The Role of Modeling in Parametric-Based Simulation

David Conover 12/14/1999 Revised 1/30/2004 There is much confusion on the direction ANSYS is taking with respect the creation of geometry that feeds analysis. This note defines why the new ANSYS Workbench Environment add-on DesignModeler is built the way it is and what the implications are, particularly in a historic context. What is DesignModeler? DesignModeler is the parametric feature-based modeler offered as an add-on to the ANSYS Workbench Environment, the new interface to the ANSYS suite of simulation capabilities. The modeler is very similar to the newer mid-range modelers on the market today such as SolidWorks and SolidEdge: it starts with a parametric-driven sketcher, where features are defined in a 2D sketch a constraint engine is used to impose geometric and dimensional constraints on the sketch the sketch is used to generate a feature via extrusion, lofting, revolving, etc. the features are assembled to create the part, which is represented by a feature tree fillets, chamfers and other operations can also be applied Since the model is parametric, you can change a parameter - say a fillet radius - and have the model regenerated to reflect the change at the push of a button. Where are we headed with respect to parametric analysis? We have created a new product suite, the Workbench Environment, that puts the control of any of the parameters that affect the performance, cost, and functioning of a product into the hands of the engineer. The parameters can be any of the design parameters: material, loads, etc., but the main set of parameters that influence these product characteristics are geometry-related. These geometry parameters will, in most cases, come from parametric-based CAD systems. Workbench is able to work with these parameters, update their values, and feed them back to the CAD system, i.e., bidirectional associativity. The updating of their values, or course, is based on the simulation of the product behavior. Various tools are provided to guide and/or optimize their values, from simple "what-if" studies to complex optimization runs to probabilistic-based analyses. This parametric-based simulation is the key feature of Workbench. Moreover, the product is scalable in the sense that it can be configured for the generalist, who is typically using CAD as his or her main design tool and is looking for design feedback, and configured for the analyst, who is using simulation to answer complex questions about a design. So who needs to build geometry? Why not use CAD? Engineers who do simulation have needed the ability to create their own geometry in ANSYS for a number of reasons: the part pre-dates CAD (they only have drawings) they do not have access to CAD they need to add geometry for analysis (e.g., add the engine to the truck frame) they need to subtract geometry for analysis (e.g., cut for symmetry) they need to abstract the part (e.g. into a shell or beam model) Even though we are in the era of inexpensive, highly functional CAD systems, the need for ANSYS to supply geometry-building capabilities, especially configured for analysis and tightly integrated with

Page 1 of 3

ANSYS, still remains. This will be particularly so when the new product is released, as the ability to perform simulation before the design gets put into CAD - analysis-driven design - becomes a reality. Why not OEM an existing CAD system? Maintaining the relationship with our CAD partners is strategically important to us. We need access to their interfaces and the good-will of their sales channels, and OEMing or acquiring one of them will tend to make them treat us as a competitor even more than they do now. Analysis also has some fundamental needs which are different than what a CAD system provides. Beyond simply creating geometry, analysis also needs: the ability to slice up a model for symmetry or for mesh control the ability to create patches and scratches for mesh control and loading the ability to create shell and beam models (and mix them with solid models) Most CAD systems are focussed on the modeling of 3D solid parts, with the creation of downstream drawings or manufacturing their primary focus, not analysis. ANSYS already has geometry-creation capability. Why not replace the XOX Boolean engine with Parasolids? Can't we get there by doing that? ANSYS has a long history of geometry-building capabilities, and the history of its development is useful for understanding the answer to this question. In Release 3.0 (1978), ANSYS introduced a very simple geometry-building capability based on bottomup construction of points, lines, and surfaces. All the lines and surfaces were defined in Cartesian, cylindrical, spherical or toroidal coordinate systems. In Release 4.2 (1985), this was enhanced to include NURB representations of the lines and surfaces for more complex shapes, with the underlying bottom-up construction retained. In Release 5.0 (1992), primitives and Boolean construction was introduced, with XOX supplying the Boolean engine. Now both bottom-up and top-down construction, and any mixture thereof, could be used. To maintain upward compatibility, the geometry data was maintained in ANSYS NURB format in the database, translated to XOX form for the Boolean operation, and the updated geometry translated back to ANSYS form. Through this translation process, the integrity of the data was lost, in many cases to the point where the model "fell apart" and could not be operated on further or meshed. Replacing XOX with Parasolids would not remove the need to translate data and would not significantly improve the robustness of the modeling. OK, so why not replace the ANSYS PREP7 modeler with DesignModeler, keeping it in ANSYS? The obvious problem of maintaining upward compatibility of the thousands (millions?) of existing input files for one. But the way to create and handle parametric geometry is the key reason! In order to build a parametric geometry representation with ANSYS today, you must create a command input file with the appropriate command fields represented by alphanumeric variables (ANSYS "parameters") rather than numeric values. These variables are substituted with their numeric values when the file is read. Since geometry building is a highly interactive operation (except for simple models), the creation of the required command file is not an easy task. Additionally, maintaining design intent requires careful sequencing of the operations. The lack of robustness of the Boolean operations also contributes the effectiveness of defining parametric models in ANSYS today.

Page 2 of 3

DesignModeler, on the other hand, uses a totally different paradigm than the command input file approach. With DesignModeler, you would first create a "base" model interactively, including in this construction the design intent (e.g. that 2 surfaces remain parallel, that the boss remains 10cm from the hole, etc.). Once constructed, the geometric parameters - which do not have to be predefined - can be changed at will and the model will update accordingly. It is these steps - the updating of the parameters and the regeneration of the model - that can be scripted. This, then, is how design studies, probabilistic analyses, and optimization are performed automatically in Workbench. How can I use DesignModeler with ANSYS PREP7? While the Design Simulation module of Workbench has extensive meshing and analysis capabilities, there are times when you need to bring the model into ANSYS PREP7 to perform additional meshing and/or preprocessing. There are two approaches that can be used: 1. Use Design Simulation inside Workbench to mesh the geometry (including automatically generating contact elements at part interfaces) and bring these nodes and elements (and any applied boundary conditions) into PREP7. 2. Export the geometry from DesignModeler (using the ANSYS neutral file format, .anf) and import it into ANSYS for meshing , preprocessing, and solving. The former approach uses the robust meshing and geometry handling of Design Simulation while the latter, while maybe more flexible, is not necessarily going to be robust (as ANSYS is for any imported geometry). Summary ANSYS has a long history of providing parametrically driven analyses, but its Achilles heel has always been its modeler robustness and ease of creating parametric geometry. The introduction of DesignModeler into the ANSYS product line will allow parametric-based simulation to become a reality, not only for the design engineer, but also for the analyst.

Page 3 of 3