Anto01
96e88fe714
Critical fix - the expressions were not being applied during optimization! The journal now receives expression values and applies them using EditExpressionWithUnits() BEFORE rebuilding geometry and regenerating FEM. ## Key Changes ### Expression Application in Journal (solve_simulation.py) - Journal now accepts expression values as arguments (tip_thickness, support_angle) - Applies expressions using EditExpressionWithUnits() on active Bracket part - Calls MakeUpToDate() on each modified expression - Then calls UpdateManager.DoUpdate() to rebuild geometry with new values - Follows the exact pattern from the user's working journal ### NX Solver Updates (nx_solver.py) - Added expression_updates parameter to run_simulation() and run_nx_simulation() - Passes expression values to journal via sys.argv - For bracket: passes tip_thickness and support_angle as separate args ### Test Script Updates (test_journal_optimization.py) - Removed nx_updater step (no longer needed - expressions applied in journal) - model_updater now just stores design vars in global variable - simulation_runner passes expression_updates to nx_solver - Sequential workflow: update vars -> run journal (apply expressions) -> extract results ## Results - OPTIMIZATION NOW WORKS! Before (all trials same stress): - Trial 0: tip=23.48, angle=37.21 → stress=197.89 MPa - Trial 1: tip=20.08, angle=20.32 → stress=197.89 MPa (SAME!) - Trial 2: tip=18.19, angle=35.23 → stress=197.89 MPa (SAME!) After (varying stress values): - Trial 0: tip=21.62, angle=30.15 → stress=192.71 MPa ✅ - Trial 1: tip=17.17, angle=33.52 → stress=167.96 MPa ✅ BEST! - Trial 2: tip=15.06, angle=21.81 → stress=242.50 MPa ✅ Mesh also changes: 1027 → 951 CTETRA elements with different parameters. The optimization loop is now fully functional with expressions being properly applied and the FEM regenerating with correct geometry! 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
6.2 MiB
6.2 MiB