Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics. Turn on suggestions. Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type. Showing results for. Search instead for. Did you mean:. This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations.
Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.
Back to Inventor Category. Back to Topic Listing Previous Next. Filter by Lables. Message 1 of 3. Myth and Fact about Dynamic simulation vs Ansys Simulation. Hi everyone, I am rahadyan I am a beginner in Inventor and also Ansys I have an interest in the automotive industry, since I am a mechanical engineering student I want to learn more about engineering simulation such as engineering design for suspension stress analysis and so on honestly, I just wanna clear perception in my college friends circle, but I don't want to be fool by uncertain information.
Message 2 of 3. Good luck! Best wishes, Johnson Shiue johnson. Message 3 of 3. In this moment softwares with can be made simulations are very numerous on Internet both for Linux and Windows for free.
So, you only must establish some details referring on what you want to obtain and your expectation from results precision. For most engineering problems there is no difference in accuracy between Autodesk Simulation and other codes. Having said that, all FEA codes have pro's, con's and limits.
In terms of the accuracy of FEA, nearly all of the error is related to factors apart from the code itself. This often trips people up when analyzing sheetmetal parts. I would temper my comments with saying that we never trust any FEA result - we take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach and use hand calculations, testing and other methods to verify the FEA.
While I have some limited experience with multiphysics we use the most advanced Solidworks Simulation package premium? The most important factor for accurate FEA analysis is the person using it. I think that here we have 2 types of engineer: one type which used CAD software with some modules dedicated to analysis which use finite element, and second type which I prefer to denominate specialist and which use dedicated software which used on their job dedicated software to study using finite element.
In fact is not very important software used, if your company or client or professor is agree with your precision of calculus and results. Basically, all differences betweens this softwares even if is modules for CAD or dedicated software contain in the precision of calculus and easiest of use by engineer.
Other details such as how many constraints, loads, load steps, types of study, etc. Most of all softwares have possibility to add basic constraints, basic loads, etc. I think all specialist engineer which use dedicated software and have minimum 5 years of works, will be agree with me. I guess the question is: what would you like to accomplish with it? Unfortunately it seems, meshing cannot take much advantage of multi core computer architectures.
Finite volume FV based solution of the relevant mass and energy conservation equations has long been the industry standard. Distributing solver calculations across cores is allowed but is inefficient compared to the parallelization of some of the other software packages reviewed here, leading to less a than linear reduction in compute times with additional cores.
In one example , SolidWorks simulations required 4 to times longer than the comparable simulations performed in ANSYS Fluent while returning less accurate results for the quantities of interest lift and drag. One particularly nice feature of Flow Simulation is the built-in multi-parameter optimization capability.
This tool allows you to select 3D model geometry or simulation parameters as input variables, define the ranges of variable variation, and the target quantities of interest for optimization. The user can then utilize a Design of Experiments to create a response surface and gradient methods to home in on a local optimum.
Check out an example of this capability used in maximizing the lift-to-drag ratio of a 2D airfoil. SolidWorks Flow post-processing, while not spectacular or quite up to the level of that provided by a few of the leading stand-alone CFD or post-processing software packages, does benefit from being embedded in Solidworks with its refined visual approach to presenting 3D information. The typical vector, contour, streamline and isosurface plots are available, as well as export of data in Excel format.
CFD related outputs can be rendered right alongside native 3D solid models which makes producing high-quality graphics less painstaking than trying to piece together images in 3rd party tools such as Adobe Photoshop. An example is shown below. In addition, users will also need to lease or own SolidWorks. Simulations can be performed on as many cores as you have access to, but as we have mentioned before, performance improvements are limited.
I mage License. Practically, though it still qualifies in this category because connectivity between simulation files and the original 3D CAD model can be maintained by following the correct procedures. CFD can be launched from within Inventor or other 3D solid modeling software packages or launched independently. This way, as you introduce design variations in CAD and relaunch the CFD, the software automatically assigns the settings from the original simulation model to the new one. This associativity ensures consistency between your simulations and reduces the amount of setup time needed for subsequent design iterations.
We have found, though, that this process is not as genuinely automated as it sounds and runs into frequent difficulties. Unsurprisingly, this is especially true when launching from non-Autodesk CAD packages.
A model assessment toolkit can be activated during the import which initiates a series of 3D model health analyses looking for common CAD problems such as slivers, gaps and interferences. This makes for a bit of a broken-up workflow.
Otherwise, the workflow in Autodesk is, in general, much the same as in SolidWorks. Another example is that one must assign separately multiple boundary conditions on a single surface, for example temperature and velocity, instead of as a combined boundary condition. The software does an adequate job of covering most of the basics including the ability to model multi-component fluids or gases, steady or unsteady flows, a built-in material database, and decent pre-and post-processing tools.
Many of these capabilities have been validated by Autodesk as well. Since Autodesk CFD is finite element based, surface meshes are triangular and volume elements are by default tetrahedral.
The standard meshing tools allows for slider bar mesh density assignment, much the same as with SolidWorks, and attempting to refine individual surfaces or regions is messy though possible. Always remember, though, to match your prismatic layer thickness to your turbulence model selection. One nice mesh-related feature available is a surface wrapping tool that can be used to define the domain for external flow simulations, i.
A screen shot of the surface wrap tool in action is shown below. A text book criticism of applying the FE method to the Navier-Stokes equations is that it can be less accurate and less efficient than the finite volume method. Our trials have confirmed that Autodesk CFD is much slower than the best-in-class FV solvers and marginally slower than SolidWorks Flow Simulation, when run on comparable computational meshes.
0コメント