Jump to content
Farper

Lattice structure

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I just tried to use optisruct to do the lattice structure optimization. The lattice fem file was created but I am not able to see the lattice parts in the model. Could you please take a look at my file to see if I did it correctly or not and what is the problem. I used the lattice option in topology panel(I have attached the photo of it).

Untitled.png

ctrlarm_lattice.fem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shared lattice fem file contains lattice parts but somehow it is hided because of 2d elements. Can you please share the fem file saved in reference level. You can use attached fem file for the run.

controlarm.fem

Farper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again,

I just tried to do a lattice optimization for a bulk model under compression but I encountered the message below. I have also attached my file could you please help me to understand what is the problem.

Thank you.

 

Capture.JPG

45x45x100 bulk.hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

there are limitations for stress constraints in topology and free-size optimization (see attached document). 

The stress constraint definition in a topology optimization is a global constraint and does not target local stress concentrations.  These areas can be addressed subsequently through size, shape, and free shape optimization or a combination thereof.  Subsequent size, shape or free-shape optimization is performed to minimize the mass while meeting stress and deflection criteria.  Artificial stress concentrations are filtered out during topology optimization with stress constraints.  These include regions around rigid connections, concentrations due to hard geometric features such as corners, etc.

 

from Optistruct User Guide:

Quote

 

The von Mises stress constraints may be defined for topology and free-size optimization through the STRESS optional continuation line on the DTPL or the DSIZE card. There are a number of restrictions with this constraint:

  • Stress constraints may not be used when enforced displacements are present in the model.

 

 

 

 

 

Stress Responses for Topology and Free-Size Optimization.pdf

Farper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @Ivan

Thank you for the information. My model is supposed to simulate a compression test with enforced displacement. According to the file, you uploaded it is not possible to put constraint limit with this type of displacement. So, what do you suggest as a possible solution wrt this fact that I need to do this simulation with displacement percentage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two options:

-instead of minimize compliance objective subject to volume fraction constraint, try minimize volume fraction objective subject to stress constraint. Note that stress constraint in this case is defined by static stress response (DRESP1), not on topology card

-optimization in two stages (concept and detail): first concept stage without stress constraint on topology cards and minimize compliance objective subject to volume fraction constraint, and in the second detailed stage (after interpreting results of first stage), perform size, shape or free shape optimization to locally optimize the design and stay bellow stress constraint.

Farper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What error are you facing and which version are you using?  It did run on my end (HW 2017.2). 

 

However, there are a couple of issues:

-you forgot to change the optimization constraint from 0.3 to 200

-the optimization problem is not well posed. All loadsteps but the first (0,2% loading) have stresses bigger than 200 MPa in the analysis before optimization. If the model is unable to hit the target using full design space, it cannot produce feasible results after optimization. In other words, if the model does not have enough available material to start with, it can not add material during optimization.

 

Attached are edited model and partially run optimization.

45x45x100 bulk_edit.hm

45x45x100 bulk_01_des.h3d

Farper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Eventhogh I had changed the constraints above 200 again I have the following errors.

First: 

ANALYSIS COMPLETED.
  
 
 OPTIMIZATION HAS CONVERGED.
  
 INFEASIBLE DESIGN (AT LEAST ONE CONSTRAINT VIOLATED).

 

Then:

  
 
 ANALYSIS COMPLETED.
  
 

 *** INTERNAL PROGRAMMING ERROR ***
   in file "dsetio-inc.h", at location # 132.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the baseline analysis the highest stress is 333 MPa at 44% compression, so the stress constraint should be at least as much in order to give Optistruct a chance for a feasible design. It should be noted that typically porous material represented by periodic lattice structures exhibits lower stiffness per volume unit compared to fully dense material. Lattice optimization gives huge stress (41.000 MPa) at 44% compression. This kind of makes sense because lattice beams are way too slender since even a solid block of material was at the limit of feasibility. So this high compression % cannot be handled by such a lattice structure (even before buckling is taken into account).

 

The  *** INTERNAL PROGRAMMING ERROR *** is a strange one. Perhaps it is a software bug that should be handled by Altair, as suggested in the following topic:

Looks like the issue is already resolved in 2017.2.2 version:

Running linear static analysis instead did not give such error, but can't be used in your case as it gives too high stresses at larger displacements.

 

I also noticed unit inconsistency: on DTI_units mass was set to kg, but the mass of aluminium is 2.7e-9 so it should be Mgg (tonne) instead.

Farper likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no CBAR elements in the shared solver deck. Please review the *_lattice.out and *_optimized.out files for anything unusual. Unfortunately, I do not have experience with lattice optimization to be able to offer better suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×