Fixed:

Fans of unit testing may enjoy this one. The work I did on optimising band width has introduced an error in boundary conditions. punch_gone_wrong.jpg I now know that I have broken the two golden rules of profiling and optimizing: 1) Don't optimize too early - I did, making changes harder to manage 2...

... just for my understanding. By the use of calculix an non linear material we should get the same results, shouldn't we? In principle yes, but Calculix cannot handle plastic collapse with load control (yet). I asked Guido a year ago and he said it was on his TODO list, where (I think) it still is...

HoWil wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:36 am

HarryvL wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:10 pm

So in this case fcFEM over-predicts theory by 0.045% ... not bad

Is it possible to share your model?

Both uploaded here: https://github.com/HarryvL/fcFEM/tree/m ... eCAD_Files

... and now it also becomes important to look at the plastic strain to judge potential rupture of the steel.

A sphere is the best shape to contain pressure. So what if we tried to achieve the same functionality with a hollow cube? Let's see what happens with a cube of the same internal volume and wall thickness: fcFEM_Block_with_Hole_L_u.png The cube only has 58% of the burst strength of the sphere. Well, ...

Yes OOFEM does the same.

Hi Alex, for now I will focus on further development of fcFEM. I still have tons of ideas. Then I will post benchmarks along the way. If and when fcFEM gets fully integrated with FEM WB (which I am not good at) then the examples and benchmarks can be turned into unit tests. This is definitely not my...

Sure @HoWil, I will add it to my repo with examples when I have access to my computer.

It's always nice to see people check fem for validity. Mistakes there can be difficult to spot, yet very costly if the thing you calculated and made fails. Indeed @DeepSOIC. Even if a theoretical solution does not exist for the configuration or properties you are analysing, then some benchmark that...