Additive Manufacturing & Topology Optimization in ANSYS 2020 R1 – Webinar

ANSYS offers a complete simulation workflow for additive manufacturing (AM) that allows you to transition your R&D efforts for metal additive manufacturing into a successful manufacturing operation. This best-in-class solution for additive manufacturing enables simulation at every step in your AM process. It will help you optimize material configurations and machine and parts setup before you begin to print. As a result, you’ll greatly reduce — and potentially eliminate — the physical process of trial-and- error testing.

ANSYS additive solutions continue to evolve at a rapid pace. A variety of new enhancements and features come as part of ANSYS 2020 R1, including the ability to work with EOS printers, using the inherent strain approach in ANSYS Workbench Additive, and new materials in ANSYS Additive Print and Science.

Join PADT’s Lead Mechanical Engineer Doug Oatis for an exploration of the ANSYS tools that help to optimize additive manufacturing, and what new capabilities are available for them when upgrading to ANSYS 2020 R1. This presentation includes updates regarding:

  • Inherent strain method in workbench Additive
  • Additive Wizard update
  • And much more

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

Mechanical Updates in ANSYS 2020 R1 – Webinar

With ANSYS structural analysis software, users are able to solve more complex engineering problems, faster and more efficiently than ever before. Customization and automation of structural solutions is much easier to optimize thanks to new and innovative finite element analysis (FEA) tools available in this product suite.

Once again, ANSYS is able to cement their role as industry leaders when it comes to usability, productivity, and reliability; adding innovative functionality to an already groundbreaking product offering. ANSYS Mechanical continues to be used throughout the industry, and for good reason as it enables engineers to optimize their product design and reduce the costs of physical testing.

Join PADT’s Senior Mechanical Engineer & Lead Trainer Joe Woodward, for an in-depth look at what’s new in the latest version of ANSYS Mechanical, including updates regarding:

  • External Modeling
  • Graphics
  • Composites
  • Linear Dynamics
  • And much more

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

Reduce EMI with Good Signal Integrity Habits

Recently the ‘Signal Integrity Journal’ posted their ‘Top 10 Articles’ of 2019. All of the articles included were incredible, however, one stood out to me from the rest – ‘Seven Habits of Successful 2-Layer Board Designers’ by Dr. Eric Bogatin (https://www.signalintegrityjournal.com/blogs/12-fundamentals/post/1207-seven-habits-of-successful-2-layer-board-designers). In this work, Dr. Bogatin and his students were developing a 2-Layer printed circuit board (PCB), while trying to minimize signal and power Integrity issues as much as possible. As a result, they developed a board and described seven ‘golden habits’ for this board development. These are fantastic habits that I’m confident we can all agree with. In particular, there was one habit at which I wanted to take a deeper look:

“…Habit 4: When you need to route a cross-under on the bottom layer, make it short. When you can’t make it short, add a return strap over it..”

Generally speaking, this habit suggests to be very careful with the routing of signal traces over the gap on the ground plane. From the signal integrity point of view, Dr. Bogatin explained it perfectly – “..The signal traces routed above this gap will see a gap in the return path and generate cross talk to other signals also crossing the gap..”. On one hand, crosstalk won’t be a problem if there are no other nets around, so the layout might work just fine in that case. However, crosstalk is not the only risk. Fundamentally, crosstalk is an EMI problem. So, I wanted to explore what happens when this habit is ignored and there are no nearby nets to worry about.

To investigate, I created a simple 2-Layer board with the signal trace, connected to 5V voltage source, going over an air gap. Then I observed the near field and far field results using ANSYS SIwave solution. Here is what I found.

Near and Far Field Analysis

Typically, near and far fields are characterized by solved E and H fields around the model. This feature in ANSYS SIwave gives the engineer the ability to simulate both E and H fields for near field analysis, and E field for Far Field analysis.

First and foremost, we can see, as expected, that both near and far Field have resonances at the same frequencies. Additionally, we can observe from Figure 1 that both E and H fields for near field have the largest radiation spikes at 786.3 MHz and 2.349GHz resonant frequencies.

Figure 1. Plotted E and H fields for both Near and Far Field solutions

If we plot E and H fields for Near Field, we can see at which physical locations we have the maximum radiation.

Figure 2. Plotted E and H fields for Near field simulations

As expected, we see the maximum radiation occurring over the air gap, where there is no return path for the current. Since we know that current is directly related to electromagnetic fields, we can also compute AC current to better understand the flow of the current over the air gap.

Compute AC Currents (PSI)

This feature has a very simple setup interface. The user only needs to make sure that the excitation sources are read correctly and that the frequency range is properly indicated. A few minutes after setting up the simulation, we get frequency dependent results for current. We can review the current flow at any simulated frequency point or view the current flow dynamically by animating the plot.

Figure 3. Computed AC currents

As seen in Figure 3, we observe the current being transferred from the energy source, along the transmission line to the open end of the trace. On the ground layer, we see the return current directed back to the source. However at the location of the air gap there is no metal for the return current to flow, therefore, we can see the unwanted concentration of energy along the plane edges. This energy may cause electromagnetic radiation and potential problems with emission.

If we have a very complicated multi-layer board design, it won’t be easy to simulate current flow on near and far fields for the whole board. It is possible, but the engineer will have to have either extra computing time or extra computing power. To address this issue, SIwave has a feature called EMI Scanner, which helps identify problematic areas on the board without running full simulations.

EMI Scanner

ANSYS EMI Scanner, which is based on geometric rule checks, identifies design issues that might result in electromagnetic interference problems during operation. So, I ran the EMI Scanner to quickly identify areas on the board which may create unwanted EMI effects. It is recommended for engineers, after finding all potentially problematic areas on the board using EMI Scanner, to run more detailed analyses on those areas using other SIwave features or HFSS.

Currently the EMI Scanner contains 17 rules, which are categorized as ‘Signal Reference’, ‘Wiring/Crosstalk’, ‘Decoupling’ and ‘Placement’. For this project, I focused on the ‘Signal Reference’ rules group, to find violations for ‘Net Crossing Split’ and ‘Net Near Edge of Reference’. I will discuss other EMI Scanner rules in more detail in a future blog (so be sure to check back for updates).

Figure 4. Selected rules in EMI Scanner (left) and predicted violations in the project (right)

As expected, the EMI Scanner properly identified 3 violations as highlighted in Figure 4. You can either review or export the report, or we can analyze violations with iQ-Harmony. With this feature, besides generating a user-friendly report with graphical explanations, we are also able to run ‘What-if’ scenarios to see possible results of the geometrical optimization.

Figure 5. Generated report in iQ-Harmony with ‘What-If’ scenario

Based on these results of quick EMI Scanner, the engineer would need to either redesign the board right away or to run more analysis using a more accurate approach.

Conclusion

In this blog, we were able to successfully run simulations using ANSYS SIwave solution to understand the effect of not following Dr.Bogatin’s advice on routing the signal trace over the gap on a 2-Layer board. We also were able to use 4 different features in SIwave, each of which delivered the correct, expected results.

Overall, it is not easy to think about all possible SI/PI/EMI issues while developing a complex board. In these modern times, engineers don’t need to manufacture a physical board to evaluate EMI problems. A lot of developmental steps can now be performed during simulations, and ANSYS SIwave tool in conjunction with HFSS Solver can help to deliver the right design on the first try.

If you would like more information or have any questions please reach out to us at info@padtinc.com.

All Thing ANSYS 054: Talking CFD – Discussion on the Current State of Computational Fluid Dynamics with Robin Knowles

 

Published on: January 13th, 2020
With: Eric Miller & Robin Knowles
Description:  

In this episode we are excited to share an interview done with host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller and host of the Talking CFD podcast Robin Knowles, regarding the history of PADT’s use of simulation technology as a whole, and the current state of all things CFD.

If you would like to hear more of Robin’s interviews with various other CFD based companies both small and large, you can listen at https://www.cfdengine.com/podcast/.

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS

Defining Antenna Array Excitations with Nested-If Statements in HFSS

HFSS offers various methods to define array excitations. For a large array, you may take advantage of an option “Load from File” to load the magnitude and phase of each port. However, in many situations you may have specific cases of array excitation. For example, changing amplitude tapering or the phase variations that happens due to frequency change. In this blog we will look at using the “Edit Sources” method to change the magnitude and phase of each excitation. There are cases that might not be easily automated using a parametric sweep. If the array is relatively small and there are not many individual cases to examine you may set up the cases using “array parameters” and “nested-if”.

In the following example, I used nested-if statements to parameterize the excitations of the pre-built example “planar_flare_dipole_array”, which can be found by choosing File->Open Examples->HFSS->Antennas (Fig. 1) so you can follow along. The file was then saved as “planar_flare_dipole_array_if”. Then one project was copied to create two examples (Phase Variations, Amplitude Variations).

Fig. 1. Planar_flare_dipole_array with 5 antenna elements (HFSS pre-built example).

Phase Variation for Selected Frequencies

In this example, I assumed there were three different frequencies that each had a set of coefficients for the phase shift. Therefore, three array parameters were created. Each array parameter has 5 elements, because the array has 5 excitations:

A1: [0, 0, 0, 0, 0]

A2: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]

A3: [0, 2, 4, 6, 8]

Then 5 coefficients were created using a nested_if statement. “Freq” is one of built-in HFSS variables that refers to frequency. The simulation was setup for a discrete sweep of 3 frequencies (1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 GHz) (Fig. 2). The coefficients were defined as (Fig. 3):

E1: if(Freq==1.8GHz,A1[0],if(Freq==1.9GHz,A2[0],if(Freq==2.0GHz,A3[0],0)))

E2: if(Freq==1.8GHz,A1[1],if(Freq==1.9GHz,A2[1],if(Freq==2.0GHz,A3[1],0)))

E3: if(Freq==1.8GHz,A1[2],if(Freq==1.9GHz,A2[2],if(Freq==2.0GHz,A3[2],0)))

E4: if(Freq==1.8GHz,A1[3],if(Freq==1.9GHz,A2[3],if(Freq==2.0GHz,A3[3],0)))

E5: if(Freq==1.8GHz,A1[4],if(Freq==1.9GHz,A2[4],if(Freq==2.0GHz,A3[4],0)))

Please note that the last case is the default, so if frequency is none of the three frequencies that were given in the nested-if, the default phase coefficient is chosen (“0” in this case).

Fig. 2. Analysis Setup.

Fig. 3. Parameters definition for phase varaitioin case.

By selecting the menu item HFSS ->Fields->Edit Sources, I defined E1-E5 as coefficients for the phase shift. Note that phase_shift is a variable defined to control the phase, and E1-E5 are meant to be coefficients (Fig. 4):

Fig. 4. Edit sources using the defined variables.

The radiation pattern can now be plotted at each frequency for the phase shifts that were defined (A1 for 1.8 GHz, A2 for 1.9 GHz and A3 for 2.0 GHz) (Figs 5-6):

 Fig. 5. Settings for radiation pattern plots.

Fig. 6. Radiation patten for phi=90 degrees and different frequencies, the variation of phase shifts shows how the main beam has shifted for each frequency.

Amplitude Variation for Selected Cases

In the second example I created three cases that were controlled using the variable “CN”. CN is simply the case number with no units.

The variable definition was similar to the first case. I defined 3 array parameters and 5 coefficients. This time the coefficients were used for the Magnitude. The variable in the nested-if was CN. That means 3 cases and a default case were created. The default coefficient here was chosen as “1” (Figs. 7-8).

A1: [1, 1.5, 2, 1.5, 1]

A2: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

A3: [2, 1, 0, 1, 2]

E1: if(CN==1,A1[0],if(CN==2,A2[0],if(CN==3,A3[0],1)))*1W

E2: if(CN==1,A1[1],if(CN==2,A2[1],if(CN==3,A3[1],1)))*1W

E3: if(CN==1,A1[2],if(CN==2,A2[2],if(CN==3,A3[2],1)))*1W

E4: if(CN==1,A1[3],if(CN==2,A2[3],if(CN==3,A3[3],1)))*1W

E5: if(CN==1,A1[4],if(CN==2,A2[4],if(CN==3,A3[4],1)))*1W

Fig. 7. Parameters definition for amplitude varaitioin case.

Fig. 8. Exciation setting for amplitude variation case.

Notice that CN in the parametric definition has the value of “1”. To create the solution for all three cases I used a parametric sweep definition by selecting the menu item Optimetrics->Add->Parametric. In the Add/Edit Sweep I chose the variable “CN”, Start: 1, Stop:3, Step:1. Also, in the Options tab I chose to “Save Fields and Mesh” and “Copy geometrically equivalent meshes”, and “Solve with copied meshes only”. This selection helps not to redo the adaptive meshing as the geometry is not changed (Fig. 9). In plotting the patterns I could now choose the parameter CN and the results of plotting for CN=1, 2, and 3 is shown in Fig. 10. You can see how the tapering of amplitude has affected the side lobe level.

Fig. 9. Parameters definition for amplitude varaitioin case.

 Fig. 10. Radiation patten for phi=90 degrees and different cases of amplitude tapering, the variation of amplitude tapering has caused chagne in the beamwidth and side lobe levels.

Drawback

The drawback of this method is that array parameters are not post-processing variables. This means changing them will create the need to re-run the simulations. Therefore, it is needed that all the possible cases to be defined before running the simulation.

If you would like more information or have any questions please reach out to us at info@padtinc.com.

Mechanical Solver, Element, & Contact Enhancements in ANSYS 2019 R3 – Webinar

ANSYS 2019 R3 brings a whole host of improvements to various mechanical features, designed to enhance overall optimization and ease of use. Key updates such as those made in regards to the mechanical solver, MAPDL elements, and contact modeling capabilities help make this release essential for performing effective analyses, and deriving valuable results from said analyses. 

For example, being able to simulate contact correctly means that engineers can simulate the change in load paths when parts deform and confidently predict how assemblies will behave in the real world.

Join PADT’s Simulation Support Manager Ted Harris, for a look at the latest mechanical solver, element, and contact updates available in ANSYS 2019 R3. This presentation includes enhancements made for:

Improved scaling for various solvers

Surface stress evaluation for axisymmetric solid elements

Piezoelectric analyses

Nonlinear radial gap elements

And much more

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

All Things ANSYS 043: Optimize Materials Knowledge & Applications with ANSYS Granta pt. 1

 

Published on: August 12th, 2019
With: Eric Miller, Ward Rand, & John Perek
Description:  

In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by Ward Rand, one of PADT’s other Co-Founders, and John Perek, Principal Materials Engineer at Honeywell Aerospace to discuss the introduction of Granta to the ANSYS product line, its benefits for materials selection & analysis, and thoughts the Honeywell team has had since implementing it into their workflow.

If you would like to learn more about what’s available in this latest release check out PADT’s webinar on ANSYS Granta here: https://bit.ly/3001IFA

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS

Fluids Updates in ANSYS 2019 R2 – Webinar

ANSYS CFD goes beyond qualitative results to deliver accurate quantitative predictions of fluid interactions and trade-offs. These insights reveal unexpected opportunities for your product — opportunities that even experienced engineering analysts can miss.

Products such as ANSYS Fluent, Polyflow, and CFX work together in a constantly improving tool kit that is developed to provide ease of use improvements for engineers simulating fluid flows and it’s impacts on physical models.

Join PADT’s Simulation Support and Application Engineer, Sina Ghods, for a look at what is new and improved for fluids-related tools in ANSYS 2019 R2. This presentation includes updates regarding:

A new fluent experience

Parallel Mosaic-enabled meshing

Discrete Phase Modeling

Creating high-quality meshes for complex models

Transient elasticity for fluid structure interaction

And much more

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

All Things ANSYS 035 – The History of ANSYS: An Interview with Dr. John Swanson, author of the original program & founder of ANSYS Inc.

 

Published on: April 22nd, 2019
With: Eric Miller, Ted Harris, & Dr. John Swanson
Description:  

In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Ted Harris for a very special interview for users of ANSYS software, Dr. John Swanson. Dr. Swanson is known as the founder of “Swanson’s Analysis Systems” in 1970; the company that would later be known to the public as ANSYS Inc. He also wrote the original ANSYS program in his home, and since leaving the company has gone on the work in philanthropy and alternative energy.

A John Fritz Medal winner, and member of the National Academy of Engineering, John is considered an authority and pioneer in the application of Finite Element methods to engineering.

We are incredibly thankful that John was able to join us for this interview, and we hope you enjoy learning a little bit about the history of ANSYS from the founder himself.

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS

Analyze, Visualize, and Communicate – What’s New With EnSight In ANSYS 2019 R1 – Webinar

Effective prototyping in today’s day and age requires not only an understanding of your product’s capabilities but also those of the environment it operates in, and how said environment impacts its use.

Engineers are finding that it is no longer possible to ignore the interactions between fluids and the structures that surround them, as they strive to optimize their product’s performance. 

EnSight helps you visualize coupled fluid-structure interaction data to gain the insights you need; providing a highly effective environment regardless of the complexity of the situation and the simulation being run. After exploring your data, EnSight can also be used to create a high quality visual representation to effectively communicate your results, thanks to the ability to place your model in immersive environments, add realistic lighting conditions, and so much more. 

Join PADT’s CFD Team Lead Engineer, Clinton Smith as we explore the capabilities of this tool, and take a look at what’s new in ANSYS 2019 R1, including updates on:

  • Parallel Fluent to Parallel Ensight capabilities
  • Transnational visual symmetry
  • EnVision handling of multi-panel display
  • And much more

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

Simulate Multibody Dynamics More Accurately with ANSYS Motion – Webinar

As mechanical systems continue to get more advanced and interconnected, there is an ever growing need for tools that can accurately analyze the impacts of various forces on the entirety of the system. Mechanical systems often contain complex assemblies of interconnected parts undergoing large overall motion, and thus require engineering simulation for optimal design.

Tools that produce multibody dynamics solutions are better able to account for these components and thus provide more accurate results quicker than running simulations of each component individually. 

One of the latest offerings from ANSYS Inc. is designed to do just that.

ANSYS Motion is a third generation engineering solution based on an advanced multibody dynamics solver. It enables fast and accurate analysis of rigid and flexible bodies and gives accurate evaluation of physical events through the analysis of the mechanical system as a whole. ANSYS Motion uses four tightly integrated solving schemes: rigid body, flexible body, modal and mesh-free EasyFlex. This gives the user unparalleled capabilities to analyze systems and mechanisms in any desired combination.

Join PADT’s Senior Staff Technologist, Jim Peters for a look at how this tool works, along with a deeper dive into its benefits and capabilities, including:

  • Multiple Advanced Toolkits
  • Various Application Areas
  • Accurate Boundary Conditions
  • Easy Interface with Other Software
  • Tightly Integrated Multi-body & Structural Analysis Solvers
  • And Much More

Register Here

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).
You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!

All Things ANSYS 032 – What’s New in ANSYS Mechanical: Updates Made in 2019 R1

 

Published on: March 11th, 2019
With: Eric Miller & Ted Harris
Description:  

PADT’s Simulation Support Manager, Ted Harris for a discussion on what updates have been made available in the 2019 R1 version on ANSYS Mechanical. Listen as they discuss the various capabilities and applications for this new release, along with what makes these updates so significant.

Want to learn more about what to expect in ANSYS Mechanical 2019 R1? Check out PADT’s webinar covering everything you need to know about the tool’s latest update.

Watch here: https://bit.ly/2SSntmd

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS

Gone Skiing: Aerodynamics – Does It Matter Which Way Your Skis Are Pointing On Your Roof Rack?

I was on the gondola up at Keystone for night-skiing a week ago, after a long day at Beaver Creek, because the last thing I am going to do at 3:00 pm is try to make it back to Denver, as everyone knows it’s hardly more than a parking lot at that point. As it gets later, there’s nothing like a solo gondola ride, however, a solo ride would stop this story right about now.

On the gondola, I overheard a conversation where one gentleman was discussing how he was unable to open the hatch of his vehicle when his skis are in his roof rack. That’s fair, I know older WRX wagons with the spoiler would not be able to open with skis on the roof no matter what, so I figured that was the case. It turns out, that was NOT the case. The reason his hatch would not open was that he orients the skis with the tails forward because it is ‘more aerodynamic’ that way… I was skeptical, but held my tongue, knowing that I had the tools at my disposal to investigate!

I decided to make a model that would allow me to simulate various conditions to get to the bottom of this. My initial hypothesis is that the addition of the ski rack and crossbars is what has the largest effect on aerodynamics, and orientation of the skis probably has a negligible effect after that. As a side note, I am solely concerned with aerodynamics in this case, and am not worrying about the amount of the ski’s base material that is exposed for a given orientation. I am of the mindset that tree trunks and hidden rocks on the mountain are more of a danger to your bases than small rocks on the highway anyway. If you are waiting to comment, “Just get a roof box!”, I understand as I own both a box and a rack at this point, and they both have their advantages, and I will not be exploring the aerodynamics of a box…

…yet…

I was able to start by finding some faceted geometry of a Subaru Forester online (I’m from Colorado, can you tell?) and was able to import that into ANSYS Spaceclaim. Once in Spaceclaim, I was able to edit the faceted geometry to get nice exterior panel surfaces, which I then combined to get a single clean faceted exterior for the car.


Faceted Forester Geometry (Equipped with factory side rails)

After that, I used Spaceclaim to generate the remainder of the rack and skis, including crossbars, a ski rack, and a pair of skis (Complete with the most detailed bindings you have ever seen!). I made a combined part of the crossbars, rack, and skis for each one of my orientations, as this allows me to report the forces on each combined part during the simulation.


Added CAD geometry for the crossbars, ski rack, and a pair of skis

For the simulation, I used ANSYS Discovery Live, the newest tool from ANSYS that allows for instant and interactive design exploration. This tool lets me actively add my CAD geometry and shows results in realtime. I was able to start with just the car and then add and swap my ski/rack geometry with simple button clicks. With traditional simulation tools, I would have needed to create a mesh for each one of these cases, analyze them one at a time, and the post-process and compare results after the fact. After launching Discover Live, it’s as easy as selecting the type on analysis I want to run.

The various types of solutions that can be done in ANSYS Discovery Live. For the purpose of this blog, I am using ‘Wind Tunnel’

Once I have selected ‘Wind Tunnel’ for my solution, I can select my geometry, and then am prompted for the direction of flow, as well as selecting the ‘floor’ of my domain. Once that is done, results show up on the screen instantly. I only needed to modify the flow velocity to ~65 mph. I am most interested in the force on the faces of the combined crossbars, rack, and skis in each orientation, so I created Calculations for each one, which is done by simply selecting the part and using the popup toolbar to create the graph.

Popup toolbar allows for the quick creation of solution calculations

I was already off and running. I ran each one of the cases until the force plot had become steady.

Car Only
Skis Tips Forward Orientation

Skis Tails Forward Orientation

Seeing that the force results for the Tips Forward vs. Tails Forward cases were very similar, I decided I should also run a ‘Bases Up’ Orientation, even though I STRONGLY advise against this, as UV wrecks the base material of your skis/snowboard.

Ski Bases Up and Tips Forward Orientation

In addition to the contour plot shown in the images above, you can also use emitters to show streamlines and particle flow, which also give some pretty neat visualizations.

Streamlines shown on the Tips Forward orientation

Particle Emitter shown on the Tips Forward orientation

The graph plots show values for the Total Y Force for Tips Foward, Tails Forward, and Bases Up orientations to be 37.7 N, 39.1 N, and 37.1 N, respectively. Using Discovery Live, I was able to quickly run all 3 of these simulations, showing that there is not a major difference in the forces on the ski rack between the three orientations. So, put the skis on the roof in the direction that makes life easiest for you, and keep those bad boys paired to protect your bases from the sun, because splitting them isn’t going to help with aerodynamics anyway!

Next steps would be taking a specific case and running in 2D, then 3D, in ANSYS Fluent.

All Things ANSYS 028 – A Year in Review: Predictions for ANSYS in 2019

 

Published on: January 7th, 2019
With: Eric Miller, Joe Woodward, & Ted Harris
Description:  

In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Simulation Support Manager Ted Harris, and Specialist Mechanical Engineer Joe Woodward, for a discussion on their predictions for ANSYS in 2019, and a look back at our predictions from 2018.

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS

All Things ANSYS 020 – Modeling Flow & Heat Transfer with Flownex

 

Published on: September 10th, 2018
With: Eric Miller, Luke Davidson, Vincent Britz, and Farai Hetze
Description: In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by Luke Davidson and Vincent Britz of M-Tech, and Farai Hetze from CFX-Berlin, for an interview on the what Flownex is, it’s capabilities for modeling flow and heat transfer, and how it works with ANSYS products. All that, followed by an update on news and events in the respective worlds of ANSYS and PADT.

If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!

Listen:
Subscribe:

@ANSYS #ANSYS