Free ANSYS AIM Resource Kit — Expert Advice, Insights and Best Practices for Multiphysics Simulation

ANSYS-AIM-Icon1We have been talking a lot about ANSYS AIM lately.  Mostly because we really like ANSYS AIM and we think a large number of engineers out there need to know more about it and understand it’s advantages.  And the way we do that is through blog posts, emails, seminars, and training sessions.  A new tool that we have started using are “Resource and Productivity Kits,” collections of information that users can download.

Earlier in the year we introduced several kits, including ANSYS Structural, ANSYS Fluids, and ANSYS ElectroMechanical.  Now we are pleased to offer up a collection of useful information on ANSYS AIM.  This kit includes:

  • “Getting to know ANSYS AIM,” a video by PADT application engineer Manoj Mahendran
  • “What I like about ANSYS AIM,” a video featuring insights on the tool
  • Six ANSYS AIM demonstration videos, including simulations and a custom template demonstration
  • Five slide decks that provide an overview of ANSYS AIM and describe its new features
  • An exclusive whitepaper on effectively training product development engineers in simulation.

You can download the kit here.

If you need more info, view the ANSYS AIM Overview video or read about it on our ANSYS AIM page.

Watch this blog for more useful content on AIM in the future.


AIM_City_CFD

ANSYS Launches Free Student Version

ansys-student-1This week ANSYS, Inc. made a fantastic announcement that has been in the works for a while, and that we think will greatly benefit the simulation community:  A free ANSYS Student product.  This is an introductory product that is focused on students who are learning the fundamentals of simulation who also want to learn the full power and capability of the ANSYS product suite.  It includes ANSYS® Multiphysics™ , ANSYS® CFD™ , ANSYS® Autodyn®, ANSYS® Workbench™, ANSYS® DesignModeler™and ANSYS®DesignXplorer™

Yes you read that right, all of the flagship products for free. No features or capabilities are turned off. It is the exact same software as the commercial product, but the size of problems that you can solve is limited.  It runs on MS Windows. Perfect for students.

PADT is excited about this because it gives students access to the ability to learn FEA and CFD simulation with the world’s most popular and capable simulation tool, without running in to brick walls. Want to do a flat plate with a hole in it? No Problem. Want to model fluid-solid-interaction on a flexible membrane valve? No Problem.  Want to model explosive forming? No Problem.  Want to model combustion with complex turbulence? No problem.

All in the same interface as students will use when they enter the work force or do research at University.

This is great news and we can’t wait to see what schools and students do with this access.

How to Get It – The New Academic Web Pages

The previous Student Portal is being replaced with an Academic Web area on the ansys.com site: ansys.com/academic.

Go to the ANSYS Student site to learn more about ANSYS Student and how to download your copy. These same pages will have resources to help you learn and understand the product.

The “Pictures”

Let me state categorically that PADT was not consulted on the image that ANSYS, Inc. used for the “student” user that was so happy to find out that there is now a free version of the ANSYS software suite.  Here is their picture:

ANSYS-student-version We would have preferred something like this:

huge.1.7907

 

Just kidding. We were happy to see this product come out and thought the picture was hilarious.  In all seriousness, we will also plug the  recent #ilooklikeanengineer twitter hash tag , highlighting the diversity of female engineers. that was awesome and we would love to see more chances for engineers to show their true selves.

 

Five Ways CoresOnDemand is Different than the Cloud

CoresOnDemand-Logo-120hIn a recent press release, PADT Inc. announced the launch of CoresOnDemand.com. CoresOnDemand offers CUBE simulation clusters for customers’ ANSYS numerical simulation needs. The clusters are designed from the ground up for running ANSYS numerical simulation codes and are tested and proven to deliver performance results.

CoresOnDemand_CFD-Valve-1

POWERFUL CLUSTER INFRASTRUCTURE

The current clusters available as part of the CoresOnDemand offering are:
1- CoresOnDemand – Paris:

80-Core Intel based cluster. Based on the Intel Xeon E5-2667 v.2 3.30GHz CPU’s, the cluster utilizes a 56Gbps InfiniBand Interconnect and is running a modified version of CentOS 6.6.

CoresOnDemand-Paris-Cluster-Figure

2- CoresOnDemand – Athena:

544-Core AMD based cluster. Based on the AMD Opteron 6380 2.50GHz CPU’s the cluster utilizes a 40Gbps InfiniBand Interconnect and is running a modified version of CentOS 6.6.

CoresOnDemand-Athena-Cluster-Figure

Five Key Differentiators

The things that make CoresOnDemand different than most other cloud computing providers are:

  1. CoresOnDemand is a non-traditional cloud. It is not an instance based cluster. There is no hypervisor or any virtualization layer. Users know what resources are assigned exclusively to them every time. No layers, no emulation, no delay and no surprises.
  2. CoresOnDemand utilizes all of the standard software designed to maximize the full use of hardware features and interconnect. There are no layers between the hardware and operating system.
  3. CoresOnDemand utilizes hardware that is purpose built and benchmarked to maximize performance of simulation tools instead of a general purpose server on caffeine.
  4. CoresOnDemand provides the ability to complete high performance runs on the compute specialized nodes and later performing post processing on a post-processing appropriate node.
  5. CoresOnDemand is a way to lease compute nodes completely and exclusively for the specified duration including software licenses, compute power and hardware interconnect.

CoresOnDemand is backed up by over 20 years of PADT Inc. experience and engineering know-how. Looking at the differentiating features of CoresOnDemand, it becomes apparent that the performance and flexibility of this solution are great advantages for addressing numerical simulation requirements of any type.

To learn more visit www.coresondemand.com or fill out our request form.

Or contact our experts at coresondemand@padtinc.com or 480.813.4884 to schedule a demo or to discuss your requirements.

CoresOnDemand-ANSYS-CUBE-PADT-1

Announcing CoresOnDemand.com – Dedicated Compute Power when you Need It

CoresOnDemand-Logo-120hWe are pleased to announce a new service that we feel is remote solving for FEA and CFD done right: CoresOnDemand.com.  We have taken our   proven CUBE Simulation Computers and built a cluster that users can simply rent.  So you get fast hardware, you get it all to your self, and you receive fantastic support from the ANSYS experts at PADT.

It is not a time share system, it is not a true "cloud" solution.  You tell us how many nodes you need and for how long and we rent them to you. You can submit batch or you can configure the machines however you need them.  Submit on the command line, through a batch scheduler, or run interactive. And when you are done, you do not have to send your files back to your desktop. We've loaded NICE DCV so you can do graphics intense pre- and post-processing from work or home, over the internet to our head nodes.  You can even work through your iPad.

CUBE-HVPC-512-core-closeup3-1000h

If you visit our Blog page a lot, you may have noticed the gray cloud logo with a big question mark next to it. If you guessed that was a hint that we were working on a cloud solution for ANSYS users, you were correct. We've had it up and running for a while but we kept "testing" it with  benchmarks for people buying CUBE computers. Plus we kept tweaking the setup to get the best user experience possible.  With today's announcement we are going live.

We created this service for a simple reason. Customers kept calling or emailing and asking if they could rent time on our machines.  We got started with the hardware but also started surveying and talking to users. Everyone is talking about the cloud and HPC, but we found few providers understood how to deliver the horsepower people needed in a usable way, and that users were frustrated with the offerings they had available. So we took our time and built a service that we would want to use, a service we would find considerable value in.

simulation-hardware ansys-expertise dependability

You can learn more by visiting www.CoresOnDemand.com. Or by reading the official press release included below. To get your started, here are some key facts you should know:

  1. We are running PADT CUBE computers, hooked together with infiniband. They are fast, they are loaded with RAM, and they have a ton of disk space. Since we do this type of solving all the time, we know what is needed
  2. This is a Bring Your Own License (BYOL) service. You will need to lease the licenses you need from whoever you get your ANSYS from.  As an ANSYS Channel partner we can help that process go smoothly.
  3. You do not share the hardware.  If you reserve a node, it is your node. No one else but your company can log in.  You can rent by the week, or the day.
  4. When you are done, we save the data you want us to save and then wipe the machines.  If you want us to save your "image" we can do that for a fee so next time you use the service, we can restore it to right where you were last time.
  5. Right now we are focused on ANSYS software products only. We feel strongly about focusing on what we know and maximizing value to the customers.
  6. This service is backed by PADT's technical support and IT staff. You would be hard pressed to find any other HPC provider out there who knows more about how to run ANSYS Mechanical, ANSYS Mechanical APDL, ANSYS FLUENT, ANSYS CFX, ANSYS HFSS, ANSYS MAXWELL, ANSYS LS-DYNA, ANSYS AUTODYN, ICEM CFD, and much more.

To talk to our team about running your next big job on CoresOnDemand.com contact us at 480-813-4884 or email cod@padtinc.com

CoresOnDemand-ANSYS-CUBE-PADT-1

See the official Press Release here

Press Release:

CoresOnDemand.com Launches as Dedicated ANSYS Simulation
High Performance Cloud Compute Resource 

PADT launches CoresOnDemand.com, a dedicated resource for users who need to run ANSYS simulation software in the cloud on optimized high performance computers.

Tempe, AZ – April 29, 2015 – Phoenix Analysis & Design Technologies, Inc. (PADT), the Southwest’s largest provider of simulation, product development, and 3D Printing services and products, is pleased to announce the launch of a new dedicated high performance compute resource for users of ANSYS simulation software – CoresOnDemand.com.  The team at PADT used their own experience, and the experience of their customers, to develop this unique cloud-based solution that delivers exceptional performance and a superior user experience. Unlike most cloud solutions, CoresOnDemand.com does not use virtual machines, nor do users share compute nodes. With CoresOnDemand.com users reserve one or more nodes for a set amount of time, giving them exclusive access to the hardware, while allowing them to work interactively and to set up the environment the way they want it.

The cluster behind CoresOnDemand.com is built by PADT’s IT experts using their own CUBE Simulation Computers (http://www.padtinc.com/cube), systems that are optimized for solving numerical simulation problems quickly and efficiently. This advantage is coupled with support from PADT’s experienced team, recognized technical experts in all things ANSYS. As a certified ANSYS channel partner, PADT understands the product and licensing needs of users, a significant advantage over most cloud HPC solutions.

“We kept getting calls from people asking if they could rent time on our in-house cluster. So we took a look at what was out there and talked to users about their experiences with trying to do high-end simulation in the cloud,” commented Eric Miller, Co-Owner of PADT. “What we found was that almost everyone was disappointed with the pay-per-cpu-second model, with the lack of product understanding on the part of the providers, and mediocre performance.  They also complained about having to bring large files back to their desktops to post-process. We designed CoresOnDemand.com to solve those problems.”

In addition to exclusive nodes, great hardware, and ANSYS expertise, CoresOnDemand.com adds another advantage by leveraging NICE Desktop Cloud Visualization (https://www.nice-software.com/products/dcv) to allow users to have true interactive connections to the cluster with real-time 3D graphics.  This avoids the need to download huge files or running blind in batch mode to review results. And as you would expect, the network connection and file transfer protocols available are industry standards and encrypted.

The initial cluster is configured with Intel and AMD-based CUBE Simulation nodes, connected through a high-speed Infiniband interconnect.  Each compute node has enough RAM and disk space to handle the most challenging FEA or CFD solves.  All ANSYS solvers and prep/post tools are available for use including: ANSYS Mechanical, ANSYS Mechanical APDL, ANSYS FLUENT, ANSYS CFX, ANSYS HFSS, ANSYS MAXWELL, ANSYS LS-DYNA, ANSYS AUTODYN, ICEM CFD, and much more. Users can serve their own licenses to CoresOnDemand.com or obtain a short-term lease, and PADT’s experts are on hand to help design the most effective licensing solution.

Pre-launch testing by PADT’s customers has shown that this model for remote on-demand solving works well.  Users were able to log in, configure their environment from their desktop at work or home, mesh, solve, and review results as if they had the same horsepower sitting right next to their desk.

To learn more about the CoresOnDemand: visit http://www.coresondemand.com, email cod@padtinc.com, or contact PADT at 480.813.4884. 

About Phoenix Analysis and Design Technologies

Phoenix Analysis and Design Technologies, Inc. (PADT) is an engineering product and services company that focuses on helping customers who develop physical products by providing Numerical Simulation, Product Development, and Rapid Prototyping solutions. PADT’s worldwide reputation for technical excellence and experienced staff is based on its proven record of building long term win-win partnerships with vendors and customers. Since its establishment in 1994, companies have relied on PADT because “We Make Innovation Work. “  With over 75 employees, PADT services customers from its headquarters at the Arizona State University Research Park in Tempe, Arizona, and from offices in Littleton, Colorado, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Murray, Utah, as well as through staff members located around the country. More information on PADT can be found at http://www.PADTINC.com.

ANSYS & 3D Printing: Converting your ANSYS Mechanical or MAPDL Model into an STL File

image3D printing is all the rage these days.  PADT has been involved in what should be called Additive Manufacturing since our founding twenty years ago.  So people in the ANSYS world often come to us for advice on things 3D Printer’ish.  And last week we got an email asking if we had a way to convert a deformed mesh into a STL file that can be used to print that deformed geometry.  This email caused neurons to fire that had not fired in some time. I remembered writing something but it was a long time ago.

Fortunately I have Google Desktop on my computer so I searched for ans2stl, knowing that I always called my translators ans2nnn of some kind. There it was.  Last updated in 2001, written in maybe 1995. C.  I guess I shouldn’t complain, it could have been FORTRAN. The notes say that the program has been successfully tested on Windows NT. That was a long time ago.

So I dusted it off and present it here as a way to get results from your ANSYS Mechanical or ANSYS Mechanical APDL model as a deformed STL file.

UPDATE – 7/8/2014

Since this article was written, we have done some more work with STL files. This Macro works fine on a tetrahedral mesh, but if you have hex elements, it won’t work – it assumes triangles on the face.  It also requires a macro and some ‘C’ code, which is an extra pain. So we wrote a more generic macro that works with Hex or Tet meshes, and writes the file directly. It can be a bit slow but no annoyingly slow.  We recommend you use this method instead of the ones outlined below.

Here is the macro:  writstl.zip

The Process

An STL file is basically a faceted representation of geometry. Triangles on the surface of your model. So to get an STL file of an FEA model, you simply need to generate triangles on your mesh face, write them out to a file, and convert them to an STL format.  If you want deformed geometry, simply use the UPGEOM command to move your nodes to the deformed position.

The Program

Here is the source code for the windows version of the program:

/*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 PADT--------------------------------------------------- Phoenix Analysis &
                                                        Design Technologies

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             www.padtinc.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Package: ans2stl

          File: ans2stl.c
          Args: rootname
        Author: Eric Miller, PADT
		(480) 813-4884 
		eric.miller@padtinc.com

	Simple program that takes the nodes and elements from the
	surface of an ANSYS FE model and converts it to a binary
	STL file.

	USAGE:
		Create and ANSYS surface mesh one of two ways:
			1: amesh the surface with triangles
			2: esurf an existing mesh with triangles
         	Write the triangle surface mesh out with nwrite/ewrite
		Run ans2stl with the rootname of the *.node and *.elem files
		   as the only argument
		This should create a binary STL file

	ASSUMPTIONS:
		The ANSYS elements are 4 noded shells (MESH200 is suggested)
		in triangular format (nodes 3 and 4 the same)

		This code has been succesfully compiled and tested
		on WindowsNT

		NOTE: There is a known issue on UNIX with byte order
				Please contact me if you need a UNIX version

	COMPILE:
		gcc -o ans2stl_win ans2stl_win.c

       10/31/01:       Cleaned up for release to XANSYS and such
       1/13/2014:	Yikes, its been 12+ years. A little update 
       			and publish on The Focus blog
			Checked it to see if it works with Windows 7. 
			It still compiles with GCC just fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADT, Inc. provides this software to the general public as a curtesy.
Neither the company or its employees are responsible for the use or
accuracy of this software.  In short, it is free, and you get what
you pay for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
/*======================================================

   SAMPLE ANSYS INPUT DECK THAT SHOWS USAGE

finish
/clear
/file,a2stest
/PREP7  
!----------
! Build silly geometry
BLC4,-0.6,0.35,1,-0.75,0.55 
SPH4,-0.8,-0.4,0.45 
CON4,-0.15,-0.55,0.05,0.35,0.55 
VADD,all
!------------------------
! Mesh surface with non-solved (MESH200) triangles
et,1,200,4
MSHAPE,1,2D   ! Use triangles for Areas
MSHKEY,0      ! Free mesh
SMRTSIZE,,,,,5
AMESH,all
!----------------------
! Write out nodes and elements
nwrite,a2stest,node
ewrite,a2stest,elem
!--------------------
! Execute the ans2stl program
/sys,ans2stl_win.exe a2stest

======================================================= */

#include 
#include 
#include 

typedef struct vertStruct *vert;
typedef struct facetStruct *facets;
typedef struct facetListStruct *facetList;

        int     ie[8][999999];
        float   coord[3][999999];
        int	np[999999];

struct vertStruct {
  float	x,y,z;
  float	nx,ny,nz;
  int  ivrt;
  facetList	firstFacet;
};

struct facetListStruct {
  facets	facet;
  facetList	next;
};

struct facetStruct {
  float	xn,yn,zn;
  vert	v1,v2,v3;
};

facets	theFacets;
vert	theVerts;

char	stlInpFile[80];
float	xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,zmin,zmax;
float   ftrAngle;
int	nf,nv;  

void swapit();
void readBin();
void getnorm();
long readnodes();
long readelems();

/*--------------------------------*/
main(argc,argv)
     int argc;
     char *argv[];
{
  char nfname[255];
  char efname[255];
  char sfname[255];
  char s4[4];
  FILE	*sfile;
  int	nnode,nelem,i,i1,i2,i3;
  float	xn,yn,zn;

  if(argc <= 1){
        puts("Usage:  ans2stl file_root");
        exit(1);
  }
  sprintf(nfname,"%s.node",argv[1]);
  sprintf(efname,"%s.elem",argv[1]);
  sprintf(sfname,"%s.stl",argv[1]);

  nnode = readnodes(nfname);
  nelem = readelems(efname);
  nf = nelem;

  sfile = fopen(sfname,"wb");
  fwrite("PADT STL File, Solid Binary",80,1,sfile);
  swapit(&nelem,s4);    fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);

  for(i=0;i<nelem;i++){ 
      i1 = np[ie[0][i]];
      i2 = np[ie[1][i]];
      i3 = np[ie[2][i]];
      getnorm(&xn,&yn,&zn,i1,i2,i3);

      swapit(&xn,s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&yn,s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&zn,s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);

      swapit(&coord[0][i1],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[1][i1],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[2][i1],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);

      swapit(&coord[0][i2],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[1][i2],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[2][i2],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);

      swapit(&coord[0][i3],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[1][i3],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      swapit(&coord[2][i3],s4);	fwrite(s4,4,1,sfile);
      fwrite(s4,2,1,sfile);
  }
  fclose(sfile);
    puts(" ");
  printf("  STL Data Written to %s.stl \n",argv[1]);
    puts("  Done!!!!!!!!!");
  exit(0);
}

void  getnorm(xn,yn,zn,i1,i2,i3)
	float	*xn,*yn,*zn;
	int	i1,i2,i3;
{
	float	v1[3],v2[3];
	int	i;

        for(i=0;i<3;i++){
	  v1[i] = coord[i][i3] - coord[i][i2];
	  v2[i] = coord[i][i1] - coord[i][i2];
	}

	*xn = (v1[1]*v2[2]) - (v1[2]*v2[1]);
	*yn = (v1[2]*v2[0]) - (v1[0]*v2[2]);
	*zn = (v1[0]*v2[1]) - (v1[1]*v2[0]);
}
long readelems(fname)
        char    *fname;
{
        long num,i;
        FILE *nfile;
        char    string[256],s1[7];

        num = 0;
        nfile = fopen(fname,"r");
		if(!nfile){
			puts(" error on element file open, bye!");
			exit(1);
		}
        while(fgets(string,86,nfile)){
          for(i=0;i<8;i++){
            strncpy(s1,&string[6*i],6);
            s1[6] = '\0';
            sscanf(s1,"%d",&ie[i][num]);
          }
          num++;
        }

        printf("Number of element read: %d\n",num);
        return(num);
}

long readnodes(fname)
        char	*fname;
{
        FILE    *nfile;
        long     num,typeflag,nval,ifoo;
        char    string[256];

        num = 0;
        nfile = fopen(fname,"r");
		if(!nfile){
			puts(" error on node file open, bye!");
			exit(1);

		}
        while(fgets(string,100,nfile)){
          sscanf(string,"%d ",&nval);
          switch(nval){
            case(-888):
                typeflag = 1;
            break;
            case(-999):
                typeflag = 0;
            break;
            default:
                np[nval] = num;
                if(typeflag){
                        sscanf(string,"%d %g %g %g",
                           &ifoo,&coord[0][num],&coord[1][num],&coord[2][num]);
                }else{
                        sscanf(string,"%d %g %g %g",
                           &ifoo,&coord[0][num],&coord[1][num],&coord[2][num]);
                        fgets(string,81,nfile);
                }
num++;
            break;
        }

        }
        printf("Number of nodes read %d\n",num);
        return(num);

}

/* A Little ditty to swap the byte order, STL files are for DOS */
void swapit(s1,s2)
     char s1[4],s2[4];
{
  s2[0] = s1[0];
  s2[1] = s1[1];
  s2[2] = s1[2];
  s2[3] = s1[3];
}

ans2stl_win_2014_01_28.zip

Creating the Nodes and Elements

I’ve created a little example macro that can be used to make an STL of deformed geometry.  If you do not want the deformed geometry, simply remove or comment out the UPGEOM command.  This macro is good for MAPDL or ANSYS Mechanical, just comment out the last line  to use it with MAPDL:

et,999,200,4

type,999

esurf,all

finish ! exit whatever preprocessor your in

! move the RST file to a temp file for the UPCOORD. Comment out if you want

! the original geometry

/copy,file,rst,,stl_temp,rst

/prep7 ! Go in to PREP7

et,999,200,4 ! Create a dummy triangle element type, non-solved (200)

type,999 ! Make it the active type

esurf,all ! Surface mesh your model

!

! Update the geometry to the deformed shape

! The first argument is the scale factor, adjust to the appropriate level

! Comment this line out if you don’t want deformed geometry

upgeom,1000,,,stl_temp,rst

!

esel,type,999 ! Select those new elements

nelem ! Select the nodes associated with them

nwrite,stl_temp,node ! write the node file

ewrite,stl_temp,elem ! Write the element file

! Run the program to convert

! This assumes your executable in in c:\temp. If not, change to the proper

! location

/sys,c:\temp\ans2stl_win.exe stl_temp

! If this is a ANSYS Mechanical code snippet, then copy the resulting STL file up to

! the root directory for the project

! For MAPDL, Comment this line out.

/copy,stl_temp,stl,,stl_temp,stl,..\..

An Example

To prove this out using modern computing technology (remember, last time I used this was in 2001) I brought up my trusty valve body model and slammed 5000 lbs on one end, holding it on the top flange.  I then inserted the Commands object into the post processing branch:

image

When the model is solved, that command object will get executed after ANSYS is done doing all of its post processing, creating an STL of the deformed geometry. Here is what it looks like in the output file. You can see what it looks like when APDL executes the various commands:

/COPY FILE FROM FILE= file.rst

TO FILE= stl_temp.rst

FILE file.rst COPIED TO stl_temp.rst

1

***** ANSYS – ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SYSTEM RELEASE 15.0 *****

ANSYS Multiphysics

65420042 VERSION=WINDOWS x64 08:39:44 JAN 14, 2014 CP= 22.074

valve_stl–Static Structural (A5)

Note – This ANSYS version was linked by Licensee

***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) *****

ELEMENT TYPE 999 IS MESH200 3-NODE TRIA MESHING FACET

KEYOPT( 1- 6)= 4 0 0 0 0 0

KEYOPT( 7-12)= 0 0 0 0 0 0

KEYOPT(13-18)= 0 0 0 0 0 0

CURRENT NODAL DOF SET IS UX UY UZ

THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL

ELEMENT TYPE SET TO 999

GENERATE ELEMENTS ON SURFACE DEFINED BY SELECTED NODES

TYPE= 999 REAL= 1 MATERIAL= 1 ESYS= 0

NUMBER OF ELEMENTS GENERATED= 13648

USING FILE stl_temp.rst

THE SCALE FACTOR HAS BEEN SET TO 1000.0

USING FILE stl_temp.rst

ESEL FOR LABEL= TYPE FROM 999 TO 999 BY 1

13648 ELEMENTS (OF 43707 DEFINED) SELECTED BY ESEL COMMAND.

SELECT ALL NODES HAVING ANY ELEMENT IN ELEMENT SET.

6814 NODES (OF 53895 DEFINED) SELECTED FROM

13648 SELECTED ELEMENTS BY NELE COMMAND.

WRITE ALL SELECTED NODES TO THE NODES FILE.

START WRITING AT THE BEGINNING OF FILE stl_temp.node

6814 NODES WERE WRITTEN TO FILE= stl_temp.node

WRITE ALL SELECTED ELEMENTS TO THE ELEMENT FILE.

START WRITTING AT THE BEGINNING OF FILE stl_temp.elem

Using Format = 14(I6)

13648 ELEMENTS WERE WRITTEN TO FILE= stl_temp.elem

SYSTEM=

c:\temp\ans2stl_win.exe stl_temp

Number of nodes read 6814

Number of element read: 13648

STL Data Written to stl_temp.stl

Done!!!!!!!!!

/COPY FILE FROM FILE= stl_temp.stl

TO FILE= ..\..\stl_temp.stl

FILE stl_temp.stl COPIED TO ..\..\stl_temp.stl

image

The resulting STL file looks great:

image

I use MeshLab to view my STL files because… well it is free.  Do note that the mesh looks coarser.  This is because the ANSYS mesh uses TETS with midside nodes.  When those faces get converted to triangles those midside nodes are removed, so you do get a coarser looking model.

And after getting bumped from the queue a couple of times by “paying” jobs, our RP group printed up a nice FDM version for me on one of our Stratasys uPrint Plus machines:

image

It’s kind of hard to see, so I went out to the parking lot and recorded a short video of the part, twisting it around a bit:

Here is the ANSYS Mechanical project archive if you want to play with it yourself.

Other Things to Consider

Using FE Modeler

You can use FE Modeler in a couple of different ways with STL files. First off, you can read an STL file made using the method above. If you don’t have an STL preview tool, it is an easy way to check your distorted mesh.  Just chose STL as the input file format:

image

You get this:

image

If you look back up at the open dialog you will notice that it reads a bunch of mesh formats. So one thing you could do instead of using my little program, is use FE Modeler to make your STL.  Instead of executing the program with a /SYS command, simply use a CDWRITE,DB command and then read the resulting *.CDB file into FE Modeler.  To write out the STL, just set the “Target System” to STL and then click “Write Solver File”

image

You may know, or may have noticed in the image above, that FE Modeler can read other FEA meshes.  So if you are using some other FEA package, which you should not, then you can make an STL file in FE Modeler as well.

Color Contours

The next obvious question is how do I get my color contours on the plot. Right now we don’t have that type of printer here at PADT, but I believe that the dominant 3D Color printer out, the former Z-Corp and now 3D Systems machines, will read ANSYS results files. Stratasys JUST announced a new color 3D Printer that makes usable parts. Right now they don’t have a way to do contours, but as soon as they do we will publish something.

Another option is to use a /SHOW,vrml option and then convert that to STL with the color information.

Scaling

Scaling is something you should think about. Not only the scaling on your deformed geometry, but the scaling on your model for printing.  Units can be tricky with STL files so make sure you check your model size before you print.

Smoother STL Surfaces

Your FEA mesh may be kind of coarse and the resulting STL file is even coarser because of the whole midside node thing.  Most of the smoothing tools out there will also get rid of sharp edges, so you don’t want those. Your best best is to refine your mesh or using a tool like Geomagic.

Making a CAD Model from my Deformed Mesh

Perhaps you stumbled on this posting not wanting to print your model. Maybe you want a CAD model of your deformed geometry.  You would use the same process, and then use Geomagic Studio.  It actually works very well and give you a usable CAD model when you are done.

PADT at University of Denver Industry Day and Lecturing at Univerisity of New Mexico

IndustryDay-DU-PADT2It is a busy couple of days for PADT and Academia.  Jeff Strain is visiting with customers in Albuquerque and popped in to the “Finite Element Methods in Solid Mechanics” class at the University of New Mexico to give a talk on the ANSYS products and give some  on real world insight in to using finite elements in industry.

We were also happy to attend Industry Day at the University of Denver’ School of Engineering & Computer Science.  It was another great opportunity to interact with students,  give them some real world feedback, and meet with other technology companies in the area.

 

Questions Decision Makers Should Ask About Computer Simulations

‘TRUST BUT VERIFY’

A guest posting from Jack Thornton , MINDFEED Marcomm, Sante Fe, NM

image.pngThe computerization of engineering (and everything else) has imposed new burdens on managers and executives who must make critical decisions. Where once they struggled with too little information they now struggle with too much. Until roughly three decades ago, time and money were plowed into searching for more and better information. Today, time and money disappear are plowed into making sense of myriad computer simulations.

For all but the best-organized decision makers, these opposite situations have proven equally frustrating. For nearly all of engineering history, critical decisions were based on a few pieces of seemingly credible data, a handful of measurements, and hand-drawn sketches a la Leonardo DaVinci—leavened with hands-on experience and large dollops of intuition.

Computer simulations are now everywhere in engineering. They have greatly speeded up searches for information, as well as creating it in the first place, and endlessly multiplying it. What has been lost are transparency and traceability—what was done when, by whom and why. Since transparency and traceability are vital to making sound engineering decisions in today’s intensely collaborative technical environments, decision makers and managers say this loss is a big one.

This is not some arcane, hidden war waged by experts, geeks and professors. This is about designing machinery, components, physical systems and assemblies that are globally competitive—and turn a profit doing so. The complexity of modern components, assemblies and systems has been exhaustively and repeatedly described.

Nor is this something engineers and first-line managers can afford to ignore. Given the shortages of engineering talent, relatively inexperienced engineers are constantly being handed responsibility for making key decisions.

Users of computerized simulation systems continually seek ways to answer the inevitable question, “How do we know this or that or whatever to be true?” Several expert users of finite element analysis (FEA), the basic computational toolset of engineering simulation and analysis, were interviewed for this article. Each interviewee is a licensed professional engineer (PE) and each has been recommended by a leading FEA software vendor.

For decision makers, a simulation FEA or otherwise really presents only three options:

  • Signing off on the production of a component or assembly. If it proves to be flawed, warranty claims, recalls, and perhaps much worse may result.
  • Shelving a promising new product, perhaps at the behest of fretful engineers. The investment is written off or expensed as R&D. The marketplace opportunity (amnd its revenue) may be lost forever.
  • Remanding the project to the analysts even while knowing that “paralysis by analysis” will push development costs too high or cause too big a delay in getting to market.

Since executives and other upper-echelon corporate decision makers rarely possess much understanding or FEA, let alone have time to develop it, a “trust but verify” strategy is the only reasonable approach.

The verify part is easy. FEA modelers and solvers have been well wrung-out over the past 10 to 20 years. All of the FEA software vendors will share details of their in-house tests of their commercial code, the experiences of customers doing similar work, and investigations by reviewers who are often on engineering-school faculties. The same is true for industry-specific “home grown” code.

It’s the trust part that’s so challenging, as in FEA trust depends on understanding some very complicated matters.

Analysis experts note that unless the builders of FEA models are questioned, they rarely spell out the model’s underlying assumptions. Even less frequently (and clearly) described is the reasoning behind the dozens or hundreds of choices they made that are dictated by those assumptions.

And worse, these choices are not always clarified when model builders do provide this detail—quite the opposite, in fact. When pressed for explanations, model builders may simply present the mathematical formulas they use to characterize the physics of their work.

Analysis experts are quick to point out that these equations often confuse and intimidate. Decision makers should insist on commonsense explanations and not equations. And every FEA model builder will try earnestly to explain (often at great length) the model’s implications to anyone who takes the time to look.

In the context of FEA and other simulations, “physics” means the real-world forces to be withstood by a printed circuit board, a pump, an engine mount, a turbine, an aircraft wing or engine nacelle, the energy-absorbing structure of a car, or anything else that is mechanically complex and highly stressed.

This is why transparency and traceability are so important in FEA. Analysts note that some of this is codified in the guidelines for simulation and computational analysis in the ASME / ANSI verification and validation standards. Further support comes from company best practices developed by FEA users and managers, although enforcement is rarely consistent, and voluntary industry standards whose applicability varies widely.

The transparency and traceability challenge is that building a model—again, a subset of the real world—requires dozens of assumptions about the mechanical capabilities that the object or assembly must have to meet its requirements. After these basic assumptions have been coded into the model, hundreds of follow-on choices are needed to represent the physical phenomena in the model.

Analysts urge decision makers to question the stated values and ranges of any of the model’s parameters—and in particular values and ranges that have been estimated. Decision makers are routinely urged to probe whether these parameters’ values are statistically significant, and whether those values are even needed in the model.

A survey of experts turns up numerous aspects of FEA and other computerized simulations that decision makers should probe as part of a trust-but-verify approach. Among many examples:

  • Incoming geometry—usually from solid modeling systems used by product designers— and the topologies and boundaries they have chosen.
  • The numerical values representing physical properties such as yield strengths of the chosen materials.
  • Mechanical components and assemblies. How accurately represented are the bolts and welds that hold the assemblies together?
  • The stiffness of structures.
  • The number of load steps. Is the range broad enough? Are there enough intermediate steps so nothing will be missed? How true-to-life are the load vectors?
  • The accuracy of modal analyses. Resonating harmonic frequencies—vibration—can shake things apart and lead to catastrophic failures.
  • Boundary conditions, or where the object being modeled meets “the rest of the world” in the analysis. Are the specifics of the object’s physical and mechanical requirements—the geometry—accurately represented and, again, how do we know?
  • Types of analysis, which range from small, simple linear static to large, highly complex nonlinear dynamic. Should a smaller simpler analysis have been used? Could physical measurements suffice instead of analyses?
  • In fluid dynamics, how well characterized are the flows, volumes, and turbulence? How do we know? In fluid dynamics, representations of flows, volumes, and turbulence are the numerical counterparts of the finite elements used in analyses of solids.
  • Post-processing the results, i.e., making the numerical outputs, the results of the analysis, comprehensible to non-experts.

Underlying all these are the geometric and analytical components that are found in all simulations. In FEA, this means the mesh of elements that embodies the physics of the component or assembly being modeled. Decision makers should always question the choice of elements as there are hundreds to pick from.

Some models use only a handful of elements while a few use tens of millions. Also to be questioned is the sensitivity of those elements to the forces, or loads, that push or pull on the model. A caveat: this gets deeply into the inner workings of FEA, e.g. explanations of the points or nodes where adjacent elements connect, the tallies of degrees of freedom (DOFs) represented by each pair of nodes, and the huge number of partial differential equations required.

The trust-but-verify is valuable in all of the engineering disciplines—mechanical, structural, electrical / electronic, nuclear, fluid dynamics, heat transfer, aerodynamics, noise/ vibration / harshness as well as for sensors, controls, systems, and any embedded software.

Developers of FEA and other simulation systems are working hard to simplify finding these answers or at least make trust-but-verify determinations less taxing. See Sidebar, “Software Vendors Tackle Transparency and Traceability in FEA.”

Proven approaches

A proven approach to understanding FEA models is offered by Eric Miller, co-owner of Phoenix Analysis & Design Technologies or PADT, in Tempe, Ariz. “A decision maker with some understanding of the management of the data in an FEA analysis will ask about how specific inputs affect the results. Such a decision maker will lead the model builder and analyst think more deeply about those inputs. Ultimately a more accurate simulation will be created.”

Miller offers a caveat: “This questioning should be approached as an additional set of eyes looking at the problem from the outside to determine the accuracy of results. The key is to not become adversarial and question the integrity or knowledge of the analyst.”

Jeffrey Crompton, principal of AltaSim Technologies, Columbus, Ohio, goes straight to the heart of the matter: “Let’s start out with the truth – all models are wrong until proven otherwise. Despite all the best attempts of engineers, scientists and computer code developers,” he explained, “a computational model does not give the right answer until you can categorically demonstrate its agreement with reality.”

“Categorically” is a high standard, a term with almost no wiggle room. Unfortunately, given the complexity of simulations, agreement with reality is often not easy to demonstrate. Hence the probing and questioning recommended by FEA experts and engineers.

Secondly, despite tsunamis of data cascading from one engineering department to another, a great deal of the physical world still remains imprecisely quantified. Demonstrating agreement with reality “becomes increasingly difficult,” Crompton added, “when you may not know the value of some parameters, or lack real-world measurements to compare against, or are uncertain exactly how to set up the physics of the problem.”

The challenge for decision makers uncomfortable with the results of FEA analyses is neatly summed up by Gene Mannella, vice president and FEA expert at GB Tubulars Inc. in Houston. “Without a basic understanding of what FEA is, what it can and cannot do, and how to interpret its results, one can easily make bad and costly decisions,” he points out. “FEA results are at best indicators. They were never intended to be accepted” at face value.

As Mannella, Crompton and other FEA consultants regularly remind their clients, an analysis is an approximation. It is an abstraction, a forecast, a prediction. There will always be some margin of error, some irreducible risk. This is the unsettling truth behind the gibe that “all models are bad but some are useful.” No FEA model or analysis can ever be treated as “gospel.” And this is why analysts strive ceaselessly to minimize margins of error, to make sure that every remaining risk is pointed out, and to clearly explain the ramifications.

“To be understood, FEA results must be supplemented by the professional judgment of qualified personnel,” Mannella added. His point is that decision makers relying on the results of FEA analyses should never forget that what they “see” on computer monitor, no matter how visually impressive, is an abstraction of reality. Every analysis is a small subset of one small part the real world, which is constrained by deadlines, budgets, and the boundaries of human comprehension.

Mannella’s work differs from that of most other FEA shops: it is highly specialized. GB Tubulars makes connectors for drilling and producing oil and gas in extreme environments. Its products go into oil and gas projects several miles underground and also often beneath a mile or more of seawater. Pressures are extreme, bordering on the incalculable. The risk of a blowout with massive damage to equipment and the environment is ever-present.

The analysts also stressed probing the correlation with the results of physical experiments. Tests in properly equipped laboratories by qualified experimentalists are single best way to ensure that the model actually does reflect physical reality. Which brings us to the FEA challenge of extrapolations.

Often the most relevant test data is not available because physical testing is slow and costly. The absence of relevant data makes it necessary to extrapolate among the results of similar experiments. Extrapolations can have large impacts on models, so they too should be questioned and understood.

To deal with these difficulties, Crompton and the others analysts recommend, first, managing the numbers with statistical process control (SPC) methods and, second, devising the best ways to set up the model and its analyses with design-of-experiments simulations. Both should be reviewed by decision makers—ideally with a qualified engineer looking over their shoulders.

“Our mantra in this situation is ‘start simple and gradually add complexity.’” Crompton said. “Consider starting with a [relatively simple] closed-form analytical solution. The equation’s results will help foster an understanding of how the physics and boundary conditions need to be implemented for your particular problem.” [A closed-form solution is an equation with a single variable such as stress equals force times area, as opposed to a model; even the simplest simulation and analysis models have several variables.]

Peter Barrett, principal of CAE Associates in Middlebury, Conn., noted that, “the most experienced analysts start with the simple models that can be compared to a closed-form solution or are models so simple that errors are minimized and can be safely ignored.” He commented that the two acronyms that best apply to FEA are KISS (“Keep It Simple, Stupid”) and “garbage in, garbage out,” or GIGO. In other words, probe for the unneeded complexity and bad data.

Model builders are always advised by FEA experts to start by modeling the simplest example of the problem and then build upward and outward until the model reflects all the relevant physics. Decision makers should determine whether this sensible practice was followed.

When pressed for time, “some analysts will try to skip the simple-example problem and analysis,” Barrett said. “They may claim they don’t have time” for that fundamental step, i.e., that the analyst thinks the problem is easily understood. Decision makers should insist that analysts take the extra time. The analysis always benefits from starting as simply as possible,” he continued. “Decision makers will reap the rewards of more accurate analysis, which are a driver for projects being on time and under budget.”

Ken Perry, principal at Echobio LLC, Bainbridge Island, Wash., concurred. “The first general principle of modeling is KISS. Worried decision makers should verify that KISS was applied from the very beginning,” he said. “KISS is also an optimal tool to pick apart existing models that are inflated and overburdened with unnecessary complexity,” Perry added.

A favorite quote of Perry’s comes from statistician R.W. Hamming: “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.” Perry elaborated: “Decision makers should guard against the all-too-human tendency to default for the more complicated explanation when we don’t understand something.  Instead, apply Occam’s razor.  Chop the model down to bite-sized chunks for questioning.” [Occam’s Razor is an axiom of logic that says in cases of uncertainty the best solution is the one requiring the fewest assumptions.]

Questioning is especially important, Perry added, “whenever the decision maker’s probing questions evoke hints of voodoo, magic or engineers shaking their head in vague, fuzzy clouds of deference to increasingly specialized disciplines.”  Each of these is a warning flag that the model or analysis has shortcomings.

Perry works in the tightly regulated field of implantable medical and cardiovascular devices. He has one such device himself, a heart valve, and has pictures to prove it on his Web site. Tellingly, Perry began his career not in FEA but as an experimentalist. He worked with interferometry to physically test advanced metal alloys.

Perry is living proof that FEA experts and experimentalists could understand one another if they tried. But often they don’t try, which is another challenge for decision makers.

The last and most cautionary words are from Barrett at CAE Associates. More than anyone else, he was concerned about the risks of inexperienced engineers making critical decisions. Such responsibility often comes with an unlooked-for promotion to a product manager’s job, for example. Unexpected increases in responsibility also can arrive with attrition, departmental shakeups, and corporate acquisitions and divestitures.

“In our introductory FEA training classes we often have engineers signed up who have no prior experience with FEA. They sign up for the intro class,” he said, “because they are expected to review results of analyses that have been outsourced and/or performed overseas.”

Barrett saw this as “very dangerous. These engineers often do not know what to look for. Without knowing how to check, they may assume that the calculations in the analysis were done correctly.  It is virtually impossible to look at a bunch of PowerPoint images of post-processed analysis results and see if the modeling was done correctly. Yet this is often the case.”

Video Tips: Automatic Contact Generation in ANSYS Mechanical

A quick video showcasing the automatic contact generation feature in ANSYS Mechanical.  This feature automatically selects the faces that are in contact or are close to contact and assigns a contact definition.

The Reality of Simulation Driven Product Development

A note to our regular readers: This is not a normal Focus post. No info on how to use an obscure new ANSYS command. This may be something our regular readers (the people who do simulation) might find useful to share with their management. And maybe a CEO/CTO/COO or two might stumble across it and “see the light” that we have all been working in for years.

I’ve been involved in planning or attending a couple of what we call “C” level visits in the past month or so. A “C” level visit is where we talk with the CEO, CFO, CTO, COO, or some sort of high level executive at a company.  These visits are very different than sitting in a room with a bunch of engineers showing off what ANSYS software can do, or talking about what services PADT can offer.

In the “C” level visits we are there for two reasons. The first is to understand what the high level product development needs are for the company from a business perspective.  Once we know that, we like to articulate how the products we sell or the services we offer can help the company meet those goals faster and with less effort and cost. And when simulation fits into their needs, we talk about Simulation Driven Product Development (SDPD).

Many people in the simulation software business talk about SDPD a lot.  They use SDPD as buzz word and they surround it with buzz words: time to market, rapid product development, stage gates, decision tree, etc…  In such a discussion you talk about the vagaries of “enabling your enterprise” and “collaborative global solutions.”  All of this is oriented towards a single message: buy our tools.

The Real World

PADT is fortunate enough to not only be a company that sells simulation tools, we use them as a service to help our customers drive product development. We also use simulation to drive product development that we do here at PADT. (WAH? PADT does product development? Yes we do. And rapid prototyping. Click the links to learn more.)

Top this off with the technical support and mentoring that we offer our simulation customers and we are able to get a pretty good idea about the reality of SDPD. And that reality is that SDPD really works, it can make a huge difference in many areas.  But the reality is also that SDPD needs to be done correctly to make it effective.

Why SDPD is Effective

To understand the real world impact of SDPD you have to step back and look at what developing a product is about. There are a lot of different processes, and people get all “burn the heretic at the stake” over there particular flavor.  But they all share some common characteristics:

  1. Define what you want the product to do (specifications)
  2. Come up with and capture all of the things that define the product (design)
  3. See if you ideas work (test)
  4. Fix stuff that didn’t work (iterate)
  5. Make it (manufacture)

Every step in the process involves people asking questions and answering them.  How big, how strong, how long, how much this or that?  And each question can be answered in many different ways. Things like experience, calculations, comparison to existing solutions, statistical studies, testing, and many more.  The cost and correctness of how those questions are answered has a direct impact on the cost and speed of a development project.  Also, many studies have shown that the sooner in the schedule that you answer those questions, the more efficient your project is.

What is great about simulation is that it allows you to answer questions quickly and accurately.  Working in a virtual environment on the computer you can combine comparisons, testing, calculations, and statistics in one place with speed and very little capital investment. The fact that you can do it so fast also allows you to avoid making assumptions and simplifications that reduce the accuracy of the answer.

The most comprehensive study on the effectiveness of simulation for driving product development can be found in “The Impact of Strategic Simulation on Product Profitability” from the Aberdeen Group.  It shows that best-in-class companies across industries are companies that use simulation to drive their product development.

The study finds that:

There is no point in the design process where companies do not profit from intelligent decision-making. By integrating simulation analysis from the earliest stages of design, the Best-in-Class are able to make better decisions through the process. This enables these leaders to drive higher quality and lower cost products, as well as deliver the innovations and features that differentiate their products.

Making SDPD Effective for Your Organization

So companies make more money using simulation to drive their product development.  It would be nice if it was true that all companies that use simulation automatically see a benefit.  But we are talking about the reality of SDPD and that reality is you have to have the proper simulation tools, and you have to use them effectively.

The Right Tools

As far as tools go, you should know where I stand.  ANSYS, Inc’s products. If you are reading this you are probably an ANSYS, Inc. product user or you got this posting from someone who is.  Why are these tools the leaders across the industry? Because they have breadth and depth so you are not limited by your simulation tools, they are accurate, and they work together so you do not have to jump through hoops to work as a team.  That is really all there is to it.

If you can not use this tool set for some reason, say your senior manager is married to the competition’s local rep (which is maybe one of the few valid reasons) you still need to make sure you stay high end.  Do not cheap out on a CAD based tool or a low end tool that is “good enough for what we need.”  Anything other than a full function tool suit will limit your ability to get accurate solutions, or to model your product completely.  That $20,000 you saved will get eaten up in about a week of fumbling around trying to get useful information.

Yes these tools cost a lot more than the low cost or CAD based alternatives. But there is a reason for that.  It is the army of developers, support engineers, and product managers that work day in and day out to improve the speed, accuracy, and capability of their simulation tools.  The reality of simulation is having 80% is only good 80% of the time. When you need that extra 20% of functionality, you need it. And when you do not have it, your project bleeds cash.

Effective Application

Deciding to drive you product development with simulation: easy.  Deciding on the right tool set: a bit of work, unless you just go with ANSYS products, then it is easy.  Now you have to make it work.

This is such a big topic that we did a seminar on it about two years ago.  I’ve uploaded a PDF of the presentation if you would like more details.

The gist of it is the following four rules:

  1. Establish goals for SDPD in general and establish goals for each project that uses simulation.  Without goals it is easy to do too much simulation or to do the wrong simulation.
  2. You must have the right type of users doing the right tasks: experts and mainstream users. Also, do not turn good engineers into bad users by violating the other rules.
  3. Use the right tools. Not just the simulation software, we covered that.  You need the right hardware, the right support, and the right utility software to support your efforts.
  4. Design the right flexible process for your team and constantly improve on it.

Mainstream

I have been driving product development with simulation for over 25 years, and many people who read this blog have been doing it for longer. Once a secret of the aerospace and automotive industry, SDPD is now mainstream. We have customers that use it to design ear buds, mining equipment, coolers for organ transplants, and toys.  It is used to make almost every electronic device around us more reliable, cooler, and faster.  And we still have people that use it to design Turbine Engines, space craft, and automotive components.

In fact the industries that are long time users are increasing their seat count and the size of the computing systems.  Many that we know of are making multi-million dollar investments every year and growing that investment year over year for a simple  reason, they see results from driving more and more of their design process with simulation.

If you are not using simulation, or some portion of your company is not using simulation, than something is wrong. You or they are literally leaving money on the table and giving a competitive edge to the competition.  If you would like to learn more about how PADT and many of our customers have been successful with simulation, feel free to contact me. Or just get out there and start evangelizing something that has already been proven to work.