Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'plythk'.



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 , Licensing and Altair One
    • 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 / Altair One / 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(Altair Student Edition)

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 1 result

  1. 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...