Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'parameters'.



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 / ライセンス / その他
    • 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

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 7 results

  1. Hi everyone, I am new to lattice optimization, and i want to control the diameter beam size and have a better understanding of CLEAN option. If i understood well, CLEAN option can be used with MinRad to delete beams under the radii defined in MinRAD. - When i don't touch the lattice parameter panel, CLEAN is set to YES by default and clean beams with very small radii (E-05 mm) at the end of phase 2 - When i use only MinRad (2mm) and CLEAN set to NO, it get all the beams above the radius defined. - But when i use Minrad with a radius of 2mm and CLEAN set to YES, it has trouble creating a feasible design. Is it because CLEAN option only works with very small radii ? It doesn't simply delete beam under MinRad in the end of optimization? For information, my mesh size is 5 cm, and my objectif is to create à structure with big enought beam, but with less beam without changing the mesh. Thank you in advance.
  2. Hello, I am trying to export a Flux geometry (of a rotor or a stator) to FluxMotor by following the "CreateFluxMotorInnerMagnet.pdf" file step by step, but placing parameters and references to the dimensions. When I get the Excel file (in FluxMotor Part Library), none of the parameters are shown referenced, simply the points are placed with coordinates in numbers. Basically, what I am looking for is to design a geometry in Flux and to be able to export it to FluxMotor, and being able to modify its dimensions like the ones that have predefined Fluxmotor. (e.g: be able to modify dimentions of W1, H, WM, TM, etc in FluxMotor with my geomettry exported from Flux) Thank you very much in advance
  3. Hi, I would like to know, is it possible to solve any simple problem, using global constraint & block aggregated approach by varing relaxation , aggregation and penalty parameters? Thanks
  4. Submitted by vinayak on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 04:00 I have a table of information as below example. In my model, I want to select any parameter row(example Para4) using user input or some other means, such that I am able to extract the corresponding values (Value1 thru Value6) Parameter Value1 Value2 Value3 Value4 Value5 Value6 Para1 0.2 0.4 0.5 2.7 6.0 11.0 Para2 0.3 0.4 0.6 3.0 6.6 12.1 Para3 0.3 0.4 0.7 3.3 7.3 13.3 Para4 0.3 0.5 0.7 3.6 8.0 14.6 Para5 0.4 0.5 0.8 4.0 8.8 16.1 Para6 0.2 0.4 0.5 2.7 9.7 17.7 Para7 0.3 0.4 0.6 3.0 10.6 19.5 Para8 0.3 0.5 0.8 4.0 8.8 21.4 How can this be achieved using map block? Is there a better way of doing this? Regards,
  5. Hello, I am running a topology optimisation using Optistruct. The results I am getting for a standard min. compliance, constrained volume fraction run without any manufacturing constraints are invalid. The simulation runs but the results do not show any clear structural members but mostly very low density material. However, when I use minimum member size control, extrusion constraints and change the discrete value the results achieved are valid (show structural members). Is there a way to chance the minimum convergence parameters to encourage the solution to find a valid structure for on optimisation without manufacturing constraints. Thank you in advance
  6. Hi! When you import a FLUX object in your project, if there are common parameters, with the same name, the software automatically changes the name of one, adding suffix "001". For example: I have the parameter <H = 5> in my "toimport.FLU" project, and the same <H = 5> in my "main.FLU" project. When I import "toimport.FLU" in "main.FLU" he automatically create the parameters <H = 5> and <H001 = 5>. There is a way to not let FLUX doing this? i'd like to have only one parameter <H=5> for all the project. Grazie!
  7. Hi, There is a way to solve only a defined values of parameter and skip the ones that you don't are interested in? For example I have a grid that goes to 1by1 to 10by10 defined by two parameters: number of raw and number of culomn. I wanna compute only cetain combimation, lets say 3x4, 6x2, 2x6. How can i do it? Because if I create a solving scenario I can only put range of values, in this example i put number of raw from 2 to 6 an column to 3 to 6, in the computation FLUX will calculate the 5x2,5x3,4x3,2x5,2x4 exc.. several values that are not useful for me, Its a lot waste of time! thanks a lot!
×
×
  • Create New...