Jump to content

Sixuan Chen

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sixuan Chen

  • Rank
    Beginner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    United States
  • Are you University user?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Hyperman, Thank you for the response, I looked into it and posted my response. Please check it out. Best, Peter
  2. Thank you for the detailed answer. The reason I set up constraint on frequency is because we want optimized model have natural frequency more than 200Hz. For the example you provided, it uses topography configuration instead of topology. I have tried this approach and obtained some reasonable results. The topography approach will give me design that drawn beads on the plate, however, we also want to see possible solution that attach/weld additional components on the plate. Also I can't open the edited model you attached because of the version (mine is 2017). I made a model in creo based on the last image you attached (optimization result), the modal analysis give a natural frequency of 42Hz, which is far from enough. Could you please help to solve this issue? Thanks!
  3. Should I attach the model in this post, or should I email to you separately?
  4. Dear all, I'm working on a project as the attached image shown: We want to increase the natural frequency of the blue plate by design reinforcing components attach to the plate. Therefore we set up a design space (green block). The objective is max mode 1 frequency of the whole model, and constraint is max 0.5 volume fraction of the design space. However as the second image shown: 1. Mostly only the element on the edge of the design space are left, and it's easy to understand they WON'T help to increase the plate natural frequency at all; 2. The mid elements circled in black are "floating", meaning they are not attached to the plate at all. Could anyone help to figure out what I may do wrong in the setup? Thank you, Peter Door_opt_Topo_Opt.hm
  5. Hi all, For postprocessing purpose I need Abaqus to write fil. file, therefore I used the output request card for fil. file. But after run the inp. export from Hypermesh, there is no fil. file in work directory, only odb. The screenshot of loadstep browser, inp., and result folder are attached. Could anyone tell me how to address this problem? Thanks, Peter
  6. How to define a displacement constraint? Especially that the displacement is not on the design area but on the loading point outside of the design space. Do we have any tutorial for the displacement constraint definition? Thank you!
  7. We want to do topology optimization on the hinge component (red) and the rest parts remain the same. The upper and lower surface of the pin (blue) is constrained (6DOF) and there is a 20N upward force on the edge of the door (yellow) We want the vertical deflection of the loading point on the door be less than 7 mm For now, we set the design constraint as the volume fraction value of the hinge, say 0.4 as the upper bound, and the objective is to minimize the compliance of the hinge. There are two questions: 1. After the topo opt, the linking area between the hinge and the door is really weak, as Figure 2 shown. Is it because that we only considered the compliance of the hinge and hypwework will not consider the linking problem between components? If we modify the design area a little bit (leave the linking area as undesigned space), can we solve this problem? Or there is other ways to deal with it? 2. After we got the topo result, we ran a FEA test and it showed that the deflection of the loading point exceeds the limit. Can we define a deflection limit as the design constraint before we run the topo opt? If so, how can we do that? If not, what can we do to minimize the deflection? (maybe we set a wrong objective?) Thank you!
  8. After so many problem posted on the forum, I finally see the result (plot iso of the last iteration) and it looks like Fig1: But after I use OSSmooth and export it as a stp file, I tried to re-import it, want to see what the new model looks like. But after I re-mesh the hinge, why it has those curves while the hinge body still remains intact (Fig 2)? I know those curves show the edge of the removed elements in Fig1, but I want a solid model that has a hole, not an intact model with edges of a hole. I've made the hinge component current so that's not the problem. What should I do to get a solid model that have elements removed from the topology optimization?
  9. As suggested, I clicked the result button on solver window and now can view the topo result, but why I can see nothing changed on my design area (hinge)? It remain intact after topo opt? That makes no sense... And the slider below current value that change the density threshold ranges from 0 to 0, anything goes wrong? How can I see that which part of elements is removed from the original model?
  10. It said the optimization has converged, but the hyperview button on the right bottom is in-active, why? What should I do to view the opt result? If you wanna look into it, which file I should attach? (there are so many files in the folder...)
  11. Yes, the blue comp (pin) and the red comp (hinge) are the same mat, but we only wanna do topology optimization on the hinge. I think that if we merge these two components, we'll unable to do optimization separately on the hinge, am I correct? For the second tip, now that bad elements always exist, does this mean we can never carry out the topo opt since we'll always fail the element quality check? How can we solve this problem? Skip the quality check, change the model geometry, or other ways? Thank you!
  12. Here is my model (it's a optistrut project running into mesh problem) P558-Hinge-Solid.stp solid_hinge.hm solid_hinge.mvw
  13. No problem~ after I can import that stp file into the student version on my laptop
×
×
  • Create New...