PADT’s Alex Grishin felt the question was an interesting one, and the solution was certainly blog-worthy. After helping the customer, he created the presentation below that goes through all the theory and shows you how to do it. Not to give too much away, he used constraint equations with an APDL script that can be applied to the model.

Holding Nodes an Ansys Mechanical Model to a Specified Average Temperature

Here is Alex’s presentation, which goes through the whole process and uses a real model to show how it works for both static and transient thermal analyses.

Here is a zip file with the Ansys Mechanical model he used:

This presentation is an example of how PADT’s engineering team combines an understanding of fundamental engineering principles with the leading simulation tools from Ansys. It would be easy to just import the CAD model, put some pressure loads on, and run it. However, an approach that includes some looks at some basic equations can help us make sure we are modeling the real situation.

This is one of the many reasons why companies around the world use PADT’s simulation consulting team to supplement their own engineering teams. Reach out today, and let’s talk about how we can help.

The original version of this post incorrectly estimated the isolated cantilever (Equation (5) of slide 5) deflection using shear and moment estimates (Equations (1) and (2)). This should always match the fixed-fixed beam solution of (Equation (4)). Comments that accompanied this error were also incorrect and corrected here. Please see the PDF for details.

Ansys Mechanical users are often asked to simulate the structural response of a simple area in a complex geometry. One way to do this is to reduce the model to a static equivalent model reduction – creating a simplified model that acts close enough to a larger, more complex representation. Although this seems simple enough at first glance, years of providing tech support to customers doing static equivalent model reduction have taught us that it can be tricky, and users need to be aware of some subtleties.

PADT’s Alex Grishin, PhD, recently put together a presentation to dive into what he has learned about static equivalent model reduction over the years and how to quickly get a model that gives useful and accurate results. You can find the PowerPoint below, as well as a zip file containing the sample Ansys Mechanical model he used.

Static Equivalent Model Reduction of the Lip on a Rubber Diaphragm

Here is the model that Alex used. It’s a rubber diaphragm held in a retainer, and what the user needs to know is the load and stress on the lip that the rubber diaphragm is glued to.

The PowerPoint covers:

• Background on the problem
• Some hand-calcs to show how over-simplification can get you into trouble
• A list of common mistakes
• A full model
• A linearly elastic simplification
• Two statically equivalent model reduction model of the retainer
• A summary

And here is the ZIP file with the model and the MS Excel file Alex used:

This presentation is an example of how PADT’s engineering team combines an understanding of fundamental engineering principles with the leading simulation tools from Ansys. It would be easy to just import the CAD model, put some pressure loads on, and run it. However, an approach that includes some looks at some basic equations can help us make sure we are modeling the real situation.

This is one of the many reasons why companies around the world use PADT’s simulation consulting team to supplement their own engineering teams. Reach out today, and let’s talk about how we can help.

PADT’s Bronislav Piak fielded a tech support question recently on this very topic, and when the customer had it working, he created this detailed blog post that shows three different methods:

1. Multi-Axis Tabular Loads in Ansys Mechanical (original post)
2. APDL Snippets in Ansys Mechanical Using a Table (original post)
3. APDL Snippets in Ansys Mechanical Using an Equation (original post)

How To Apply a Spatially Varying Heat Flux In Ansys Mechanical – 3 Methods

Here is a PDF of Bronislav’s presentation

Here is a zip file with the sample workbench model and all the MS Excel tables and APDL scripts he references:

Padt Is Here To Help With Things Like Spatially Varying Heat Flux and So Much More

This post is a great example of why customers from brand new startups to national labs to large Aerospace companies choose PADT as their Ansys support provider. It’s also why those same companies come to us for training and consulting. We know these tools, we know engineering fundamentals, and we know how to help you be more efficient or help you solve tough problems. If you have any type of simulation need, reach out, let’s get your engineer and our engineers on a call and see what a good fit looks like.

PADT’s Alex Grishin encountered this for a project when working on a lithium-ion battery pack that, during a thermal runaway event, can become a thin-wall rectangular pressure vessel. After doing both hand calculations and simulations, he summarized his findings about stress in thin-wall rectangular pressure vessels with the presentation below.

The PDF contains the following:

1. Background on thin-wall rectangular pressure vessels
2. An Ansys Mechanical model , 1/4 symmetry, of a thin-wall rectangular pressure vessel for a lithium-ion battery pack during thermal runaway.
3. An estimation of maximum deflection without and with non-linearities included, using the assumption that the geometry will deform into a cylinder.
4. An estimation of maximum stress without and with non-linearities included, using equations and an Ansys Mechanical model.

We have included the spreadsheet and Ansys mechanical models that were used to represent the thin-wall rectangular pressure vessel.

Presentation: Thin-Wall Rectangular Pressure Vessels Simulation

Here is a link to a zip file with the Ansys Mechanical models and Excel spreadsheet:

This presentation is an example of how PADT’s engineering team combines an understanding of fundamental engineering principles with the leading simulation tools from Ansys. It would be easy to just import the CAD model, put some pressure loads on, and run it. However, an approach that includes some looks at some basic equations can help us make sure we are modeling the real situation.

This is one of the many reasons why companies around the world use PADT’s simulation consulting team to supplement their own engineering teams. Reach out today and let’s talk about how we can help.

RBF Morph is a technology that has been around for more than a decade now, and it remains a fairly niche but powerful tool in supplementing general CAE workflows. It is written and supported by Ansys Select Technology Partner RBF Morph and distributed through Ansys and its channel partners like PADT. Two products exist — Ansys RBF Morph Structures and Ansys RBF Morph Fluids, which are fully integrated into Ansys Mechanical and Ansys CFD.

There are a couple of primary reasons why we might want to morph an existing mesh, amongst (I’m sure) many more that I remain unaware of:

1. We want to iterate CAE solutions by changing our geometry in a set way, but the process of actually making those changes in CAD and then needing to regenerate a full mesh is deemed undesirable.
2. We want to generate an effective map of individual nodal changes from one geometry to another.

The second case is what I have recently walked through and occasionally comes up in multi-group CAE collaboration. A typical example would be when one group is producing and simulating on CAD that is assumed to be in a ‘hot state’ where it has already been deformed due to thermal or other loads into its final operating shape, and another group is needing to do some form of analysis on the pre-stressed state.

The group working on the ‘hot’ geometry may then pass some boundary conditions back to the group working on the cold geometry… but they’re in the wrong position! So, what do you do? One option is to create the above-mentioned map from one shape to another, so that you know where those boundary conditions should actually be applied.

An Example of RBF Morph’s Usage on a Rotor Blade in Ansys Mechanical

As an example, let’s say that one team has some twisted surface in Ansys Mechanical that might represent the blade in a rotor. They may go through some iterations on meshing, boundary conditions, or their own geometric changes, and end up with a temperature solution like so:

Now, another group is responsible for making structural changes to this shape so that it satisfies some unrelated criteria, but they know that the first group’s thermal solution does contribute, and thus they want to account for it. Their shape might look like this light green one overlaid on the first shape as follows:

Now, it would be relatively straightforward to simply export a file that contains the x/y/z/temp values from the first solution and bring that in as an external data temperature profile to the second. If we go ahead and do that, we will likely notice that our results are similar in some places and much different in others. Below, the black dots indicate the source data points which are being used to generate our new temperature field.

So, basically any black dots that lie outside of our geometry represent wasted data that is not being considered, and any solid regions that don’t contain black dots represent complete guesses based on extrapolation of the nearest available black dots. We may consider ourselves lucky in this case that the hotspot has not changed overmuch, but there are significant differences present on the front left and back right edges, especially.

So, now it’s morphing time. The goal is basically this:

1. Obtain the original temperature field by unique node ID, on the original mesh.
2. Morph the original mesh such that the relative position of nodes remains basically the same, but our new overall shape resembles the shape we want to map data to.
3. Extract nodal coordinates of the new shape, and then match up nodal coordinates to temperature for each of these cases based on the nodal ID.

Once we have the RBF Morph extension installed in Workbench, we will want to create a Mechanical Model that receives both the original mesh and a mesh of the geometry we are targeting. I recommend something like the following diagram, though the exact layout is of course user preference. ‘Morphed Shape’ is where I will be working.  Pro tip: in the properties of our mechanical model item that contains the morph operation, we should ensure that the option for “Renumber Mesh Nodes and Elements Automatically” is disabled for the original mesh that we will be morphing. It is critical that the node numbering remains consistent.

Inside of this Mechanical project, we load in the two meshes and then assign our operations to modify the ‘original’ mesh.

The first thing to point out is that morphing is generally set up in layers. The top-level operation immediately beneath our ‘RBF Morph Set Up’ defines the geometry on which our morph is allowed to act. Beyond that, we can either attempt to apply all the rest of our morphs simultaneously, or we can force an iterative approach where individual operations are performed sequentially. More on the specifics later, but since we ultimately want to morph our mesh throughout the entire volume, we of course start with our entire original body selected as the RBF Region.

Beneath this region, we need to decide what operations need to be performed when. The first thing I want to ensure is that the bottom face remains completely fixed in space, as I already have a perfect fit due to a constraint in my design. We want this to be a zero translation morph in all three coordinate directions, it should act on the ‘undeformed’ geometry, and it should override any other competing operations.

For my second operation, I know that the main difference between these two objects is the twist/shift of the two largest faces. These are the faces that I want to set up to ‘target’ the surfaces on the new geometry. If I was sure that my two source faces would not get confused about their targets, I might choose to include all 4 of my surface/target faces in a single operation. Since I want to avoid ambiguity in my instruction for this case, I will instead set up two separate surface target operations.

Note that the ‘node selection’ option at the top is the source face that will be moving, and the geometry selected on ‘geometry selection’ is in fact the target. For these two operations, I will also change them to ‘skip’ if selected nodes overlap. I know that I will not be applying any other operations to these faces, but I would like to leave the edge nodes available to adjust if needed.

So, at this point, we can go ahead and perform an update on the RBF Morph Update and see what happens.

I’d say we’re looking pretty good! The gray mesh is what we have morphed, as opposed to the green which is our target. The left and right faces are overlapping nicely and have taken care of most of the difference between our geometries, but we see that the green is definitely covering the front and back edges, while the top surface is no longer flat. This bending is due to the surface normal based targeting used – it’s not extreme, but if we have plan to have an external boundary condition or load applied to that top face, then we might want to fix it.

There are a few more options at this point. One would be saying ‘good enough’, exporting the current mesh, and creating our new temperature map. Another would be clearing the generated data from RBF Morph and attempting to add more morph operations that will clear up some of the curvature in a single morph shot. The third, possibly most dangerous and yet likely most powerful, is to accept the current changes and continue morphing in a sequential manner.  

Since I’m a bit of a daredevil and have little to lose with this model (… and I have been through a couple dozen iterations on this morph while writing this blog), I choose option three.

This being the case, we use the adequately foreshadowing last option on the menu to accept this morph. Just to completely emphasize this point, once you have accepted a morph with this option, you cannot undo the morph operations without completely reimporting your mesh. There is an option to supposedly save an undo file, but this can be expensive for large meshes and my experience with it has not been reliable.

For the second sequential morph, there is really only one thing that I want to change. Now that our surfaces are mostly aligned, I want to project the top curved surface of my new shape onto the nice and flat top surface of my target shape. If I really wanted to, I could suppress my two other surface targeting operations since we’re already mostly on target, but doing another projection won’t really hurt. And since I have those set to ignore in case of selection overlap, the edges along the top surface will be controlled by my new surface targeting operation. This new operation will of course be set to override in case of selection overlap.

Now, generate the next morph:

Perfect! (Within tolerance). We could continue to iterate on this to pull out the front/back surfaces towards the target a bit more, but I’m not nearly as concerned about the mapping at those locations as on the big flat surfaces in this case. For more complex morphs, you may also find that you want to specify point or edge targets to more fully constrain things.

From here, it is just a matter of exporting the new nodal locations. If you are particularly script savvy, you may choose to try inserting a python script directly in the morphed mechanical model and go from there. Since my example model is small and I can get away with it, I create a steady-state thermal solution type on the new mesh and then export whatever field result I like, as long as I have the option to export nodal numbers enabled.

With your tool of choice, copy over the original temperature solution into the new nodal coordinate list and save. For very large datasets, you most likely want to do this with Python or Matlab. For smaller sets, notepad or Excel may suffice.

Bringing it over via external data to an analysis using the originally modified geometry, we can see that it looks pretty good! Of course, we don’t exactly match the maximum value or exactly reproduce the originally smooth contours. Our mapping isn’t perfect (but is within my tolerances), and our front/back edges are still a little off. Still, there is little argument that this is far and away better than the naïve approach of directly bringing over the original data and attempting to interpolate from it.

All that said, I can’t in good conscience wrap up immediately following my triumphant morph. The particularly fluorescent elephant in the room is that in general, when we morph a geometry and use that to carry along a solution field, that solution field is no longer “correct”. In a case like this where I understand the scenario which generated my original temperature field, I know that as part of my morph operation I am almost inconsequentially changing the effective cross-section area and length of my conduction path between boundaries. Many other cases will not be this straightforward, and it is important to use your engineering judgement in determining whether this process will actually provide you with meaningful results.

If you would like to learn more about using RBF Morph in general, I recommend the material available on the Ansys Learning Hub. The installation archive itself also contains some basic tutorials which can be helpful in wrapping your head around the options available to you. For questions about this, or anything else Ansys related, please reach out to info@padtinc.com!

To help users get their heads around this classical problem in a modern tool like Ansys Mechanical, PADT’s Alex Grishin has created a tutorial. He took the model he used for a previous post on calculating reaction forces in a spectrum analysis, and carried out both the base excitation and large mass methods to explore the response of the model to enforced motion.

Here is the tutorial:

Here is a zip file containing the model Alex used and the Excel file he refers to.

PADT is Here to Supplement and Improve Your In-House Simulation Capabilities in Structural Dynamics and Beyond

This tutorial is a great example of the in-depth fundamental knowledge the PADT team has about the mechanics, physics, and math behind FEM and CFD. If you found this useful, please consider PADT for overflow simulation work or as a training and mentoring resource for your Ansys users. We are here to help – let’s talk.

Thanks for reading through this blog post, we hope you found some information that was helpful. If you would like to learn more about Ansys Mechanical you can do so on our website here.

Have other questions or looking for a quote? Contact us or call (480)813-4884 to get in touch with one of our engineering experts today.

For those familiar with implicit ANSYS Mechanical, a similar element is referred to as a solid-shell element (SOLSH190).  This element type is very popular in implicit ANSYS structural applications for modeling thin volumes that are too thick to be modeled with traditional thin shell formulations and computationally expensive to mesh with standard hexagonal or tetrahedral elements to capture accurate bending behavior. 

The appeal does not stop there. The SOLSH190/Thick Shell uses a low-order hexagonal element topology having 4 nodes on the top and bottom face of the element with three degrees of freedom at each node.   The element formulation is based on logarithmic strain and true stress measures and allows loads and boundary conditions to be uniquely applied to the top and bottom surfaces of the elements.

In Ansys LS-DYNA, this element has several formulations:

Per user manual remarks “Thick shell element formulations 1, 2 and 6 are extruded thin shell elements and use thin shell material models and have an uncoupled stiffness in the z-direction.  Thick shell element formulations 3, 5, and 7 are layered brick elements that use 3D brick material models. Thick shell formulations 3 and 5, and 6 are distortion sensitive and should not be used in situations where the elements are badly shaped. A single thick shell element through the thickness will capture bending response, but with thick shell formulation 3, at least two elements through the thickness are recommended to avoid excessive softness. “ 

In the Ansys Mechnical/Ansys LS-Dyna implementation, the element formulation is set to option 5 (assumed strain reduced integration with brick materials).  Thick shell elements of all formulations can be used to model layered composites, but element formulations 5 and 6 use assumed strain to capture the complex Poisson’s effects and through thickness stress distribution in layered composites.

Exposure of this element type allows for some applications to significantly reduce the analysis time needed to evaluate a given design.  To demonstrate how to access this new mesh option, we will be comparing and contrasting a double wall aluminum cylinder dropped onto concrete from a height of 12 inches using both thick shells and traditional full integration S/R solids.  

This demo model uses the drop test wizard to set up the orientation of the cylinder for a side drop, calculate the equivalent impact velocity based on the drop height provided and create the impacting floor at the onset of contact, assigned to rigid concrete in this example.

Ansys LS-Dyna Demo Model Definition:

• Aluminum 6061 T6 double wall cylinder – 8mm diameter, 50mm long and wall thickness of 0.25mm
• Concrete Floor – 30mm x 30mm x 0.50 mm thick (modeled as rigid part)
• 304.8mm (12 inches) drop height.

Figure 1:  Demo Model Geometry Reference (1/2 section)

The exposure of the thick shell in Ansys Mechanical/Ansys LS-Dyna uses the same mesh method as implicit ANSYS to mesh the SOLSH190.  The “MultiZone” method when set to Decomposition Type– thin sweep and the Element Option – Solid Shell creates *ELEMENT_TSHELL elements in Ansys LS-Dyna keyword format.

In the 2023 R2 release the Source Scoping Method was hardwired to be Program Controlled which did not always work when the mesher could not determine the thickness or the source and target surfaces for certain volumes.   In release 2024 R1, the option to define both Manual Source(s) and Target(s) was added and has greatly enhanced the robustness of getting a successful mesh.

V2023 R2 MultiZone Details Menu

V2024 R1 MultiZone Details Menu

The default number of through thickness integration points set for this element type is 2 unless the user inserts a Section object to specify up to 9 integration points.

There is one more 2024 R1 feature related to meshing that was used on this topology for the thick shell version of the model.  When meshing circular volumes, it is often necessary to use a pave option for the surface mesh to prevent small elements from being generated.  The thick shell is more sensitive to mesh shape quality as well, so a new feature was used.  In release 2024 R1 the Face Meshing object has a new beta feature added.  This option produces a high-quality mesh transition without the need for manual decomposition.

The mesh and element type for the concrete floor was exactly the same, so the only difference in the two configurations was element type and mesh density for the double wall cylinder. 

For the thick shell version of the cylinder, the mesh size was set to 0.50 mm and produced 11808 nodes and 5954 thick shell elements.  The run time was 6m and 38s running on 15 SMP cores with a starting integration time step of 2.37e-8 seconds, consuming a maximum of 37GB of RAM.  This model run on 1 SMP core took 12m and 8s.  All versions of the model were run using Ansys LS-DYNA executable version 14.1-205-geb5348f751 (Version delivered with Ansys Mechanical/Ansys LS-DYNA V2024 R1)

Figure 2: Thick Shell Mesh Images

For the solid element version of the cylinder, the mesh size was set to 0.1mm and produced 461,895 nodes and 333825 solid elements.  The run time was 3hrs 8m running on 15 SMP cores with a starting integration time step of 4.98e-9 seconds consuming a maximum of 77GB of RAM.

Figure 3:  Solid Element Mesh Images

Let’s look at some result comparisons starting with energy summary quantities.  The most noticeable difference is in the contact energy, the thick shell version has a higher contact energy likely due to a coarser mesh density relative to the solid element version in representing the cylindrical shape.  The thick shell uses a reduced integration formulation so some hourglassing energy is expected.  The solid element model uses a full integration formulation so no hourglass energy is produced.

Figure 4: Thick Shell Energy Quantity Summary

Figure 5: Solid Element Energy Quantity Summary

Next, if we look at the peak resultant displacement (which includes both elastic and rigid body displacement) we see a good comparison.  With the cylinder impacting on the side a hertzian contact zone is developed.

Figure 6: Resultant Displacement at Initial Impact

Looking at the peak Von Mises Stress from each model, we see a slight delay with reduced magnitude in the thick shell model (again likely attributable to mesh discretization) as compared to the solid element model.

The difference in peak stress also translates to a difference in equivalent plastic strain levels. However, the focus of this blog is not to discuss the nuance differences between solids and thick shells, but rather the time savings of using thick shells over solids in obtaining a design evaluation in minutes versus multiple hours of run time for topologies that are appropriate for thick shells. 

One aspect of the post-processing that is worth discussing between the solid and thick shell versions of the models is the integration point result setting for derived quantities.  In the Ansys Mechanical/Ansys LS-Dyna environment, the default setting for derived quantities like stress and strain is to not average integration point results.  

For a model constructed of solid elements of sufficient density, the difference between averaged and non-averaged will ideally be zero, which is the case with the solid element version of this model.  For the thick shell version of the model, aspect ratio limitations will prevent convergence of averaged and unaveraged integration results and therefore the default Unaveraged display option should be used to obtain the true peak.  Although using the Averaged display option produces a visually more continuous contour, it does not report an accurate peak for the thick shells as shown below.

                                       Figure 7: Comparison of Unaveraged vs Averaged IP Results for Thick Shell          

In summary, exposure of the thick shell element formulation in Ansys Mechanical/Ansys LS-Dyna provides for a very fast and convenient way to mesh moderatelly thick volumes with thick shells and saves significant computation time for topologies appropiate for this element type.

PADT, Alex Grishin added to his previous articles on using PyAnsys and created the tutorial below. It starts with an overview of the problem, then describes how mapping works using the Python capabilities inside Ansys Mechanical with Ansys ACT, how to use the always dependable Ansys Parametric Design Language (APDL) inside Ansys Mechanical, then how to use PyAnsys to pull a temperature field directly from a result file.

Even if you don’t need to know how to map temperatures between models, this tutorial is something you should check out. That is because, as an added bonus, Alex goes over installing Python, PyAnsys, and the Spyder development environment. Then also how to do the same if you prefer Anaconda.

You can find all the relevant files, including the PDF of the tutorial in this zip file:

padt-ansys-python-temperature-mapping.zip

You can also get all the files, except for the sample Ansys Mechanical model, on our GitHub:

https://github.com/padtinc/ansys_data_mapping

Not Just a Great Python and PyAnsys Example, A Great Example of How PADT Can Help with Training and Customization

The project this tutorial is based on is a great example of why companies hire PADT to help them with training and creating custom applications. If you are interested in either, please contact us.

So, remote objects (point masses, remote points, body-body connections, etc) are a great way to define loads/constraints for features not explicitly modeled in your Ansys Mechanical simulation.  Behind the scenes, it creates a pilot node that interacts with a group of constrained nodes in your model. 

The image above shows the constraint equations generated for a body-body beam, a remote point scoped to a face, a point mass scoped to an edge, and a point mass scoped to a point. 

How Do We Get Remote Objects to Behave? Well, Hold My Beer, and I’ll Show You

So, what happens when I change the spacing of the two blocks.  You might expect everything to work just fine since everything is persistent in Mechanical (assuming you’ve properly saved the CAD geometry if you’re using an associative interface or if you’re passing everything through SpaceClaim or Discovery…or DM if you like to roll that way). 

Went from 10 mm of separation to 20.  Update in Mechanical:

Well.  That’s certainly not what I wanted.  So let’s dig into what happened. 

The main culprit here is that remote objects that do not use a direct attach don’t update their location.  Let’s dig into what that means…

The point mass on the bottom corner is directly connected to a point.  There are no constraint equations generated, that element is defined from the node on the block:

All other objects in the model connect through constraints and have more going on in the ‘scoping’ portion of the details window:

Highlighted in yellow, that controls what nodes are constrained to the pilot node.  You don’t have to worry about refining/coarsening the mesh on that face, when you hit solve the nodes on that face are paved with target elements and constrained to the pilot node. 

Bracketed in red is *where* the pilot node is located.  When you first insert a remote point it defaults to the centroid of what you’re attaching it to.  It automatically fills out the x/y/z location in the global coordinate system.  However…this is a one-time operation.  It doesn’t re-do the location on any other update.  Before you start complaining…the location is an absolute value and you can over-ride the location by typing in new x/y/z values. 

So the solver doesn’t know if this is where the remote object is always located, or if it’s always relative to the selected face.  ANSYS defaults to the assumption “this location is where the remote object always exists”.  What we need to do is re-define the location to be a relative definition. 

So…how do we do that.  First, we need to create a coordinate system based on the geometry we’re attaching to:

Select the geometry, right-mouse-click, create a coordinate system.  Repeat that for all the remote objects you need to follow the geometry (note I’m not doing this for the left-side of the body-body beam).  Here’s why…user coordinate systems will update when the geometry changes:

Now, go back and redefine the remote objects to be 0,0,0 at that user coordinate system:

Alright, now let’s verify the behavior with some geometry updates:

Gives me:

Gives me:

There ya go!  We get a remote object to follow its geometry by making sure the location is defined in a user-coordinate system scoped to that face. 

There’s More From Where This Came From

If you found this useful, check out the other “Hold My Beer” posts. Or check out other useful posts on our blog. If you want to work with engineers who know their Ansys, wether for support or for consulting, contact us, let’s talk.

With a wide range of applications and product integrations, Ansys structural analysis helps you solve your toughest product challenges. In 2023 R2, the structures product line delivers new features and capabilities that allow users to perform more accurate, efficient, and actionable structural simulation analyses.

Easily handle the complexity of the varied design environments you may face. 

Join PADT’s Lead Mechanical Engineer and Structural expert Doug Oatis for a deep dive into the latest updates available for Linear Dynamics & Structural Optimization in Ansys 2023 R2.

This presentation focuses on updates regarding the following:

• Linear & Nonlinear Dynamics Acoustics
• Structural Optimization
• Harmonic Analysis
• Multistage Cyclic Symmetry
• And much more

View the Recording

If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).

You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!