Jump to content

Adriano A. Koga

Members
  • Content Count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Adriano A. Koga last won the day on July 11

Adriano A. Koga had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Adriano A. Koga

  • Rank
    Super User

Profile Information

  • Are you University user?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. you need to apply a bolt pretension load, and take it to your following step by using statsub(pretens) in combination with CNTNLSUB to take all the deformation from the bolt pretension to the other loadcase; There is a tutorial in OptiStruct help showing how to setup 1d and 3d bolt pretension.
  2. Maybe you need to refine the mesh a little bit more to get a better contact distribution. And also to get a better response in the most critical areas for bending. Another thing that I would suggest is to change force by enforced displacement, as it is usually easy to converge.
  3. Have you reviewd the .out file?? Iteration 0 already shows an issue with Total Laminate Thickness. It seems like you have defined a maximum laminate thickness that is below what you current have. And also, depending on what responses you have it would be nice to use a non-zero lower bound for thickness to avoid singularities. COMPOSITE MANUFACTURING CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- User-ID Constraint Information Status Max Avg Pct Type Bound Group Elem Viol. Viol. Viol. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 LAMTHK UPPER ALL Violated 83.1 34.6 44.8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  4. did you check the thickness values over your design? In order to achieve the constraints defined in your optimization problem, the solver may be reducing too much the thickness in some parts in order to increase the most critical areas. I would review the result files of the failed run and try to figure it out what is happening..where thicknesses are too high, where they're too low. From that info you might understand better where is the bottleneck of your problem.
  5. you need also to make sure your dedicated GPU is being used for the application you're launching. I had problems in the past because the setup was so that the onboard card was used to launch HM. When you go to NVIDIA control panel, you can choose the default 3D configurations and if a specific program will use your GeForce or the onboard card. You may change the global settings or the 'by program' setting, choosing High Performance nVidia card.
  6. Just to make everyone aware that these kind of multiple curve operation no longer needs MVPToolbar. They are available in the core product itself. Just select all your curves and RMB.
  7. If it is a solid, it is probably ignored by the solver. Or maybe this is modelled as a skin shell only. I don't know where is this from, anyway. Stick to the documentation, so MORIENT don't need to be used for solid models.
  8. again, you should take a look at your .out file and investigate what are the thickness distribution in your model, and specially where it is at the maximum value. This should give you a hint on what is the limiting region in your design. You might need to increase your thickness bounds.
  9. what do you mean by "is the same"? could you be more specific? You say that just because the maximum values are similar? They happen in different places (Shell 17486 and shell 191679). Contour of the outer panel should look similar, as it is the same pole, at least the lower part. I would just review if the contact is taking into account the right nodes/elements ('review' in contact). Have you checked displacements as well?
  10. if you have the FRF results in H3D or OP2 file, you can load them into HyperView, project them to the specific System, under the contour panel. After that, you can create a 'Measure', using this result displayed in the contour, and choose elemental contour, and finally 'Create a curve' from this measure.
  11. Have you tried to update your graphic card driver?? Make sure the driver is up-to-date. Although not supported, with the latest driver, it might work.]/i use a GF 1050Ti and I don't have any issues , although it is not officially supported.
  12. So, HM has 2 ways of assigning a property to your model. Indirect >> assign a property to a component, and as a consequence, its elements receive this property. Direct >> the property is assigned directly to your elements, and usually you select their properties upon creating the elements (as example of the bar panel). Direct override indirect assignment, which may lead to issues like you had. If you change visualization mode 'by property' and change the colors of your properties, using auto-color, you will notice that only Prop #1 is used indeed. Investiganting further, go to the Browser and go to the Components tab, and you will see a column named 'Direct Property'. If it is checked, it means that at least one element of your comp has a direct property assigned to it. In your case, I would uncheck all the properties, and make sure that the Indirect property is the one being used, then your optimization should follow as expected. This is a common error for people using HM for the first time.
  13. you have to check your properties in your elements/components. Are you sure that you have assigned them correctly? By the warning, you're not using them.
  14. Usually this is related to graphic card driver. I run a GeForce 1050Ti which is not certified, but keeping the drivers updated I never had an issue. It is very common that people use a graphic card with driver 1...2 years old and have issues with visualization.
  15. as the structure is static and in equilibrium, yes, they will sum as zero. If you look at SPCF they have the same magnitude, but in opposite directions.
×
×
  • Create New...