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

BMX 'Feasibility Study' convergence

Highlighted

BMX 'Feasibility Study' convergence

I spent today playing (or possibly fighting) with the Feasibility Study in BMX.

I'm doing a flotation analysis, so I've got a model of the hull and a 'waterline' plane at a parametric pitch angle and height, which trims the hull solid. I'm using the Feasibility Study to solve such that the remaining (i.e. submerged) solid has the correct mass / volume; and so that an axis through the (input) craft CofG and the submerged volume CofG is perpendicular to the waterline plane.

So far, so good; I'm pretty happy that the geometry works and tells me what I want to know. (That the initial hull design is horribly nose-heavy is another matter...).

However, the convergence algorithm seems to be useless! It invariably tells me that no solution was found: some of the time what this means is that it failed to achieve the target values by a tiny margin; other times it means it's got nowhere near. I've managed to create some 3D annotations so that I can quickly check whether convergence happened, but how do I make the actual study give me a decent answer? It feels like I could do the iteration manually just as quickly - it's only two variables and two constraints!

There only seem to be a few things to play with: percentage convergence, which I've tried from 0.2% up to 10% with no discernable difference; number of iterations, which I've tried as high as 190 and as low as 5, although 5 still seems to take ages; and the two solver methods, of which I've mostly been using the default one (Gradient something?).

It often solves better if I first manually adjust the values to get it somewhere close to the target, which I really feel shouldn't be necessary.

Also, if I ask it to plot graphs it produces a large number (~8) of them, all of which show just one point at (0,0). Much good they are.

Any pointers gratefully received, especially as I really need to finish this initial study tomorrow! Sorry, no images because a) confidentiality and b) I'm writing this at home.

Just had one thought: I'm assuming that the model is perfectly symmetrical, but if it isn't then there may be a lateral mismatch between the centres. Perhaps I should constrain the angle to be >89.9 and <90.1... but shouldn't the convergence allow it to say "close enough"?

1 REPLY 1
Highlighted

Re: BMX 'Feasibility Study' convergence

Jonathan Hodgson wrote:

Just had one thought: I'm assuming that the model is perfectly symmetrical, but if it isn't then there may be a lateral mismatch between the centres. Perhaps I should constrain the angle to be >89.9 and <90.1... but shouldn't the convergence allow it to say "close enough"?

Nope, can't do that... apparently that constitutes "conflicting constraints".

This seems to be worse than an Optimization Study in Mechanica!

Announcements