# Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cube'.

• ### Search By Tags

Type tags separated by commas.

### Forums

• Altair Support Forum
• Welcome to Altair Support Forum
• Installation and Licensing
• Modeling & Visualisation
• Solvers & Optimization
• Multi Body Simulation
• Conceptual design and Industrial design
• Model-Based Development
• Manufacturing Simulation
• CAE Process Automation
• APA - Composites
• APA - CFD & Thermal
• APA - Vehicle Dynamics
• APA - Manufacturing
• APA - Crash and Safety
• APA - Noise, Vibration and Harshness
• APA - System Level Design
• APA - Structural and Fatigue
• APA - Marine
• APA - Optical Design
• Japanユーザーフォーラム
• ユーザーフォーラムへようこそ
• Altair製品の意外な活用例
• インストールとライセンス
• モデリング（プリプロセッシング）
• シミュレーション技術（ソルバー）
• データ可視化（ポストプロセッシング）
• モデルベース開発
• コンセプト設計と工業デザイン
• 製造シミュレーション
• CAE プロセスの自動化
• エンタープライズソリューション
• データアナリティクス
• 学生向け無償版

• 0 Replies

• 0 Reviews

Found 2 results

1. ## Optimisation of a Cube

Hello, Im a student. I am trying to realize a topological optimization of a cube. the goal is volume / mass optimization. I have a cube (my design space) with a hole that acts as a tapping, a 1mm thick plate that is connected to my cube and is encased (the first boundary condition); My cube is connected to a 2D plate by rigid elements of type RBE2. This 2D plate undergoes a force of 40 on one side (I do not want more to stay in the elastic domain) and is encased on the other side ( second boundary condition ) I impose optimization conditions on the RBE2 rigid point moving along the X, Y, Z axes. My problem is that no matter what I use, I do not get any shape ... all I have is semi-dense area (density between 0.5-0.7) and the closer I get to 1 and the more I get nothing, and the reduction in volume is 95% 93%, which seems really huge. At first, I tried to increase the moving constraints of my optimization problem because I had constraint violations when I parsed the .out file. Now I have no more constraint violations but still have a decent topology ... I'm stuck. I do not know if I have badly defined my optimization problem, if my geometry is not good ( i dont think that can be the problem ), or if my optimization answer is not the right one. TETRA_Piece_3x3.hm
2. ## Contact analysis - cylinder/cube

My question is somehow similar to this one here: I already conducted a simulation with OptiStruct similar to the one shown in the mentioned thread. I understand that possible contact surfaces are only defined in the undeformed state. However, my aim is to obtain a more advanced simulation. Is there a modeling approach that looks for new contact surfaces (within a defined search distance) during the calculation? Here is the hm-file of my test model: cylinder_cube_contact.hm And here a short outline of the model (unit system: N-mm-t-s): cube with edge length = 1 cylinder with diameter as well as length = 1 element size: 0.1 material: E = 210000 NU = 0.3 property card image: PSOLID force on each node = 1 (110 loaded nodes) all nodes at the lower side of the cube are constraint (dof 123456 locked) 2 sets of contact surfaces. one for each component interface card image: CONTACT type: FREEZE slave: cylinder contact surface master: cube contact surface MORIENT: NORM SRCHDIS = 0.01 load step: Linear static with SPC and LOAD analysis type defined
×
×
• Create New...