Jump to content

francesca

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About francesca

  • Rank
    Beginner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Are you University user?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. How can I model this plate with in plane bending? I try with pshell property with MID2_opts Options -1 and MID3_opts Options BLANK but how can I put an in plane bending?
  2. I load (on dropbox, here I can't because of the size) the h3d with the result of the static analysis so you can see what I've tried to explain above: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4whuo2cvxtgdlr3/carro-rev-rinforzi-mesh-statica-1LoadStep.h3d?dl=0 the pdf contains a possible solution..? I've thought about putting another constraint in component t28.. component_t28.pdf
  3. In the PDF: slides 5-6-7-8 are the results of the free size optimization (on component t50 with property t10), slides 1-2-3-4 are the results of the static analysis. (yesterday I tried to attach the _des.h3d file but it was too big, now here it is). First: Is it correct to view the signed von mises stresses results? I refer to signed von mises, but I don't know if it's right. The high stress in t15 component I think is probably due to constraints/loads.. I put a constraint in t28 leaving rotational dofs free (because of y-moment..).. When I visualized the deformed shape, I realized in this region (component t28 and t15) the deformation could not be ignored (and consequently the stress is high). I don't know how to work out this problem.. It's a problem with boundary conditions, as you say. The t28 rotates around y axis.. The moments I put in the model come from a very simple model I made in motionview. I apply a vertical displacement on two wheels (ant-sx and post-dx, see pdf) and then motionview give me the forces/moments on the frame.. I try to use the moments (those indicated in the pictures of the pdf) on the frame in the hypermesh model (as you can see also in the model file you downloaded). Maybe I’ve made mistakes in setting up boundary conditions.. I attach the results from motion view and 3 slides in order to be more clear. So free size optimization is not appropriate in my case of study.. I believe I'm going to give up with the optimization.. I can't find support at university, no one corrects me errors and I haven't enough experience with this program.. I don't know if I'm trained enough to run and understand an optimization, for sure it will take a lot of time.. I think it will be a great result if I'd manage to make the static analysis work properly! However, I'll think about your suggestions about optimization process.. Thank you very much again for the corrections and the help! carro-rev_27-11-2019_des.h3d carro_carico_mw_2Jack.h3d B.C..pdf
  4. here the model and the results (pdf) of the static analysis and of the free size optimization. What do you think about it? In your opinion, are they realistic/reliable? And for the result of the free size.. How can I "read" correctly the result? I mean.. Is it possible a frame of for example 0.1 or 1 mm thickness from the original 10 mm? How can I "use" this result in the practice? Have I to run another optimization with different constraints? I don't know what to do with those results.. My work would have been to optimize the frame after the free size, but I wasn't expecting such a difference among thicknesses. hope to receive some tips.. Thank you in advance carro-rev_27-11-2019.hm results.pdf
  5. Thanks for reply. I've noticed that the big tube is a problem and so the result of the static analysis is not reliable and consequently the optimization is nonsense... For this reason I've built a simplier model (modify the original model) only for the frame (at the moment with only one load step), and I've put more loads where the frame connects with the big tube and the "front sheet metal". (I think it would be more clear if you took a look at the model..). I share the updated files (model and results) on dropbox. What do you think about it? I think that now is a bit better than before.. But there's still a #1662 warning in the optimization report... So sorry if my problems may seem trivial, but at university I struggle to find someone able to help and to give me good corrections. thank you again. https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmtmtpc8my5cs2x/carro only frame.hm?dl=0 .hm model https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbionjngv2yje0p/statica_solo telaio.h3d?dl=0 .h3d results static analysis https://www.dropbox.com/s/yidbjdixm21fahp/ottimizzazione_solo telaio_des.h3d?dl=0 .h3d results optimization https://we.tl/t-rjbW4KWWgU files above, but I used wetransfer report_optimization.pdf
  6. The static analysis runs.. But for sure there are some errors in the model my untrained eye cannot see. I would share the model if only I found a way to.. I don't know why dp doesn't work! If you have an alternative way to share files, please tell me. Thank you.
  7. I don't understand very well.. My model is a shell, I've made the mid surfaces of all the parts of the geometry and then I've connected all the mid surfaces each other with other surfaces. Then I've assigned the thickness to all surfaces. Yes, In some areas the thicknesses overlap.. How can I correct my model in order to have better results in the optimization? Thank you for your time.
  8. Thanks for your reply. I've shared the file using the link in your signature. Let me know if you receive those files and if they are the right files. In the "from" box I've wrote my university mail, I hope it will work. Thank you.
  9. I realize I've made some confusion in the organization of load collectors and load steps.. So I've updated the model and then I've re run the optimization, but the warnings are the same (for example #1662, #5628). What do they mean? Where do I have to focus on, in order to make my model correct? (model updated attached, if needed) https://www.dropbox.com/s/l40vv707llu12dv/carro con momenti-CASOB.hm?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/transfer/AAAAAJfUDNgP1A_AvVRiY9JRwEX5uBTw03MuufHJK4G66A_b_ZyQgcI *** WARNING # 1662 Constraint reduced AUTOSPC DOF(s) listed below usually are related to a modeling error. Please review the model. GRID 1548434 DOF 4 GRID 1548495 DOF 4 GRID 1548502 DOF 4 GRID 1548973 DOF 4 GRID 1549974 DOF 4 GRID 1550044 DOF 4 GRID 1550414 DOF 4 GRID 1552259 DOF 4 GRID 1552762 DOF 4 GRID 1552981 DOF 4 GRID 1553895 DOF 4 GRID 1554101 DOF 4 Number of constraint reduced AUTOSPC DOFs = 12 *** WARNING # 5628 The compliance is negative or large 1.32897e+08. The rotational displacement has large magnitude, -198.591 degrees (larger than 180). The rotational degree of freedom may not be constrained properly in the model. subcase id = 2 grid id = 1403405 component = 5 report II.pdf
  10. Hi everybody, I'm trying to run a free size optimization. In the report there are some warnings I can't understand.. I don't know if there are some errors in my model or if I have to change something in the optimization. Can someone help? HyperMesh model file https://www.dropbox.com/s/0x8vtw5q9s8q4yf/carro con momenti-CASOB.hm?dl=0 HyperView H3d file https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxtxqbjzk3smg5z/carro con momenti-CASOB_des.h3d?dl=0 report.pdf
  11. What does TM (TX, TY, TZ) stand for? Are they torque components (magnitude, around x axis, around y axis, around z axis)? Thanks in advance.
  12. Hi everyone, i'm a very novice at MotionView so I apologize in advance if my questions may seem trivial. I have imported in MW a cad file (attached), my problem is: my cad file includes tires, but obviously these tires are not realistic (they are rigid bodies). I've put a jack plate to make wheels move up and down (to simulate for example a wheel that takes a hole) with the aim of estimate the force that will affect the frame. For this reason, tires cant be rigid bodies.. Is correct to use a spring dumper in order to have a better and more realistic representation of the wheel? Where to put it? Between a point, for ex the center of the wheel, and the jack plate or in place of the wheel? Ho to estimate k ad c coefficients? Or is there any other method? I think that the force on the frame, if the wheel takes a bump, won't be realistic if the wheel is simply a rigid body from a cad file: that's my problem! Thanks in advance. pulled truck.pdf
  13. I'm working in MotionView for the very first time, so I apologize if my problem may seem trivial. I've imported a geometry in motionview from a step file and consequently bodies have been created. How can I define points in order to, in a second step, specify joints? Some tutorials show that points can be created using a point table file, but how can I create this table? Is there a method to create it from my step file? Or is there another method to create points directly in MotionView? hope to receive some explanations. Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...