Jump to content

Wisawanart

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Wisawanart last won the day on May 10 2017

Wisawanart had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Wisawanart

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    Thailand
  • Interests
    Crashworthiness simulation with RADIOSS
  • Are you University user?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Dear Altair support team, I am studying in crash box optimation, I set up the model as following figure, this model is deformed until reach incompressible condition (To observe total crushing performance), as a result the force goes up considerably after 120mm. However, I need to consider the data between 0 - 120 mm (78% of total displacement), but I can not find the Expression for cut the data in HyperStudy. According to the figure below, that show you the Force and Displacement collected from T01 file, how can I trim the data range from 0 - 120mm using some Functions. Below this, there are output responses that already create but need to select the appropiate range first. If you need further information please do not hersitate to let me know. Thank you for your help Best regards, Nut
  2. Dear. Mr. Rahul R. I will share you the model, the model is symmetry. As you showed me the similar question previously, -1 mean they apply in the reverse direction but I do not prefer such kind of condition. Can I fill up the Lower bound as 0?
  3. Dear Altair support team, Mr. Rahul R., I am working on optimization the vehicle crash box, I have some question about Hyperstudy / Hypermorph coupling for shape optimization. As first figure below, I created 2 Shapes (yellow and green) by translating the handles in -X,+X direction to increase the taper angle. In HyperStudy, I defined the model type as HyperMesh, while I am importing input variables from HyperMesh, they ask me to identify the lower and upper bound once (as second figure below). In this study, I would like to have the design variables including crash box thickness, shape1 and shape 2. Question 1. I seperated the shape into 2 because I have no idear to handle with them, can there cause any problem further? 2. If I want to keep the handle distance (+10,-10 in x direction) which is defined in the HyperMesh, Should I set up the input variables as following? Variable 1 (dv_1) Lower= 0, Nominal = 0, Upper = 10 Variable 2 (dv_2) Lower= 0, Nominal = 0, Upper = -10 Are there correct? Thank you for your calification. Best regards, Wisawanart
  4. Dear. Altair support team, Can I plot the 3D contour from the raw data line impored from Hypergraph2D as the figure below. For the value between the data lines, they may be interpolated simply. How to set up such kind of graph using Hypergraph 3D? thank you for your answer best regards
  5. Dear Altair support team, I am setting up the analysis of the crashbox for optimization. I have some questions regarding the Hyperstudy, 1. As figure below, can I set the position of those handles (red points) as a design variables because I need to find out the optimal taper angle. When I looked into the .tpl file, there cannot be adjusted them while shell thickness can be specified the lower upper bound directly. If impossible, could you suggest me the similar ways to carry out this task. 2. When I Evaluate Tasks for both nominal run and optimization. I think, the software is trying to solve the results but unfortunately when I look into the CPU load, it just 9% as same as the memory, completely different from usual situations. Normally, I define number of CPU cores as 24 (-nt 24) in RADIOSS. There have something wrong? or how I can define the core number in Hyperstudy? it is very slow now even a small problem. thank you for your help, best regards Wisawanart
  6. Dear Altair support team According to the Collision Detection, I've just meshed once and rechecked the initial penetration searched by Edge, I found there have several Edge penetrations in this model as the figure below. In this model, the penetration due to the thickness was removed, normally, I did not concern about edge penetration. Can I ask some questions? 1. Why the edge penetration occurs? 2. Can those ones cause further issues? Thank you Wisawanart
  7. Hi Mr. Prakash I have sent you the model file via Filetransfer. Thank you Best regards Wisawanart
  8. Dear Altair support team Let me explain regarding my FE model, I usually set up such kind of bumper model for crash analysis, unfortunately, this time I faced with the unfamiliar issues. As usual, I used the Tied_contact (Type2) to represent the spot welding by specifying the contact pairs as [M] cotact_surface and [S] GRNODE manually. You can see the spot weld locations as the figure below (green ball represent the spot weld). For the self-contact, I used the Type19 and defined the contact pairs as SURF_EXT_PART for both. Before running, I already used the Model checker but no error was found. I will briefly show those kinds of errors, ERROR ID : 558 ** ERROR IN INTERFACE DEFINITON (MASTER SURFACE) <<< This error came from Self-contact when I remove self-contact, this issue disappeared. ERROR ID : 611 ** ERROR IN INITIAL PENETRATION IN INTERFACE <<< This error came from Self-contact when I remove self-contact, this issue disappeared. I already fixed the initial penetration of model WARNING ID : 343 ** WARNING : INITIAL PENETRATIONS IN INTERFACE WARNING ID : 499 ** WARNING : INITIAL PENETRATIONS IN INTERFACE ERROR ID : 22 ** ERROR IN SHELL DEFINITION DESCRIPTION : SHELL ID=222890 HAS 2 IDENTICAL NODES THAT ARE NOT 3 & 4 ERROR ID : 35 ** ERROR IN TRIANGULAR SHELL GEOMETRY For those issues, I tried to fix it first but it doesn't work, I can share you this model for further details and the error format is attached to this post Best regard Nut Error_Format.txt
  9. Hi I am a new user in HyperStudy, I faced with the error in creating process of output response, the f(x) is shown as the figure below. Previously, I tried to fill in ((dv_2)−(5*(dv_1)^2)/(4*3.142^2)+5*dv_1/3.142−6)^2+10*(1−1/8*3.142)*cos⁡(dv_1)+10; (when X1=dv_1, X2=dv_2) but it is not working. Please suggest me how to put such kind of equation in Hyperstudy. Best regards
  10. Hi I am a new Hyperstudy user, I would like to perform the function fitting form DOE creating by mathematic function. which model that I should do first and if you have the related tutorials, please suggest me further. Best regards,
  11. Hi Support Team I have tried to run the simulation model including the residual stress (.sta). I set the stress into the model using Results Initializer from the Crash interface, unfortunately, I face MASSAGE ID : 194 ERROR : RUN NAME IS NOT DEFINED. Before the residual stresses are taken into account, the solver operates properly. Even though, I have already filled up all of blank which is related to "RUN NAME" but still fail. How to fix this issue? Best regards. Wisawanart
  12. Hi As the previous figure, I used slave node and master surface (Node to Surface) for all of the contact pairs. Best regards
  13. Hi I've been trying to set up the drop test tower simulation comprising of 8 components. All of the components are SOLID, I have faced with the difficulty to connect those components appropriately then, I decided to use the interface type 2 as the connectors. As a result, during running RADIOSS, it showed up the 10 warnings as below. 1. How to set this kind of interface with the suitable connection (Which parameter ?), just connect them instead of being the equivalent node. 2. I defined the BC as Solid symmetry and based fix, both of them cause the incompatible kinematic condition, how to solve? WARNING ID: 194 ** WARNING IN HIERARCHY REFERENCE DESCRIPTION : -- NODE GROUP ID: 12 -- BC_Gravity TITLE: PART REFERENCE TO UNEXISTING ID=80 .. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .. INITIAL VELOCITIES .. DOMAIN DECOMPOSITION .. ELEMENT GROUPS .. INTERFACES .. INTERFACE BUFFER INITIALIZATION WARNING ID : 1079 ** WARNING : CHECK TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE .. RIGID BODIES .. RETURNS TO DOMAIN DECOMPOSITION FOR OPTIMIZATION .. DOMAIN DECOMPOSITION .. ELEMENT GROUPS .. INTERFACES .. INTERFACE BUFFER INITIALIZATION WARNING ID : 1079 ** WARNING : CHECK TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE WARNING ID : 1157 ** WARNING : TIED INTERFACE .. RIGID BODIES .. ELEMENT BUFFER INITIALIZATION WARNING ID : 312 ** INCOMPATIBLE KINEMATIC CONDITIONS IN MODEL DESCRIPTION : 44 INCOMPATIBLE KINEMATIC CONDITIONS IN MODEL .. GEOMETRY PLOT FILE .. PARALLEL RESTART FILES GENERATION TERMINATION WITH WARNING ------------------ 0 ERROR(S) 11 WARNING(S) PLEASE CHECK LISTING FILE FOR FURTHER DETAILS
  14. Hello, I have been confusing about the lumped mass setting on crash analysis, which way is the best for representing the entire weight of the vehicle. For my questtions, 1. What should I set for the ICOG card ? normally, I tried with 1 or 3 but I didn't know the exactly definition yet. 2. What is the most suitable cases to set the number of node for RBE? I should select only the nodes at the edge or more ? (the green one ,as a figure below) 3. Generally, I define the inertia mass in RBE2 using card edit directly, but it also has ADMAS manager which will add the mass into the node instead. What is the best way to deal with it? Best regard
  15. Hello, Is it possible to create the Spr_Beam element from 1D > RBODY (RBE2 or RBE3)? and then, assign only the Prop/Type13(Spr_Beam) into this component instead. For this method, the Tied contact (Type2) is not necessary because, the node group are already defined. If such kind of approach can not be used, what is the easiest way to define the spr_beam. Thank you for your answers
×
×
  • Create New...