Exploded view - incorrect part order

Hello,
Using v 2.2.0, I’m playing with models of sandwich panels using carbon-fibre skins. For the models, the core is a solid, the skins are shells, the composite properties are defined through keywords. But when using the exploded view to analyse individual ply stresses, the order of parts is incorrect. This is the case for both the order of skins and core but also for individual plies.

On a different note, think a video tutorial about fibre reinforced composite materials and how materials need to be defined through keywords would be a good addition to the excellent youtube channel :wink:

pmx file here:

Screenshot of incorrect display

Thank you for the great development work!

I experienced that too. There are more exploding options but I couldn’t find the right one.

Please, let me know if you find a suitable setting.

Very odd. The “centre point” exploded view method keeps the core in the centre as necessary but the skins (shells) are hardly separated, cannot assess the ply order. When trying a very basic quasi isotropic panel [0/90/45/-45]s (link below), it appears to have the correct order of plies using the centre option (looking at S11) but separation of layers is hardly visible even when maxing out the “magnification” and “scale factor” … and sometimes when trying to play with the settings, the software crashes (running on Win10 home) :wink: It seems, the exploded view option may need a little more work but could be a very helpful tool!

QI composite panel:

The exploded view was discussed and described in Exploded View - directions & distance?

If you select the Center Point method it should work:

composite

But it is true that the magnification is limited to 25.

Thanks Matej,
for composite models made from plies, it would be necessary to separate the plies further in the exploded view . It would be necessary to see the interaction between plies and stress variations. If it exists, maybe an item for the wish list? :wink:

The change in magnification factor?

Yes, as this controls the distance between the objects. Guess there would be a myriad of other methods to get objects further separated but allowing larger values than 25 may be the easiest to implement?

In general, it is impossible to determine the correct displacement vector for each part inside a complex assembly. So, a manual procedure is usually needed. Increasing the upper limit for the magnification factor is a simple solution.

1 Like

Since this is not a bug, I will move the topic to General Questions.

@Matej, I noticed the upper limit for explosion was increased in v2.2.10. Many thanks for this. Very helpful.

Not with all models, but at times I come across this error when trying to see the exploded view:

I’m not sure what it means but once acknowledged, the model seems to be displayed correctly. But as soon as I right click on the “exploded view” icon, the software crashes catastrophically. This happens every single time on my machine.

The model is a solid core with shells:

Hope this observation helps.

Thank you for the .pmx file that helped me find the problem, which are some missing nodes included in the WarnNodeMissTiedContact. They probably appear after shell element expansion.

I have fixed the routine that reads the *.nam files and eliminates such nodes. The fix will be released in a couple of days.

1 Like

I’ve had a try @Matej , software v2.2.11 does not crash any longer (tried a different model though). This error message is still there though, is this intentionally:

No, the message is not intentional.

Can you share the file?

Good morning,
just tried to find the file in question and also tried above file again. I noticed that the errors appeared also with above files (displaying correctly though and not crashing). Tried to re-run the simulation and was confronted with another error message.

However, all error messages disappeared after starting from the beginning and remeshing the model in v2.2.11, then re-run; all without changes in settings or set-up. The results are displayed correctly.

In hindsight, I may have looked at files run in v2.2.10 when above error was displayed but after re-running these all appear to work fine.

I guess the issue is resolved but will report back if I encounter it again.
Many thanks @Matej for providing a fix so quickly!

1 Like