I was reminded of Professor Francis Moon, Joseph C. Ford Professor of Engineering Emeritus, when I visited Cornell University this summer for the 2014 Engineering Development Forum. You see, 20 years earlier I had just completed my PhD dissertation in the area of magnetoelastic buckling, a topic that was initiated by Professor Moon in 1968. His breakthrough research created immense interest around magnetoelasticity in the research community. Continue reading
I’ve had many conversations with customers who struggle with their reality that it can be very costly and time-consuming for manufacturers to predict the performance of medical devices. They wonder how to address these problems using modelling and simulation to help evaluate devices at an early stage of their development. Given the recent success of the Medical Device Innovation Summit, it was clear to me that there are a lot of exciting developments taking place by using ANSYS for this purpose, whether it involves orthopaedic implants, stents or other devices. Continue reading
Recently my colleague, Simon Pereira, published his blog on the use of parameters with PTC’s Creo CAD system. I don’t think we can stress enough the importance of the connection between your CAD system and your simulation tool, be it FEA, CFD or electronics.
All simulations start from a geometry. The geometry can be a very early version of a given design or a manufacturing-ready version of it. You then need to import it into your simulation tool to analyze it. Continue reading
Many of you are using CAD tools like Creo Parametric along with ANSYS Workbench, but some of you are not using them parametrically. Of that group, there are probably a few who just really enjoy irony (and probably typewriters and rotary dial phones). However, others have been asking about how to link these tools together, or how to define parameters in Creo, or how to build robust parametric models, or how to parameterize settings in Workbench, or how to create tables of design points. These things are not hard to do, so I put together a video to illustrate. Continue reading
Recently, several members of the ANSYS DesignXplorer development team were invited to attend a conference in Paris on robust and reliable design. It was organized by IFMA (French Institute of the Advanced Mechanics), PHIMECA Engineering and NAFEMS. The purpose of the conference was to exchange experiences, problems, approaches and solution methods between industrial and academic people in the domain of uncertainties, reliability and robustness. Continue reading
- Contact(Underlying Element)
- Contact (Contact Element)
- Target (Underlying Element)
When you choose ‘Contact(Underlying Element)’, the code is selecting the contact elements associated with that region, selecting nodes attached to the selected contact, and then selecting elements attached to the selected nodes before calculating the reaction.
Below is an equivalent APDL command script, where “cid1″ is a parameterized contact element type number for the region of interest. Continue reading
Sometime ago, I wrote an article entitled Best of Both Worlds: Combining APDL with ANSYS Workbench for Structural Simulations. When I read this article today, I think of three things:
- We have made a lot of progress in our latest releases so the use of MAPDL is reduced or irrelevant for the most common tasks we perform. With our added options, loads, or boundary conditions, models can easily be accessed by everyone without commands.
- The content of the paper is still relevant, as many of you have created and validated APDL scripts over the years that you can reuse “as is” in the Mechanical application.
- And last but not least, you can now give all of your scripts a Workbench flavor by integrating them in the Mechanical application through buttons, menus and new items in the simulation tree.
The 2011 earthquake and Tsunami in Japan led to severe loss of many structures and equipment. Can engineering simulations make us better prepared for such natural calamities?
Most organizations analyze the different components with great details for various failure conditions. But, seldom do they do a complete system analysis due to enormous computational requirements. With robust system level design the complex/large equipment could have survived the earthquake better.
Even with ever increasing computational power, solving larger FE models remains a challenge. Analyzing the complete system, like vibration analysis of a full-vehicle or full data-center-rack remains out of scope due to their enormous model sizes. At ANSYS, we focus at all levels of engineering analyses and help our customers achieve robust system level design. Continue reading