When one of my friends asked me on Saturday night what I like about my job, I started off by saying that “there is never a dull moment in HPC. The computing landscape is constantly changing, the HPC ecosystem collaborations are so numerous and intriguing, and the strategic/economic value of HPC for simulation has never been greater” (or: relevance of HPC for organizations to become more competitive is so compelling).
All of this was very evident at last week’s ISC conference — one of world’s largest HPC events — drawing this year over 2,800 attendees from 56 countries. Let me share with you a few exciting HPC trends observed during this conference.
As you have probably heard, in January of this year, ANSYS 16.0 was released with a full set of new features and exciting enhancements covering our entire simulation portfolio (see more here). But in this blog, I would like to tell you a little more about turbomachinery blade row flow modeling capability in ANSYS 16.0.
Transient blade row (TBR) simulation is an important analysis and design tool, enabling turbomachinery designers to reliably improve the performance and predict the durability of rotating machinery. Traditional transient simulation methods are expensive since it requires simulation of all blades in the full 360 degrees to accurately account for the pitch difference between adjacent blade rows. However, ANSYS CFX pitch-change methods resolve this challenge by providing time accurate unsteady turbomachinery flow simulations on just a small sector of the machine annulus (typically simulating only one or a few blades, a reduced blade row model), thus tremendously reducing computing cost resources and and reducing the overall time to obtain the simulation. Continue reading →
I have always been fascinated by turbomachinery: pumps, compressors, turbochargers, state-of-the-art aircraft engines etc. Anything that spins is of interest. This is one of the key reasons why I love going to work at ANSYS every day. I can contribute to creating the best turbomachinery simulation solutions.
Demonstration simulation of the turbine side of a turbocharger, using a geometry design provided by our partner PCA Engineering.
I am often asked “What are you working on? Turbines? Compressors? Hydraulic turbines?” Well, the answer is all of the above, and more. This is because our physics solutions are not limited by machine type, material or flow regime. Similarly, our turbomachinery-specific pre- and post-processing tools apply across machine categories. Besides, complex machines such as an aircraft engine have many parts: compressor, turbine, combustion chamber, complex secondary flow channels, etc. So with each new release of ANSYS, we strive to improve the simulation solutions that we provide to our turbomachinery customers.
“Meshing”… Usually throwing this single word to a group of structural or CFD analysts will start interesting and passionate discussions. Meshing is definitely a key part of the simulation process and requires attention. As analysts, how many hours did we or do we spend on meshing? Probably too many — especially if you have been in the simulation world for many years and started when automation of meshing was not so common. But after all, meshing is just one of the tools that we need to get accurate results and we should spend more time looking at simulation results than meshing our models. Continue reading →
With the release of ANSYS 16.0 last week, we know that you may be looking for more detail around “What’s New”. Our team of experts have put together a series of webinars over the coming weeks that will take a deeper dive into the enhancements you’ll see.
The world of multiphysics simulation is growing ever more ambitious each year. That is obvious from this year’s ANSYS Hall of Fame Competition, for which the company recently selected five top entries that typify the best of the best.
From a company developing new spinal instruments to reduce the risks of scoliotic surgery, to a university’s examination of how a leatherback turtle would weather climate change, this year’s top five represented contributions from multiple industries and amazing applications. Continue reading →
What do Tesla Motors, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Ferrari, Denso, Panasonic, SL Corporation, Cummins, Tenneco, and Honeywell, have in common? Well, not only are they leaders in the automotive renaissance, but they all delivered presentations on leading-edge simulation at the 2014 Automotive Simulation World Congress. Continue reading →
The peristaltic pump has become popular across various applications since being patented in the U.S. more than 120 years ago, and technological advances continue to make it relevant. The pump alternates compression and relaxation in its hoses and tubes, drawing fluid in and out. Our throat and intestines are actually good examples of peristaltic pumps.
I recently studied peristaltic pumps with computer analysis to see if I could improve the design through simulation. Where was the starting point? As a multiphysics program, ANSYS’ software suite provided a complete solution to the simulation of a peristaltic pump and I used software ranging from ANSYS Mechanical and ANSYS Fluent to ANSYS Explicit Dynamics Each tool has its unique capabilities and solved the problem at hand from different perspectives. Continue reading →
From a structural reliability point of view, it is very important to understand and accurately characterize the material behavior when designing or analyzing an engineering application.
In this respect, ANSYS Mechanical software provides a vast library of material models that can help users simulate various kinds of behaviors such as elasticity, plasticity, creep and hyperelasticity, just to name a few.
Although these models can be used to investigate the mechanical response of a large number of different materials such as metals, rubbers, biological tissues and special alloys, users may wish to incorporate their own material laws into ANSYS. Continue reading →
Some time ago, I wrote a couple of posts describing the performance of ANSYS Mechanical APDL on several different tablet computers. Previously, I had studied two separate tablets: one from Fujitsu, which was more of a shrunken laptop with an Intel® Core i5 processor and a second from Dell, which had an Intel® Atom™ processor and was more in line with the look and feel of an iPad. The Fujitsu tablet was clearly faster, but bulkier and pricier. The Dell tablet was lighter, smaller, cheaper, and also less powerful. Continue reading →