Importing and Splitting Solid Models for ANSYS HFSS 18.0

Importing solid 3D Mechanical CAD (or MCAD) models into ANSYS HFSS has always been and remains to be a fairly simple process. After opening ANSYS Electronics Desktop and creating an HFSS design, from the menu bar, select Modeler > Import. A dialog box will open to navigate to and directly open the model.

The CAD will automatically be translated and loaded into the HFSS 3D Modeler. If the geometry is correct and does not require any editing, the import process is complete and analysis can begin! However, if there are any errors with the geometry, there is excessive or invalid detail, or if it’s not organized into separate bodies conducive for electromagnetic analysis, you may soon realize that the editing capability is limited to scaling, reorienting, or Boolean operations. This approach can be particularly troublesome when portions of the model (or all of the model) which consist of different materials are not split into different objects. For example, notice the outer conductor, inner conductor, and dielectric of the imported SMA below are all one solid object.

Unless you’re lucky enough to work with the creator of the CAD, you will need to find a way to split this model into the inner and outer conductors, and the dielectric. However, since the release of ANSYS R18.1, the power of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) and the MCAD translator will be packaged together. The good news is, the process described above will continue to work. The better news is, SCDM offers new capabilities to directly edit or clean imported geometry. So, here are a few simple steps to quickly split this SMA connector using SCDM. You can download a copy of this model here to follow along. If you need access to SCDM, you can contact us at info@padtinc.com. It’s worth noting, at this point, that the processes discussed throughout this article work the same for HFSS-IE, Q3D, and Maxwell designs as well.

[1] First, after opening ANSYS SpaceClaim, the step file can be imported through the menu File > Open or by simply dragging and dropping the file into the SCDM window. [2] To separate the dielectric from the outer conductor, select Design > Intersect > Split Body. [3] Click and hold the center mouse button to rotate the model so the boundary between the dielectric and outer conductor is visible. Hold the Ctrl key and click the center mouse button to pan, and use the center mouse scroll to zoom in and out. Finally, press ‘z’ on the keyboard to fit the view window. [4] When positioned, click on the object to split (in this case it is the entire model). [5] Then, click on the face which defines the boundary between the dielectric and outer conductor. [6] Finally, press the Esc key. The first split is done!

Repeat the Split Body process to separate the center conductor from the dielectric. Notice under the structure tree that there are now three separate objects.

The split body function is also useful to simplify a structure for analysis. For example, the female side of the SMA could be simplified as a solid center conductor. [1] Reposition the connector to view the female side. [2]-[3] Control the visibility of each body with the object’s checkbox in the structure tree. [4] Measure the length of the female side by pressing the letter ‘e’ on the keyboard and selecting the top edge (note the line length of 2.95mm for later). [5] Then, repeat the Split Body process to split the center conductor at the boundary between the male and female sides. [6]-[7] However, rather than pressing the Esc key, click on the female receiver to automatically remove the body.

[1] To extend the center pin to its original length, select Design > Edit > Pull. [2] Click on the face where the female side was originally attached and select the Up To option. [3] Type in the previously measured length of 2.95mm. [4] Finally, press Enter (press Esc 3x to exit the Pull command).

Repeat the Split Body and Pull processes until the model has been divided into different bodies for each material type and is sufficiently simplified.

Once the model is ready, select File > Save As to save the geometry as the preferred format. Perhaps the most familiar approach to HFSS users would be to save the new model as a STEP file, then to import the model into HFSS as described in the first paragraph.

DesignCon 2017 Trends in Chip, Board, and System Design


Considered the “largest gathering of chip, board, and systems designers in the country,” with over 5,000 attendees this year and over 150 technical presentations and workshops, DesignCon exhibits state of the art trends in high-speed communications and semiconductor communities.

Here are the top 5 trends I noticed while attending DesignCon 2017:

1. Higher data rates and power efficiency.

This is of course a continuing trend and the most obvious. Still, I like to see this trend alive and well because I think this gets a bit trickier every year. Aiming towards 400 Gbps solutions, many vendors and papers were demonstrating 56 Gbps and 112 Gbps channels, with no less than 19 sessions with 56 Gbps or more in the title. While IC manufacturers continue to develop low-power chips, connector manufacturers are offering more vented housings as well as integrated sinks to address thermal challenges.

2. More conductor-based signaling.

PAM4 was everywhere on the exhibition floor and there were 11 sessions with PAM4 in the title. Shielded twinaxial cables was the predominant conductor-based technology such as Samtec’s Twinax Flyover and Molex’s BiPass.

A touted feature of twinax is the ability to route over components and free up PCB real estate (but there is still concern for enclosing the cabling). My DesignCon 2017 session, titled Replacing High-Speed Bottlenecks with PCB Superhighways, would also fall into this category. Instead of using twinax, I explored the idea of using rectangular waveguides (along with coax feeds), which you can read more about here. I also offered a modular concept that reflects similar routing and real estate advantages.

3. Less optical-based signaling.

Don’t get me wrong, optical-based signaling is still a strong solution for high-speed channels. Many of the twinax solutions are being designed to be compatible with fiber connections and, as Teledyne put it in their QPHY-56G-PAM4 option release at DesignCon, Optical Internetworking Forum (OIF) and IEEE are both rapidly standardizing PAM4-based interfaces. Still, the focus from the vendors was on lower cost conductor-based solutions. So, I think the question of when a full optical transition will be necessary still stands.
With that in mind, this trend is relative to what I saw only a couple years back. At DesignCon 2015, it looked as if the path forward was going to be fully embracing optical-based signaling. This year, I saw only one session on fiber and, as far as I could tell, none on photonic devices. That’s compared to DesignCon 2015 with at least 5 sessions on fiber and photonics, as well as a keynote session on silicon photonics from Intel Fellow Dr. Mario Paniccia.

4. More Physics-based Simulations.

As margins continue to shrink, the demand for accurate simulation grows. Dr. Zoltan Cendes, founder of Ansoft, shared the difficulties of electromagnetic simulation over the past 40+ years and how Ansoft (now ANSYS) has improved accuracy, simplified the simulation process, and significantly reduced simulation time. To my personal delight, he also had a rectangular waveguide in his presentation (and I think we were the only two). Dr. Cendes sees high-speed electrical design at a transition point, where engineers have been or will ultimately need to place physics-based simulations at the forefront of the design process, or as he put it, “turning signal integrity simulation inside out.” A closer look at Dr. Cendes’ keynote presentation can be found in DesignNews.

5. More Detailed IC Models.

This may or may not be a trend yet, but improving IC models (including improved data sheet details) was a popular topic among presenters and attendees alike; so if nothing else it was a trend of comradery. There were 12 sessions with IBIS-AMI in the title. In truth, I don’t typically attend these sessions, but since behavioral models (such as IBIS-AMI) impact everyone at DesignCon, this topic came up in several sessions that I did attend even though they weren’t focused on this topic. Perhaps with continued development of simulation solutions like ANSYS’ Chip-Package-System, Dr. Cende’s prediction will one day make a comprehensive physics-based design (to include IC models) a practical reality. Until then, I would like to share an interesting quote from George E. P. Box that was restated in one of the sessions: “Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful.” I think this is good advice that I use for clarity in the moment and excitement for the future.

By the way, the visual notes shown above were created by Kelly Kingman from kingmanink.com on the spot during presentations. As an engineer, I was blown away by this. I have a tendency to obsess over details but she somehow captured all of the critical points on the fly with great graphics that clearly relay the message. Amazing!

Exploring High-Frequency Electromagnetic Theory with ANSYS HFSS

I recently had the opportunity to present an interesting experimental research paper at DesignCon 2017, titled Replacing High-Speed Bottlenecks with PCB Superhighways. The motivation behind the research was to develop a new high-speed signaling system using rectangular waveguides, but the most exciting aspect for me personally was salvaging a (perhaps contentious) 70 year old first-principles electromagnetic model. While it took some time to really understand how to apply the mathematics to design, their application led to an exciting convergence of theory, simulation, and measurement.

One of the most critical aspects of the design was exciting the waveguide with a monopole probe antenna. Many different techniques have been developed to match the antenna impedance to the waveguide impedance at the desired frequency, as well as increase the bandwidth. Yet, all of them rely on assumptions and empirical measurement studies. Optimizing a design to nanometer precision empirically would be difficult at best and even if the answer was found it wouldn’t inherently reveal the physics. To solve this problem, we needed a first-principles model, a simulation tool that could quickly iterate designs accurately, and some measurements to validate the simulation methodology.

A rigorous first-principles model was developed by Robert Collin in 1960, but this solution has since been forgotten and replaced by simplified rules. Unfortunately, these simplified rules are unable to deliver an optimal design or offer any useful insight to the critical parameters. In fairness, Collin’s equations are difficult to implement in design and validating them with measurement would be tedious and expensive. Because of this, empirical measurements have been considered a faster and cheaper alternative. However, we wanted the best of both worlds… we wanted the best design, for the lowest cost, and we wanted the results quickly.

For this study, we used ANSYS HFSS to simulate our designs. Before exploring new designs, we first wanted to validate our simulation methodology by correlating results with available measurements. We were able to demonstrate a strong agreement between Collin’s theory, ANSYS HFSS simulation, and VNA measurement.

Red simulated S-parameters strongly correlated with blue measurements.

To perform a series of parametric studies, we swept thousands of antenna design iterations across a wide frequency range of 50 GHz for structures ranging from 50-100 guide wavelengths long. High-performance computing gave us the ability to solve return loss and insertion loss S-parameters within just a few minutes for each design iteration by distributing across 48 cores.

Sample Parametric Design Sweep

Finally, we used the lessons we learned from Collin’s equations and the parametric study to develop a new signaling system with probe antenna performance never before demonstrated. You can read the full DesignCon paper here. The outcome also pertains to RF applications in addition to potentially addressing Signal Integrity concerns for future high-speed communication channels.

Rules-of-thumb are important to fast and practical design, but their application can many times be limited. Competitive innovation demands we explore beyond these limitations but the only way to match the speed and accuracy of design rules is to use simulations capable of offering fast design exploration with the same reliability as measurement. ANSYS HFSS gave us the ability to, not only optimize our design, but also teach us about the physics that explain our design and allow us to accurately predict the behavior of new innovative designs.

ANSYS 17.2 Executable Paths on Linux


ansys-linux-penguin-1When running on a machine with a Linux operating system, it is not uncommon for users to want to run from the command line or with a shell script. To do this you need to know where the actual executable files are located. Based on a request from a customer, we have tried to coalesce the major ANSYS product executables that can be run via command line on Linux into a single list:

ANSYS Workbench (Includes ANSYS Mechanical, Fluent, CFX, Polyflow, Icepak, Autodyn, Composite PrepPost, DesignXplorer, DesignModeler, etc.):

/ansys_inc/v172/Framework/bin/Linux64/runwb2

ANSYS Mechanical APDL, a.k.a. ANSYS ‘classic’:

/ansys_inc/v172/ansys/bin/launcher172 (brings up the MAPDL launcher menu)
/ansys_inc/v172/ansys/bin/mapdl (launches ANSYS MAPDL)

CFX Standalone:

/ansys_inc/v172/CFX/bin/cfx5

Autodyn Standalone:

/ansys_inc/v172/autodyn/bin/autodyn172

Note: A required argument for Autodyn is –I {ident-name}

Fluent Standalone (Fluent Launcher):

/ansys_inc/v172/fluent/bin/fluent

Icepak Standalone:

/ansys_inc/v172/Icepak/bin/icepak

Polyflow Standalone:

/ansys_inc/v172/polyflow/bin/polyflow/polyflow < my.dat

Chemkin:

/ansys_inc/v172/reaction/chemkinpro.linuxx8664/bin/chemkinpro_setup.ksh

Forte:

/ansys_inc/v172/reaction/forte.linuxx8664/bin/forte.sh

TGRID:

/ansys_inc/v172/tgrid/bin/tgrid

ANSYS Electronics Desktop (for Ansoft tools, e.g. Maxwell, HFSS)

/ansys_inc/v172/AnsysEM/AnsysEM17.2/Linux64/ansysedt

SIWave:

/ansys_inc/v172/AnsysEM/AnsysEM17.2/Linux64/siwave

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

Three Jobs Open at PADT

3-Guys-PADTPADT currently has three job openings, two sales and one engineering.  If you are interested, or know of someone that is, please use the links below to learn more.

If you are smart, proactive, love technology, and believe in win-win interactions with customers, then PADT might be the place for you.

Electrical Engineer, High-Frequency Simulation: RF/Antenna
Account Manager: ANSYS Simulation Software
Account Manager, Flownex Sales