Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'free-size'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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
  • 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
    • 学生向け無償版
    • エンタープライズソリューション

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests


Organization

Found 6 results

  1. Hello, when I do my optimization now, I get strange results. I really don't know where my fault is. Another problem is, that I don't want to lose the no-material plies (see also: http://forum.altairhyperworks.com/index.php?/topic/18205-interface-laminate-error-640/#comment-35811 Because, when I optimize now, I only can constrain the balance between 45°- and -45°-plies. But it is important, that the plies with no real material and the ones with CFK-Material have the same thickness, so that it doesn't change the midsurface. How can I realize that? Because in the picture above, I have hidden the no-material plies. the plies changed their midsurf and the diameter of my model went bigger, which is not allowed. My other question is, how can I realize the plies to be continuously around the cylinder? I tried it with cyclic pattern grouping, but I am not sure if I used it right. For further explanations please ask. Thank you, Konstantin Felgenbett_Heiss1.hm
  2. Hi everyone, I'm currently making a free-size composite optimization and I need to add Laminate thickness constraints to set's of elements throughout the part. Is this possible or do I need to have more than one laminate to achieve this? I've founded in the internet a release notes pdf and it says that this is possible but I can't find it in the optimization panel, only for the all laminate and not to a set of elems. Thank you for the help, Best regards, Gonçalo
  3. Dear Community, I am running a free-size optimization with a quite complex model and the run is aborted after a number of iteration for the ERROR 703. I receive the following message: Error in input data - Lower bound larger than upper bound44879 0.100408E+01 0.100000E+01 Error in input data - Lower bound larger than upper bound44882 0.100408E+01 0.100000E+01 Error in input data - Lower bound larger than upper bound44897 0.100408E+01 0.100000E+01 Error in input data - Lower bound larger than upper bound44900 0.100408E+01 0.100000E+01 Error in input data - Lower bound larger than upper bound44918 0.100408E+01 0.100000E+01 *** ERROR # 703 *** number of design variables = 47541 number of constraints = 37 error code from optimizer = 900 The optimizer failed to find a solution of the optimization problem at the current iteration. This error occurs in module "appdrv". Other information: If I change design parameters, the iteration where I have the error also change. If I remove ply drop-off constraint, the error disappears. If I reduce the design domain, the error disappears. (unfortunately, I cannot share the model) Any idea on how to solve this issue? Thank you in advance, Alessandro
  4. Hello, my question is related to a free-size optimization of a metal sheet done with shell-elements. The model is simple, because it is not for application, but to compare it with the results of a SIMP-method topology optimization. So there are no manufactoring restrictions. Objective: min compliance Restriction: volume max 30% of designspace Base thickness: 0.0 So the result needs to be interpreted, because there are void areas after optimization. I would like to do this using Isometric lines depending on thickness in Hyperview and then use OSSmooth for fe-reanalysis with the threshold-value I got from Hyperview. But when I do this, it seems like I can not get the thickness-distribution of the optimized design for the fe-reanlaysis. Can you tell me a way to solve it?
  5. 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.
  6. Dear Community, I find a problem in imposing minimum ply thickness constraint (PLYTHK) during free-size optimization. Whatever value I put in the DSIZE card as minimum ply thickness, this seems to be ignored by the solver and I get, in the resultant size model, plies with thickness lower than the value I specify. I have attached a simple model as example. In the example: Although I set 0.05mm as minimum ply thickness for all the plies, I get plies with lower thickness (e.g, ply 205200 is 0.02mm thick, ply 310300 is 0.0096mm thick, and so on...) in the sized resultant model. Has anybody found the same behaviour? and, has anybody found a solution? Thanks for the support, Alessandro plythk_issue_sizing.13.fem plythk_issue.hm
×
×
  • Create New...