Different Mass on .OUT file and on imported file - Free Size Optimization
Altair EmployeeHello everyone,
I'm currently running an composite optimization on a part and today I noticed that the mass I get on the .out file and on the model I import after the size optimization is different.
On this optimization, I try to minimize the compliance of the part while constraining the mass between 3200g and 3600g.
Here is what I get on the .out file:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
Here is what I get on the imported model:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
While on the output file I get a total mass of 3600 as requested, when I import the model, the total mass is now 5322.
I've searched around, followed tutorials and nothing helped.
I tried opening the *.inc file as suggested on tutorial OS-3400 but the result is the same (the same as if I just import the .fem file resulting from the free size optimization).
I've looked on this forum and I found something about the CMF file instead but after the free size optimization, I only get the *.HM.ent.cmf and not the *.HM.comp.cmf as mentioned here:
https://community.altair.com/community?id=community_question&sys_id=6486883a1b2bd0908017dc61ec4bcbc5
I also tried running the optimization with MATINIT set to 1 on opticontrol but once again, the result is the same...
Can someone please help?
Thank you very much!
Answers
-
Hi,
can you please share the entire .out file?
0 -
0
-
Another thing I just noticed now, when I start running the optimization optistruct creates another property - PCOMPP that doesn't exist on the original model.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
^This the model used for running the free size optimization
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
^and this is the data imported.
Also, another thing. When importing the results to start the size optimization, what is the correct way to do it?
1) Importing the .fem file to a new model
2) Importing the .inc file to the model used to run the free size optimization
Thank you very much!
0 -
Altair Forum User said:
Can you check if the mass before optimization is same as mass at iteration zero?
I see MATINIT is not 1 in the out file.
0 -
Altair Forum User said:
Another thing I just noticed now, when I start running the optimization optistruct creates another property - PCOMPP that doesn't exist on the original model.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
^This the model used for running the free size optimization
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
^and this is the data imported.
Also, another thing. When importing the results to start the size optimization, what is the correct way to do it?
1) Importing the .fem file to a new model
2) Importing the .inc file to the model used to run the free size optimization
Thank you very much!
Hard to comment without the model.
0 -
Altair Forum User said:
Can you check if the mass before optimization is same as mass at iteration zero?
I see MATINIT is not 1 in the out file.
Hello @Prakash Pagadala,
The mass is different:
Before Optimization with super plies -- 29192
Iteration Zero - 3600
Yes, I know MATINIT is not 1 on that OUT file I sent you.
It is on this one. On this one, the Iteration 0 mass is the same as the model..
Despite this, the end result is the same. After free sizing, the masses of the OUT file and the Model are different..
0 -
Altair Forum User said:
Hard to comment without the model.
Take a look at your FileTransferLink.
I sent you the .hm model.
Anything else just ask!
Thank you very much!
0 -
0
-
Hello @Prakash Pagadala, how are you?
During the weekend I tried different models including the Tutorial OS-3400 and the mass on the .OUT file and after importing is always different (although to different extents -> 1.5X more here and 1.1X on the OS-3400 tutorial).
I also never get the *.HM.comp.cmf no matter what I do..
If you need anything more let me know!
Thank you very much!
0 -
In the meantime I made another model and I no longer have the problem with the new property. I think it might have had something to do with a small problem I had when creating the connectors.
I still have the mass problem though..
Do you have any news regarding this?
Thank you very much!
0 -
Through the afternoon I tried new optimizations with different constraints:
09_9 - Just a new mesh, perfectly symmetric with no ctria elements
10_9 - The same new mesh but instead of constraining mass, I constrained mass fraction (between 0.11 and 0.123 - this corresponds to 3200 and 3600 according to the original super-ply model mass)
10_9_1 - The same new mesh but instead of constraining mass, I constrained volume fraction
Unfortunately, the problem persists.
Although the mass on the OUT file is around 3600, once imported, I get different results:
09_9 - 5605.690
10_9 - 5596.463
10_9_1 - 5595.804
I've attached the .OUT files so you can take a look. I don't know if they are useful or not...
Sorry for pushing this so much but I think this may be the last problem I'm facing with my thesis and no matter how much I search I can't seem to find a solution for it...
Thank you very much for your help!0 -
Altair Forum User said:
Through the afternoon I tried new optimizations with different constraints:
09_9 - Just a new mesh, perfectly symmetric with no ctria elements
10_9 - The same new mesh but instead of constraining mass, I constrained mass fraction (between 0.11 and 0.123 - this corresponds to 3200 and 3600 according to the original super-ply model mass)
10_9_1 - The same new mesh but instead of constraining mass, I constrained volume fraction
Unfortunately, the problem persists.
Although the mass on the OUT file is around 3600, once imported, I get different results:
09_9 - 5605.690
10_9 - 5596.463
10_9_1 - 5595.804
I've attached the .OUT files so you can take a look. I don't know if they are useful or not...
Sorry for pushing this so much but I think this may be the last problem I'm facing with my thesis and no matter how much I search I can't seem to find a solution for it...
Thank you very much for your help!HI,
I have tested on a few models. I observed that the difference is predominant with composite materials.
I am checking the same with experts. I will get back to you soon
0 -
Hi,
I got a reply from one of our expert:
the mass you are seeing in the .out file is for a composite model made up of “superplies” which have variable thickness and therefore don’t directly represent a real-life ply, which has constant thickness. If you request OUTPUT, FZTOSZ, then a script is automatically run after the composite freesize optimization which performs some design interpretation on those superplies by slicing them at 4 different Z levels to get discrete ply shapes which have constant thickness. The result is output to the sizing.fem file. So there can easily be some change in mass during that FZTOSZ superply interpretation process. See attached ppt for a more visual explanation of this.
0 -
So, my goal is to have a deflection of around 1mm at maximum load. At the beginning I was constraining the displacement of some nodes but the optimization was not working. You suggested me to try and constrain volume fraction, mass etc and it worked (https://community.altair.com/community?id=community_question&sys_id=7276083a1b2bd0908017dc61ec4bcb5b - here).Through the analysis I was running I was checking that for a weight of +- 3500 I was getting the desired displacement so I started constraining that (mass at 3200 - 3600). I never thought of checking the mass of the model because I had my mind set on cleaning the plies but last week I decided to check the mass of the model and I was very surprised...My original model has:Mass: 4100gMax Displacement: +-6mm at maximum pressureMy goal is: to reduce the mass (significantly, or at least maintain) while improving the stiffness of the wing.The problem is that with 5000g, I'm not reducing much (although I'm improving significantly the stiffness).Do you have any suggestion?Hope I made myself clear.Thank you very much!0
-
Hi @goncalop
So the mass after all three phases is not much changed?
During size optimization, did you change the responses or retained the same from Freesize?
If yes, can you change the responses (to say minimize mass) and check if that helps?
0 -
During the other phases I maintained the same responses.
I'll try to do just that and see what happens!
0
