Does above bolt connection work as sliding along slot or rotating about bolt? Representation is partially around the bolt but slot sides are flat.

I am looking to create a custom constraint to place a lower bound on the number of nodes a ply can have after Freesize optimization.

My first attempt at this was to run the optimization once as normal. Then create a new response that passes in the nodes from the ply I'm looking to constrain. This response would then be constrained by a constraint to a minimum value of 700 (it would start its first iteration at 650, as shown).

With the response returning the length of the input to the response .oml file.

This response function seems to work as intended, all the x-positions of the nodes are being passed in, and the response is '650' as i expected. but then the optimizer just... ends after iteration 0.

What am I doing wrong? I've gotten OS-T 4095 working no problem, but my desired response is strictly geometry based and doesn't actually involve any of the standard responses (mass, stress, etc...). So I think I'm missing something crucial.

Thanks! and let me know if I can provide any additional detail.

In my model part A and Part B ( both are hollow cylinders - Part A within Part B )  has a gap of 0.6 mm between them

Part A at natural frequency ,  displacement is more than 0.6 mm ( say 6 mm if no contact available between part A and part B ). Hence not able to capture the real behaviour without establishing contact between part A and Part B.

Frictional contact in my trial does not seem to work in FRF. Tied contact does not replicate the actual behaviour ( Part A and Part B should not move together. Part A should vibrate within Part B )

Kindly suggest me type of contact to be given and parameters of the contact between part A and Part B having a gap of 0.6 mm in FRF vibration analysis

I am using Altair Flux to model multiple coils that transmit power to a load, that is meant to be heated inductively. Getting the results in the Post Processing via "Computation on physic entity" offers the options to compute on a Region as well as via the Circuit.

Comparing the power values I am getting for the simulated coils has me a little puzzled. There is a stark contrast computing apparent power, active power and reactive power respectively using the options mentioned above. The joule losses are the same between both compution options.

In the circuit current sources have been used to power the coils.

A list of values to get a better picture of the contrast mentioned:

Apparent Power: ~640VA (computation via region) / ~3400VA (computation via circuit)

Active Power: ~5W (region) / ~900W (circuit)

Reactive Power: ~650Var (region) / ~3300Var (circuit)

I have trouble coming up with a power balance, that explains the values Flux produces. If you could point me to the reason for the difference in values, that would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards

Looking for a way to run a command on open in HyperView, just like I can run hmcustom.tcl in HyperMesh to set some defaults and prep macros. Any ideas?

Thanks,

Blake

Σας ευχαριστώ εκ των προτέρων.

Με εκτίμηση

Δημήτρης Τζώρας

GUIからは接触数を出力できると思いますが、APIで粒子毎の粒子間接触数を取得することはできますでしょうか？

APIのdocumentationを確認しましたが、それらしいメソッド？関数？が見つからず困っています。

ご存じの方がいらっしゃいましたらご教授いただきたくお願いいたします。

参考となりそうなチュートリアルなどでも構いません。

よろしくお願いいたします。

Thank you

Numerical modeling is an important engineering tool for predicting and understanding the behavior of physical systems without the need for experiments. However, numerical models are only useful if they are accurate in their predictions and one of the major challenges that a CAE engineer faces is ensuring the accuracy of their models.

DEM material models prove particularly challenging in this respect, because the physical measurement of the micro-mechanical parameters used to describe the contact forces between bulk solid particles is difficult and often even impossible. This leads to the need for an indirect method of obtaining the appropriate input parameters values. A macro-mechanical calibration approach is typically employed for this purpose. It involves the use of a measurement from a material characterization test as a benchmark for the calibration of the input parameters [1]. Figure 1 illustrates the method.

Figure 1: DEM calibration methodology by the macro-mechanical approach. Images: a), c) and e) from Pantaleev et. al., 2017. Image b) from www.freemantech.co.uk

Although the macro-mechanical approach is the most practical option, it still requires the modeling of the material characterization test, the generation of a large number of DEM simulations with varying input parameters and the subsequent extraction and manipulation of simulation data to obtain the responses of interest.

This is where the EDEM Calibration Kit comes in. It is a collection of EDEM simulations of standard bulk solids characterization instruments and associated EDEMpy post-processing scripts that can be used to automate a large portion of the EDEM material model calibration workflow shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: EDEM material model calibration workflow

The calibration kit removes the need for modeling standard characterization tests and automates the process of obtaining the relevant simulation data, leading to a significant reduction in the engineering time requirement for the EDEM material model calibration. The included EDEMpy post-processing scripts provide a simple and automated way of generating individual simulation reports, similar to the ones generated by the physical test, as well as a single collated report of key results from all simulation runs. The use of the kit is demonstrated in the following video:

The EDEM Calibration Kit is constantly expanding and the following standard bulk solids characterization tests are currently included:

• Uniaxial Compression Test
• FT4 Powder Rheometer Flow Energy Test
• Schulze RST XS Shear Cell
• Brookfield PFT Shear Cell
• Static Angle of Repose Test
• Rotating Drum Test
• Inclined Plane Test

The EDEM Calibration Kit is now available directly from the EDEM installation folder in version 2020.1 and higher.

References:
[1] Coetzee, C. J. (2017). Review: Calibration of the discrete element method. Powder Technology, 310, 104–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.01.015
[2] Pantaleev, S., Yordanova, S., Janda, A., Marigo, M., & Ooi, J. Y. (2017). An experimentally validated DEM study of powder mixing in a paddle blade mixer. Powder Technology, 311, 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2016.12.053

can you somehow define simulation material without defining specific 3D model? I wanted to simulate antenna beneath the earth to make a scenario with  "infintie" burial dimensions. I kept using sommerfeld integrals from Construct->Structuers->Planes/arrays->Plane/ground.

Basically is there anyway to fill "white space" (which im assuming is free space with epsilon 1) with specific medium without defining "Big cuboid" with specific material.

1. Cantiliver beam with end load(1000N) in Y direction

2. same Beam with end load(1000N) in Z direction

and i referenced loadstep1 in loadstep2 using STATSUB(preload) card

But im not getting the  effect( Displacement pattern)) of loadstep1 in results 

should it give the result of resultant of two loads???

Or i understood wrongly 

I could not find any Altair Monitor version update instructions

Altair Monitor Administrator Guide

Altair Monitor Quick Start Guide

Altair Monitor User Guide

So far, I have created a brand new v2021.1 Altair Monitor server in CentOS 7.9. But, I would like to know if I can just upgrade from the existing v2016 License Monitor to v2021.1 on the same Linux server.

Thanks

I hope this finds you well.

I am trying to perform a stress relaxation experiment in which the force increases gradually from 0 to the maximum force of 42 N. After reaching 42N, it is held constant for 50 secs and then decreases gradually.

Just to take things bit by bit, I decided to start with the gradual increase in force from 0 to 42N.

To achieve this, i used a force controller and a parametric equation of -(1+(1+t))  so that the force will increase gradually to the maximum force.  the picture below shows what I did.

However, while running the simulation, the punch started increasing gradually but I think this stopped immediately this comes in contact with the particles.

So using the analyst I plotted the total force against time and did not see any notable increase in the force from 0 to 42. I have included a picture of the plot for the punch and the particles.

Please I will appreciate any assistance on this. 

I have also included a video of the compression process.

Thank you.

HyperWorks CFDを用いて AcuSolveを利用する際に、よく聞かれる内容をまとめた資料を作成しましたので、HyperWorks CFDをお使いの際は一読ください。

pls help me

As an example, I tried running the macro on one of the examples included with flux which I have attached. Please help me figure out what is wrong with how I'm running this macro that's causing this issue.

I would like to enrich the material card of a composite material with the effect of strain rate, using the parameter c, but I have the problem that both conditions of low strain rate and high strain rate are affected by this introduction. In particular, the curves of both specimens get higher.

In this particular material, the only experimental test with a significant difference between quasi static and high strain rate conditions is the tensile 45° test. For this reason I decided to introduce this effect defining the global reference strain rate and the parameter c12 (instead of the global one c).

The global reference strain rate is defined according to the strain rate of the quasi static FEM model, and I have evaluated this value with the time history request EPSD of shell elements.

Is there any other aspect I should take into account or any errors I made?

In case I can share materials to solve this issue,

Thanks in advance.

Bonjour,

puis-je avoir un exemple de requête avec une instruction "bulk insert" à partir d'un fichier .txt vers une table sql server dans l'onglet "Requête" ?

If there is anyone that could help me I would be so gratefull because I had been trying to find the solution so many days and I didn`t get anything.

If there is necessary I add the model file.

Thank you.

Can not execute the following command :
loadProject('FILE NAME')

openProject : Execution failed.
Failed execution
Problem to read the file : 'FILE NAME'

BDSINI   => Beginning to restore Index=0 aborted
BDREST   => Restoring data Index=0 aborted
GP3FOU   => Failed
GP3PBL   => No open has been made
GP3OUV   => Failed
GP2AL4   => failed
OpenProject => Failed
openProject => failed
stdcom.error.SoftwareFortranException: openProject : Execution failed.
Failed execution
Problem to read the file : 'FILE NAME'

Under the electrical tab for the coil editor, I have associated an electrical component from the circuit for both coils. I don't have any coils that don't have an associated electrical component, or any electrical components without an associated coil.

Does anyone know how to solve this?

error opening cadfeko files - Feko - Altair Products - Altair Community

I put this file in the attachment. how can I solve this error?

thank you for your help