Jump to content
mvass

Solution converges before max iterations are reached

Recommended Posts

Hello.

 

I am working on the NL buckling of a composite panel (geometric NL implicit) and I successfully setup the model and ran the analysis within radioss after automatic conversion from the optistruct input. The problem is that although I specify I need 50 increments (NINC) with PW convergence criteria, the solution ALWAYS converges at 25 increments and of course the total buckling is not captured. Below is my NLPARM card from the .fem file. I am not specifying anything else in the NLPARM card or in any other cards. Can you please help?

 

NLPARM         6      50     0.0               6      50      PW
+               0.01    0.01                          20                
+                    1.0

 

Thank you  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here is an update, after solving my .fem file on two different versions (thanks to my friends):

 

HW version 13.0 completes the solution in 50 increments as requested, and the analysis is complete and correct.

HW version 2017.2 (student version) completes the (same) solution in 25 increments the analysis says that it is completed but the results are not comparable to the previous ones.

 

Any ideas why this happens? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply and sorry for my late feedback. I cannot remember what I did with the latest version, however I'll give it a go with NLSTAT and large displacement option and contact you again. However I still cannot understand why when you specify that you want a NL analysis with fixed number of increments (constant DT), the problem converges with less increments completed (and the result doesn't capture the phenomenon as it should). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If implicit problem converges properly then there should not be any difference in output whether you use NINC as 50 or 25.For better convergence don't use PW. Simply run with NINC as 50 or 25.However if you still want to have 50 increment then set control card: PARAM: EXPERTNL: NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rahul R said:

If implicit problem converges properly then there should not be any difference in output whether you use NINC as 50 or 25

I agree with you. That's why I was surprised to see different results when NINC was 50. Maybe I couldn't see where the mistake was, however there was no error shown in both runs (NINC=50, NINC=25).

 

Thanks for the advice about the param option.

Rahul R likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here is my update to the problem. Unfortunately I cannot share the model with you, however, please find attached the .out file and the solution scheme from the .fem (input file).

 

As mentioned before, the solution converges normally but the results are not correct. It is a NL buckling problem (compression of a panel) and I am supposed to have a max displacement (magnitude) on the panel of 20mm. This doesn't happen and the max. displ. magnitude I get is 10mm. My solution was a NL geometric (impl) that I set up in Optistruct and automatically translated to Radioss (version 2017.2).  

 

I tried to run the problem as quasi-static NL with large displacement activated in optistruct but it didn't converge.

 

Thank you in advance for your assistance. 

CCCC_v2_rad_s1_0001.out

problem_fem_extraction.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second update:

 

I managed to solve the afore-mentioned problem, by specifying a value of 1.0 (instead of the default 1.1) to the DTSCI entry of the NLPARMX card (see the attached picture). However the question still remains: Why the solution is different when the default values are used? How come there is no warning/error in the previous situation? 

nlparmx.bmp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 8:24 PM, mvass said:

Why the solution is different when the default values are used?

 

Hi, any views on my updates about the problem?

 

Thank you in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is the nonlinear buckling case solved with Riks or Arc length method.You can refer nonlinear DTRAN for post buckling analysis which currently has generalized alpha and backward eulerian time stepping schemes. Currently we don't support Riks/Arc-length for nonlinear DTRAN .

41adadc6f1d0fee92622775413b90791a0e7a377

OptiStruct Nonlinear Learning Center

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply. In my study, I am not looking for post buckling and my solution scheme does not include a velocity BC like the example shown. Besides the obvious constraints, the load is exerted on the model via an enforced displacement. In addition, I am not looking on a transient NL analysis. But I guess it wouldn't hurt if I'll try to solve the problem with NLPARM and TSTEP card, provided that it is possible. Should I get something worth to write about, I'll post it here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...