Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'free-size optimization'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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
  • Academic Partner Alliance Forum
    • 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


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 2 results

  1. Hi, I am working on a structural optimization of a model containing more then one PSHELL and PCOMPP properties. I am experiencing some issues with the sized model generated after the free-size optimization (*_sizing.fem) as output requested by the FSTOSZ line (OUTPUT,FSTOSZ,YES,4). I do not have any problem with the composite laminates but I have an unexpected behavior with the PSHELL components in the sized model generated. I try to explain the issue below with an example in brackets. If I have more then one PSHELL defined in the initial model (e.g., the PSHELL properties 2 and 3), I expect to have 4 times the number of PSHELL of the initial model in the new one (e.g, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400) assigned to respective components (e.g., 2100->2400 assigned to components with initial property 2, and 3100->3400 assigned to components with initial property 3). The problem is that, in the new sized model generated, only 4 of these PSHELLs (e.g., 2100->2400) are assigned to components of the model and all the others are defined but not assigned (e.g., 3100->3400). Furthermore, the 4 properties considered (e.g, 2100->2400) are assigned to the entire designable space, also to components where I would have expected different properties (e.g., PSHELLs 2100->2400 are also applied to components with property 3 in the initial model, where I expect the 3100->3400 to be). This creates even more difficulties if the number of PSHELLs involved increases, because it becomes impossible to reproduce properly the optimized thickness distribution in the sized model with only 4 properties. I hope the description of the problem is clear enough. I am wondering if I miss something in the definition of the optimization problem or this is a known behavior for Optistruct. I would greatly appreciate any suggestion/information concerning this problem. Thank you in advance, Alessandro
  2. Hello, I'm to optimize an CFRP drive shaft for an formula student race car. The shaft itself is produced in a winding process. The tulips of the homokinetic joints are glued into the ends of the shaft. For that I created a model with a PCOMPP property and a laminate with 4 plies. The tulips are simplified as rod elements with HyperBeam tubesections and PROD properties with characteristical values of aluminium. The measurements are: length of the shaft: ca. 300 mm inner diameter: 65 mm laminate thickness: 8 mm length of the rods: 80 mm inner diameter of the tulips: 45 mm If I run an analysis of the model and check the out.file, the mass is calculated as about 1350g. If I run the free-size optimization afterwards, the mass before the first iteration is calculated as 1270g. I don't understand why the two values aren't the same. Is the calculated mass in the analysis the mass of the tulips and the shaft an the mass before the free-size optimization only the mass of the shaft because of the objective function? I don't really get, why there is a difference. Because the mass of the tulips should be about 600g and not 100g. The objective funktion ist minmass and the contraints are set by the displacement of the nodes of one end of the shaft.
  • Create New...