Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:41:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <451574264.3689.1711654915985@cornell1-cos-conf1.managed.contegix.com> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_3688_1186949241.1711654915984" ------=_Part_3688_1186949241.1711654915984 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Author: Sebastien Lachance-Barrett, Cornell University
P=
roblem Specification
1. Pre-Analysis & Start-Up
2. Initial Solution=
3. Input & Ou=
tput Parameters
4. Design of Experiments
=
5. Response Surface
6. Optimization
7. Verification & Validation
Exe=
rcises
Comments
As with any numerical method verification and validation of great signif= icance. As mentioned earlier, there is no analytical solution for the finit= e plate with a hole. Thus, the results can not be compared to theory. Thus,= in this section other verification and validations will be used. First, th= e solution will be examined as the mesh is refined to see if it has converg= ed. Additionally, the optimization results will be verified by using differ= ent optimization methods and comparing results.
The convergence criteria which was inserted earlier was used to view the= effect of mesh refinement with a radius of 1.4853 inches.
Number of Elements |
Equivalent Von Mises Stress (PSI) |
Percent Change |
---|---|---|
244 |
32,495 |
|
775 |
32,712 |
0.6656 |
As one can see from the data above, over the course of the mesh refineme= nt, the equivalent Von Mises Stress only changes by less than one percent. = Thus, the solution has been verified with respect to mesh refinement. Howev= er, notice how the equivalent Von Mises Stress now lies above o= ur constraint. While our optimization looked promising, we ha= d not taken into account the slight change in results from a finer mesh.&nb= sp;
The optimization was carried using each of the four optimization methods= offered in ANSYS workbench. Note that the default optimization method in A= NSYS was Screening but now is MOGA.
Optimization Method |
Radius (In) |
Volume (In^3) |
Equivalent Von Mises Stress (PSI) |
---|---|---|---|
Screening |
1.3278 |
9.8615 |
32,484 |
MOGA |
1.3267 |
9.8618 |
32,500 |
NLPQL |
1.3291 |
9.8613 |
32,503 |
As one can see from the table above, there is no significant differences b=
etween the results from the four methods.