Composite Freesize Optimization - Minimize mass - Wcomp constraint VIOLATED

Hey,

i have the following setup of an freesize composite optimization:

response mass, response wcomp

objektive minimize mass, constraint wcomp (defined lower boundary)

Also defined max. laminate thickness=8mm and min. laminate thickness 1,6mm, DSIZE mindim=40mm

So i want to minimize the mass till the lower boundary of the wcomp constraint is reached.

But somehow my wcomp constraint is violated and the resulting mass is exaktly the mass of the whole laminate with min. thickness of 1,6mm. Why is my constraint not working?

Thank you!

0.jpg

1.JPG

2.JPG

Find more posts tagged with

English

Accepted answers

All comments

Adriano Koga_20259

WComp is weighted compliance and it is an indirect measure of FLEXIBILITY. So you are asking the optimizer to use the least amount of mass and have a minimum compliance value = some_value. If you leave the minimum amount of material, your design will easily be more flexible, thus your compliance will easily increase. What is your initial WComp value? Does it satisfy the constraint?

arh423

Thank you for your reply.

So initial is 5837g and Wcomp 882Nmm(i did an simple analysis without optimization).

Means 882Nmm is not satisfying my lower wcomp boundary=1600Nmm because it is already lower and therefor violated?

So I have to define instead upper wcomp bondary=1600Nmm and the optimization is able to reduce mass till 1600 is reached?

Adriano Koga_20259

Thank you for your reply.

So initial is 5837g and Wcomp 882Nmm(i did an simple analysis without optimization).

Means 882Nmm is not satisfying my lower wcomp boundary=1600Nmm because it is already lower and therefor violated?

So I have to define instead upper wcomp bondary=1600Nmm and the optimization is able to reduce mass till 1600 is reached?

It would be nice to review in more details your .out file . But I'm trying to understand how did you define this constraint/target for compliance? And why as a minimum? I mean, why do you want to have a more flexible structure in your case?