Thanks! I'm glad that you like it :)

Why are you asking for that if I may know? Since this is not related to the topic (nor my own data) I'm reluctant to share such things on the Internet if you know what I mean

Well, I don't remember what exactly I said in this video, but I don't feel much has changed for me (apart from a way nicer office I guess :P). I still strongly believe FEA is worth it (this is literally what my company does) and I'm not afraid of mesh-less methods at all in my line of work. So I guess this remains as it was :)

I'm glad that you liked it :)

To be honest, it's impossible for me to answer such a question without taking a look at your models. I would search for things like changes in cross-section (no rounding on flange/web connection) playing a bigger role, maybe shear stiffness in the beam model, maybe simply a model setup... such things usually take a while to investigate, but in the end, I'm sure you will find what is the issue there.

@@Enterfea I checked these points. My model absolutely coincides with yours. For a span of 10 m the results coincided with yours. For a span of 4 m (surface model) the discrepancies with the theoretical ones (beam model) are more than 20%. If you have your file you can check this.

I experimented a little. And so far it seems to me that using rigid members on supports leads to an error. It is worth using the nodal constraints function. But I would like to hear your opinion as an expert in this field

@@vasiliyrohach3166 To be honest with you, I don't know why that could cause an error - perhaps this is a dimensions thing, but with 4m distance it seems like a decent distance still. If I recall RFEM has some issues with rigid elements, but I can't recall what that was to be honest.

@@Enterfea I experimented a little more in RFEM and understood what the matter was. You have done everything correctly assuming supports of the type "No warping allowed". These are beam supports, for example, with a very rigid support rib. I am used to working with beams with other types of support and for which there is no prohibition on warping. For such beams, the critical moment is much smaller. And the main thing is that both types of support can be implemented in the RF-STEEL EC3 module.

Thanks Mate! I'm glad that you like it :)

Yea, almost as if aliens were crawling under your skin...

Sure, although it has to be said, that usually the strains are limited (by the codes/standards/practice) far below values that would even get closer to necking start

@@Enterfea Yes, except where there are high stress concentrations. I’m fairly certain (but not 100%) this is why a FEA/real-world case can strain far greater than the tensile test (engineering strain) value, before fracturing.

Thanks Mate :)

Is the question really then: "Can a square QUAD 4 element accurately transfer uniform stress perpendicular to one of its edges when it is reasonably supported not to constraint perpendicular deformation"? - luckily it can :) Otherwise, it would be quite difficult to calculate anything in FEA :)

Thanks :)

This was a great example of expendable material sacrifice. If they had enlarged Lukasz' clump (e.g. from 1 large quad to 4 large quads), then it might have biased the optimization to prefer taking a load-path detour along his clump.

I definitely learned something there :)

In Linear Buckling it's just a "math operation" - you can calculate something akin to "what would be a second mode, if the first one would not exist" etc. In nonlinear FEA, you can't do that - the structure will fail into the first mode, and there isn't much you can do to obtain a second one (apart from applying load very fast in some cases, but that is beyond static analysis :) )

Hey Mate! Thank you for the suggestion. I understand the need, and I will definitely make some videos about boundary conditions, but I don't want to make my videos "too long" so talking about everything in every video won't work I think :( To answer your question, I think I used soft springs in the model to stabilize the pin. You could also use the symmetry of the model to do that, but I don't like how the outcomes look (and it's important for the video) so I made a full model. Cheers!

@@Enterfea Symmetry wouldn't work in the vertical direction. I understand and actually applaude the need to keep things consise and to the point, but in the world of FEA boundary conditions are everything. You can't really judge the resulsts without knowing them and as this is a technical and study matrial I'm 100% sure no one would argue the videos are 20 seconds longer than they should, no need to always get into deep details :) By the way - great work as always, I'm nagging my boss to buy me your training course and I was happy to see some exmples of your analysis in Dominique Madier's book! Good read, just started it.

@@eartheartbaratheon791 Yea, this is always a thin line on what to talk about and what to ignore - but I totally see your point!

Hey Mate! Sorry it seems that I've missed your comment (?). There are many ways to average outcomes, and I think it's best to read the user manual simply to check how your FEA package does this. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure which method is the best (I mean, in Femap I have access to a few, but I'm sure there are a LOT more options in other programs as well). I wouldn't stress about it too much though. If you will read the manual, and know what your program is doing, you will simply know if a given method is decent at what you are trying to do. In the end, this should not "make or break" your analysis - especially when you're using nonlinear material :)

Thanks for the suggestion Mate! I will see what I can do :)

I'm really glad that you like it :)

Thanks Mate :)

You're very welcome!

I'm mostly using Femap with NX Nastran

I'm glad that you like it :)

I'm glad that you liked the video :)

It was a bi-linear material model :)

I thought with a bilinear model, it is impossible to get a chart of the load capacity since the chart will always grow.

@@Archrussia it can fall down if you have a nonlinear geometry implemented in your model as well :)

I'm glad that you like it :)

Thanks Mate! I'm glad that you like this :)

I only do FEA, never worked in CFD

What is and is not "user friendly" heavily depends on personal preference I think. I remember that there were times when Femap irritated me non-stop, and now I really like it... so would that count as user-friendly? I don't know to be honest. That said, if you want to mesh complex 2D shapes (I mean, made form plate/shell elements) I definitely recommend Femap - I think it has one of the cooler meshers, with an awesome meshing toolbox that really allows you to control your mesh. For 3D elements, Femap isn't great I'm sure there are much better choices out there, but I rarely to such models, so I can't really recommend anything specific...

This is actually an impact of nonlinear geometry :) If it would be only nonlinear material, it would be indeed horizontal (more or less). Hope this helps! Ł

Awesome :) Welcome onboard :)

Thank you! I'm glad that you like it :)

Hey Jess! Let me answer your questions one by one: 1. There is no "von Mises Stress Limit". In material nonlinear analysis, this doesn't really apply in structural steel, as for elastic-perfectly plastic material the max stress you will get is yield stress. It's the strains that should be limited - various codes use various options, but usually, the plastic strain limit is around 3-5%. 2. If you are not sure about mesh quality it's always good to make mesh convergence. I simply knew, that my mesh was good enough for the task, so I didn't perform a mesh convergence... but if you are in doubt - it's always better to check :) 3. Plastic Strain requires nonlinear material analysis. If this setting was turned off (or your software can't handle it) you won't be able to display it. If I would run a linear material in Femap, I wouldn't have this plot either, since plastic strains are clearly an outcome from nonlinear material analysis :) In the end, I'm really glad that you are interested in my nonlinear FEA course - this is so nice to hear ;)

Thanks a lot Sir Lukasz for your helpful input. That helps a lot.

@@arocenajesussusmerano174 I'm glad that I could help you Mate!

I'm glad that you liked it Mate :)

Of course Mate, I'm glad that you like the video :)

Hey! Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad that you like the video :) I used the total vertical deformation of the top of the upper part (that I pulled) against the force I needed to pull it with. Hope this helps! Ł

Sure, but I would have to still change the geometry to get that (assuming that I understand what you mean). If I have an "equal" amount of material on the "top" and on the "sides" of the pin (in the plate of course) then shear will always "win" simply because the area is the same, and shear capacity is divided by square root of 3. Still, you are absolutely right - if I had more material on the "shear area" and less on the sides, tension failure would be a thing - while I didn't want to make that case in the model I should have mentioned that in the video! Thanks for pointing this out!

I used an elastic - perfectly plastic material. In this application I didn't really needed anything more fancy, especially with typical "structural steel" being used, with a nice plastic plateau :)

Indeed, I feel that most of FEA revolves around von Mises plots (for better or worse).

Thank you ;) I'm glad that you like it :)

Thank you for the kind words. Well, in civil engineering non preloaded bolts would be a standard application. But of course, this depends on what you do etc. It's lovely how things are complex and how they differ from "field" to "field" isn't it. I simply love the complexity of engineering - this simply makes it so much fun to do!