How to assign properly an allowable value for a Python Certification Method in composites material
Hello there, I want to create a Failure Theory using the Certification Method tool, using a simple python script. I assign the Xt, Yt, etc with the corresponding Material allowable defined in the MAT8 card but when running the method it shows an error saying
"Warning, LongTensile StressLimit not available for element".
I tried adding the allowable using metadata, but it didn´t work either. It seems that it cannot see the properties of the composites material, I don´t know.
Any help will be appreciate it . Thanks!!
Find more posts tagged with
Hello Michael! Yes indeed, I have been in contact with Robert via the ticket system. I also saw one of your post here explaining the certification tool.
I know about the First Play Failure method, but I need to have some freedom to create modifications or new methods. My company is a little reticent to closed methodologies and always wants to know the inside of them.
So, the problem is that I have to use PCOMP, not PCOMPP ?
I used that FEM example from an Altair tutorial, I thought that would be the best option to try a new method.
I am gonna try changing to PCOMP and see if it works
Thanks Michael
Best Regards
Altair EmployeeHello @LUZURIAGADARIO ,
you may look at PCOMP indeed for the post-processing, keeping in mind PCOMPP is generally better to handle complex laminate definition. If you work with laminate from Composite browser, you may just need to realize the laminate, which will populate a PCOMP property.
Last, I can understand the point not to trust an enclosed method without testing it, but it should be possible for you to leverage some of your existing cases to certify it, this may eventually prevent some effort for authoring and maintaining the methods.
Best Regards,
Michael
Hello Michael! Yes indeed, I have been in contact with Robert via the ticket system. I also saw one of your post here explaining the certification tool.
I know about the First Play Failure method, but I need to have some freedom to create modifications or new methods. My company is a little reticent to closed methodologies and always wants to know the inside of them.
So, the problem is that I have to use PCOMP, not PCOMPP ?
I used that FEM example from an Altair tutorial, I thought that would be the best option to try a new method.
I am gonna try changing to PCOMP and see if it works
Thanks Michael
Best Regards
Altair EmployeeHello @LUZURIAGADARIO ,
you may look at PCOMP indeed for the post-processing, keeping in mind PCOMPP is generally better to handle complex laminate definition. If you work with laminate from Composite browser, you may just need to realize the laminate, which will populate a PCOMP property.
Last, I can understand the point not to trust an enclosed method without testing it, but it should be possible for you to leverage some of your existing cases to certify it, this may eventually prevent some effort for authoring and maintaining the methods.
Best Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael, I agree with your last point, I am always supporting the use of already existent methods on the post-processor of ALTAIR. I hope I can change that from my humble position.
Again, thank you for your rapid response, I will let you know when I get to good results.
Darío
Hello @LUZURIAGADARIO ,
I waw one of my colleague Robert asking the same question on internal threads so you may already received an answer from him
As a first point, Certification already provides a First Ply Failure method
Now, looking at your case, you try to run on elements directly. That means that the engine will try to fetch the parameters from the elemental property but in your case your model have PCOMPP so that mapping of MAT8 allowable does not work.
The attribute that failed was mapped for user methods as "property.PCOMP_MID.MAT8_Xt" hence expect PCOMP and does not support PCOMPP
Hope that helps,
Michael