Felix Radisch

Administrators
  • Content count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Felix Radisch

  1. Optiimization not successful

    Zizhe, Check your input loads. Once you got them correctly, try again. If your loads are correct, it doesn't matter where you support your rocker. Felix
  2. Optiimization not successful

    Zizhe, All your optimization results are wrong. Your loads are representing a non-static loadcase. They are causing a momentum in your joint e.g. for your rear rocker ~ 170Nm. This is the starting point for the optimization issue you are facing. Once you got the loads correctly, you should have zero momentum in your Support. Then, you should reduce the degree of freedom for rotation of this support. For example by using a bolt or a support directly. You will not achieve any plausible structures by optimization, if you are getting extremly high stresses like you do. Our tutorial model is statically defined, by using two joints. Yours not, using just one allowing to rotate. Regards, Felix
  3. Optiimization not successful

    Hi Zizhe, Welcome to the sT Forum! At first, you might check your loads. Seems like you are trying to analyse and optimize for a non-static loadcase, which would cause movement around your support (and huge deflections). Once you got the correct loads, you should use a screw/support without any freedom to rotate. You can simply check if you did everything correctly by running a quick analysis. If you have further questions, you might take a look in the altair university: https://altairuniversity.com/academic/ Hope this helps, ~ and good luck at FSG Felix
  4. Thermal Optimization

    Hi, You can apply a temperature, which will just affect the thermal expansion. Stresses, caused by the thermal expansion are used to analyse and also optimize a part. You might take a look at the Inspire help: http://www.solidthinking.com/help//Inspire/2017.2/win/en_us/index.html?Shape_Explorer.htm Regards, Felix
  5. problem with extrusion

    Hi Ekortus, thanks for contacting us! Feel free to send me your company contact data directly via mail (radisch(at)solidthinking.com), so we can link you to our Partner in Poland. Alternativly, you could take a look at our youtube channel, containing the hole setup process for Click2Extrude - step by step: Please let me know if this helps! Kind Regards, Felix
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Presentation of results - Inspire / Hyperview

    Hi Mario, The file doesn't contain results or the information what element/size were used. BR Felix
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Applying pressure to inner surface

    Hi Inspired user, this is a pretty nice project! - Welcome! The easiest way here is to create a "Midsurface" of your partition. As a result, you can choose all surfaces easily to apply pressure and the computation time will be much shorter, once you've started the simulations. You find the "midsurface" inside the "geometry tab". Finally, you'll just have to left-click on the red highlighted tube you created by using the partition tool. Let us know, if this helps! Best Regards Felix
  22. Ploynurb - it's not possible to erase a element

    Hi Marcel, You can try to put 4 controle nodes on another to repair your model (bridge and surface spit). Be carefull with slicing a model within one surface only - it may not allows you to delete a polycube later! Only Polycubes (smallest part of a PolyNURBS) wich consists of 8 nodes can be deleted easily. Please find your model attached. Regards Felix BrakeSystem_repaired.stmod
  23. optimization stops at around 58 procent

    You are welcome! Glad to hear that - you can always check contacts within the Structure tab -> Contact -> in your case it should be highlighted in blue. That "floating" is just a visual gap. Regards Felix
  24. optimization stops at around 58 procent

    Hi Sander, Welcome to the official sT Forum! You are facing some perfomance issues, caused by extremly thin volumes, you should create a 2D representation of. Therefore, please use the "Midsurface" tool on the thin parts of your assembly. You will mention no visible thickness (2D) representation, if this process is successfull. As a result, your Simulation will be extremly fast. Hope this helps! Regards Felix
  25. Possible to reduce the weight of the file?

    David, I'll send you a PM. Regards Felix