# Calculix\_2.20\_4win default solver spooles **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [September 10, 2022, 5:38pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257 "2022-09-10T17:38:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 5:38pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/1 "2022-09-10T17:38:10Z")
I’m working with ccx.2.20 and use ccx\_static. why is for default solver pastix chosen and not spooles like the previous version? can i change these? how can i choose spooles as solver if i make \*BUCKLING calculation? \*STEP \*BUCKLE 4 I have a problem with cantilever beam and \*COUPLING \*DISTRIBUTING, these is not working with pastix 2.20. is there a possibility to get ccx\_2.12 for win? wbr dichtstoff ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 5:50pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/2 "2022-09-10T17:50:59Z")
> [@dichtstoff](#): > > why is for default solver pastix chosen and not spooles like the previous version? I think that it’s because PaStiX is much faster than Spooles and the issues with natural frequency calculations reported in the past should be solved now. However, I’m also somewhat skeptical about this decision. > [@dichtstoff](#): > > how can i choose spooles as solver if i make \*BUCKLING calculation? Try with `*BUCKLE, SOLVER=SPOOLES` > [@dichtstoff](#): > > is there a possibility to get ccx\_2.12 for win? The oldest version that I’ve found on the official website is 2.13: [http://www.dhondt.de/calculix\_2.13\_4win.zip](http://www.dhondt.de/calculix_2.13_4win.zip) ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 6:45pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/3 "2022-09-10T18:45:04Z")
ok, i have checked all versions. cantilever beam,fixed with \*COUPLING,REF NODE=24863,SURFACE=Ssbound\_01,CONSTRAINT NAME=CN1 \*DISTRIBUTING 1,1 2,2 3,3 4,4 5,5 6,6 is working with spooles and pastix until version 2.18.4win result buckling mode with spooles 1.78939 result buckling mode with pastix 2.166570 with 2.19.4win and 2.20.win not working with spooles neither with pastix or have the input command changed? wbr ---
**Author:** ![Disla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/disla/32/3548_2.png) [@Disla](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Disla)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 9:18pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/4 "2022-09-10T21:18:40Z")
Hi dichtstoff, ¿Could you share your beam BC , material `properties and dimesions? Maybe we can also check other compilations. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 9:43pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/6 "2022-09-10T21:43:46Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/0/0f8639cdf3e7b535cd16ad698493b6376f7200ed.png) ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2022, 11:33pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/7 "2022-09-10T23:33:28Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/4/4a5df01222bf76daaaead40b61067ddbc7d5352c.png) ---
**Author:** ![xyont](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/xyont/32/3553_2.png) [@xyont](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/xyont)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 2:07am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/8 "2022-09-11T02:07:31Z")
> [@dichtstoff](#): > > \*DISTRIBUTING > 1,1 > 2,2 > 3,3 > 4,4 > 5,5 > 6,6 i do simplified as ```auto *DISTRIBUTING 1,6 ``` and it seems to be working. ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 6:05am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/9 "2022-09-11T06:05:26Z")
makes no change of the result, still not working with ccx\_2.19.4win and ccx\_2.204win ---
**Author:** ![JuanP74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5a626/32.png) [@JuanP74](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/JuanP74)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 7:14am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/10 "2022-09-11T07:14:14Z")
formulation HAS changed: [CalculiX: New features in Version 2.20 of CalculiX](http://dhondt.de/new_calc.htm) I think all versions changes should be available in the documentation. I copied that page from old version from the wayback machine but I think Dhondt should make all available in his website ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 1:11pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/11 "2022-09-11T13:11:31Z")
the problem exist with ccx\_2.19.4wind and ccx\_2.20.4win here is an example: it works with ccx\_2.18.4win \*NODE, NSET=Nall 1,5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 2,0.000000000000e+000,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 3,0.000000000000e+000,-5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 4,5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 5,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000 6,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000 7,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,2.000000000000e+000 8,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,2.000000000000e+000 9,0.000000000000e+000,-5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 10,5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 11,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,4.000000000000e+000 12,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,4.000000000000e+000 13,0.000000000000e+000,-5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 14,5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 15,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,6.000000000000e+000 16,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,6.000000000000e+000 17,0.000000000000e+000,-5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 18,5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 19,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,8.000000000000e+000 20,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,8.000000000000e+000 21,5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 22,0.000000000000e+000,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 23,0.000000000000e+000,5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 24,5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 25,0.000000000000e+000,5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 26,5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 27,0.000000000000e+000,5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 28,5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 29,0.000000000000e+000,5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 30,5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 31,-5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 32,-5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 33,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000 34,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,2.000000000000e+000 35,-5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 36,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,4.000000000000e+000 37,-5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 38,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,6.000000000000e+000 39,-5.000000000000e-001,-5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 40,-5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000,8.000000000000e+000 41,-5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,0.000000000000e+000 42,-5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,2.000000000000e+000 43,-5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,4.000000000000e+000 44,-5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,6.000000000000e+000 45,-5.000000000000e-001,5.000000000000e-001,8.000000000000e+000 \*ELEMENT, TYPE=C3D8, ELSET=Eall 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2, 4, 3, 9, 10, 8, 7, 11, 12 3, 10, 9, 13, 14, 12, 11, 15, 16 4, 14, 13, 17, 18, 16, 15, 19, 20 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 22, 23, 24 6, 8, 7, 11, 12, 24, 23, 25, 26 7, 12, 11, 15, 16, 26, 25, 27, 28 8, 16, 15, 19, 20, 28, 27, 29, 30 9, 2, 31, 32, 3, 6, 33, 34, 7 10, 3, 32, 35, 9, 7, 34, 36, 11 11, 9, 35, 37, 13, 11, 36, 38, 15 12, 13, 37, 39, 17, 15, 38, 40, 19 13, 6, 33, 34, 7, 22, 41, 42, 23 14, 7, 34, 36, 11, 23, 42, 43, 25 15, 11, 36, 38, 15, 25, 43, 44, 27 16, 15, 38, 40, 19, 27, 44, 45, 29 \*NODE, NSET=Nrefrotnode 46,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000 47,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000,0.000000000000e+000 \*\* Names based on refnode\_01 \*NSET,NSET=Nrefnode\_01 46, \*\* Names based on rotnode\_01 \*NSET,NSET=Nrotnode\_01 47, \*\* Surfaces based on sbound\_01 \*SURFACE, NAME=Ssbound\_01 1, S3 9, S3 5, S3 13, S3 \*COUPLING, REF NODE=46, SURFACE=Ssbound\_01, CONSTRAINT NAME=CN1 \*DISTRIBUTING 1,1 2,2 3,3 4,4 5,5 6,6 \*MATERIAL, Name=steel \*ELASTIC 210000, 0.3 \*DENSITY 7.86E-9 \*SOLID SECTION, Elset=Eall, Material=steel \*STEP \*STATIC, SOLVER=SPOOLES \*BOUNDARY Nrefnode\_01,1,6,0 \*DLOAD Eall,GRAV,9810,0,1,0 \*NODE FILE U \*EL FILE S \*END STEP ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 1:17pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/12 "2022-09-11T13:17:34Z")
![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/8/89560a9731bb4c8139bf8c40a31dd2ead29a0e3f.png) ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/a/af188f6aa06b7f5748ab311b45cee3e6ce7e9173.png) ---
**Author:** ![xyont](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/xyont/32/3553_2.png) [@xyont](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/xyont)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 1:34pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/13 "2022-09-11T13:34:03Z")
> [@dichtstoff](#): > > \*BOUNDARY > Nrefnode\_01,1,6,0 this can not be use anymore for the latest versions. restraint boundary conditions required different approach or methods using dcoup3d element and mean rotations. ---
**Author:** ![JuanP74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5a626/32.png) [@JuanP74](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/JuanP74)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 1:40pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/14 "2022-09-11T13:40:20Z")
That’s what I meant, formulation has changed several times. Check the manual, also v2.19 changed: [CalculiX: New features in Version 2.19 of CalculiX](https://web.archive.org/web/20211226133828/http://www.dhondt.de/new_calc.htm) ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 5:12pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/15 "2022-09-11T17:12:45Z")
ok, perfekt, than it is clear. maybe i’ll miss command \*DISTRIBUTING with \*BOUNDARY it is in the manual ccx 2.19. i want to have to control the boundaries with translation and rotation. So there are now only two possibilities left: - \*RIGID BODY - \*KINEMATIC loosing \*DISTRIBUTING with \*BOUNDARY is a big lost for me. is there no possibility to preserve the command!? thnx to all for your help wbr ---
**Author:** ![Disla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/disla/32/3548_2.png) [@Disla](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Disla)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 9:09pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/16 "2022-09-11T21:09:09Z")
Hi , First to say is that \*COUPLING with \*DISTRIBUTING is not even responding with my compilation. It is a CalculiX Version 2.19 + PARDISO with out of core capabilities. Despite this, we have other options. I have set up the beam with an interesting trick shown in page 3 CTICM LTBeam – Report on Validation Tests July 2002 “Beam elements (BEAM 4) are used at support locations and point load locations in order to stiffen the cross-section and to avoid local buckling effects.” I’m using a line 2 beam with E=21000 GPa not to exceed the numerical safety boundary on Calculix. Load is directly applied to the node. Lateral torsion buckling with that set up and without any use of coupling is giving me agreement which is better at some point than the LTB software. ![screenshot.6](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/1/124a2a54309d0a75260e08dcf8ef2223f0d20ded.png) ![screenshot.5](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/6/6b98645894569bed4c1f0b3fe19112c8030ef7af.png) ![screenshot.4](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/c/c62138dac11f8c8385500004f843ae851adae9d2.png) ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 9:42pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/17 "2022-09-11T21:42:01Z")
hello, cantilever beam ist not the problem, you get the result with \*Boundary fixed, or \*RIGID BODY, the challenge is with a beam and two supports. I started first with shell elements and did the same like you did, (without knowing these with the beam as support) i added for the line for web beam elements like dummy rigid, but not in the flange these work fine for shell elements, for I-Profile but also for U- or C-Profiles. you get similar results, if you use \*RIGID BODY connected with the web but not so close like beam and shell elements or solid and \*COUPLING with \*DISTRIBUTING. here is one example with solids and the results are ok for me, with \*COUPLING with \*DISTRIBUTING why not using it!? it is working with solid elements!? the ulterior motive is, that you can use the buckling mode for pre-deformation for non-linear calc. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/1/1718f795bb7b19638c2733329c3178ba5f7e9b3c.jpeg) > **[Stahlbau III](https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/read/3436719/stahlbau-iii)** > > Stahlbau Lies mehr über Nachweis, Querschnitt, System, Nach, Ideale und Sich. \*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=Eflange,MATERIAL=steel 24 \*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=Eweb,MATERIAL=steel 12 \*BEAM SECTION,ELSET=Eebeam,MATERIAL=steel,SECTION=RECT 500,500 here is a link for download, with solid elements if you like, you can get also with shell elements > **[Ihr persönlicher Freigabelink | GMX Cloud](https://c.gmx.net/@324820432001700943/c_i7kTnkR2uFf15P9r2CMQ)** > > Mit diesem Link erhalten Sie Zugriff auf die mit Ihnen geteilten Daten. ---
**Author:** ![JuanP74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5a626/32.png) [@JuanP74](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/JuanP74)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2022, 9:55pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/18 "2022-09-11T21:55:50Z")
I think your boundary conditions have to be as detailed as your structure’s model. If you model the beam with shells or solids you need to introduce more realistic boundary condition like in this example from Kraska (4 points bending test of sandwich beam with plasticity): [CalculiX-Examples/NonLinear/Sandwichtest at master · calculix/CalculiX-Examples · GitHub](https://github.com/calculix/CalculiX-Examples/tree/master/NonLinear/Sandwichtest) ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2022, 12:24am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/19 "2022-09-12T00:24:22Z")
why should i use such a complex structure / calculation if i could use a very simple? ---
**Author:** ![Disla](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/calculix.discourse.group/disla/32/3548_2.png) [@Disla](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Disla)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2022, 6:16am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/20 "2022-09-12T06:16:11Z")
Hi and thanks both for your comments, > [@dichtstoff](#): > > the challenge is with a beam and two supports I will try > [@dichtstoff](#): > > ot so close like beam and shell elements or solid and \*COUPLING with \*DISTRIBUTING It is not working to me. > [@dichtstoff](#): > > you can use the buckling mode for pre-deformation for > > non-linear calc You can do this with shells too if you previously request the result as OUTPUT=2D. Then transfering displcements from solution to the nodes works as the number of nodes is the same. > [@dichtstoff](#): > > why should i use such a complex structure / calculation if i could use a very simple? -I did it with shells because the Validation file and ANSYS comparison is made with shells in LTBeam Software. I’m using 6400 S4 elements similar to the pdf. -Shells are lighter and easy to mesh than solids.I prefere if possible. -The beam trick is new and seems to work fine for me. -Rigid body doesn’t work well with pure shells . I also liked your idea of gravity and play with density. Tested but it is not so accurate. > [@JuanP74](#): > > I think your boundary conditions have to be as detailed as your structure’s model. I agree. In this case i tried to follow the same set up as in the pdf for better comparison. ---
**Author:** ![dichtstoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dec6dc/32.png) [@dichtstoff](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/dichtstoff)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2022, 7:41am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257/21 "2022-09-12T07:41:28Z")
you can download the example it works fine with ccx\_2.18 and lower versions, with 1 cpu and with spooles: ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/e/e69515e8d821ad7fa28562ddfd96dcc7f1c199eb.png) ![hcpy_1](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/6/62d5f0604830aedb1475926404d84a706ce4afc0.png) [Next page](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/calculix-2-20-4win-default-solver-spooles/1257.md?page=2)