News: Need training? HyperSizer Training Videos are available now! Learn more here: https://hypersizer.com/trainingevents/e-learning/

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Deja-vu...this same thing caught me too a while back.  Putting a dummy load in there also worked for me.  Hopefully can be fixed in the next iteration!
2
Super, thanks for confirming and reporting it Stephen.
3
Hi Matt,

It looks like this is indeed a bug. It seems that HyperSizer is not running the second loadcase because it thinks there are no loads applied; it is apparently not checking the pressure field. I've submitted a report to our developers to investigate and fix, but I think you've found the best work-around in the meantime (applying a very small Nx). Sorry for the inconvenience, we will work to fix this in an upcoming release.

-Stephen
4
As a further investigation, if I run the 2 loadcases and put a very small running load for Nx, Hypersizer then runs both loadcases and I get margins against multiple loadcases.  Is this a bug?
5
Miscellaneous Software Topics / Non-FEA Panel - multiple pressure only loadcases
« Last post by MattA on July 13, 2018, 11:02:36 AM »
Hi,

I have created a panel (metallic orthogrid) as a non-FEA project and set fixed geometry.  I applied a +0.01 pressure as LC101 and a -0.01 pressure as LC102.  There are no other loads, only pressure.  All margins came back as being LC101.  I then set LC101 pressure to 0, and it returned no margins.  However, when I set LC101 to -0.01 it returned lower margins than the +ve pressure case.  My conclusion from this is that it is only running the first loadcase.

I have checked that all loadcases are activated.  I am using 7.3.37

Any thoughts?
6
Panel Buckling / Transverse Shear Flexibility
« Last post by eric on July 11, 2018, 09:27:33 AM »
Where does the approach listed in the HME Panel Buckling doc for transverse shear flexibility effects (sec 4.3.1, honeycomb) come from?  I'm trying to understand this effect a bit more.  Hexcel HRH-10 has a relatively low shear modulus, thus we see a great sensitivity.  Buckling margins w/ and w/o TSF differ by two orders of magnitude.  My sense is that we may be outside some original considerations for what is typical here.

The only verification I could locate here (slide 9) shows much less sensitivity, though I bet that core had a larger GL & GW.

Thank you.
7
Panel Buckling / Re: Panel Buckling - SS v FF
« Last post by garyjh on July 05, 2018, 09:22:53 AM »
Yes. It was set to No as shown in the picture. Changed it to yes and made no difference. Gone back to No to double check and no difference.

However, found the following (see attached) in different backdoor data tab, Buckling Coefficients. Which is like your original reply. Changed to NO and looks OK now.

Thanks for quick reply and help.
8
Panel Buckling / Re: Panel Buckling - SS v FF
« Last post by Stephen on July 05, 2018, 09:12:35 AM »
That first option ("Shear Buckling Force All Modes") is the equivalent option in 7.3.37. We have since renamed it in later versions.

Is it actually set to "No" on the projects in which you have noticed this behavior?
9
Panel Buckling / Re: Panel Buckling - SS v FF
« Last post by garyjh on July 05, 2018, 09:02:26 AM »
Using v7.3.37. Does not look like that at all - see attachment.
10
Panel Buckling / Re: Panel Buckling - SS v FF
« Last post by Stephen on July 05, 2018, 08:56:24 AM »
Hi Gary,

Can you check for me whether you have "exhaustive search" active for this project? It is a setting in the backdoor options form for the project. Depending on your version of HyperSizer (we have occasionally changed the descriptions for some of these settings), it should look like the attached image.

There is a known issue when running the energy solution panel buckling method with fixed boundary conditions while exhaustive search is active that can cause margins returned to be very conservative. The best advice to avoid this issue for now is to simply disable the exhaustive search function if you need to use fixed boundary conditions.

Exhaustive search was added to ensure that the energy solution will find the lowest-energy mode even for atypical component dimensions (and therefore m,n pairs). For "standard" geometry (panels without very high aspect ratios), this panel buckling method should return the lowest energy mode without exhaustive search active.

Exhaustive search is most often required for full cylinders, where there may be a large number of half-waves along the length, but only a few circumferentially. This is not a typical situation for rectangular panels,.

Let me know if you need any clarification!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10