The Co-Owner of PADT, Inc. Eric Miller will be at The Gateway Center for Entrepreneurial Innovation (CEI) this Friday, November 18th,from 12-1pm to discuss how ANSYS software is helping new entrepreneurs drive success through simulation.
This is a free event, and while registration is not required it is preferred.
The presentation will include a discussion on:
What simulation is and how it can be applied to product development
How partnering with PADT and ANSYS can be crucial to the success of a startup
How using ANSYS software will help deliver ideas to market more rapidly and cost effectively. Thus saving money, time, and increasing the probability of success.
Click Here for directions and additional registration information.
Eric will also be presenting information on the ANSYS Startup Program, which provides entrepreneurs with access to various ANSYS multiphysics simulation products bundled and priced specifically for early stage startup companies.
Acceptance to this program is limited to companies who are not current ANSYS customers and meet a variety of qualifications.
Those who are eligible will also receive access to the ANSYS Customer Portal for marketing opportunities and customer support.
Simulation of Planar Magnetic Components – Possible or Impossible?
Planar magnetic components consisting of a ferrite magnetic core and numerous conductor/insulation layers have been in use for many years. Historically, determining temperature dependent winding and core losses has only been possible using iterative testing of physical models due to the difficulty in determining 3-D frequency and thermal dependency. The only way to accomplish this now is to use frequency and thermally dependent material properties in a 2-way spatially coupled simulation.
Additionally, you can only construct a frequency dependent system model that accurately represents the real device after the steady-state temperature condition has been reached throughout the device.
Recent breakthrough developments in simulation technology and high-performance computing from ANSYS make it possible to design, simulate and optimize planar magnetic components without building physical models or compromising simulation fidelity.
This webinar demonstrates how you can use ANSYS software tools, featuring a customized interface complete with manufacturer libraries, to automatically set up and then solve a frequency dependent, 2-way coupled magnetic-thermal model.
This webinar is presented by Mark Christini, the lead Electromagnetics Application Engineer at ANSYS.
He has been working in design, development, application and manufacturing of electrical devices and systems for the past 30 years. Mark has a strong interest in transformers of all kinds ranging, from small electronic transformers to large oil-filled EHV power transformers.
Keep checking back to the Energy Innovation Homepage for more updates on upcoming segments, webinars, and other additional content.
Information regarding the next topic in the Breakthrough Energy Innovation Campaign has been released, covering machine and fuel efficiency, and how ANSYS simulation software can be used to help solve a variety of issues related to this topic, as well as optimize the performance of all system components as they work together.
Additional content regarding machine and fuel efficiency can be viewed and downloaded here.
This is the second topic of a campaign that covers five main topics:
Machine & Fuel Efficiency
Information on each topic will be released over the course of the next few months as the webinars take place.
Sign Up Now to receive updates regarding the campaign, including additional information on each subject, registration forms to each webinar and more.
We here at PADT can not wait to share this content with you, and we hope to hear from you soon.
In this post, I discuss six challenges that make the modeling of 3D printed cellular structures (such as honeycombs and lattices) a non-trivial matter. In a following post, I will present how some of these problems have been addressed with different approaches.
At the outset, I need to clarify that by modeling I mean the analytical representation of material behavior, primarily for use in predictive analysis (simulation). Here are some reasons why this is a challenging endeavor for 3D printed cellular solids – some of these reasons are unique to 3D printing, others are a result of aspects that are specific to cellular solids, independent of how they are manufactured. I show examples with honeycombs since that is the majority of the work we have data for, but I expect that these ideas apply to foams and lattices as well, just with varying degrees of sensitivity.
1. Complex Geometry with Non-Uniform Local Conditions
I state the most well-appreciated challenge with cellular structures first: they are NOT fully-dense solid materials that have relatively predictable responses governed by straightforward analytical expressions. Consider a dogbone-shaped specimen of solid material under tension: it’s stress-strain response can be described fairly well using continuum expressions that do not account for geometrical features beyond the size of the dogbone (area and length for stress and strain computations respectively). However, as shown in Figure 1, such is not the case for cellular structures, where local stress and strain distributions are non-uniform. Further, they may have variable distributions of bending, stretching and shear in the connecting members that constitute the structure. So the first question becomes: how does one represent such complex geometry – both analytically and numerically?
2. Size Effects
A size effect is said to be significant when an observed behavior varies as a function of the size of the sample whose response is being characterized even after normalization (dividing force by area to get stress, for example). Here I limit myself to size effects that are purely a mathematical artifact of the cellular geometry itself, independent of the manufacturing process used to make them – in other words this effect would persist even if the material in the cellular structure was a mathematically precise, homogeneous and isotropic material.
It is common in the field of cellular structure modeling to extract an “effective” property – a property that represents a homogenized behavior without explicitly modeling the cellular detail. This is an elegant concept but introduces some practical challenges in implementation – inherent in the assumption is that this property, modulus for example, is equivalent to a continuum property valid at every material point. The reality is the extraction of this property is strongly dependent on the number of cells involved in the experimental characterization process. Consider experimental work done by us at PADT, and shown in Figure 2 below, where we varied both the number of axial and longitudinal cells (see inset for definition) when testing hexagonal honeycomb samples made of ULTEM-9085 with FDM. The predicted effective modulus increases with increasing number of cells in the axial direction, but reduces (at a lower rate) for increasing number of cells in the longitudinal direction.
This is a significant challenge and deserves a full form post to do justice (and is forthcoming), but the key to remember is that testing a particular cellular structure does not suffice in the extraction of effective properties. So the second question here becomes: what is the correct specimen design for characterizing cellular properties?
3. Contact Effects
In the compression test shown in the inset in Figure 2, there is physical contact between the platen and the specimen that creates a local effect at the top and bottom that is different from the experience of the cells closer the center. This is tied to the size effect discussed above – if you have large enough cells in the axial direction, the contribution of this effect should reduce – but I have called it out as a separate effect here for two reasons: Firstly, it raises the question of how best to design the interface for the specimen: should the top and bottom cells terminate in a flat plate, or should the cells extend to the surface of contact (the latter is the case in the above image). Secondly, it raises the question of how best to model the interface, especially if one is seeking to match simulation results to experimentally observed behavior. Both these ideas are shown in Figure 3 below. This also has implications for product design – how do we characterize and model the lattice-skin interface? As such, independent of addressing size effects, there is a need to account for contact behavior in characterization, modeling and analysis.
4. Macrostructure Effects
Another consideration related to specimen design is demonstrated in an exaggerated manner in the slowed down video below, showing a specimen flying off the platens under compression – the point being that for certain dimensions of the specimen being characterized (typically very tall aspect ratios), deformation in the macrostructure can influence what is perceived as cellular behavior. In the video below, there is some induced bending on a macro-level.
5. Dimensional Errors
While all manufacturing processes introduce some error in dimensional tolerances, the error can have a very significant effect for cellular structures – a typical industrial 3D printing process has tolerances within 75 microns (0.003″) – cellular structures (micro-lattices in particular) very often are 250-750 microns in thickness, meaning the tolerances on dimensional error can be in the 10% and higher error range for thickness of these members. This was our finding when working with Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), where on a 0.006″ thick wall we saw about a 10% larger true measurement when we scanned the samples optically, as shown in Figure 4. Such large errors in thickness can yield a significant error in measured behavior such as elastic modulus, which often goes by some power to the thickness, amplifying the error. This drives the need for some independent measurement of the manufactured cellular structure – made challenging itself by the need to penetrate the structure for internal measurements. X-ray scanning is a popular, if expensive approach. But the modeler than has the challenge of devising an average thickness for analytical calculations and furthermore, the challenge of representation of geometry in simulation software for efficient analysis.
6. Mesostructural Effects
The layerwise nature of Additive Manufacturing introduces a set of challenges that are somewhat unique to 3D Printed parts. Chief among these is the resulting sensitivity to orientation, as shown for the laser-based powder bed fusion process in Figure 5 with standard materials and parameter sets. Overhang surfaces (unsupported) tend to have down-facing surfaces with different morphology compared to up-facing ones. In the context of cellular structures, this is likely to result in different thickness effects depending on direction measured.
For the FDM process, in addition to orientation, the toolpaths that effectively determine the internal meso-structure of the part (discussed in a previous blog post in greater detail) have a very strong influence on observed stiffness behavior, as shown in Figure 6. Thus orientation and process parameters are variables that need to be comprehended in the modeling of cellular structures – or set as constants for the range of applicability of the model parameters that are derived from a certain set of process conditions.
Modeling cellular structures has the above mentioned challenges – most have practical implications in determining what is the correct specimen design – it is our mission over the next 18 months to address some of these challenges to a satisfactory level through an America Makes grant we have been awarded. While these ideas have been explored in other manufacturing contexts, much remains to be done for the AM community, where cellular structures have a singular potential in application.
In future posts, I will discuss some of these challenges in detail and also discuss different approaches to modeling 3D printed cellular structures – they do not always address all the challenges here satisfactorily but each has its pros and cons. Until then, feel free to send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org citing this blog post, or connect with me on LinkedIn so you get notified whenever I write a post on this, or similar subjects in Additive Manufacturing (1-2 times/month).
As it progresses, we here at PADT would like to share some examples of companies working within the five topics that this campaign focuses on (Advanced Electrification, Machine & Fuel Efficiency, Effective Lightweighting, Thermal Optimization, and Aerodynamic Design) in order to give you a better idea as to how they can be applied within the industry.
Infiniti Motor Company gave a tech briefing on a new remarkable engine at the Paris Motor Show 2016. The VC-T Engine is the world’s first production-ready compression ratio machine. It will be available from
Want to learn more? Click Here for more information on how ANSYS simulation software can benefit companies working in the field of Machine & Fuel Efficiency.
Join PADT in exploring the impact of breakthrough energy innovation as well as how ANSYS simulation solutions can be used to help combat the challenges that this area presents. Fill out the registration form to receive additional information on each topic, along with updates regarding the release of various webinars as the campaign progresses.
Nothing beats seeing a product we were part of hit the shelves, except seeing that product become a success. The Globalstar Spot3 project was even better because we were able to apply the full range of PADT’s capabilities to contribute to this success: Product Development, Simulation, and 3D Printing.
In “Fast-Forwarding Next-Generation Product Development” PADT’s Mike Landis outlines how we applied leading edge technology and a proven process to quickly develop Globalstar’s next-generation design, not just for performance but also for manufactuing. The article is a great overview of the service PADT has to offer and how we partner with customers to make their innovation work.
If you have a new generation of an existing product line, or a brand new product under development and want a better product to market faster, PADT is here to help with our design, simulation, 3D Printing, test, and manufacturing expertise. Just give us a call at 1-800-293-PADT or email email@example.com.
As the worldwide demand for energy continues to grow every year, energy systems simulation is becoming an indispensable tool for improving the way energy is produced and consumed. At the same time, concerns about climate change are leading to stricter emissions regulations and calls for sustainable design in all future energy systems. Clearly, breakthroughs in energy innovation are needed to meet these formidable challenges.
Join PADT in exploring the impact of breakthrough energy innovation as well as how ANSYS simulation solutions can be used to help combat the challenges that this area presents.
This campaign covers five main topics:
Machine & Fuel Efficiency
Information on each topic will be released over the course of the next few months as the webinars take place.
The campaign will consist of a series of webinars explaining the applications of ANSYS simulations software with regards to each topic, along with additional downloadable content.
Sign Up Now to receive updates regarding the campaign, including additional information on each subject, registration forms to each webinar and more.
More information regarding the campaign in general can be found Here.
Updated (8/30/2016): Two corrections made following suggestions by Gilbert Peters: the first corrects the use of honeycomb structures in radiator grille applications as being for flow conditioning, the second corrects the use of the Maxwell stability criterion, replacing the space frame example with an octet truss.
Within the design element, the first step in implementing cellular structures in Additive Manufacturing (AM) is selecting the appropriate unit cell(s). The unit cell is selected based on the performance desired of it as well as the manufacturability of the cells. In this post, I wish to delve deeper into the different types of cellular structures and why the classification is important. This will set the stage for defining criteria for why certain unit cell designs are preferable over others, which I will attempt in future posts. This post will also explain in greater detail what a “lattice” structure, a term that is often erroneously used to describe all cellular solids, truly is.
Honeycombs are prismatic, 2-dimensional cellular designs extruded in the 3rd dimension, like the well-known hexagonal honeycomb shown in Figure 1. All cross-sections through the 3rd dimension are thus identical, making honeycombs somewhat easy to model. Though the hexagonal honeycomb is most well known, the term applies to all designs that have this prismatic property, including square and triangular honeycombs. Honeycombs have a strong anisotropy in the 3rd dimension – in fact, the modulus of regular hexagonal and triangular honeycombs is transversely isotropic – equal in all directions in the plane but very different out-of-plane.
1.2 Design Implications The 2D nature of honeycomb structures means that their use is beneficial when the environmental conditions are predictable and the honeycomb design can be oriented in such a way to extract maximum benefit. One such example is the crash structure in Figure 2 as well as a range of sandwich panels. Several automotive radiator grilles are also of a honeycomb design to condition the flow of air. In both cases, the direction of the environmental stimulus is known – in the former, the impact load, in the latter, airflow.
2. Open-Cell Foam
Freeing up the prismatic requirement on the honeycomb brings us to a fully 3-dimensionalopen-cell foam design as shown in one representation of a unit cell in Figure 3. Typically, open-cell foams are bending-dominated, distinguishing them from stretch-dominated lattices, which are discussed in more detail in a following section on lattices.
2.2 Design Implications Unlike the honeycomb, open cell foam designs are more useful when the environmental stimulus (stress, flow, heat) is not as predictable and unidirectional. The bending dominated mechanism of deformation make open-cell foams ideal for energy absorption – stretch dominated structures tend to be stiffer. As a result of this, applications that require energy absorption such as mattresses and crumple zones in complex structures. The interconnectivity of open-cell foams also makes them a candidate for applications requiring fluid flow through the structure.
3. Closed-Cell Foam
3.1 Definition As the name suggests, closed cell foams are open-cell foams with enclosed cells, such as the representation shown in Figure 6. This typically involves a membrane like structure that may be of varying thickness from the strut-like structures, though this is not necessary. Closed-cell foams arise from a lot of natural processes and are commonly found in nature. In man-made entities, they are commonly found in the food industry (bread, chocolate) and in engineering applications where the enclosed cell is filled with some fluid (like air in bubble wrap, foam for bicycle helmets and fragile packaging).
3.2 Design Implications
The primary benefit of closed cell foams is the ability to encapsulate a fluid of different properties for compressive resilience. From a structural standpoint, while the membrane is a load-bearing part of the structure under certain loads, the additional material and manufacturing burden can be hard to justify. Within the AM context, this is a key area of interest for those exploring 3D printing food products in particular but may also have value for biomimetic applications.
Lattices are in appearance very similar to open cell foams but differ in that lattice member deformation is stretch-dominated, as opposed to bending*. This is important since for the same material allocation, structures tend to be stiffer in tension and/or compression compared to bending – by contrast, bending dominated structures typically absorb more energy and are more compliant.
So the question is – when does an open cell foam become stretch dominated and therefore, a lattice? Fortunately, there is an app equation for that.
Maxwell’s Stability Criterion
Maxwell’s stability criterion involves the computation of a metric M for a lattice-like structure with b struts and j joints as follows:
In 2D structures: M = b – 2j + 3
In 3D structures: M = b – 3j + 6
Per Maxwell’s criterion, for our purposes here where the joints are locked (and not pinned), if M < 0, we get a structure that is bending dominated. If M >= 0, the structure is stretch dominated. The former constitutes an open-cell foam, the latter a lattice.
There are several approaches to establishing the appropriateness of a lattice design for a structural applications (connectivity, static and kinematic determinism etc.) and how they are applied to periodic structures and space frames. It is easy for one (including for this author) to confuse these ideas and their applicability. For the purposes of AM, Maxwell’s Stability Criterion for 3D structures is a sufficient condition for static determinancy. Further, for a periodic structure to be truly space-filling (as we need for AM applications), there is no simple rigid polyhedron that fits the bill – we need a combination of polyhedra (such as an octahedron and tetrahedron in the octet truss shown in the video below) to generate true space filling, and rigid structures. The 2001 papers by Deshpande, Ashby and Fleck illustrate these ideas in greater detail and are referenced at the end of this post.
Video: The octet truss is a classic stretch-dominated structure, with b = 36 struts, j = 14 joints and M = 0 [Attr. Lawrence Livermore National Labs]
4.2 Design Implications Lattices are the most common cellular solid studied in AM – this is primarily on account of their strong structural performance in applications where high stiffness-to-weight ratio is desired (such as aerospace), or where stiffness modulation is important (such as in medical implants). However, it is important to realize that there are other cellular representations that have a range of other benefits that lattice designs cannot provide.
Conclusion: Why this matters
It is a fair question to ask why this matters – is this all just semantics? I would like to argue that the above classification is vital since it represents the first stage of selecting a unit cell for a particular function. Generally speaking, the following guidelines apply:
Honeycomb structures for predictable, unidirectional loading or flow
Open cell foams where energy absorption and compliance is important
Closed cell foams for fluid-filled and hydrostatic applications
Lattice structures where stiffness and resistance to bending is critical
Finally, another reason it is important to retain the bigger picture on all cellular solids is it ensures that the discussion of what we can do with AM and cellular solids includes all the possibilities and is not limited to only stiffness driven lattice designs.
Note: This blog post is part of a series on “Additive Manufacturing of Cellular Solids” that I am writing over the coming year, diving deep into the fundamentals of this exciting and fast evolving topic. To ensure you get each post (~2 a month) or to give me feedback for improvement, please connect with me on LinkedIn.
 Ashby, “Materials Selection in Mechanical Design,” Fourth Edition, 2011
 Gibson & Ashby, “Cellular Solids: Structure & Properties,” Second Edition, 1997
 Gibson, Ashby & Harley, “Cellular Materials in Nature & Medicine,” First Edition, 2010
 Ashby, Evans, Fleck, Gibson, Hutchinson, Wadley, “Metal Foams: A Design Guide,” First Edition, 2000
 Deshpande, Ashby, Fleck, “Foam Topology Bending versus Stretching Dominated Architectures,” Acta Materialia 49, 2001
 Deshpande, Fleck, Ashby, “Effective properties of the octet-truss lattice material,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 49, 2001
* We defer to reference  in distinguishing lattice structures as separate from foams – this is NOT the approach used in  and  where lattices are treated implicitly as a subset of open-cell foams. The distinction is useful from a structural perspective and as such is retained here.
In the Age of IoT, electronics continue to get smaller, faster, more power efficient, and are integrated into everything around us. Increasingly, companies are incorporating simulation early in the product development process, when the cost of design changes are at their lowest, to meet the challenges presented by Signal Integrity. For this to be effective, simulation tools need to be easy-to-use, compatible with existing work flows, and accurate, all while delivering meaningful results quickly.
If you or your company are designing or using electronics that are:
Critical to revenue, performance, or safety
Getting smaller, faster, or more efficient
Communicating with Gbps data rates
Using several or new connectors
Using long cables or backplanes
Then you could be a victim of Signal Integrity failure!
Join us September 7th, 2016 at 1 pm Pacific Time for this free webinar to discover how ANSYS is delivering intuitive Signal Integrity analysis solutions that can easily import ECAD geometry to compute SYZ parameters, inter-trace coupling, or impedance variations. Learn how ANSYS can help identify Signal Integrity problems and optimize potential solutions faster and cheaper than prototyping multiple iterations.
This webinar will introduce:
What products ANSYS provides for Signal Integrity problems
How these products can integrate into existing design workflows
And how easy these products are to use, even for novice operators
Followed by a Q&A session!
Click Here to register for this event and be sure to add it to your calendar to receive reminders.
Can’t make it? We suggest you register regardless, as our webinars are recorded and sent out along with a PDF of the presentation to our contacts within 24 hours of the presentation finishing.
I am writing this post after visiting the 27th SFF Symposium, a 3-day Additive Manufacturing (AM) conference held annually at the University of Texas at Austin. The SFF Symposium stands apart from other 3D printing conferences held in the US (such as AMUG, RAPID and Inside3D) in the fact that about 90% of the attendees and presenters are from academia. This year had 339 talks in 8 concurrent tracks and 54 posters, with an estimated 470 attendees from 20 countries – an overall 50% increase over the past year.
As one would expect from a predominantly academic conference, the talks were deeper in their content and tracks were more specialized. The track I presented in (Lattice Structures) had a total of 15 talks – 300 minutes of lattice talk, which pretty much made the conference for me!
In this post, I wish to summarize the research landscape in AM cellular solids at a high level: this classification dawned on me as I was listening to the talks over two days and taking in all the different work going on across several universities. My attempt in this post is to wrap my arms around the big picture and show how all these elements are needed to make cellular solids a routine design feature in production AM parts.
Classification of Cellular Solids
First, I feel the need to clarify a technicality that bothered me a wee bit at the conference: I prefer the term “cellular solids” to “lattices” since it is more inclusive of honeycomb and all foam-like structures, following Gibson and Ashby’s 1997 seminal text of the same name. Lattices are generally associated with “open-cell foam” type structures only – but there is a lot of room for honeycomb structures and close-cell foams, each having different advantages and behaviors, which get excluded when we use the term “lattice”.
The AM Cellular Solids Research Landscape
The 15 papers at the symposium, and indeed all my prior literature reviews and conference visits, suggested to me that all of the work in this space falls into one or more of four categories shown in Figure 2. For each of the four categories (design, analysis, manufacturing & implementation), I have listed below the current list of capabilities (not comprehensive), many of which were discussed in the talks at SFF. Further down I list the current challenges from my point of view, based on what I have learned studying this area over the past year.
Over the coming weeks I plan to publish a post with more detail on each of the four areas above, summarizing the commercial and academic research that is ongoing (to the best of my knowledge) in each area. For now, I provide below a brief elaboration of each area and highlight some important research questions.
1. Representation (Design)
This deals with how we incorporate cellular structures into our designs for all downstream activities. This involves two aspects: the selection of the specific cellular design (honeycomb or octet truss, for example) and its implementation in the CAD framework. For the former, a key question is: what is the optimum unit cell to select relative to performance requirements, manufacturability and other constraints? The second set of challenges arises from the CAD implementation: how does one allow for rapid iteration with minimal computational expense, how do cellular structures cover the space and merge with the external skin geometry seamlessly?
2. Optimization (Analysis)
Having tools to incorporate cellular designs is not enough – the next question is how to arrange these structures for optimum performance relative to specified requirements? The two most significant challenges in this area are performing the analysis at reasonable computational expense and the development of material models that accurately represent behavior at the cellular structure level, which may be significantly different from the bulk.
3. Realization (Manufacturing)
Manufacturing cellular structures is non-trivial, primarily due to the small size of the connecting members (struts, walls). The dimensions required are often in the order of a few hundred microns and lower, which tends to push the capabilities of the AM equipment under consideration. Additionally, in most cases, the cellular structure needs to be self-supporting and specifically for powder bed fusion, must allow for removal of trapped powder after completion of the build. One way to address this is to develop a map that identifies acceptable sizes of both the connecting members and the pores they enclose. For this, we need robust ways of monitoring quality of AM cellular solids by using in-situ and Non-Destructive techniques to guard against voids and other defects.
4. Application (Implementation)
Cellular solids have a range of potential applications. The well established ones include increasing stiffness-to-weight ratios, energy absorption and thermal performance. More recent applications include improving bone integration for implants and modulating stiffness to match biological distributions of material (biomimicry), as well as a host of ideas involving meta-materials. The key questions here include how do we ensure long term reliability of cellular structures in their use condition? How do we accurately identify and validate these conditions? How do we monitor quality in the field? And how do we ensure the entire life cycle of the product is cost-effective?
I wrote this post for two reasons: I love to classify information and couldn’t help myself after 5 hours of hearing and thinking about this area. But secondly, I hope it helps give all of us working in this space context to engage and communicate more seamlessly and see how our own work fits in the bigger picture.
A lot of us have a singular passion for the overlapping zone of AM and cellular solids and I can imagine in a few years we may well have a conference, an online journal or a forum of some sort just dedicated to this field – in fact, I’d love to assess interest in such an effort or an equivalent collaborative exercise. If this idea resonates with you, please connect with me on LinkedIn and drop me a note, or send us an email (firstname.lastname@example.org) and cite this blog post so it finds its way to me.
Some product designs require a single physics solution, while others require multiple physics simulations. Electronics cooling, wind loading on a solar array and the thermal performance of a heat exchanger are just a few examples of applications that require multiphysics simulation. Setting up and running multiphysics simulations used to be a challenging task involving the transfer of data between multiple physics solvers. With AIM, multiphysics simulations are easy to perform. AIM provides a consistent workflow and intuitive simulation environment for fluids, structures and electromagnetics that lowers the barrier to entry for multiphysics simulations.
Join us for this webinar to discover how AIM makes it easier than ever to solve your multiphysics design challenges in a single, easy-to-use environment. Don’t settle for single physics approximation when multiphysics simulations yield more accurate results with AIM.
This webinar will be held on September 1st from 1:00 – 2:00 pm PT
Innovative companies are using simulation early in the product development process to improve and optimize product designs. Companies deploying up-front simulation to their product design teams require simulation software that is easy-to-use, provides accurate simulation results and allows customization to enforce best practices. Such design engineering simulation software allows teams to develop and refine design ideas early in the design cycle when the cost of making design changes is still low.
Join us for this webinar to discover how AIM’s intuitive simulation workflow delivers high levels of automation and allows customization to automate engineering simulation best practice. Learn how AIM’s custom applications enable every engineer in your organization to benefit from simulation insights.
This webinar will be held on August 24th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm PT
Product design engineers are increasingly under pressure to complete product designs faster so innovative products can reach the market sooner. Performing up-front simulation as part of the product development process can accelerate designing optimized products and reduce costly physical prototypes. To successfully implement simulation early in the product development process, simulation software must be easy-to-use and cover all the necessary physics that impact product designs.
Join us for this webinar to discover how AIM delivers unparalleled ease-of-use for simulation driven product development, and learn how design engineers can benefit from using simulation early in the product development process.
This webinar will be held on August 10th from 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm PT