## Forum Replies Created

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
• Author
Posts
Luciano Jacinto
Participant

I understood your response. So, I run again the model with a zero Poisson coefficient (turning strains in both directions independent from each other) and got the same high result (sxx = 11805 kN/m2). So, the question seems a bit more complicated. I’m not an expert on FEM, but, perhaps it has to do with the shape functions, as you said. Thanks for your time spent on this.

Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Many thanks for your help. Ok, it makes sense that for shell elements NextFEM applies uniform temperature gradient simultaneously in both local directions. Ok, in my example, a monodimensional element would be more suitable, but this was simply to test NextFEM regarding uniform temperature gradients in shells.

So, continuing with my test, I corrected the model freeing displacements in the z-direction, and, after the analysis, the model behaves as expected, except for stresses in x-direction. NextFEM gives sxx = 11805 kN/m2, but I expected sxx = 7869 kN/m2. I would expect a closer result.

Once more, many thanks for your fast response.

###### Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.
in reply to: Linear elastic modelling of a slab #5050
Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Dear NextFEM admin and parhyang: Thank you both. Definitely, to estimate negative moments with some confidence in slabs at continuity supports we have to use finite elements with very small size near the supports (size in the order of magnitude of the slab thickness).

in reply to: Linear elastic modelling of a slab #5043
Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Many Thanks for your very fast response. Thanks also for the free, basic version of the program. What I like best is its very simple interface with Python, making it possible to construct a model in few minutes (using templates). For me, the GUI is good to view results, not so much to build the model.

So, we may conclude that, although the implemented finite element has the advantage of avoiding stress concentrations and peaks (which is the case in many situations, for example concentrated loads on shells), if there is some real peak, we must use a refined mesh, with very small size.

Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Thank you very much for the update. I’ve just tested the method addThermalDistLoad() in several beams (doble-fixed, fixed-supported and continuous) and everything worked as expected, both uniform gradient and linear gradient. Congratulations!

Luciano Jacinto
Participant

In the case of uniform gradient the result given by NextFEM (compression) is obviously correct. The doubt is only about linear gradient.

in reply to: Plane frame, linear static analysis #4761
Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Thanks. This time the solver ran the model without problems and the results were as expected.

in reply to: Generate a mesh specifying the contour #4755
Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Thank you very much!

Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Congratulations for the 2.2.0.5 release. I made some tests, and everything seems work perfectly. I also notice that it was made an improvement in API for Python. Now we can specify several load values and the corresponding positions:

elem = e1,
values = [0, -12, -12, 0],
positions = [0.0, 1.0, 4.0, 5.0],
direction = 2,
local = True,
)

Is there a change log so that we can look for the improvements in each release?
Thanks for this very nice program.

Luciano Jacinto
Participant

Thak you very much. I will look forward for the new release.