I’ve noticed that the query tool doesn’t have the same behaviour in the FE Model tab as in the Results tab, especially when it comes to surface selection.
In FE Model, the selection seems to be based on the 3D geometry, and it is possible to select only a curve/radius or a surface defined by a split.
In results, the selection will select all tangent faces, which can be unpractical when trying to extract data from a specific zone (for example a radius or a split surface)
Here is an example when selecting a radius from the Results tab (the same happens with split faces, but I’m not yet allowed to post more images)
I know it is possible to create History Output from the FE Model tab and then filter it accordingly, but this has several disadvantages:
it is pretty laborious to set up (create the element/node set, create the history output in FE Model tab, create the equation output in Results)
the analysis must be run again for the output to appear in results
stress output need elements, which gives different values than nodes. I had a situation where the max value through the stress history output was 590 MPa, but when probing on nodes I could find values as high as 610 MPa
I think it could be useful to make the behaviour consistent between the two tabs, or maybe add an option to toggle the tangent propagation of the selection on and off. This behaviour could even be extended to the selection tool for the history outputs created from the Results tab, where the surface selection also propagate tangentially.
In a sense, this shares the goals of Some suggestions on postprecessor, which are to have more flexibility and precision in the processing of results. It would indeed be nice to be able to access/create elements/nodes sets from the result tab and to select them for history outputs.
The difference in what I showed is that for the first image, I prepared the whole analysis in the FE Model tab, submitted it, then opened the results from there and was able to select the fillet. For the second image, I opened a new session of PrePoMax (so that there was nothing in the FE Model tab) and used File → Open to read the Analysis-1.frd file from the run in the previous session.
Ok thanks for the explanation! I’ve always only used the first method you described, and never the second one yet, but I only get the behaviour of your second picture.
I’m running 2.5.1 by the way but also noticed the same behaviour on 2.4.0.
PrePoMax copies the geometry definitions (surfaces, edges, and vertices) from the FE model tab to the Results tab if the model being opened is deemed sufficiently similar.
Ok thank you for the clarification! So for the model to be sufficiently similar, I guess that the mesh must be fine enough? Or are there other parameters?
Edit: I tried the example of FEAnalyst, and was indeed able to select the fillet. I played around with the mesh size and was still able to select the fillet only even with a very coarse mesh.
Edit 2: I played around some more with some simple models and noticed that when fillets and split faces are selectable in the Results tab, the node/element sets are carried over to the Results tab as well and are usable there. Whereas in my more complex model (that I unfortunately can’t share), I can’t select fillets and split faces and the node/element sets are not available in the results tab. So my additional question is: is the availability of the node/elements sets dependant on the same similarity criterion as the copying of the geometry definition to the results tab?
The similarity is determined on the entire model, not part by part. So if there is a single shell part in the assembly, its elements are thickened, and so additional nodes are created. This changes the overall number of nodes in the mesh, and the geometry properties from the FE model tab cannot be transferred to the Results tab.
