ABAQUS display windows disappeared

Strangely ABAQUS display windows disappeared.
The reason was just become drag to another screen with different resolution, where the python script windows was enlarged for coding. When drag back or restart on the main screen. All display windows disappeared.
Waste quite a bit time finding method to restore.
Just pull back to that screen and adjust the python code window size.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Transition mesh with equal ratio serial

for j in range(NL-1):
mdb.models[‘Model-1’].sketches[‘__profile__’].Line(point1=(xpt,C2[1]), point2=(xpt-hstep,C2[1]))

mdb.models[‘Model-1’].sketches[‘__profile__’].Line(point1=(xpt,C2[1]), point2=C2)
for j in range(NR-1):
mdb.models[‘Model-1’].sketches[‘__profile__’].Line(point1=(xpt,C2[1]), point2=(xpt+hstep,C2[1]))

mdb.models[‘Model-1’].sketches[‘__profile__’].Line(point1=(xpt,C2[1]), point2=(C3[0],C3[1]))

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is the “hourglass effect” in finite element analysis? How does the reduced integration, resulting in the hourglass effect, work? How can we counter the hourglass effect?


What is hourglassing?

It is essentially a spurious deformation mode of a Finite Element Mesh, resulting from the excitation of zero-energy degrees of freedom. It typically manifests as a patchwork of zig-zag or hourglass like element shapes (Fig.1), where individual elements are severely deformed, while the overall mesh section is undeformed. This happens on hexahedral 3D solid reduced integration elements and on the respective tetrahedral 3D shell elements and 2D solid elements.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Contact problem with sharp tip

A sharp tip (CPT) penetrates into soil. ABAQUS
Node-surface interaction works well both small-sliding and finite-sliding.
Surface-surface interaction works in case of small-sliding but in case finite-sliding of surface-surface contact (the default option) there is no result (seem no contact established and the cone penetrates without any interaction between the soil.
Still can not work out the reason. Keep here as note.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A fully working IDE with ABAQUS Python

I have been painfully struggling with finding a good Python IDE, which can use ABAQUS Python (since it is installed, why bother install another version of Python?!!)

I ever used Spyder but it seems packed with PythonXY. So install another Python. And strangely it can not start with a flash. Do not have time to find the problem. Give up.

I intended to use Wing IDE again. The old version I ever used seems can not link properly to my new version of ABAQUS 2016. Sadly the new version of Wing IDE needs $. give up

Thinking about to try other things like anacoda pycharm but all seems take time to learn. andy they may all have problem linking with ABAQUS python. Give up

Finally noticed that Python Tools for Visual Studio. I have VS2012 installed on my computer. So I downloaded the compatible version
Start VS, need Python environment:

Tools–>Options–>Python Tools–>Environmnet Options:
Give a name, i used Abaqus Python
Path :C:\SIMULIA\CAE\2016\win_b64\tools\SMApy\python2.7\python.exe
Windows Path: C:\SIMULIA\CAE\2016\win_b64\tools\SMApy\python2.7\pythonw.exe
Library Path: C:\SIMULIA\CAE\2016\win_b64\tools\SMApy\python2.7\Lib
Architecture: x64
Language version: 2.7
Path Environment variable: blank

It is workinging! Enjoying python debugging using Visual Studio interface!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

aims and objectives – what’s the difference?

This is from the below link with acknowledgement to the original author
It is really helpful to understand the difference, especially in fund application.

aims and objectives – what’s the difference?

You’re ready, you’re aimed, and now you have to fire off the objectives. But you’re a bit confused. What”s the difference between the two?

An aims-objectives confusion might arise when you are writing thesis proposal and the introductory thesis chapter. It’s always an issue in research bids. The what’s-the-difference question can have you going around in ever smaller unproductive circles if you can’t figure out a way to differentiate between the two things. And the difference is something I’ve recently been asked about, so I’ve decided to post something of an answer.

Dictionaries are only vaguely helpful when thinking about aims and objectives. My desk dictionary says that an aim is to do with giving direction. An aim is “something intended or desired to be obtained by one’s efforts”. On the other hand an objective is to do with achieving an object, it’s about actions, “pertaining to that whose delineation is known”. Now who actually speaks like this? The fact that these definitions are offered in this very formal language doesn’t help clarify matters. But, once past the antiquated expression, you might discern that the difference between the two is somehow related to a hope or ambition (aim) versus a material action (objective). Or we might say – and it is what is commonly said about aims and objectives – the aim is the what of the research, and the objective is the how.

So taking this what-how as a kind of loose and sloppy differentiation between the two, the rough rule of thumb with aims and objectives is generally that:

(1) The aim is about what you hope to do, your overall intention in the project. It signals what and/or where you aspire to be by the end. It’s what you want to know. It is the point of doing the research. An aim is therefore generally broad. It is ambitious, but not beyond possibility.

The convention is that an aim is usually written using an infinitive verb – that is, it’s a to + action. So aims often start something like.. My aim in this project isto map, to develop, to design, to track, to generate, to theorise, to build … Sometimes in the humanities and social sciences we have aims which attempt to acknowledge the inevitable partiality of what we do, so we aim ‘to investigate, to understand, and to explore… ‘ But lots of project reviewers and supervisors prefer to see something less tentative than this – they want something much less ambivalent, something more like to synthesise, to catalogue, to challenge, to critically interrogate ….

(2) The objectives, and there are usually more than one, are the specific steps you will take to achieve your aim. This is where you make the project tangible by saying how you are going to go about it.

Objectives are often expressed through active sentences. So, objectives often start something like In order to achieve this aim, I willcollect, construct, produce, test, trial, measure, document, pilot, deconstruct, analyse… Objectives are often presented as a (1) (2) (3) formatted list – this makes visible the sequence of big steps in the project. The list of objectives spells out what you actually and really will do to get to the point of it all.

You have to make the objectives relatively precise. Having a bunch of vague statements isn’t very helpful – so ‘I will investigate’ or ‘I will explore’ for example aren’t particularly useful ways to think about the research objectives. How will you know when an investigation has ended? How will you draw boundaries around an exploration? In thinking about the answer to these questions, you are likely to come up with the actual objectives.

Objectives have to be practical, do-able and achievable. Research reviewers generally look to see if the time and money available for the research will genuinely allow the researcher to achieve their objectives. They also look to see if the objectives are possible, actually research-able.

Because the objectives also act as project milestones, it’s helpful to express them as things that are able to be completed – so for example scoping an archive of materials will have an end point which may then lead on to a next stage/objective. Even if objectives are to occur simultaneously, rather than one after the other, it is important to be clear about what the end point of each step/objective will be, and how it will help achieve the aim.

What not to do

It’s really helpful to think about what can go wrong with aims and objectives. There are some predictable problems that you want to avoid when writing them. These are some common aims-objectives issues:

• There are too many aims. One or two is usually enough. (I might stretch to three for other people’s projects if pushed, but I usually have only one for my own projects.)

• Aims and objectives waffle around, they don’t get to the point and the reader doesn’t have a clue what is actually intended and will be done – aims and objectives need to be concise and economically expressed.

• Aims and objectives don’t connect – the steps that are to be taken don’t match up with the overall intention.

• The aims and the objectives are not differentiated, they are basically the same things but said in different words.

• The objectives are a detailed laundry list rather than a set of stages in the research.

• The objectives don’t stack up with the research methods – in other words they are either not do-able, or what is to be done won’t achieve the desired results.

The final thing to say is that aims and objectives can’t be rushed. Because they generate the research questions and underpin the research design, sorting the aims and objectives are a crucial early stage in planning a research project. Aims and objectives are a foundation on which the entire project is constructed, so they need to be sturdy and durable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment