hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 4 subscribers
  • Views 114 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

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)?

TSanders
In the non-linear statics solution sequences (specifically 106), the results of each subcase feeds into the following subcase. Is there a way to replicate this in the linear statics solution sequence (101)? In 101, the subcases appear to be quite independent of each other. This particular problem is not making use of Super Elements. I am assuming this would require creating a DMAP alter to use the previous subcase results as "initial conditions" to the current subcase. I have a modest skill level in writing DMAP alters. Thanks.
  • 0
    This really seems odd- are you sure there are no material nonlinearities defined? If there is a MATS1, comment it out...
  • 0
    I agree about the oddness. No nonlinear materials defined; just the more-or-less usual suspects of temperature dependent materials (specifically, MAT1,2,8,and9 with their corresponding MATT1,2,8,and9. Technically, I guess they would be non-linear in a transient thermal analysis (right?), but not for a structures analysis - just a convenient way of specifying material properties at different run temperatures. I do have an NLPARM card that is probably about the most simple it could possibly be:
    NLPARAM,100,1
     
  • 0
    Well, that is the problem! The MATT1, etc are triggering the nonlinear checks on your plates... if you comment out those entries and define the materials for the specific temp you are working with, you will be able to use SOL106. See the attached sample that fails, but works if you comment out the MATT1 entry.
    Attached Files (1)
  • 0
    Don, Thanks for that great tip. I have commented out all the MATT entries (turned out to not be so bad since the default temperature in the MAT cards was the temperature I needed). It now clears that hurdle, but has failed because there is a BCONTACT specification in the case control - are there really that many limitation in solution 106? Makes it difficult to share models between disciplines. Similar to the way you can get NASTRAN to print the equivalent PSHELLs after conversion from PCOMPs, is there a way to print or get what the BCONTACT gets converted to (I am guessing that would be equivalent constraints and springs)?
  • 0
    I'm thinking I might be able to substitute the equivalent constraints and springs (if that's what they get converted to) in for the BCONTACT items.
     
  • 0
    Well, you are mixing new capabilities with older solutions! SOL106 does not have the ability to use the newer body-to-body contact capabilities (BCONTACT)... this is allowed in SOL400 for nonlinear or SOL101 for linear (and most other solutions for permanent glued contact).
     
    If you run SOL101 with NLOPRM MPCPCH=STEP (for touching contact) or MPCPCH=BEGN (for permanent glued contact) you will get the resulting MPC's for the contact condition. You could then use those in a subsequent run. Note that you are making the assumption that these MPC's are from a small displacement analysis and will also be small displacement in SOL106. For glued contact this is usually fine, but for touching contact, the initial deformations occurring prior to contact might invalidate the resulting MPC's unless replicated in the subsequent solution.
     
    Here is an article that sheds a bit of light on this (only related to stress-free initial contact):
     
     
     
© 2025 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement