3D Printed Plastics in Functional Aerospace Parts

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is the most widely used 3D printing technology today, ranging from desktop printers to industrial scale manufacturing tools. While the use of FDM for prototyping and rapid tooling is well established, its use for manufacturing end-use parts in aerospace is a more recent phenomenon. This has been brought about primarily due to the availability of one material choice in particular: ULTEM. ULTEM is a thermoplastic that delivers compliance with FAA FAR 25.853 requirements. It features inherent flame retardant behavior and provides a high strength-to-weight ratio, outstanding elevated thermal resistance, high strength and stiffness and broad chemical resistance (official SABIC press release).

During an industry scan I conducted for a recent research proposal PADT submitted, I came across several examples of the aerospace industry using the FDM process to manufacture end-use parts. Each of these examples is interesting because they demonstrate the different criteria that make FDM preferable over traditional options, and I have classified them accordingly into: design opportunity, cost and lead-time reduction, and supply complexity.

Design Opportunity: In this category, I include parts that were primarily selected for 3D printing because of the unique design freedom that layer-wise additive manufacturing offers. This applies to all 3D printing technologies, the two examples below are for FDM in ducts.

ULA Environmental Control System (ECS) duct: As reported in a prior blog post, United Launch Alliance (ULA) leveraged FDM technology to manufacture an ECS duct and reduce the overall assembly from 140 parts to only 16, while reducing production costs by 57%. The ECS ducts distribute temperature and humidity controlled air onto sensitive avionics equipment during launch and need to withstand strong vibrations. The first Atlas V with these ducts is expected to launch in 2016.

ULA's Kyle Whitlow demonstrates the ECS duct that was printed using FDM
ULA’s Kyle Whitlow demonstrates the ECS duct that was printed using FDM

Orbis Flying Eye Hospital aircraft duct: The Flying Eye Hospital is an amazing concept from Orbis, who use a refurbished DC-10 plane to deliver eye care around the world. The plane actually houses all the surgical rooms to conduct operations and also has educational classrooms. The refurbishment posed a particular challenge when it came to air conditioning: a duct had to transfer air over a rigid barrier while maintaining the volume. Due to the required geometric complexity, the team selected FDM and ULTEM to manufacture this duct, and installed it and met with FAA approval. The story is described in more detail in this video.

FDM used to enable a complex duct connection on an Orbis DC-10 aircraft
FDM used to enable a complex duct connection on an Orbis DC-10 aircraft

Supply Complexity: 3D printing has a significant role to play in retro-fitting of components on legacy aircraft. The challenge with maintaining these aircrafts is that often the original manufacturer either no longer is in business or makes the parts.

Airbus Safety belt holder: Airbus shared an interesting case of a safety belt holder that had to be retrofitted for the A310 aircraft. The original supplier made these 30 years ago and since went out of business and rebuilding the molds would cost thousands of dollars and be time-consuming. Airbus decided to use FDM to print these safety belt holders as described in this video. They took a mere 2 hours to design the part from existing drawings, and had the actual part printed and ready for evaluation within a week!

Airbus used FDM to print safety belt holders for A310 aircraft when the original supplier went out of business
Airbus used FDM to print safety belt holders for A310 aircraft when the original supplier went out of business

Incidentally, the US Air Force has also recognized this as a critical opportunity to drive down costs and reduce the downtime spent by aircrafts awaiting parts, as indicated by a recent research grant they are funding to enable them to leverage 3D printing for the purpose of improving the availability of parts that are difficult and/or expensive to procure. As of 2014, The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that they have maintenance crews supporting a staggering 31,900 combat vehicles, 239 ships and 16,900 aircraft – and identified 3D printing as a key factor in improving parts availability for these crews.

Cost & Lead-time Reduction: In low-volume, high-value industries such as aerospace, 3D printing has a very strong proposition to make as a technology that will bring products to market faster and cheaper. What is often a surprise is the levels of reduction that can be obtained with 3D printing, as borne out by the three examples below.

Airbus A350 Electric wire covers: The Airbus A350 has several hundred plastic covers that are 3D printed with FDM. These covers are used for housing electric wires at junction boxes. Airbus claims it took 70% less time to make these parts, and the manufacturing costs plunged 80%. See this video for more information.

Airbus used FDM to manufacture wire covers for their A350 aircraft
Airbus used FDM to manufacture wire covers for their A350 aircraft

Kelly Manufacturing Toroid housing: Kelly Manufacturing selected FDM to manufacture toroid housings that are assembled into their M3500 instrument, which is a “turn and bank” indicator which provides the pilot information regarding the rate of aircraft turn. These housings were previously made of urethane castings and required manual sanding to remove artifacts from the casting process, and also had high costs and lead times associated with tooling. Using FDM, they were able to eliminate the need to do sanding and reduced the lead time 93% and also reduced per-piece costs by 5% while eliminating the large tooling costs. See the official case study from Stratasys here.

Kelly MFG housing FDM
Toroid housings manufactured for Kelly Manufacturing using FDM for significant cost savings and lead time reduction

These examples help demonstrate that 3D printing parts can be a cost savings solution and almost always results in significant lead time reduction – both of vital interest in the increasingly competitive aerospace industry. Further, design freedom offered by 3D printing allows manufacturing geometries that are otherwise impossible or cost prohibitive to make using other processes, and also have enormous benefit in overcoming roadblocks in the supply chain. At the same time, not every part on an aircraft is a suitable candidate for 3D printing. As we have just seen, selection criteria involve the readily quantifiable metrics of part cost and lead time, but also involve less tangible factors such as supply chain complexity, and the design benefits available to additive manufacturing. An additional factor not explicitly mentioned in any of the previous examples is the criticality of the part to the flight and the safety of the crew and passengers on board. All these factors need to be taken into consideration when determining the suitability of the part for 3D printing.

Arizona Chief Science Officers Design Their Own 3D Printed Name Badges

az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-0The Chief Science Officer program is a program for 6th-12th grade students to represent their school in STEM. And what better way is there for them to identify themselves then with 3D Printed name badges?  The program’s sponsors, the AZ SciTech Festival offer a training retreat for the kids who get elected as their school’s CSO and we all thought introducing design and 3D Printing would be a great activity.

As part of the 2015 Fall CSO Institute, PADT’s Jeff Nichols joined local designer and artist John Drury to spend some time with the kids explaining how to work with logos and shapes to convey an idea, and how to design for 3D Printing.  The kids worked out their own design and sent it to PADT for printing.

We converted their sketch into a 3D Model, starting in Adobe Illustrator. The sketch was traced with vector geometry and then a generic name was added. This was then copied 144 times and each name was typed in, with a few extras. This step was the only boring part.

az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-6

The design worked great because it is a simple extrusion with no need for support material.    The outline of their names were exported as DXF from Illustrator and then imported onto the 3D Model and extruded up to make a solid model of a badge. This was then copied to make a badge for each student. Then the names were imported and extruded on the patterned badges.

az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-5
The was a simple extrusion for each feature, allowing for contrast and readability but keeping things simple.
az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-4
This project was a great opportunity to use both patterns and importing 2D drawings. By laying everything out in a grid, we only had to make one badge and copy that. Then import the names and extrude those on the patterned badges.

STL files were then made and sent off to one of our Stratasys FDM 3D Printers. The FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) process extrudes an ABS plastic filament, and you can change material during the build. So, to add a bit of contrast, we changed the filament color after the base of the design was done, making the logo and student names stand out.  The final results came out really nice.

az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-1
This is what they look like right out of the machine. We swapped out two color for each build. With some clever packing, we were able to get 12 badges on each platform.
az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-2
The final products really stand out.

az-scitech-cso-badges-3d-printed-3

This project was a lot of fun because we were able to work with the students. They got what John and Jeff taught them and did a great job.  We know they will be placed with pride on back backs and jackets across Arizona.

To learn more about the CSO program, visit their website: http://chiefscienceofficers.org/ Check out the blog.  Some of these kids can really write well and their insight into Science, Technology, Math, and Education is insightful.

Star Wars – The Force Awakens with PADT

padt-star-wars-vii-5For an engineer, there are certain TV and Movie experiences that border on the religious – Star Wars is of course one of those.  That is why PADT’s main office in Tempe closed down today to head down the freeway to the Chandler to see Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens.

Around 370 employees, family members, friends, vendors, former employees, and customers showed up for the 10:00 am showing.  We were confident that JJ Abrams would do a great job, because he did so well with an even more important franchise to PADT, Star Trek.  We were not disappointed.  There were cheers, there was laughter, and several of us confessed in the lobby afterwards that we teared up a bit.  A true treat.

padt-star-wars-vii-1
We had a 410 seat theater and about 350 RSVP’s . So we got a bit nervous as the seats filled up. We did get more unexpected people then we cancellations, but we had plenty of room and the more the merrier. Bottom line, the first two rows were empty. So prefect.

I want to thank Josh Heaps here for putting it all together and for dealing with our constantly asking him about when and where it was and how many seats the theater had.

padt-star-wars-vii-2
My friend Ryan, one of AZ’s biggest Star War fans, and our fantastic V.P from Chase, Camille, were great sports who dressed up and posed for pictures. Not only does Camille constantly help make our banking a great experience, she jumps right in with our engineering fun.

This is also a great venue to thank our customers and vendors for coming and for bringing your families.  We don’t get to see many of you often enough, and rarely outside of a meeting or a phone call.  Seeing the smiles on everyone’s face after the movie was, as they say, worth the price of admission.

May the Force Be With You

padt-star-wars-vii-4
That Opening Logo that We have All Been Waiting a Long Time to See.

Activating Hyperdrive in ANSYS Simulations

punch-it-chewie-ansysWith PADT and the rest of the world getting ready to pile into dark rooms to watch a saga that we’ve been waiting for 10 years to see, I figured I’d take this opportunity to address a common, yet simple, question that we get:

“How do I turn on HPC to use multiple cores when running an analysis?”

For those that don’t know, ANSYS spends a significant amount of resources into making the various solvers it has utilize multiple CPU processors more efficiently than before.  By default, depending on the solver, you are able to use between 1-2 cores without needing HPC licenses.

With the utilization of HPC licenses, users can unlock hyperdrive in ANSYS.  If you are equipped with HPC licenses it’s just a matter of where to look for each of the ANSYS products to activate it.

ANSYS Mechanical

Whether or not you are performing a structural, thermal or explicit simulation the process to activate multiple cores is identical.

  1. Go to Tools > Solve Process Settings
  2. The Solve Process Settings Window will pop up
  3. Click on Advanced to open up the Advanced Settings window
  4. You will see an option for Max number of utilized cores
  5. Simply change the value to your desired core count
  6. You will see below an option to allow for GPU acceleration (if your computer is equipped with the appropriate hardware)
  7. Select the GPU type from the dropdown and choose how many GPUs you want to utilize
  8. Click Ok and close
hyperdrive-ansys-f01
Go the proper settings dialog
hyperdrive-ansys-f02
Choose Advanced…
hyperdrive-ansys-f03
Specify the number of cores to use

Distributed Solve in ANSYS Mechanical

One other thing you’ll notice in the Advanced Settings Window is the option to turn “Distributed” On or Off using the checkbox.

In many cases Distributing a solution can be significantly faster than the opposite (Shared Memory Parallel).  It requires that MPI be configured properly (PADT can help guide you through those steps).  Please see this article by Eric Miller that references GPU usage and Distributed solve in ANSYS Mechanical

hyperdrive-ansys-f04
Turn on Distributed Solve if MPI is Configured

ANSYS Fluent

Whether launching Fluent through Workbench or standalone you will first see the Fluent Launcher window.  It has several options regarding the project.

  1. Under the Processing Options you will see 2 options: Serial and Parallel
  2. Simply select Parallel and you will see 2 new dropdowns
  3. The first dropdown lets you select the number of processes (equal to the number of cores) to use in not only during Fluent’s calculations but also during pre-processing as well
Default Settings in Fluent Launch Window
Default Settings in Fluent Launch Window
Options When Parallel is Picked
Options When Parallel is Picked

ANSYS CFX

For CFX simulations through Workbench, the option to activate HPC exists in the Solution Manager

  1. Open the CFX Solver Manager
  2. You will see a dropdown for Run Mode
  3. Rather than the default “Serial” option choose from one of the available “Parallel” options.
  4. For example, if running on the same machine select Platform MPI Local Parallel
  5. Once selected in the section below you will see the name of the computer and a column called Partitions
  6. Simply type the desired number of cores under the Partitions column and then either click “Save Settings” or “Start Run”
Change the Run Mode
Change the Run Mode
Specify number of cores for each machine
Specify number of cores for each machine

ANSYS Electronics Desktop/HFSS/Maxwell

Regardless of which electromagnetic solver you are using: HFSS or Maxwell you can access the ability to change the number of cores by going to the HPC and Analysis Options.

  1. Go to Tools > Options > HPC and Analysis Options.
  2. In the window that pops up you will see a summary of the HPC configuration
  3. Click on Edit and you will see a column for Tasks and a column for Cores.
  4. Tasks relate to job distribution utilizing Optimetrics and DSO licenses
  5. To simply increase the number of cores you want to run the simulation on, change the cores column to your desired value
  6. Click OK on all windows
hyperdrive-ansys-f09
Select the proper settings dialog
hyperdrive-ansys-f10
Select Edit to change the configuration
Specify Tasks and Cores
Specify Tasks and Cores

There you have it.  That’s how easy it is to turn on Hyperdrive in the flagship ANSYS products to advance your simulations and get to your endpoint faster than before.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the possibility of upgrading your ship with Hyperdrive (HPC capabilities) please feel free to call us at 1-800-293-PADT or email us at support@padtinc.com.

New Enhancements to Flownex 2015: Even Better Fluid-Thermal Simulation

987786-flownex_simulation_environment-11_12_13The developers of Flownex have been hard at work again and have put out a fantastic update to Flownex 2015.  These additions go far beyond what most simulation programs include in an update, so we thought it was worth a bit of a blog article to share it with everyone.  You can also download the full release notes here: FlownexSE 2015 Update 1 – Enhancements and Fixes

What is Flownex?

Some of you may not be familiar with Flownex. It is a simulation tool that models Fluid-Thermal networks.  It is a 1-D tool that is very easy to use, powerful, and comprehensive. The technology advancements delivered by Flownex offer a fast, reliable and accurate total system and subsystem approach to simulation that complements component level simulation in tools like ANSYS Fluent, ANSYS CFX, and ANSYS Mechanical.  We use it to model everything from turbine engine combustors to water treatment plants. Learn more here

Major Enhancements

A lot went in to this update, much hidden behind the scenes in the forms of code improvements and fixes.  There are also a slew of major new or enhanced features worth mentioning.

Shared Company Database

One of the great things about Flownex is that you can create modeling objects that you drag and drop into your system model. Now you can share those components, fluids, charts, compounds, and default settings across your company, department, or group.    There is no limit on the number of databases that are shared and access can be controlled. This will allow users to reuse information across your company.

Shared Database
Shared Database

Static Pressure Boundary Conditions

In the past Flownex always used a total pressure boundary condition. Based on user requests, this update includes a new boundary condition object that allows the user to specify the static pressure as a boundary condition. This is useful because many tests of real hardware only provide static pressure. It is also a common boundary condition in typical rotational flow fields in turbo machinery secondary flow.

Subdivided Cavities

Another turbo machinery request was the ability to break cavities up into several radial zones, giving a more accurate pressure distribution in secondary flow applications for Rotor-Rotor and Rotor-Stator cavities.  These subdivisions can be automatically created in the radial direction by Flownex.

flownex_rotor-stator-stator-cavities
Subdivided Cavity Input Dialog

Excel Input Sheets and Parameter Tables

The connection between Microsoft Excel and Flownex has always been strong and useful, and it just get even better.  So many people were connecting cells to their Flownex model parameters that the developers decided to directly connect the two programs so the user no longer has to establish data connection links.  Now an properties in Flownex can be hooked to a cell in Excel.

The next thing users wanted was the ability to work with tables of parameters, so that was added as well.  The user can hook a table of values in Excel to Flownex parameters and then have Flownex solve for the whole table, even returning resulting parameters.  This makes parametric studies driven from Excel simple and powerful.

flownex_Parametric-Tables
Excel Parameter Tables

Component Enhancements

Users can now create component defaults and save them in a library. This saves time because in the past the user had to specify the parameters for a given component. Now thy just drag and job the existing defaults into their model.

Compound components have also been enhanced by the development team so you no loner have to restart Flownex when you move, export, or import a compound component.

Find Based on Property Values

Users can now search through properties on all the objects in their model based on the value assigned to those properties.  As an example, you can type > 27.35 to get a list of all properties with an assigned value that is larger than 27.35.  This saves time because the user no longer has to look through properties or remember what properties were assigned.

Network Creation through Programming

Users can now write programs through the API or scripting tool to build their network models. This will allow companies to create vertical applications or automate the creation of complex networks based on user input. Of all the enhancements in this update, this improvement has the potential to deliver the greatest productivity improvements.

Automatic Elevations Importing in GIS

Users who are specifying flow networks over real terrain can now pull elevation data from the internet, rather than requiring that the data be defined when the network is specified. This enhancement will greatly speed up the modeling of large fluid-thermal systems, especially when part of the simulation process is moving components of the system over terrain.

Multiple Fluid Interface Component

A very common requirement in fluid-thermal systems is the ability to model different fluids or fluid types and how they interact. With this update users can now model two separate fluid networks and define a coupling between the two. The mass balance and resulting pressure at the interface is maintained.

Static Condition Calculation Improvements

Many simulation require an accurate calculation of static pressures. To do this, the upstream and downstream areas and equivalent pipe diameters are needed to obtain the proper values.  Many components now allow upstream and downstream areas to be defined, including restrictors and nozzles.

flownex_upstream-downstream-area
Dialog for upstream and downstream area specification

Scaled Drawing

The ability to create a scale 2-Dimensional drawing was added to Flownex. The user can easily add components onto an existing scaled drawing that is used as a background image in Flownex. These components will automatically detect and input lengths based on the drawing scale and distance between nodes. This results in much less time and effort spent setting up larger models where actual geometric sizes are important.

Scaled Drawing Tools
Scaled Drawing Tools

How do I Try this Out?

As you can see by the breadth and depth of enhancements, Flownex is a very capable tool that delivers on user needs.  Written and maintained by a consulting company that uses the tool every day, it has that rare mix of detailed theory and practical application that most simulation engineers crave.  If you model fluid-thermal systems, or feel you should be simulating your systems, contact Brian Duncan at 480.813.4884 or brain.duncan@padtinc.com. We can do a quick demo over the internet and learn more about what your simulation needs are.  Even if you are using a different tool, you should look at Flownex, it is an great tool.

Stuff I Learned about Injection Molding with 3D Printed Tooling

3DPrinting-Injection-Molding-Pic-StauberMaking injection molding tools using 3D Printing has been a long term goal for the industry.  I knew the technology had advanced recently, but was really not aware how far it had come until I attended two seminars in Utah on the subject. In this post I’ll share what I learned, and share some content that goes into greater detail.

The Seminars

The reason for my update on this subject was a visit to PADT’s Utah office.  Our two people there, Anthony Wagoner (sales) and James Barker (engineering), told me they were doing a seminar on injection molding and I should go. I figured why not, I’m in town. Maybe I’ll meet a couple of customers.  Almost 30 people showed up to the Salt Lake Community College Injection Molding lab for the event.  Gil Robinson from Stratasys presented a fantastic overview (included in the download package) on where the technology is, how to apply it, and gave some great real world examples.  There were some fantastic questions as well which allowed us to really explore the technology

 

IMG_8229

Then the best part happened when we walked into the shop and saw parts being made right there on the machine. They had recently printed a tool and were shooting polypropylene parts while we were in the classroom next door. During the hour long presentation, Richard Savage from ICU Medical was able to fine-tune the injection molding machine and good parts were popping out. As you can imagine, what followed next was they type of discussion would expect with  a room full of injection molding people. “What material? How hot? What pressure? What is the cooling time? Do you use compressed air to cool it? Not a lot of flash, how hard are you clamping it? These features here, what draft did you need?”  Good stuff.  I got caught up in everything and forgot to grab some pictures.

I learned so much at that event that I decided to head north along the Wasatch Range to Clearfield and the Davis Applied Technology College.  About the same number of people were able to make it from medical, aerospace, and consumer products companies in Northern Utah.  Gil presented the same material, but this time we got some different questions so I learned a bit more about material options and some other lessons learned.

Then we visited their lab where I did remember to take some pictures:

FullSizeRender

Here is a shot of different shots that Jonathan George from DATC did to dial in the parameters.  It took him about an hour, not bad for the first time using a 3D Printed tool.

3DPrinting-Injection-Molding-parts1

The part is actually a clam shell assembly for Christmas lights, in the shape of a snow flake. Here is what they look like on the tree itself. IMG_8235

And here is a video they made showing the process. He was able to get 950 shots out of the tool.

In talking to attendees at both events I learned of several great applications that they were going to try, varying from medical devices for clinical trials to making rubber masking tools for surface treatments. The injection molding community in Utah is very sophisticated and forward thinking.

Stratasys-PolyJet-based-3D-printed-mold-tools

What I Learned

I’ll spare you the details on what we had for dinner Monday night for the Utah office holiday celebration and jump right in to what I learned.

  1. For  the right applications, you can get some very nice parts from 3D Printed tools
  2. You do need to take the process in to account and oriented the tools facing upward in the machine, add a bit more draft than usual, and keep your pressures and temperature down when compared to metal tools.
  3. For some parts, you can get over 1,000 shots from a tool, but most poeple are getting a couple of hundred parts.
  4. As with any injection molding, the magic is in the tool design and setting up the right parameters on the injection molding press.
  5. Tricky parts can be made by using metal inserts
  6. Some machining may be required on your 3D printed tool to get it just right, but that is mostly reaming holes for ejector pins and metal inserts
  7. Plastic is an insulator (duh) so plastic tools have to be cooled more slowly and with air.
  8. Conformal cooling is a great idea, but some work still needs to be done to get it to work.
  9. The mold usually fails during part ejection, so using mold release, good draft, and proper design can reduce the loading during ejection and get more parts from the tool.
  10. The material of choice for this is DigitalABS on Stratasys Connex Machines.

There was a ton more, and you can find most of it in the download package.

The big take-away from both events was that this technology works and it really does allow you to create an injection molding tool in a couple of hours on a 3D Printer. In the time it normally takes to just get the order figured out for a machined tool (RFQ, Quote, Iterate, PO, etc…) you can have your parts.

3DPrinting-Injection-Molding-Pic-Diversified

Next Steps

Interested in trying this out yourself or learning more?  We have put together an injection molding package with the following content:

  • Polyjet Injection Molding Application Brief
  • 18 Page Polyjet Injection Molding Technical Guide
  • 12 Page White Paper: Precision Prototyping – The Role of 3D Printed Molds in the Injection Molding Industry
  • 3D Printed Injection Molding Application Guide from PADT and Stratasys
  • Presentation from Seminars
  • List of Relevant Videos
  • Four Real World Case Studies
  • Link List for Other Resources  on the Web

We have spent some time putting all this information in one place and put it into one convenient ZIP file.  Please click here to download this very useful content.

injection_molded_fan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PID Thermostat Boundary Condition ACT Extension for ANSYS Mechanical

ANSYS-ACT-PID-ThermostatPADT is pleased to announce that we have uploaded a new ACT Extension to the ANSYS ACT App Store.  This new extension implements a PID based thermostat boundary condition that can be used within a transient thermal simulation.  This boundary condition is quite general purpose in nature.  For example, it can be setup to use any combination of (P)roportional (I)ntegral or (D)erivate control.   It supports locally monitoring the instantaneous temperature of any piece of geometry within the model.  For a piece of geometry that is associated with more than one node, such as an edge or a face, it uses a novel averaging scheme implemented using constraint equations so that the control law references a single temperature value regardless of the reference geometry.

ANSYS-ACT-PID-Thermostat-img1

The set-point value for the controller can be specified in one of two ways.  First, it can be specified as a simple table that is a function of time.  In this scenario, the PID ACT Extension will attempt to inject or remove energy from some location on the model such that a potentially different location of the model tracks the tabular values.   Alternatively, the PID thermostat boundary condition can be set up to “follow” the temperature value of a portion of the model.  This location again can be a vertex, edge or face and the ACT extension uses the same averaging scheme mentioned above for situations in which more than one node is associated with the reference geometry.  Finally, an offset value can be specified so that the set point temperature tracks a given location in the model with some nonzero offset.

ANSYS-ACT-PID-Thermostat-img2

For thermal models that require some notion of control the PID thermostat element can be used effectively.  Please do note, however, that the extension works best with the SI units system (m-kg-s).

A Guide to Crawling, Walking, and Running with ANSYS Structural Analysis

crawl-walk-runAt PADT, we apply a Crawl, Walk, Run philosophy to just about everything we do. Start with the basics, build knowledge and capability on that, and then continue to develop your skills throughout your career. Unfortunately, all too often I run across some poor new grad, two weeks out of school, contending with a problem that’s more befitting someone with about a decade of experience under his or her belt.

Now, the point of this article isn’t to call anyone out. Rather, I sincerely hope that managers and supervisors see this and use it as a guideline in assigning tasks to their direct reports. Note that the recommendations are relative and general. Some people may be quite competent in the “run” categories after just a few months of usage and study while others may have been using the software for a decade and still have trouble figuring out how to even start it. It’s also possible that, for certain projects, the “crawl” categories may actually end up being more difficult to contend with than the “run” categories.

With those caveats in mind, here is our list of recommendations for Crawling, Walking, and Running with ANSYS. Note that these apply to structural analysis. I fully plan to hit up my colleagues for similar blog posts about heat transfer, CFD, and electrical simulation.

Crawlsimple-stress1

  • Linear static
  • Basic modal
  • Eigenvalue (linear) buckling, but don’t forget to apply a knock-down factor

Walkstruct-techtip6-contacts-between-bolts

  • Nonlinearities
    • Large Deflection
    • Rate-independent plasticity
    • Nonlinear contact (frictionless and frictional)
  • Dynamics
    • Modal with linear perturbation
    • Spectrum analyses (running the analysis is easy; understanding what you’re doing and interpreting results correctly is hard)
      • Shock/Single point response
      • Random Vibration (PSD)
    • Harmonic analysis
  • Fatigue

Runvibration-pumping platforms

  • Nonlinearities
    • Advanced element options
    • Hyperelasticity
    • Rate-dependent phenomena
      • Creep
      • Viscoelasticity
      • Viscoplasticity
    • Other advanced material models such as shape memory alloy and gaskets
    • Element birth and death
  • Dynamics
    • Transient dynamics (implicit)
    • Explicit dynamics (e.g. LS-Dyna and Autodyn)
    • Rotordynamics
  • Fracture and crack growth

So what’s the best, quickest way to move from crawling to walking or walking to running? Invest in general or consultative (or even better, both) ANSYS training with PADT. We’ll help you get to where you need to be.

Seminar: Additive Manufacturing & the Honeywell Global Initiative

honeywell-speachDonald Godfrey, Honeywell Engineering Fellow for Additive Manufacturing will be presenting a seminar at Arizona State University on the status of metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) within the company worldwide.  This live event, being held at the ASU Polytechnic Campus in Mesa, Arizona, will be a fantastic opportunity to learn how this exciting technology is used in the real world to change the way aerospace parts are designed and made.

Download the PDF:  Honewell-additive-asu-1, to learn more.

GCOI 2015 – Celebrating Arizona’s Technology Community

gcoi_iconFor those of us that are part of the Arizona Technology community, the official kickoff of holiday and end of year celebrations is the Governor’s Celebration of Innovation, or GCOI.  A who’s who of key people from startups to large aerospace firms gather at the convention center to recognize students, academicians, companies, and individuals who have had a significant impact on the State’s high tech industries.  This is always a special evening for PADT because many of the attendees, and usually a few of the award winners, are our customers.

In fact, for 2015 we are proud to congratulate the following long time PADT customers who were recognized last night:

  • Medtronic Tempe Campus for Innovator of the Year, Large Company
  • Raytheon Missile Systems for winning the Pioneering Award
  • ASU’s Michael Crow, the OneNeck IT Services People’s Choice Lifetime Achievement Award winner (ASU is a large PADT customer… so we feel Dr. Crow is our customer as well.)

You can find a full list of winners and some great pictures  from the event in Tishin Donkersley’s article at AZ Tech Beat.

This fantastic event is put on by the Arizona Technology Council and the Arizona Commerce Authority.  For those that were there: Mac & Cheese bar FTW.

gcoi-2

About the Awards

As in past years, PADT was honored to be able to fabricate the awards that were handed out. This year we used the overall design for the event, created by Atom, as our starting point. We used our Stratasys FDM printers to make the stair steps and “tech guy silhouette” The graphics are then printed on large stickers that are adhered to the back of an Arizona’ish shaped piece of plexiglass.

gcoi-awards-2015-1

The PADT Booth

This year we decided to not bring a 3D Printer and instead focus on parts made on a wider variety of printers. The hit for visitors were the metal parts that were made on ConceptLaser Direct Laser Melting systems.  In addition we got to talk about the great work that our product development team did for GlobalStar on the Spot devices and Orthosensor for their intelligent orthopedic sensors. We even had a few simulation people come by to talk ANSYS.

1112151507a

Hopefully you had a chance to talk with Andrew Miller, Kathryn Pesta, or Mario Vargas. If you missed us and want to know more about PADT, what we do, or the Arizona Technology Community, reach out and we will be happy to chat.

IMG_7799

Be a Pinball Wizard with Contact Regions in ANSYS Mechanical

pinball-wizard-pinball-machine-ANSYS-3
A pinball machine based on The Who’s Tommy

I had a very cool music teacher back in 6th or 7th grade in the 1970’s in upstate New York.  Today we’d probably say she was eclectic.  In that class we listened to and discussed fairly recent songs in addition to general music studies.  Two songs I remember in particular are ‘Hurdy Gurdy Man’ by Donovan and ‘Pinball Wizard’ by The Who.  If you’re not familiar with Pinball Wizard, it’s from The Who’s rock opera Tommy, and is about a deaf, mute, blind young man who happens to be adept at the game of pinball.  Yes, he is a Pinball Wizard.  This sing popped into my head recently when we had some customer questions here at PADT regarding the pinball region concept as it pertains to ANSYS contact regions.

I’m not sure if the developers at ANSYS, Inc. had this song in mind when they came up with the nomenclature for the 17X (latest and greatest) series of contact elements in ANSYS, but regardless, you too can be a pinball wizard when it comes to understanding contact elements in ANSYS Mechanical and MAPDL.

Fans of this blog may remember one of my prior posts on contact regions in ANSYS that also had a musical theme (bringing to mind Peter Gabriel’s song “I Have the Touch”):

In this current entry we will go more in depth on the pinball region, also known as the pinball radius.  The pinball region is involved with the distance from contact element to target element in a given contact region.  Outside the pinball region, ANSYS doesn’t bother to check to see if the elements on opposite sides of the contact region are touching or not.  The program assumes they are far away from each other and doesn’t worry about any additional calculations for the most part.

Here is an illustration.  The gray elements on the left represent the contact body and the red elements on the right represent the target body (assuming asymmetric contact).  Target elements outside the pinball radius will not be checked for contact.  The contact and target elements actually ‘coat’ the underlying solid elements so they are shown as dashed lines slightly offset from the solid elements for the sake of visibility.  Here the pinball radius is displayed as a dashed blue circle, centered on the contact elements, with a radius of 2X the depth of the underlying solid elements.

pinball_radius_contact_illustration

So, outside the pinball region, we know ANSYS doesn’t check to see if the contact and target are actually in contact.  It just assumes they are far away and not in contact.  What about what happens if the contact and target are inside the pinball region?  The answer to that question depends on which contact type we have selected.

For frictionless contact (aka standard contact in MAPDL) and frictional contact, the program will then check to see if the contact and target are truly touching.  If they are touching, the program will check to see if they are sliding or possibly separating.  If they are touching and penetrating, the program will check to see if the penetration exceeds the allowable amount and will make adjustments, etc.  In other words, for frictionless and frictional contact, if the contact and target elements are close enough to be inside the pinball region, the program will make all sorts of checks and adjustments to make sure the contact behavior is adequately captured.

The other scenario is for bonded and no separation contact.  With these contact types, the program’s behavior when the contact and target elements are within the pinball region is different.  For these types, as long as the contact and target are close enough to be within the pinball region, the program considers the contact region to be closed.  So, for bonded and no separation, your contact and target elements do not need to be line on line touching in order for contact to be recognized.  The contact and target pairs just need to be inside the pinball region.  This can be good, in that it allows for some ‘slop’ in the geometry to be automatically ignored, but it also can have a downside if we have a curved surface touching a flat surface for example.  In that case, more of the curved surface may be considered in contact than would be the case if the pinball region was smaller.  This effect is shown in the image below.  Reducing the pinball radius to an appropriate smaller amount would be the fix for eliminating this ‘overconstraint’ if desired.

pinball_radius_bonded_noseparation

There is a default value for the pinball region/radius.  It can be changed if needed.  We’ll add more details in a moment.  First, why is it called the “pinball” region?  I like to think it’s because when it’s visualized in the Mechanical window, it looks like a blue pinball from an actual pinball arcade game, but I’ll admit that the ANSYS terminology may predate the Mechanical interface.  The image below shows what I mean.  The blue balls are the different pinball radii for different contact regions.

pinball_radius_visualization

 

Note that you don’t see the pinball region displayed as shown in the above image unless you have manually changed the pinball size in Mechanical.  The pinball region can be changed in the Mechanical window in the details view for each contact region by changing Pinball Region from Program Controlled to Radius, like this:

pinball_radius_change

In MAPDL, the pinball radius value can be changed by defining or editing the real constant labeled PINB.

By now you’re probably wondering what is the default value for the pinball radius?  The good news is that it is intelligently decided by the program for each contact region.  The default is always a scale factor on the depth of the underlying elements of each contact region.  In the first pinball region image shown near the beginning of this article, the example plot shows the pinball region/radius as two times the depth of the underlying elements.

The table below summarizes the default pinball radius values for most circumstances for 2D and 3D solid element models.  More detailed information is available in the ANSYS Help.

Default Pinball Radius ValuesLarge Deflection Off
Flexible-Flexible
Large Deflection On
Flexible-Flexible
Frictionless and Frictional1* Underlying Element Depth2*Underlying Element Depth
Bonded and No Seperation0.25*Underlying Element Depth0.5*Underlying Element Depth
Rigid-Flexible Contact: Typically the Default Values are Doubled

Summing it all up:  we have seen how the default values are calculated and also how to change them.  We have seen what they look like as blue balls in a plot of contact regions in Mechanical if the pinball radius has been explicitly defined.  We also discussed what the pinball radius does and how it’s different for frictionless/frictional contact and bonded/no separation contact.

You should be well on your way to becoming a pinball wizard at this point.

Does performing simulation in ANSYS make you think of certain songs, or are there songs you like to listen to while working away on your simulations an addition to The Who’s “Pinball Wizard” and Peter Gabriel’s “I Have the Touch”?  If so, we’d love to hear about your song preferences in the comments below.

Video: Automated Test Fixture for Biopsy Device

biobsy-test-fixture-1How do you figure out when and why a product is failing?  When the failure is due to repetitive operation the only practical way is to build a machine that operates the product over and over again. Designing, building, and running this type of device is one of the many services that PADT offers its customers.

The video below is an example of how PADT’s Medical Device team developed an automated text fixture for a customer that needed to understand the failure mechanisms of a biopsy device. The fixture was designed to operate the device, repeating field operations, and capture behavior over time with the goal of capture which components failed, the nature of each failure, and the nature of each failure.

The apparatus repeats four operations that constitute one operation of the device. Video is used with a counter to determine when a failure occurred and how. The project brought together test, controls, and mechanical design engineers. It also utilized PADT’s in-house 3D Printing and machining capability.

This is also a perfect example of how a customer can hand over an entire project that they need done, but don’t have the resources to do in-house. PADT’s team created the test specification, designed the hardware, conducted the tests, and delivered actionable information to the customer.

If you have a project you do not have the resources to complete in-house, consider having our engineers take a look at it to see how we can help.

Programming a Simple Polygon Editor

polygon-editor-icon-1Part of my job at PADT is writing custom software for our various clients.  We focus primarily on developing technical software for the engineering community, with a particular emphasis on tools that integrate with the ANSYS suite of simulation tools.  Frankly, writing software is my favorite thing to do at PADT, simply because software development is all about problem solving.

This morning I got to work on a fairly simple feature of a much larger tool that I am currently developing.  The feature I’m working on involves graphically editing polygons.  Why, you ask am I doing this?  Well, that I can’t say, but nonetheless I can share a particularly interesting problem (to me at least) that I got to take a swing at solving.  The problem is this:

When a user is editing a node in the polygon by dragging it around on the screen, how do you handle the case when they drop it on an existing node?

Consider this polygon I sketched out in a prototype of the tool.

polygon-editor-f01

What should happen if the user drags this node over on top of that node:polygon-editor-f02

Well, I think the most logical thing to do is that you merge the two nodes together.  Implementing that is pretty easy.  The slightly harder question is what to do with the remaining structure of the polygon?  For my use case, polygons have to be manifold in that no vertex is connected to more than two edges. (The polygons can be open and thus have two end vertices connected to only one edge.)  So, what part do you delete?  Well, my solution is that you delete the “smaller” part, where “smaller” is defined as the part that has the fewest nodes.  So, for example, this is what my polygon looks like after the “drop”

polygon-editor-f03Conceptually, this sounds pretty simple, but how do you do it programmatically?  To give some background, note that the nodes in my polygon class are stored in a simple, ordered C++ std::list<>.

Now, I use a std::list<> simply because I know I’m going to be inserting and deleting nodes at random places.  Linked lists are great for that, and for rendering, I have to walk the whole list anyway, so there’s no performance hit there.  Graphically, my data structure looks
something like this:polygon-editor-f04Pretty simple.  For a closed polygon, my class maintains a flag and simply draws an edge from the last node to the first node.

The rub comes when you start to realize that there are tons of different ways a user might try to merge nodes together in either an open or closed polygon.  I’ve illustrated a few below along with what nodes would need to be merged in the corresponding data structure.  In the data structure pictures, the red node is the target (the node on which the user will be dropping) and the green node is the one they are manipulating (the source node).

Here is one example:

polygon-editor-f05polygon-editor-f06

Here is another example:

polygon-editor-f07
polygon-editor-f09b

Finally, here is one more:polygon-editor-f08polygon-editor-f09

In all these examples, we have different “cases” that we need to handle.  For instance, in the first example the portion of the data structure we want to keep is the stuff between the source and target nodes.  So, the stuff on the “ends” of the list needs to be deleted.  In the middle case, we just need to merge the source and target together.  Finally, in the last case, the nodes between the source and target need to be deleted, whereas the stuff at the “ends” of the list need to be kept.

This simple type of problem causes shivers in many programmers, and I’ll admit, I was nervous at first that this problem was going to lead to a solution that handled each individual case respectively.  Nothing in all of programming is more hideous than that.  So, there has to be a simple way to figure out what part of the list to keep, and what part of the list to throw away.

Now, I’m sure this problem has been solved numerous times before, but I wanted to take a shot at it without googling.  (I still haven’t googled, yet… so if this is similar to any other approach, they get the credit and I just reinvented the wheel…)  I remember a long time ago listening to a C++ programmer espouse the wonders of the standard library’s algorithm section.  I vaguely remember him droning on about how wonderful the std::rotate algorithm is.  At the time, I didn’t see what all the fuss was about.  Now, I’m right there with him.  std::rotate is pretty awesome!

std::rotate is a simple algorithm.  Essentially what it does is it takes the first element in a list, pops it off the list and moves it to the rear of the list.  Everything else in the list shifts up one spot.  This is called a left rotate, because you can imagine the items in the list rotating to the left until they get to the front of the line, at which point they fall off and are put back on the end of the list.  (Using reverse iterators you can effectively perform a right rotate as well.)  So, how can we take advantage of this to simplify figuring out what needs to be deleted from our list of nodes?

Well, the answer is remarkably simple.  Once we locate the source and target nodes in the list, regardless of their relative position with respect to one another or to the ends of the list, we simply left rotate the list until the target becomes the head of the list.  That is, if we start with this:polygon-editor-f10We left rotate until we have this:polygon-editor-f11That’s great, but what does that buy us?  Well, now that one of the participating nodes is at the head of the list, our problem is much simpler because all of the nodes that we need to delete are now at either end of the list.  The only question left to answer is which end of the list do we trim off?  The answer to that question is trivial.  We simply trim off the shorter end of the list with respect to the source node (the green node in the diagram). The “lengths” of the two lists are defined as follows.  For the head section, it’s the number of nodes up to, but not including the source. (This section obviously includes the target node)  For the tail, it’s the number of nodes from the source to the end, including the source.  (This section includes the source node).  Since we define the two sections this way we are guaranteed to delete either the source or the target, but not both.  Its fine to delete either one of them, because at this point we’ve deemed the geometrically coincident, but we must not accidentally delete both!!

In the example just given, after the rotate, we would delete the head of the list.  However, let’s take a look at our first example.  Here is the original list:

polygon-editor-f12Here is the rotated list:polygon-editor-f13So, in this case, the “end” of the list (including the source) is the shortest.  If it is a tie, then it doesn’t matter, just pick one.  Interestingly enough, if the two nodes are adjacent in the original list, then the rotated list will look like either this:polygon-editor-f14 Or this, if the source is “before” the target in the original list:polygon-editor-f15In either case, the algorithm works unchanged, and we only delete one node.  It’s beautiful! (At least in my opinion…)  Modern C++ makes this type of code really clean and easy to write.  Here is the entire thing, including the search to located geometrically adjacent nodes as well as the merge. The standard library algorithms really help out!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
// Search lambda function for looking for any other node in the list that is
// coindicent to this node, except this node.
auto searchAdjacentFun = [this, pNode](const NodeListTool::AdjustNodePtrT &amp;pOtherNode)-&gt;bool
{
if (pNode-&gt;tag() == pOtherNode-&gt;tag()) return false;
return (QVector2D(pNode-&gt;pos() - pOtherNode-&gt;pos()).length() &lt; m_snapTolerance); }; auto targetLoc = std::find_if(m_nodes.begin(), m_nodes.end(), searchAdjacentFun); // If we don't find an adjacent node within the tolerance, then we can't merge if (targetLoc == m_nodes.end()) { return false; } // Tidy things up so that the source has exactly the same position as the target pNode-&gt;setPos((*targetLoc)-&gt;pos());
 
// Begin the merge by left rotating the target so that it is at the
// beginning of the list
std::rotate(m_nodes.begin(), targetLoc, m_nodes.end());
 
// Find this node in the list
auto searchThis = [this, pNode](const NodeListTool::AdjustNodePtrT &amp;pOtherNode)-&gt;bool
{
return (pNode-&gt;tag() == pOtherNode-&gt;tag());
};
auto sourceLoc = std::find_if(m_nodes.begin(), m_nodes.end(), searchThis);
 
// Now, figure out which nodes we are going to delete.
auto distToBeg = std::distance(m_nodes.begin(), sourceLoc);
auto distToEnd = std::distance(sourceLoc, m_nodes.end());
 
if (distToBeg &lt; distToEnd) { // If our source is closer to the beginning (which is the target) // than it is to the end of the list, then we need to delete // the nodes at the front of the list m_nodes.erase(m_nodes.begin(), sourceLoc); } else { // Otherwise, delete the nodes at the end of the list m_nodes.erase(sourceLoc, m_nodes.end()); } // Now, see if we still have more than 2 vertices if (m_nodes.size() &gt; 2) {
m_bClosed = true;
}
else {
m_bClosed = false;
}
return true;

2015 PADT Pumpkin Fest and Launch

padt-pumpkin-lunch-1Every year around the end of October PADT has our holiday season kick-off event, our Pumpkin Fest and Launch.  This year we also added in a company meeting, killing three birds with one pumpkin.

The weather was fantastic, and we all enjoyed sitting outside in the sun under a clear blue sky.  Our pumpkin catapult, recently improved, was then rolled out for some pumpkin chunkin’ fun.

Thanks to the folks at Tech Shop Chandler we had a redesigned basket for the pumpkins to go in. Their industrial sewing machine was a perfect tool to make something strong enough.  Her are some picture below that I took with my phone, we will add video next week.

Manoj M won on distance, and Jeff McK took the prize for accuracy.

padt-pumpkin-catapult-1
The PADT Pumpkin cataPult ready to go.
padt-pumpkin-catapult-3
Ted shows good form while striving for accuracy
padt-pumpkin-catapult-2
The only change to this years design was a better basket made with industrial fabric on an industrial sewing machine from Tech Shop

7 Reasons why ANSYS AIM Will Change the Way Simulation is Done

ANSYS-AIM-Icon1When ANSYS, Inc. released their ANSYS AIM product they didn’t just introduce a better way to do simulation, they introduced a tool that will change the way we all do simulation.  A bold statement, but after PADT has used the tool here, and worked with customers who are using it, we feel confident that this is a software package will drive that level of change.   It enables the type of change that will drive down schedule time and cost for product development, and allow companies to use simulation more effectively to drive their product development towards better performance and robustness.

It’s Time for a Productivity Increase

AIM-7-old-modelIf you have been doing simulation as long as I have (29 years for me) you have heard it before. And sometimes it was true.  GUI’s on solvers was the first big change I saw. Then came robust 3D tetrahedral meshing, which we coasted on for a while until fully associative and parametric CAD connections made another giant step forward in productivity and simulation accuracy. Then more recently, robust CFD meshing of dirty geometry. And of course HPC improvements on the solver side.

That was then.  Right now everyone is happily working away in their tool of choice, simulating their physics of choice.  ANSYS Mechanical for structural, ANSYS Fluent for fluids, and maybe ANSYS HFSS for electromagnetics. Insert your tool of choice, it doesn’t really matter. They are all best-in-breed advanced tools for doing a certain type of physical simulation.  Most users are actually pretty happy. But if you talk to their managers or methods engineers, you find less happiness. Why? They want more engineers to have access to these great tools and they also want people to be working together more with less specialization.

Putting it all Together in One Place

AIM-7-valve2-multiphysicsANSYS AIM is, among many other things, an answer to this need.  Instead of one new way of doing something or a new breakthrough feature, it is more of a product that puts everything together to deliver a step change in productivity. It is built on top of these same world class best-in-bread solvers. But from the ground up it is an environment that enables productivity, processes, ease-of-use, collaboration, and automation. All in one tool, with one interface.

Changing the Way Simulation is Done

Before we list where we see things changing, let’s repeat that list of what AIM brings to the table, because those key deliverables in the software are what are driving the change:

  • IAIM-7-pipe-setupmproved Productivity
  • Standardized Processes
  • True Ease-of-Use
  • Inherent Collaboration
  • Intuitive Automation
  • Single Interface

Each of these on their own would be good, but together, they allow a fundamental shift in how a simulation tool can be used. And here are the seven way we predict you will be doing things differently.

1) Standardized processes across an organization

The workflow in ANSYS AIM is process oriented from the beginning, which is a key step in standardizing processes.  This is amplified by tools that allow users, not just programmers, to create templates, capturing the preferred steps for a given type of simulation.  Others have tried this in the past, but the workflows were either too rigid or not able to capture complex simulations.  This experience was used to make sure the same thing does not happen in ANSYS AIM.

2) No more “good enough” simulation done by Design Engineers

Ease of use and training issue has kept robust simulation tools out of the hands of design engineers.  Programs for that group of users have usually been so watered down or lack so much functionality, that they simply deliver a quick answer. The math is the same, but it is not as detailed or accurate.  ANSYS AIM solves this by give the design engineer a tool they can pick up and use, but that also gives them access to the most capable solvers on the market.

3) Multiphysics by one user

Multiphysics simulation often involves the use of multiple simulation tools.  Say a CFD Solver and a Thermal Solver. The problem is that very few users have the time to learn two or more tools, and to learn how to hook them together. So some Multiphysics is done with several experts working together, some in tools that do multiple physics, but none well, or by a rare expert that has multi-tool expertise.  Because ANSYS AIM is a Multiphysics tool from the ground up, built on high-power physics solvers, the limitations go away and almost any engineer can now do Multiphysics simulation.

AIM-7-study4) True collaboration

The issues discussed above about Multiphysics requiring multiple users in most tools, also inhibit true collaboration. Using one user’s model in one tool is difficult when another user has another tool. Collaboration is difficult when so much is different in processes as well.  The workflow-driven approach in ANSYS AIM lends itself to collaboration, and the consistent look-and-feel makes it happen.

5) Enables use when you need it

This is a huge one.  Many engineers do not use simulation tools because they are occasional users.  They feel that the time required to re-familiarize themselves with their tools is longer than it takes to do the simulation. The combination of features unique to ANSYS AIM deal with this in an effective manner, making accurate simulation something a user can pick up when they need it, use it to drive their design, and move on to the next task.

6) Stepping away from CAD embedded Simulation

The growth of CAD embedded simulation tools, programs that are built into a CAD product, has been driven by the need to tightly integrate with geometry and provide ease of use for the users who only occasionally need to do simulation. Although the geometry integration was solved years ago, the ease-of-use and process control needed is only now becoming available in a dedicated simulation tool with ANSYS AIM.

7) A Return to home-grown automation for simulation

AIM-7-scriptIf you have been doing simulation since the 80’s like I have, you probably remember a day when every company had scripts and tools they used to automate their simulation process. They were extremely powerful and delivered huge productivity gains. But as tools got more powerful and user interfaces became more mature, the ability to create your own automation tools faded.  You needed to be a programmer. ANSYS AIM brings this back with recording and scripting for every feature in the tool, with a common and easy to use language, Python.

How does this Impact Me and or my Company?

It is kind of fun to play prognosticator and try and figure out how a revolutionary advance in our industry is going to impact that industry. But in the end it really does not matter unless the changes improve the product development process. We feel pretty strongly that it does.  Because of the changes in how simulation is done, brought about by ANSYS AIM, we feel that more companies will use simulation to drive their product development, more users within a company will have access to those tools, and the impact of simulation will be greater.

AIM-f1_car_pressure_ui

To fully grasp the impact you need to step back and ponder why you do simulation.  The fast cars and crazy parties are just gravy. The core reason is to quickly and effectively test your designs.  By using virtual testing, you can explore how your product behaves early in the design process and answer those questions that always come up.  The sooner, faster, and more accurately you answer those questions, the lower the cost of your product development and the better your final product.

Along comes a product like ANSYS AIM.  It is designed by the largest simulation software company in the world to give the users of today and tomorrow access to the power they need. It enables that “sooner, faster, and more accurately” by allowing us to change, for the better, the way we do virtual testing.

The best way to see this for yourself is to explore ANSYS AIM.  Sign up for our AIM Resource Kit here or contact us and we will be more than happy to show it to you.

AIM_City_CFD