News: Contact us to upgrade your software!

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Miscellaneous Analysis & Methods / Panel loads vs object loads
« Last post by aeromaner on Yesterday at 10:27:03 AM »
When I change the reference plane (on the options tab) Hypersizer optains new loads and moments as object loads. I take it normally to change moments but why do inplane loads change (NX,NY,NXY)?
In nastran, when we use to element offset (ZOFFS), forces/moments don't need to modify because reference plane coincident with laminate mid plane(without property offset, Z0).
How does Hypersizer calculate new loads (NX,NY,NXY,MX,MY,MXY)_object when using offset or changing reference plane?

You can access the details about the offset definition from the link below.

Miscellaneous Software Topics / Re: Offset Definition
« Last post by James on January 26, 2021, 11:27:32 AM »
HyperSizer does not read or write element offsets for shells. If you use element offsets to put the element at the midplane of the plate/laminate, keep the HyperSizer analysis reference plane = midplane. Don't move the analysis reference plane because the FEA solution will return element forces about the centroid of the element.

The HyperSizer analysis reference plane (on the options tab) should be consistent with the property offset location (Z0).

Miscellaneous Software Topics / Offset Definition
« Last post by aeromaner on January 26, 2021, 09:53:27 AM »
I want to know two situations.

1) As you know, hypersizer describes offset on property card (Z0). Is there any way to size using element offset (ZOFFS) in Hypersizer?

2) When do we use element offset (CQUAD4 9.column) initialy, what happens in this case? Does Hypersizer use this value?

This report field should be the cumulative panel/beam weight for all components where the minimum margin of safety (MS) is negative. I ran a couple test and it appears to be working this way.
I am unable to repeat your issue where all of your components show positive MS, yet you have weight reported to this field. Can you provide the XLS report?

In "Overall Summary" of stress reports, what do you mean by "Controlling Failure Mode, Negative Margin Structure(kg)?
I have some value in this weight description in stress reports, although there was no negative margin component after detail sizing. What I can not understand is every component would be sized by satisfying one of failure modes at minimum margin of safety. Could you explain what it is and when this can happen?

The ABD shown in the help topic is for a discrete laminate with the same ply percentages. This is not the effective laminate ABD. You're correct that the D16 and D26 bending coupling terms are ignored for effective laminate sizing.

This question is related to the picture in the "In-Plane" section of

From my understanding you get bending-twisting coupling, so populated D16 & D26 terms, in the laminate stiffness matrix and therefore non-orthotropic stiffness behavior in bending as soon as you have non 0° or 90° layers in your discrete stacking sequence, e.g. by +45° and -45° layers. The reason is that, even if the stacking sequence is symmetric and balanced, +45° and -45° layers may not be located at the same offset from the middle-plane.

However, this information, the stacking order and therefore distance from the laminae middle-plane to the stacking sequence middle plane gets lost in the effective laminate approach. The approach for the calculation of the bending stiffness is described here:,535.0.html

So how can it be that the ABD-matrix shown in the mentioned figure has D16 & D26 populated?
FEM Coupling (HyperFEA) / Re: Temperature Dependent Material Properties in HyperFEA
« Last post by bacjac on December 09, 2020, 10:41:05 AM »
OK James, thanks for the explanatory material I have finally got things sorted out right on my end and see everything working correctly.   Whew - sorry for the inconvenience. pdf attached shows the case checks that seem to be working correctly now.
Hi Dana,

Yes, the component-based load factors are multiplicative with the load set load factors. So a 1.5 ultimate factor on a load set, combined with a 1.5 ultimate factor on a specific component, will result in a total of 2.25 ultimate factor for this component.

In general we recommend not using the component-based load factors unless there is a specific circumstance that would require you to assess different factors on a given component.

Analyzing & Optimizing Composite Layups / Load Set Factors vs Component Load Factors
« Last post by dana.frye on December 04, 2020, 03:17:33 AM »
I am working on a FEA project, and the model I input had load cases defined in limit load space. On the 'load sets tab' of the project setup form, I have a ultimate factor of 1.5 defined. If I also add a 1.5 mechanical ultimate factor to the 'FEA Loads' tab of the project sizing form, would that be effectively double-dipping on the 1.5 FoS?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10