Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Rahul Ponginan

      Please click here for a short but important announcement   03/26/17

      Dear Users Our Commercial and Academic users around the world can use these same forums here as before i.e. the Altair Support Forum , Commercial users from India with solver queries can go to the Solver Forum for India Commercial Users , Academic Users from India and AOC India Participants are requested to go to the Forum for India Academic Users and AOC India Participants , We will be tending to all queries in all the forums promptly as before, thank you for your understanding. 
    • Rahul Ponginan

      ユーザーフォーラムについて   10/22/17

      アルテアエンジニアリングでは、弊社製品や技術について、ユーザー様同士がオンラインで情報交換できる場所を提供しています。 日常業務の中で起こるさまざまな問題の解決や、他ユーザー様との技術交流を図るための場として、お客様の環境に合わせてご活用ください。
coatkuanteen

ESLM: Strain Constraints

Recommended Posts

When I impose ply strain responses, which can be derived directly from displacement ESLs of the same nonlinear loadcase, as design constraints for a nonlinear loadcase, there are differences between strain response values outputted in .out file and strain contour in .h3d file.

In theory, design responses from these two files should match each other but strain values in .out file (optimization values) tend to be larger than what is plotted in .h3d file (analysis values).

What could be the reason behind this? Any suggestion on how I can use .h3d strain output as design responses?

V55s_t_REF_STRN.fem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The reason is that for non linear optimization we have an outer loop of Non linear analysis run in Radioss and an inner loop of ESLM based Optimization in Optistruct. The Equivalent Static Loads are generated from a reduced set of peak loads from the loading curve of the non linear analysis run. And hence after the final optimization run which showed a converged response value of let say 2.0, and a subsequent non linear analysis in Radioss it shows say1.88. So the results will never match, though we are looking at ways to get a workaround to this issue in the future release.

Regards

Rahul R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Small deviation because of different solvers is acceptable, but the difference I am pointing out is more than 100% !

For instance, in the attached files, we look at strain response of the first outer loop iteration (initial design, no optimization yet):

 

NORMAL STRAIN XX, PLY 1, Time=1.0s or equivalent static Subcase 90008

Element ID 40477: RADIOSS value=-6.344E-04, DRESP value=-1.628E-03, Difference=157%

Element ID 40245: RADIOSS value=-6.388E-04, DRESP value=-1.587E-03, Difference=148%

Element ID 36632: RADIOSS value=-6.276E-04, DRESP value=-1.465E-03, Difference=133%

 

Regards,

 

V55s_t_REF_STRN.eslout

V55s_t_REF_STRN_01.h3d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! But why do we need the correction factor if we are still in the linear stress-strain relation? ESLs based on displacement should produce strains very close to the ones from (geometrical) nonlinear analysis with linear material property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×