Jump to content

exx077

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exx077

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Country
    United Kingdom
  • Are you University user?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

563 profile views
  1. @ydigit, Thank you, I will have a go and come back to you on this forum post.
  2. Thank you for sharing the PDF @ydigit, I have outlined the steps I took to resolve this in forum post attached below: Thanks
  3. Hello @ydigit, I am unsure as to how I access the AcuSolve Training Manual. Do I find it from within AcuSolve's help menu (as discussed here - https://altairuniversity.com/10463-acusolves-reference-manuals-tips-tricks/)? Would it be possible to share the PDF with me? Thank you for your help
  4. Thanks @Tinh, I came across this, but it seems to just be available to Altair clients - which I am not. https://forum.altairhyperworks.com/index.php?/topic/13205-hyperworks-script-exchange/ Is there a better/easier way to add a defined amount of (radial) stiffness to a cylindrical hole? Thank you
  5. Hello, Thank you for your responses. I will create the centre node using this method. However, is it possible to select all the surface nodes on the inner surface of the hole in one go? As from what I can tell I will have to select each node individually and connect this to the centre node to create a spider. Thank you
  6. Hi @tinh, I did try both methods. The panels for spring and bar elements do not have an option to create a 'calculated node' from nodes selected on a surrounding face - like there is with the rigid and RBE3 element panels. Hence, my question was, is it possible and if so, how? Thank you
  7. Hi all, Thank you for your responses. This has helped with my understanding. If I am to try to model a bearing I will use this method. I do have a radial stiffness value. I will try and use these elements and input the stiffness values. Is it possible to use CBUSH or GAP elements as a spider that is constrained in the middle (like a RBE2 or 3 element spider)? Thanks
  8. Great, thanks again @Prakash Pagadala
  9. @Prakash Pagadala, I see, thank you. What optimisation parameters have you used? The square panel regions are really impressive. Thanks
  10. Hi @Prakash Pagadala, Wow, these results look great! However, I do not understand what they are showing. Does PFA stand for Progressive Failure Analysis? If so, do the regions or high density show where probability of failure is highest? Thanks
  11. Hello, If I am to put RBE3 in a hole (with no force or constraint attached to the dependant node) will this imply any stiffness to the voids outer surface where the independent nodes are? Or does the hole just remain as it would if it was a void with nothing in it? What type of 1D element could be used to provide a defined stiffness to the outer surface of a hole? Thank you in advance
  12. Hello all, I did manage to resolve this. For all that come across this forum with the same issue, the following steps were used. I received this error: "*** ERROR # 5814 *** The bushing element CBUSH 839110 has zero length. Please assign a coordinate system to it using the CID field in its CBUSH card." I changed the CID value to 0 in the input card, after following the instructions in the forum linked below: https://forum.altairhyperworks.com/index.php?/topic/16708-creating-zero-length-cbush-elements-for-rbe3-support/ I changed all the K (1-6) values in the PBUSH property to RIGID. This then allowed the simulation to run - although the convergence of the solution was questionable. Thanks
  13. @Prakash Pagadala, There is no particular reason for doing this. My understanding was that you set the upper limit of the volume fraction and the optimiser will be constrained to this value. I thought that if i set a upper and lower limit, then the simulation would just work to the upper limit of the volume fraction as this would enable it to minimise the compliance better. Thanks
  14. Hi @Prakash Pagadala, I think I understand. So rather than inspecting the topology of results with variable volume fractions with the same density cut off, is it more appropriate to inspect the results for a specific volume fraction optimisation with the same corresponding density value. I.e. If the volume fraction is 0.3, the density cut off for iso should also be 0.3? Thanks
  15. Hi @Prakash Pagadala, Could you explain what you mean by this? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...