# How to include damping in the second step of a two-step simulation (static → dynamic)?

**URL:** <https://calculix.discourse.group/t/how-to-include-damping-in-the-second-step-of-a-two-step-simulation-static-dynamic/2732>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [May 7, 2025, 4:08pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/how-to-include-damping-in-the-second-step-of-a-two-step-simulation-static-dynamic/2732 "2025-05-07T16:08:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yhuang94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e5b9ba/32.png) [@yhuang94](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/yhuang94)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2025, 11:23am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/how-to-include-damping-in-the-second-step-of-a-two-step-simulation-static-dynamic/2732/21 "2025-05-09T11:23:49Z")

</div>

Yes, I was using ccx-2.15, and in both cases the work done by the damping forces in step 2 was exactly zero.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [May 9, 2025, 11:38am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/how-to-include-damping-in-the-second-step-of-a-two-step-simulation-static-dynamic/2732/22 "2025-05-09T11:38:18Z")

</div>

Ok. Then you should just check if the values reported by ccx 2.22 make sense. I would switch to the newest release anyway, many bugs have been fixed since 2.15.

[Previous page](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/how-to-include-damping-in-the-second-step-of-a-two-step-simulation-static-dynamic/2732.md?page=1)