Felix Radisch

Administrators
  • Content count

    34
  • 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

1197 profile views
  1. Hi Boost, glad you found your way here! Your model seems to be constraint correctly - to get better results, you may reduce the "min. Thickness" constraint in optimization explorer, and run a "max. Stiffness" optimization first. These results can be analysed to get the factor of safefy you can achieve with a specific mass and "min. Thickness". The factor or safety from your reanalysis (based on your optimization result) now can be taken into account for the "min. Mass" optimization - which may provides you with nicer design approaches. Feel free to share your file with us if you would like to get a more detailed answer. Hope this helps! Regards Felix BTW.: There are some nice tutorials and online trainings availible also: http://www.solidthinking.com/SupportTutorials.aspx?category=Support&item=Tutorials
  2. Hi Mouse-T, I guess Jaideep already discussed this question with you in pm - but to allow our other users to gain Inspire experience I'd like to answer also public: Any topology optimization with Inspire take respect to the internal stresses, caused by external forces. If you have two loadcases with exactly mirrored resulting forces, there will be no difference for the optimization as both loadcases will cause exactly the same optimal design approach. Loadcases are equal weighted. In case you have to expect nonlinear behaviour (part/assembly behave different on tension and compression), you may have to check your final design for buckling and activate the option "sliding with seperation" during analysis. If there is a dramatic difference in the model/system behaviour, you could activate this option for optimization too. Regards Felix
  3. Hi Gilbert, thanks for joining our forum and that interesting question! Technically, you can't run a topology optimization to reduce/controle buckling, as this is a highly nonlinear behaviour combined with the mathematics in the background of Inspire. If you really have to optimize this nonlinear faliure somehow, you may have a look into Altair Hyperworks (much more powerfull but also complex) and reduce your model into a 2D representation. Hope this help! Best Regards Felix
  4. Hi Novio, please share a detailed license and issue description with our support: support@solidthinking.com Thanks! Felix
  5. Please use the Inspire online help for detailed Information: http://www.solidthinking.com/help//Inspire/2017/win/en_us/index.html?welcome.htm Felix
  6. Then you have to use a stiff connector.
  7. Hi Yosef, You can find the Inspire 2017 offline help here: http://www.solidthinking.com/help/pdf/Inspire/2017/win/Inspire2017win.pdf http://www.solidthinking.com/help/pdf/Inspire/2017/mac/Inspire2017mac.pdf BR Felix
  8. Well, you could also create another support and activate all degrees of freedom, exept the one you do not allow any movement: You have done this already on the left side of your model, to constrain the deformation. Felix
  9. Hi, please use the "measure box" to check the dimensions of your imported stl. You can use "Scale Part" to modify the dimension if needed. If your model was in the wrong scale, this should fix your issue. Let us know, if this helps! Felix
  10. Hi, you can use a stiff connector between two surfaces: Felix
  11. Hi, you are using joints at the bottom. These may do not constrain your part properly. Try Fastener instead. You should also check your loadcases. Perhaps you haven't added all supports in all loadcases? Felix
  12. Well, you don't have to assign an RBE2 to a plate, just substitute the plate with the RBE2. Therefore choose the connector and connect the parts (in this case the edges) which are connected to the former plate. Then you can switch their type from "Flexible"->RBE3 to "Rigid"->RBE2: Felix
  13. Hi Kailey, I guess you wanted to constrain the part at the top and the bottom - but right now, there is no support for one rotational degree. What you should do looks like that: You don't have to take care of part movement, exept you expect different loadconditions. If you do, please just rotate the forces instead the part itself (and organize them into different loadcases), but please be aware this isn't needed for most applications: Hope this helps! Felix
  14. Hi, with Inspire 2016, you have to define rigid bodys as parts with a high e-modulus. With Inspire 2017, you can do this more easy with a rigid element. Please have a look at the attached picture, showing deformation and stresses for two blocks under tension in different versions. 1. Conntected via RBE2 (Rigid Element) 2. A block with a material property with a very high e-modulus (200.000e12) 3. Another block but with usual steel for comparison Hope this helps! Kind Regards Felix