Jump to content

Pedro Neves

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pedro Neves

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Country
  • Are you University user?

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It worked, I only had the Parameters disable. Dumb fail Thanks for the help!
  2. No, the model was right, but I guess I found the problem: I was changing the parameters I wanted directly in the cards in the model interface (where there are the components, load collectors, etc), instead of going to Analysis>Control Cards>Parameters. Now that I went there I found that my parameters were disabled. Maybe that was my problem. I'll post here if the problem is solved or not. Thanks @Ivan
  3. This is weird... Did you tried to run the analysis to see if it showed something normal? Because I think that I had defined that parameter in my model...
  4. Yes of course. I've attached the fem file because the model has too much MB. If you have any doubt about the model, don't exitate in replying in this post! Thanks! mono_inicial_inertia_relief.fem
  5. @Ivan I'm trying to use the type -2, but my elements are not beeing constrained, is there a major reason why this could be hapening?
  6. Ok thanks @Rahul R, I was just wondering if the problem was given by the suports that SneyersJens used in Inertia Relief type -1. Those suports seem right to you? Or is it better to put them in another way?
  7. @SneyersJens how did you solved your problem? I'm in the same position as you were: trying to optimize a composite monocoque, and I'm thinking that the best option is using inertia relief. In your case, what was the best option: -1 or -2? Why the displacements in the monocoque weren't symmetric?
  8. I know how to make the topology optimization for laminates. My problem is that to translate the loads to my chassis, in all of the loadsteps except one I model the damper as a spring (CBUSH1D) elements, and for one especific case I have to model it as a RBE2 element. Because of that I tried to use the submodels in the loadsteps, but because of that I'm limited in the responses that I can use, because I receive the error in the image atached.
  9. I'm trying to do a model to make a laminate optimization, but I need to use submodels because in most loadsteps I use one type of elements, and for only one loadstep I change to a rigid (it's for the spring / dumper of the suspension of a formula student car). My problem is that I wanted to use the objective of minimizing the weighted compliance in my optimization, but as I'm using submodels, I can´t. Also, I wanted to use the responde mass in the property of my laminate, but I can't too, even though in the error it says that I only can use responses that resort to property (or materials), that it's what I'm using for the response mass - the property of the laminate. How can I solve this problem? If I can´t use weighted compliance, what is the best option? And how can I use the response mass?
  10. Thank you very much @Rahul R, now I'm 100% sure that my model is similar to reality!
  11. I'm from a team of Formula Student, I'll share the model of the last years car for the purpose of trying to explain my questions because I'm not sure if I can share the model of the currents year car. -In the Image1, I have there elements CBEAM in the surface, to have a conection with the elements on it. But they have an offset from the surface, to simulate how it is in reality. This offset is just visual, or the program "understands" that we want the CBEAM elements with that offset and the calculations are done with that in mind? -In the Image2, being the blue surface 1 laminate with z0 top, and the surfaces applied on it (or using rigids that translate the force to the surface), the loads are only aplied on the outter surface or is it distributed by all the plies of the laminate? monocoque_inicial.hm
  12. My laptop it's an Asus ROG GL552VW, I think it has good hardware. i7 6700HQ Processor, SDRAM 8Gb. What happened was weird, because in my first times it went well, but after some weeks of using the version I have now happened what I described in my later post
  13. Can anyone answer to my post, please?
  14. @Premanand Suryavanshi can you answer my post please?
  15. Sorry @Premanand Suryavanshi I didn't received the notification of your reply and I only went to see my posts now. I am using the version of solvers 2018.0.1 (hotfix). In the beggining of my optimization, in Optistruct, the values of progress and iteration progress seem to be always struck in 2% and 62%, correspondingly. Ãfter a while, the optimization advances to the next iteration. And then, if I open the results in the end, they are very poor and show almost or completely nothing. What do you mean with configurations of my system?
  • Create New...