Anto01
718c72bea2
This commit completes the optimization loop infrastructure by implementing the full FEM regeneration workflow based on the user's working journal. ## Changes ### FEM Regeneration Workflow (solve_simulation.py) - Added STEP 1: Switch to Bracket.prt and update geometry - Uses SetActiveDisplay() to make Bracket.prt active - Calls UpdateManager.DoUpdate() to rebuild CAD geometry with new expressions - Added STEP 2: Switch to Bracket_fem1 and update FE model - Uses SetActiveDisplay() to make FEM active - Calls fEModel1.UpdateFemodel() to regenerate FEM with updated geometry - Added STEP 3: Switch back to sim part before solving - Close and reopen .sim file to force reload from disk ### Enhanced Journal Output (nx_solver.py) - Display journal stdout output for debugging - Shows all journal steps: geometry update, FEM regeneration, solve, save - Helps verify workflow execution ### Verification Tools - Added verify_parametric_link.py journal to check expression dependencies - Added FEM_REGENERATION_STATUS.md documenting the complete status ## Status ### ✅ Fully Functional Components 1. Parameter updates - nx_updater.py modifies .prt expressions 2. NX solver - ~4s per solve via journal 3. Result extraction - pyNastran reads .op2 files 4. History tracking - saves to JSON/CSV 5. Optimization loop - Optuna explores parameter space 6. **FEM regeneration workflow** - Journal executes all steps successfully ### ❌ Remaining Issue: Expressions Not Linked to Geometry The optimization returns identical stress values (197.89 MPa) for all trials because the Bracket.prt expressions are not referenced by any geometry features. Evidence: - Journal verification shows FEM update steps execute successfully - Feature dependency check shows no features reference the expressions - All optimization infrastructure is working correctly The code is ready - waiting for Bracket.prt to have its expressions properly linked to the geometry features in NX. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
24 lines
968 B
Plaintext
24 lines
968 B
Plaintext
|
|
The optimization loop is working, but the results show that:
|
|
|
|
1. ✅ Parameter updates are happening in Bracket.prt
|
|
2. ✅ NX solver is running successfully
|
|
3. ✅ Results are being extracted from .op2 files
|
|
4. ✅ Optimization loop completes
|
|
5. ❌ BUT: All trials return the SAME stress/displacement values
|
|
|
|
This indicates that the bracket geometry is NOT actually changing when we update
|
|
the tip_thickness and support_angle parameters.
|
|
|
|
The issue is that these expressions exist in Bracket.prt, but they may not be
|
|
linked to any geometric features (sketches, extrudes, etc.) that define the
|
|
actual bracket shape.
|
|
|
|
To fix this, the Bracket.prt file needs to be set up so that:
|
|
- The 'tip_thickness' expression controls an actual dimension
|
|
- The 'support_angle' expression controls an actual angle
|
|
- These dimensions are used in sketches/features to define the geometry
|
|
|
|
Without this, changing the expressions has no effect on the mesh or the analysis results.
|
|
|