analysis is to see what the level of residual strain exists in the payload after going through its assembly sequence and then placed in a zero G environment analytically.  Their approach consisted of creating two subcases for each assembly step; the first is to have both unconnected subsystems kinematically fixed via base point SPCs on one subsystem and lift point SPCs on the second subsystem in a one G environment, and the second step is to join the appropriate subsystems' connection DOFs with MPCs and remove the one G environment.  I am emulating that process using solution 106.  After looking at the description of what the authors  did, it seems clear that while the overall process is non-linear, the two individual subcases are both linear; they are simply using the non-linear solution because it automatically feeds each subcase results into the next subcase.  My problem is that the way the current model's materials and properties are set up, the 106 solution sequence is giving me fatal errors because it apparently requires the 12 I/t^3 field on PSHELLs to be unity or blank (several PSHELLs have a different value to provide greater bending stiffness resulting from the use of layered composites as opposed to a homogeneous shell) and it didn't like (as in FATAL error) the materials specified - apparently you are restricted to a MAT1 and MATS1 combination.  In my latest attempt, I specified ANALYSIS = STATICS in each of the subcases hoping to force it to treat each individual subcase as linear, but that didn't work - I still got the same fatal errors.  This was quite long winded, but I felt like it might direct everybody's recommendation in a more specific direction,