0

I am trying to analyse a large structure with multiple loading scenarios (independent - different loading directions), while considering geometric non-linearity. Using different steps is not sufficient, since each step starts off with the geometry shaped as it was at the end of the previous step.

I tried creating a dummy step after each loading step just to deactivate all the loads from the previous step, but (I think) the non-linearity causes some distortion to remain even with all the loads deactivated.

One obvious solution is to run each step in a separate analysis, but the model is quite large and the input file processing takes about about as much time as it takes the solver to solve a step, which would immediately double the time required to obtain the entire solution and there would also be redundant information in the result files (mesh data will be repeated in each result file). So creating a separate analysis for each step is something that I am trying to avoid for the moment.

Aravind
  • 3
  • 3
  • You can first define your input file with all loadings and after simply modify it or a copy of it using python to activate/deactivate required loads in consecutive runs. – Roman Zh. Mar 03 '22 at 11:04
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand this as running the model multiple times with the input file modified before each run to tinker with the loadings. This is what I'm looking to avoid, since each run will spin up a fresh instance of the input file processor (which I have been unable to parallelize) and as I said before, that takes about as much time as it takes for the solver to solve a single loading step. – Aravind Mar 03 '22 at 12:07
  • That's not the same problem. The non-linear solver is able to do the tinkering far better than you can. – duffymo Mar 07 '22 at 20:05
  • @duffymo - I do understand that, which is why I do not want to try to modify the input files between iterations. Is it possible to do what I asked in my original question? – Aravind Mar 08 '22 at 21:19
  • No, it's not possible. It would not be desirable even if you could. – duffymo Mar 08 '22 at 23:40
  • OK, thanks for the clarification. Could you explain why it would not be desirable though, to be able to do such a thing? – Aravind Mar 10 '22 at 07:25

0 Answers0