Hi,

I am doing design optimization in ANSYS Workbench 2023 R1. I am getting converged results. However, when I edit the value of the design parameters to the ones that result from the optimization, I get different values from those that are presented in the design explorer module (candidate points). Does anybody know the reasons for this? Which module is correct? Design explorer or Static?

Best regards,

Hugo Silva, Ph.D.,

Research and Development Engineer,

CiTin, Portugal

Hugo,

DX is probably using a response surface in your optimization.  DX uses your initial solved FEA points to generate an analytical response surface model that it uses to estimate the candidate point's responses.  Since the response surface is just a fit to the 'real' answers from FEA it is expected to have some error.  When you plug in the parameters the FEA gives a different answer than the response surface model.  You can make DX incorporate the new FEA points into the response surface model and continue with the optimization.  Eventually, the answers should tend toward the optimal point.

Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Principal R&D Engineer
BAE Systems, Inc.
4050 Peppers Ferry Road, Radford VA 24143-0100
www.baesystems.com

-----Original Message-----
From: hugo.silva@citin.pt hugo.silva@citin.pt
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:13 AM
To: xansys-temp@list.xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] problems validating design optimized geometry in ANSYS workbench

Hi,

I am doing design optimization in ANSYS Workbench 2023 R1. I am getting converged results. However, when I edit the value of the design parameters to the ones that result from the optimization, I get different values from those that are presented in the design explorer module (candidate points). Does anybody know the reasons for this? Which module is correct? Design explorer or Static?

Best regards,

Hugo Silva, Ph.D.,

Research and Development Engineer,

CiTin, Portugal

Xansys mailing list -- xansys-temp@list.xansys.org To unsubscribe send an email to xansys-temp-leave@list.xansys.org If you are receiving too many emails from XANSYS please consider changing account settings to Digest mode which will send a single email per day.

Please send administrative requests such as deletion from XANSYS to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk and not to the list

Hugo,

you can check the accuracy of DX's response surface under 'Goodness of fit'. This will tell you whether or not you need to add design points to your DOE. If all points are well aligned on the grey line, then your accuracy is high. If some points wander around that line, you need more points.

More specific to your question: the static analysis will be the "right" answer (pending all inputs are correct). DX is an approximate response, so may not give you the exact same result as your analysis as Aaron pointed out.

Hope this helps
Pierre Thieffry

[cid:eed3ed3b-0a00-4bf0-afe6-06b955bb84ad]

From: Caba, Aaron C (US) via Xansys xansys-temp@list.xansys.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:28 PM
To: XANSYS Mailing List Home xansys-temp@list.xansys.org
Cc: Caba, Aaron C (US) aaron.caba@baesystems.com
Subject: [Xansys] Re: problems validating design optimized geometry in ANSYS workbench

[External Sender]

Hugo,

DX is probably using a response surface in your optimization.  DX uses your initial solved FEA points to generate an analytical response surface model that it uses to estimate the candidate point's responses.  Since the response surface is just a fit to the 'real' answers from FEA it is expected to have some error.  When you plug in the parameters the FEA gives a different answer than the response surface model.  You can make DX incorporate the new FEA points into the response surface model and continue with the optimization.  Eventually, the answers should tend toward the optimal point.

Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Principal R&D Engineer
BAE Systems, Inc.
4050 Peppers Ferry Road, Radford VA 24143-0100
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baesystems.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cpierre.thieffry%40ansys.com%7C426ad13c278b468fc1fe08db190a2007%7C34c6ce6715b84eff80e952da8be89706%7C0%7C0%7C638131303530093913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tPQ4WDkKTD5k1bZ0dW1Tk4c7mYjbUloB5Z3BzDjQVNA%3D&reserved=0

-----Original Message-----
From: hugo.silva@citin.pt hugo.silva@citin.pt
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:13 AM
To: xansys-temp@list.xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] problems validating design optimized geometry in ANSYS workbench

Hi,

I am doing design optimization in ANSYS Workbench 2023 R1. I am getting converged results. However, when I edit the value of the design parameters to the ones that result from the optimization, I get different values from those that are presented in the design explorer module (candidate points). Does anybody know the reasons for this? Which module is correct? Design explorer or Static?

Best regards,

Hugo Silva, Ph.D.,

Research and Development Engineer,

CiTin, Portugal

Xansys mailing list -- xansys-temp@list.xansys.org To unsubscribe send an email to xansys-temp-leave@list.xansys.org If you are receiving too many emails from XANSYS please consider changing account settings to Digest mode which will send a single email per day.

Please send administrative requests such as deletion from XANSYS to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk and not to the list

Xansys mailing list -- xansys-temp@list.xansys.org
To unsubscribe send an email to xansys-temp-leave@list.xansys.org
If you are receiving too many emails from XANSYS please consider changing account settings to Digest mode which will send a single email per day.

Please send administrative requests such as deletion from XANSYS to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk and not to the list