rigid modal displacement issue about pymapdl-reader

[pmaroneh]

Thanks for sending the .cdb input file and the result file. The .cdb does not define the type of analysis so I will not be able to rerun the model. I can however work from the .rst file directly. But I would need more information to be able to reproduce the problem: which postprocessing commands have you used, both in Ansys and in PyAnsys? Could you also share a screenshot of the difference that you have obtained?

[pmaroneh]

Hi,
You should indeed obtain similar results. Could you please share a small model and script that reproduces the issue so that I can look into it?
Thanks

[xiaomaiAI]

file.zip

[RGPATCHI]

Hi @xiaomaiAI

I solved the uploaded cdb file (Modal analysis) and used the rst file generated to compare the results between MAPDL and PyMAPDL. They look same. Please let me know if I am missing something.

I pasted the comparison for 1st mode for reference. I have also checked for other modes as well.

MAPDL - 1st Mode - Total Deformation Plot

PyMAPDL - 1st Mode - Total Deformation Plot

In addition, I have also checked using the uploaded rst (instead of the rst from the solved model using the cdb file), I see that this uploaded rst (i.e. interfrf.rst) file has different displacement results as compared to the rst (from solving cdb file).

I believe, the rigid body mode displacements are sensitive to whether the solution is done via SMP (Shared Memory Parallel) or DMP (Distributed Memory Parallel), as well as number of cores used.

I would suggest to use same setting SMP/DMP and number of cores in both MAPDL and PyMAPDL to do an apple to apple comparison.

Hope this helps.

[xiaomaiAI]

Thanks. @RGPATCHI and @pmaroneh
I have checked the numbers of the rigid body mode displacements between MAPDL and PyMAPDL, I found they have different displacement results, not just the plot, maybe very close. And I'll test as your suggestions. THANKS.

[jgd10]

It looks like this has been resolved so I'm going to close the issue. If there are still things to cover we can reopen it!