Felix Radisch

Administrators
  • Content count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Felix Radisch last won the day on July 14 2016

Felix Radisch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

2 Followers

About Felix Radisch

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Cologne, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1713 profile views
  1. Programming in Inspire 2017

    Hi grasshopper, neither programming within Inspire or anisotropic materials are supported. Maybe there is a way to model your wire with the features we have already. Feel free to share ideas and pictures (if possible). Regards, Felix
  2. Setting of Weighting function

    Hi Grasshopper, you can maximize both simutaniously, but you can't manipulate the weightening function (which is set automatically). Inspire is using Altair Optistruct as a solver, which is calculating a compliance for each mode and the static compliance. Please see below an abstract from the topoOpt.out , located in the Inspire Scratch directory. Combined Compliance Index The combined compliance index is a method to consider multiple frequencies and static subcases (loadsteps, load cases) combined in a classical topology optimization. The index is defined as follows: This is a global response that is defined for the whole structure. The normalization factor, NORM, is used to normalize the contributions of compliances and eigenvalues. A typical structural compliance value is of the order of 1.0e4 to 1.0e6. However, a typical inverse eigenvalue is on the order of 1.0e-5. If NORM is not used, the linear static compliance requirements dominate the solution. The quantity NORM is typically computed using the formula: Where, Cmax is the highest compliance value in all subcases (loadsteps, load cases) and is the lowest eigenvalue included in the index. In a new design problem, you may not have a close estimate for NORM. If this happens, OptiStruct automatically computes the NORM value based on compliances and eigenvalues computed in the first iteration step. Abstract from topoOpt.out ITERATION 39 Subcase: 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Label x-force y-force z-force x-moment y-moment z-moment -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sum-App. 0.000E+00 1.000E+03 0.000E+00 -2.000E+01 0.000E+00 1.870E+02 Sum-SPCF -6.333E-09 -1.000E+03 2.689E-11 2.000E+01 -6.171E-11 -1.870E+02 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- the 2nd satisfied convergence ratio = 2.8748E-03 Objective Function (Minimize COMB ) = 1.47125E-02 % change = -0.29 Maximum Constraint Violation % = 0.20159E-05 Design Volume Fraction = 3.00000E-001 Mass = 5.61149E+000 Subcase Weight Compliance Epsilon Weight*Comp. 1 1.000E+00 8.520537E-03 -2.098521E-03 8.520537E-03 ------------ Sum of Weight*Compliance 8.520537E-03 Note : Epsilon = Residual Strain Energy Ratio. Subcase Mode Weight Frequency Eigenvalue Weight/Eigen 2 1 1.000E+00 3.823884E+02 5.772571E+06 1.732330E-07 2 2 1.000E+00 9.579818E+02 3.623050E+07 2.760106E-08 2 3 1.000E+00 9.707180E+02 3.720026E+07 2.688153E-08 2 4 1.000E+00 1.466867E+03 8.494565E+07 1.177223E-08 2 5 1.000E+00 1.667356E+03 1.097531E+08 9.111363E-09 2 6 1.000E+00 1.821137E+03 1.309317E+08 7.637568E-09 ------------ Sum of (Weight/Eigenvalue) / Sum of Weights 4.270613E-08 Mode Normalization Factor x 1.450E+05 ------------ Weighted Inverse Eigenvalues 6.191977E-03 Weighted Compliances 8.520537E-03 ------------ Combined Compliance Index 1.471251E-02 Hope this helps! Kind Regards, Felix
  3. Save the result

    Yosef, If you have acess to 3matic from Materialise, you can import the FEM deck from the Inspire scratch folder to create a AM deck (which is a materialize format) or a huge STL. Regards, Felix
  4. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Mario, You might would like to decrease element size to get a more detailed look at the stress distribution. For my point of view, there is all right. We can clearly see the maximum peak of sheer stresses below the surface - so the van mises stresses. This effect is discribed in the Hertzian compression theory, which can also explain defects like pitting. BR Felix
  5. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Hi Mario, You have supported the lower plate. So the stress results of pretension must be asymetric. Or do you see something else? BR Felix
  6. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Hi Mario, By default, Inspire is using Grid Point Stresses, so we have to choose them in HV to compare. I also slightly adjusted the min/max in the Inspire legend. Hope this helps! Best Regards, Felix
  7. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Hi Mario, The file doesn't contain results or the information what element/size were used. BR Felix
  8. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Hi Mario, please share your element size and type (first or second order), so I can try to reproduce your issue. Thanks! BR Felix
  9. Save the result

    Hi Ffog, With Inspire 2017.3 the Lattice optimization will allow you to compare different performances for a Topology Optimization and Lattice Designs. At this moment, export is not supportet. If you are an advanced user, you might use Altair Optistruct and Altair Hypermesh to do further investitations for Lattices. Kind Regards, Felix
  10. Hobby/personal license?

    Hi Zachary, Glad to hear you like Inspire - your designs are looking awesome! Feel free to send me a PM with your contact details, so we can contact you directly. Thanks! Kind Regards, Felix
  11. Hi Al, It sounds like, you could benefit from Inspire. As long as you have any masses on top of your furniture, you have forces Inspire will use to come up with a better shape. This can be done for sheets (cut out zones) as well as for 3D structures you can optimize and redesign with PolyNURBS (you then go and print). What is your workflow right now? What's your CAD system? Regards, Felix
  12. Introducing solidThinking Inspire 2017

    Hi all, Below you will find the Inspire 2017.2 offline help. Regards Felix Inspire_2017.2_English.pdf Inspire_2017.2_German.pdf Inspire_2017.2_French.pdf
  13. optimisation of gear

    Hi Prasad, Glad you made it to the sT Forum! Feel free to share details on your project - including pictures or the model itself. There is a much higher chance to get help by other users, if you provide more information. BR Felix
  14. Cannot export optimized part

    Hello Mr. Threepwood, Please be aware of using the "fit" function inside the "optimization explorer" or using "PolyNURBS" to redesign, before you are trying to export any results. The optimization approaches, provided by Inspire are no geometrical parts but a visualisation. This visualisation could be saved as STL once you "fitted" it or when you put effort into redesign with "PolyNURBS". Hope this helps! Regards Felix
  15. Hi 6nwuy, This is an excellent question - there are many users out there, which are confused the first time. Running an optimization means, that your result can but don't has to be the optimal solution for your design. There is a very high chance your design approach is is extremly close to your requested optimum - but especially the "minimize mass" objective design approaches are depending a lot on the "minimum thickness constraint". In your case, you just have to reduce the "minimum tickness" inside the "run optimization" window: If you are targeting a goal which can't be achieved by using a minimal thickness you appled, you will get no result - or a result which is overdimensioned (higher SF). As an advanced or expert user: You should also consider a difference between the two types of "accuracy", you can choose from in the "run analysis" and "run optimization" window. Due to self-stiffening effects of the FE-Mesh used in the "Faster", but highly recommended mode, your optimization results will be a little bit stiffer than they would be in reality (up to ~5%). Instead of using the "More accurate" mode (which would cause your PC to melt, and force you to spend like 1000% more time on the optimization), you just should tweak your goals a little bit. When you once redesigned your final approach, based on the optimization result - you go and check the performance in the "More accurate" mode. Please, let us know if this helps! Kind Regards Felix