cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Did you get called away in the middle of writing a post? Don't worry you can find your unfinished post later in the Drafts section of your profile page. X

generative design to simulate

ErikClacey
12-Amethyst

generative design to simulate

Hi,

 

I'm testing/evaluating the generative design extension in Creo 9.0 for our company. While it seems to work really well, I have issues generating a model out of it and related issues pushing it to Creo Simulate for detailed analysis. When generating the geometry part, when it kind of works, the program creates small edges and or surfaces that may be free floating, not connected along all its edges, same goes for vertices. This has happened on several parts now and furthermore, when the part is generated without errors, and I try to push it to Creo Simulate for further detailed structural analysis, more miniscule surface, edge or vertex errors are found, which prevents further analysis. Anyone experiencing similar issues and have functioning workarounds for it?

5 REPLIES 5

Hi Erik,

 

There are a handful of best practices that can help ensure that the geometry can be reconstructed for downstream analysis. Are you able to share any of the models that are giving you trouble (if you can't share them here, perhaps you can open a Tech Support ticket)? It would definitely help get an understanding of what might be going wrong. Also, feel free to message me directly, as I'd be happy to have a quick call with you to take a closer look, though having an actual model would always be the most helpful.

 

Luke

Hi, just wondering if there was any follow up from this? I'm also experiencing the same issue whilst evaluating the GTO extension and would be interested in hearing what the best practices are to ensure geometries can be reconstructed downstream.

ErikClacey
12-Amethyst
(To:DanB_uk)

Hi. My solution takes time but it works. So what I do is that I go into the "Reconstruction Shapes" and adjust the edges, faces and points so that the original shapes are covered. In some complex areas I delete edges and/or faces and then join the open edges again to close the holes. This simplifies the surfaces. This ensures that you get a solid object. Then I extrude away 0.5mm or whatever is necessary to remove the double folded surfaces and extrude it back, giving a clean interface.

Hi, thanks for the response.

 

I've been trying this and I think unfortunately the optimisation I'm trying this with is too complex for this to work. Each time I think I've successfully closed the shape and gotten rid of the error messages, when I click done in Freestyle modelling Creo comes up with even more geometry errors for me to solve. This goes on seemingly indefinitely - at this rate it would probably be quicker to create the part parametrically from scratch!

 

This is frustrating though, would love to hear from PTC if there's any best practice to help avoid this from happening. Surely it can't be too complicated to create a solid body from the mesh created by the GTO extension? 

ErikClacey
12-Amethyst
(To:DanB_uk)

I totally agree, on all points.

 

Maybe experiment with an optimization with lower "resolution" in the study settings so that the generated freeform body is less detailed/complex? I updated to version 9.0.4 and, not sure if it was there before, but in the troubleshooting box/icon it hints that one should try for a ratio of less than 5 when it comes to minimum radius constraint and study settings. Ie with a minimum radius of 5mm, the study settings should ideally not be lower than 1mm. Perhaps that would help?

What I also find strange is that if you export the final generated model for example as a step file, it is enormous. I've had single components from 80 to 500Mb each when saved out as a step file.

Top Tags