Industry Spotlight:

Chemical and
Processing
FEA is a valuable tool that
aids doctors in orthopedic
operations

Researchers use ANSYS to

develop micron-sized, self-
powered mobile mechanisms

Quickly vary geometry even

without parametric CAD
Take a look at the future of
product development...
...a process that's more automated, more integrated,
more innovative and truer to life. That’s where ANSYS
is taking engineering simulation. By combining technologies
like industry-leading meshing, nonlinear analysis and
computational fluid dynamics, you can reduce costs and
drive products to market quicker.

Bring your products and processes to life with ANSYS.

Visit www.ansys.com/secret/6 or call 1.866.ANSYS.AI.
 Contents
Industry Spotlight Departments
6 Chemical and Processing Editorial - To Collaborate,
A continuing series on the value You Need People 2
of engineering simulation in Industry News - Recent Announcements
specific industries and Upcoming Events 3
Software Profile - The New Face of
ANSYS ICEM CFD 16
Features CFD Update - Simulation Helps
18
Improve Oil Refinery Operations

10 ANSYS for Virtual Managing CAE Processes - Upfront

Analysis in the Global Enterprise 25
Surgery
FEA is a valuable tool that Simulation at Work - Analysis of
aids doctors in orthopedic Artificial Knee Joints 26
operations Tech File - Demystifying Contact
Elements 33

14 FEA in Micro-Robotics Tips and Techniques- Contact

Researchers use ANSYS to Defaults in Workbench and ANSYS 36
develop micron-sized, self- Guest Commentary- Putting Quality
powered mobile mechanisms Assurance in Finite Element Analysis 40

28 Design Insight for

Legacy Models
Quickly vary geometry even About the cover
without parametric CAD There are many examples
of successful chemical and
processing companies using
ANSYS simulation technology
Want to continue receiving to improve products and
ANSYS Solutions? processes. Our cover article
describes how Twister BV
Visit www.ansys.com/subscribe to update used ANSYS CFX to reduce
your information. Plus, you’ll have the chance costs by 70% compared
to sign up to receive CFX eNews and email to the conventional route
alerts when the latest electronic version of without CFD in developing
gas separator equipment.
ANSYS Solutions becomes available!

For ANSYS, Inc. sales information, call 1.866.267.9724, or visit www.ansys.com on the Internet.
Go to www.ansyssolutions.com/subscribe to subscribe to ANSYS Solutions.

Editorial Director Designers Ad Sales Manager Editorial Advisor

John Krouse Miller Creative Group Ann Stanton Kelly Wall
jkrouse@compuserve.com info@millercreativegroup.com ann.stanton@ansys.com kelly.wall@ansys.com

Managing Editor Art Director Circulation Manager CFD Update Advisor

Jennifer L. Hucko Paul DiMieri Elaine Travers Chris Reeves
jennifer.hucko@ansys.com paul.dimieri@ansys.com elaine.travers@ansys.com chris.reeves@ansys.com

ANSYS Solutions is published for ANSYS, Inc. customers, partners, and others interested in the field of design and analysis applications.
The content of ANSYS Solutions has been carefully reviewed and is deemed to be accurate and complete. However, neither ANSYS, Inc., nor Miller Creative Group guarantees or
warrants accuracy or completeness of the material contained in this publication. ANSYS, ANSYS DesignSpace, CFX, ANSYS DesignModeler, DesignXplorer, ANSYS Workbench
Environment, AI*Environment, CADOE and any and all ANSYS, Inc. product names are registered trademarks or registered trademarks of subsidiaries of ANSYS, Inc. located in the
United States or other countries. ICEM CFD is a trademark licensed by ANSYS, Inc. All other trademarks or registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
POSTMASTER: Send change of address to ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA ©2004 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.

©2004 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Editorial

2
To Collaborate, You Need People
Intellectual capital for creating innovative designs is lacking
at manufacturers that skimp on jobs.
One of the most significant – Companies need people for multidisciplinary
and possibly least recognized collaboration. But, unfortunately, jobs at manufacturing
– aspects of engineering firms are in steady decline. According to the National
simulation is that the technol- Association of Manufacturers, after peaking at 17.3 mil-
ogy can be a tremendously lion in mid-2000, manufacturing employment has fallen
effective communication by 2.8 million while employment in non-manufacturing
and collaboration tool in sectors of the economy rose by 671,000 to 115 million.
product development. By Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates
using virtual prototyping, there were 2,378 extended mass layoffs in
what-if studies and a wide manufacturing during 2002 alone, resulting in 454,034
By John Krouse range of other analyses workers being removed from their jobs.
Editorial Director to show how proposed Meanwhile, the overall economy is rebounding,
ANSYS Solutions products will perform, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average undergoing
jkrouse@compuserve.com engineering simulation can a strong sustained rally and corporate profits up.
give people in multi-functional Forecasters at the National Association for Business
product development teams tremendous insight into Economics predict that the U.S. economy will show a
designs. The technology also provides an effective way robust annual growth of 4.5% in 2004.
for team members to interact, with disciplines outside Despite this strong economic growth, payrolls in
engineering able to see the impact of their various ideas, manufacturing continue to go down as manufacturers
suggestions, feedback and operate with as few people
input. In this way, teams can COLLABORATION TAPS INTO THE as possible. Running these
investigate even the most super-lean operations
unconventional ideas, some INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL OF THE ENTERPRISE – pumps up short-term
of which can turn out to be THE COMBINED KNOW-HOW AND INSIGHT OF profits. But manufacturers
the basis of ground-breaking cannot sustain long-term
WORKERS ABOUT THE COMPANY’S OPERATION, growth based on savings
new products.
Collaborative product ITS PRODUCTS AND ITS CUSTOMERS. from a barely adequate
development is a growing workforce being stretched
trend in manufacturing industries, getting engineers and to the limit. Product quality, customer service and brand
analysts working with others across the extended image ultimately suffer, as do product innovations that
enterprise: manufacturing, testing, quality assurance, spring from collaborative design.
sales, marketing and service – even those outside the To collaborate, you need people: ones with enough
company such as suppliers, customers, consultants time in the workday to apply their knowledge on creative
and partners. These people typically don’t know how to projects. When manufacturers cut jobs indiscriminately,
build meshes, define boundary conditions, run analyses they’re not just getting rid of salaried bodies, they’re
or perform optimizations. But they can see the impact of discarding the company’s most valuable asset – the
what simulations show, and they can provide valuable wealth of intellectual capital in its workforce. Companies
feedback in spotting, evaluating and fixing potential that fall into this trap risk being left behind in the market
problems. Marketing could suggest a different contour by astute competitors with enough sense to invest in
that would make a consumer product more saleable, for their workers and the knowledge they bring to the
example, or procurement might suggest alternate collaborative processes necessary to develop winning
suppliers for stronger and less expensive components products. ■
to reduce excess stress.
This multi-functional synergy is the basis for
the creativity necessary to develop innovative products
and processes that might not immediately occur to
individuals working separately. Collaboration taps into
the intellectual capital of the enterprise – the combined
know-how and insight of workers about the company’s
operation, its products and its customers.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Industry News
Recent Announcements
EASA 3.0 - The New Standard for Efficient
Application Development
EASA enables ultra-rapid creation and deployment
of Web-enabled applications that can drive most
applications, including ANSYS and CFX. EASA
also can be used to integrate several tools, thus
automating processes involving say CAD, FEA and
even in-house codes. EASA is available as a software
product to author and publish your own custom
applications. Alternatively, several ASDs are now using
EASA to create turnkey applications to your
specification as a service.
New features in EASA 3.0 include:
• Connectivity to Relational Databases such as SQL
Server and Oracle, and with database applications
such as ERP, CRM and PLM systems.
• Improved Security for Internet Use using Secure
Socket Layer (SSL) technology, enabling you to host
applications for use over the Internet.
• Multi-Language EASAPs — create your app in your
language, and users see it in their preferred
language. Character sets supported include
Roman, Chinese, Japanese, Russian and Arabic.
• New parametric study and optimization capabilities
• New API — EASA’s differentiator has always been to
allow non-programmers to create professional-
grade Web-enabled applications around their
underlying software. Now an API allows EASA
authors who have programming skills to create
applications at the next level by using custom code.
For more information, visit www.ease.aeat.com.
2004 International ANSYS Conference Hailed
Success
Engineering professionals from throughout the world
gathered at the Hilton Pittsburgh in May for the 2004
International ANSYS Conference to discover the true
meaning behind what it is to Profit from Simulation.
www.ansys.com
Vision and strategy set the theme for the general
session. Kicking off the conference with a welcome
address, ANSYS president and CEO, Jim Cashman,
set the stage for keynote speaker, Brad Butterworth of
Team Alinghi. As the cunning strategist aboard the
Team Alinghi yachts, Brad shared his
experience and discussed how the America’s Cup
winner is using ANSYS’ integrated simulation
solutions to defend its title in the 2007 competition.
After the morning break, ANSYS presented its
Technology Roadmap, the company’s successful,
ongoing strategy for integrating the power of the entire
ANSYS, Inc. family of products into the ultimate
engineering simulation solution. Then, Bruce Toal,
director of Marketing and Solutions, High Performance
Technical Computing Division at Hewlett-Packard
Company, spoke about the company’s Adaptive
Enterprise for Design and Manufacturing.
Following a day of technical and general sessions,
and visiting exhibitor booths, attendees enjoyed a
conference social sponsored by Hewlett-Packard
Monday evening. Standing ovations and triumphant
applause echoed throughout the ballroom during the
social as ANSYS president and CEO, Jim Cashman,
presented Dr. John Swanson, ANSYS founder, with an
award for being the recipient of the 2004 AAES John
Fritz Medal.
ANSYS long-standing partners and its key customers
took to the podium for the Tuesday general session.
LMS International’s Tom Curry, executive vice
president and chief marketing officer, spoke about the
product creation process. Tom guides the company’s
growth in predictive computer-aided engineering,
physical prototyping and related services.
Herman Miller’s Larry Larder, director of engineering
services, discussed how they use ANSYS
simulation technologies to experiment and innovate in
the office furniture industry.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Industry News
SGI’s director of product marketing, Shawn
Underwood, presented future of high performance
computing followed by Dr. Paresh Pattani, director of
4
HPC and Workstation Applications at Intel
Corporation who focused on the paradigm shift in high
performance computing.
Jorivaldo Medeiros, technical consultant at
PETROBRAS, offered his ANSYS success story
on how the company drives development and
innovation in equipment technology.
In addition, ANSYS became the first engineering
simulation company to solve a 111 Million Degrees of
Freedom structural analysis model. After lunch, the
Management Track addressed strategies on how to
implement new technologies and explain the benefits
of engineering simulation to management.
ANSYS Breaks Engineering Simulation Solution
Barrier
ANSYS, Inc. has become the first engineering
simulation company to solve a structural analysis
model with more than 100 million degrees of freedom
(DOF), making it possible for ANSYS customers to
solve models of aircraft engines, automobiles,
construction equipment and other complete systems.
In a joint effort with Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI),
the 111 million DOF structural analysis problem was
completed in only a few hours using an SGI® Altix®
computer. DOF refers to the number of equations
being solved in an analysis giving an indication of a
model’s size.
“ANSYS’ ability to solve models this large opens the
door to an entirely new simulation paradigm. Prior to
this capability, a simulation could be conducted only at
a less detailed level for a complete model or only
at the individual component level for a detailed model.
Now, it will be possible to simulate a detailed,
complete model directly; potentially shortening design
time from months to weeks. Equally important, having
a high fidelity comprehensive model can allow trouble
spots to be detected much earlier in the design
process. This may greatly reduce additional design
costs and can provide an even shorter time to
market,” said Jin Qian, senior analyst at Deere &
Company Technical Center.
According to Marc Halpern, research director at
Gartner, although simulation accelerates the delivery
www.ansys.com
of quality products to market, users have faced major
challenges to realizing the full value. For example,
hardware and software limitations have historically
made realistic simulations elusive when realism
involves highly detailed models and complex physical
behavior.
“Manufacturers are looking for more accurate, large
system simulations to improve their time-to-money,”
said Charles Foundyller, CEO at Daratech, Inc. “This
announcement means that users now have a clear
roadmap to improved productivity.”
As hardware advances in speed and capacity, ANSYS
is committed to being the leader in developing CAE
software applications that take advantage of the latest
computing power. This leadership provides customers
with the best engineering simulation tools for their
product development process to help achieve better
cost, quality and time metrics.
This powerful new offering from ANSYS speaks to its
commitment to develop and deliver the best in
advanced engineering solutions. In turn, ANSYS has
entered into a three-year partnership with SGI
to advance the capabilities of ANSYS in parallel
processing and large memory solutions.
Safe Technology Incorporates AFS Strain-Life
Cast Iron Database in fe-safe
Safe Technology Ltd has been granted a license to use
the AFS cast iron database from the research report
“Strain-Life Fatigue Properties Database for Cast Iron”
in its state-of-the-art durability analysis software suite
for finite element models, fe-safe. Safe Technology Ltd
is a technical leader in the design and development
of durability analysis software that pushes the
boundaries of fatigue analysis software to ensure
greater accuracy and confidence in modern fatigue
analysis methods for industrial applications. The
availability of the AFS database within fe-safe ensures
that users will have access to the most up-to-date and
accurate cast-iron materials data for their durability
analyses.
The AFS Ductile Iron and the Gray Iron Research
Committees have developed a Strain-Life Fatigue
Properties Database for Cast Iron. This database
represents the capability of the domestic casting
industry and is available as a special AFS publication.
It is the culmination of a five-year effort in partnership
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
with the DOE Industrial Technology Program.
The scope of this information includes 22 carefully
specified and produced castings from ASTM/SAE
standard grades of irons, including Austempered Gray
Iron (AGI) (specification is under development). Each
grade is comprehensively characterized from an
authoritative source with chemical analysis,
microstructure analysis, hardness tests, monotonic
tension tests and compression tests. This information
is contained in user-friendly digital files on two
CD-ROMs for importing into computer aided design
software. AFS Publications are described online at
www.afsinc.org/estore/.
For more information, visit www.safetechnology.com
Product Development Platform Will Simulate
and Optimize Design Performance for Autodesk
Inventor Professional Customers
Autodesk will license ANSYS simulation technologies
and package them as an integral part of the Autodesk
Inventor Professional 9.0 product and future releases.
Powered by ANSYS’ part-level stress and resonant
frequency simulation technologies, Autodesk Inventor
Professional 9.0 will enable design engineers to create
more cost-effective and robust designs, based on how
the products function in the real world, by facilitating
quick and easy “what-if” studies right within the
software’s graphical user interface.
“Autodesk is proud to be working with an industry
innovator like ANSYS,” said Robert Kross, vice
president of the Manufacturing Solutions Division at
5
Autodesk. “This reinforces our commitment to deliver
proven and robust technologies to manufacturers, in
order to help them deliver better quality products and
bring them to market faster. Inventor Pro 9.0 will make
simulation (CAE) functionality available to a broader
mechanical design community, while protecting
customers’ business investment by seamlessly
integrating with other high-end ANSYS offerings. Our
customers will surely benefit from this relationship.”
The total solution will help product development
teams make more informed decisions earlier in the
design process, allowing them to reduce costs and
development time while designing better and more
innovative products.
“This new offering from Autodesk will be viewed very
strategically by their customers. As they deploy
simulation tools throughout their product design
process, the Autodesk-ANSYS offering will be a
key component to a customer’s overall simulation
strategy,” said Mike Wheeler, vice president and
general manager of the Mechanical Business Unit at
ANSYS. “ANSYS is proud to be part of the design
effort to create this next generation tool as part of our
overall ANSYS Workbench development plan.”

Upcoming Events
Date Event Location
August 29-September 3 ICAS 2004 Yokohama, Japan
September 5-8 RoomVent 2004 Coimbra, Portugal
September 6-9 17th International Symposium Bonn, Germany
on Clean Room Technology
September 7-8 European UGM for Automotive Neu-Ulm, Germany
Applications Radtherm User Conference
September 19-20 German Aerospace Congress 2004 Dresden, Germany
September 21-22 Numerican Analysis and Simulation Troy, Michigan, USA
in Vehicle Engeineering
September 22-25 3rd International Symposium on Two-Phase Pisa, Italy
Flow Modeling and Experimentation
September 29-30 Calculation & Simulation in Vehicle Building Wurzburg, Germany
September 29-30 Pump Users Intarnational Forum 2004 Karlsruhe, Germany
September 28 - October 2 ASME DETC/CIE Conference Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
October 4 2004 PLM European Event UK
October 4-5 DaratechDPS Novi, MI
October 12 ANSYS Multiphysics Seminar Sweden
October 13 Construtec Conference Spain
October 20 ANSYS 9.0 Update Seminar Sweden
October 28-29 ANSYS User Conference Mexico

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Industry Spotlight

6
Industry Spotlight:
Chemical and Processing
A continuing series on the value of engineering
simulation in specific industries.

The chemical and processing industries provide the building blocks for many
products. By using large amounts of heat and energy to physically or chemically
transform materials, these industries help meet the world’s most fundamental
needs for food, shelter and health, as well as products that are vital to such advanced
technologies as computing, telecommunications and biotechnology.

According to the American Chemical Society, chemical and processing industries account for 25% of
manufacturing energy use.

These industries consume fossil resources as both fuel and feedstock, and produce large amounts of
waste and emissions.

In turn, as exemplified by the U.S. Government’s 2020 Vision, these industries face major challenges to
meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations in the face of
increasing industrial competitiveness. This translates into the need to make processes much more energy
efficient, safer and more flexible, and to reduce emissions to meet the many competitive challenges within
a global economy. As well as the need to reduce design cycle times and costs, major challenges where
simulation has an important role including:
■ ‘Scale-up’, to extrapolate a process from laboratory and pilot plant scale, to the industrial plant
scale, which may require many millions of dollars investment.
■ Process intensification, to combine different processes into smaller compact and efficient units,
instead of treating them as individual processes.
■ Retrofitting, to upgrade a plant to become more efficient, within the many constraints of the existing
footprint of the plant.

This issue of ANSYS Solutions provides examples of these, in offshore oil

production, waste water treatment and chemical processing, and many other
examples which highlight the benefits to be obtained are to be found on the
ANSYS CFX Website at www.ansys.com/cfx.

These problems are inherently multi-scale, with the combination of different

physical and chemical processes at the molecular level, and the macro-flow
processes transporting a reacting fluid around the complex geometries of a large
industrial chemical reactor. The recent advances in modeling capabilities,
combined with the scalable parallel performance of low cost hardware, and the
powerful geometrical and meshing tools in the ANSYS software modules open
up many new opportunities to achieve major new benefits in the complex and
demanding world of the chemical and process industries.

Offshore platform
www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Case-in-point: 7

Integral Two-Phase Flow Modeling in

Natural Gas Processing
Customized version of CFX reduces costs 70%
compared to the conventional route without
CFD in developing gas separator equipment.
By Marco Betting, Team Leader Twister
Technology; Bart Lammers, Fluid
Dynamics Specialist; and Bart Prast,
Fluid Dynamics Specialist, Twister BV
Natural gas processing involves dedicated systems
to remove water, heavy hydrocarbons and acidic
vapors from the gas stream to make it suitable for
transportation to the end-customer. From a process
engineering perspective, these systems are
combinations of flashes, phase separations, flow
splitters, and heat and mass exchangers exhaustively
designed to achieve required export specifications.
While the process engineer is concerned with
finding the optimal system configuration using
pre-defined process steps and equilibrium
thermodynamics, the flow-path designer tries to
optimize the performance of each individual process
step in the system based on an understanding of both
two-phase flow behavior and non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. The fluid dynamics interaction
between subsequent process steps is not always
Normalized total C8 fraction in vortex section of
Twister Supersonic Separator
❿
C8 separation
Uniform C8
distribution
❿
❿
❿ Liquid
Vapor
taken into account to its full extent, even though this
can strongly influence the total system performance.
Developing and designing new equipment for the
process industry is a time-consuming and expensive
exercise. Twister BV (www.twisterbv.com) offers
innovative gas processing solutions that can play
an essential role in meeting these challenges.
The team has been developing the Twister™
Supersonic Separator, which is based on a

Expander Cyclone Separator Compressor

Saturated
Feed Gas Dry gas

100 bar, 20ºC 70 bar, 5ºC

Diffuser
30 bar, -40ºC
Laval Nozzle
Supersonic Wing
Mach 1.3 (500 m/s) Liquids + Slip-Gas
Cyclone Aeparator 70 bar, 5ºC
(300,000 g)

In Twister, the feed gas is expanded to supersonic velocity, thereby creating a homogeneous mist flow. During the
expansion, a strong swirl is generated via a delta wing, causing the droplets to drift toward the circumference of the tube.
Finally a co-axial flow splitter (vortex finder) skims the liquid enriched flow from the dried flow in the core. The two flows Twister separator
are recompressed in co-axial diffusers resulting in a final pressure being approximately 35% less than the feed pressure.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Industry Spotlight
8 unique combination of known physical processes,
combining aero-dynamics, thermo-dynamics and
fluid-dynamics to produce a revolutionary gas
conditioning process. The route from a new Twister
tube concept to marketable hardware via several
production field trials has been a major undertaking.
Reducing costs in the cycle of designing, testing and
redesigning of Twister prototypes for the challenging
conditions involved in high-pressure sour natural gas
processing is of great importance. The introduction
of computational fluid dynamics in the Twister
development four years ago resulted in a cost
reduction of approximately 70% compared to the
conventional route without CFD.
Customized Version of CFX
Twister BV and ANSYS CFX jointly have developed a
customized version of CFX 5.6*, capable of modeling
non-equilibrium phase transition in multi-component
real gas mixtures. The consulting team at ANSYS was
chosen to perform this work because of their
understanding of the needs of the industry and the
flexible nature of CFX-5, which made it suitable for
implementing the specialized features required. The
specific features of this customized two-phase CFD
code are:
• Full equations of state, including the effects of
phase change
Twister and LTX separators
G+L
dispersed
G+L G+L
stratified dispersed
For a process engineer, the quality of the gas coming over the
top of the separator is determined with the phase equilibrium
after an isenthalpic flash, presuming a certain liquid carry-over.
The flow-path designer is concerned with the reduction of the
carry-over by optimizing the flow variables of the separator,
based on a feed with presumed droplet sizes.
www.ansys.com
• Multi-component gases with several
condensable species
• A homogeneous nucleation model to
determine the droplet number density
• A growth model, to allow for the change in size
of the particles, through condensation and
evaporation
• Droplet coalescence models depending on
droplet size, number density and turbulence
intensities
• Slip models to predict the separation of the
droplets from the continuous phase
• Accounts for turbulent dispersion
• Aforementioned models are coupled via mass,
momentum and energy equations
• Energy is affected by release of latent heat
during condensation/evaporation
The development and validation of the
customized CFX code was of paramount importance
in maturing the Twister separator for commercial
application in the oil & gas industry.
This custom version of CFX-5 includes all
first-order effects useful for determining the
performance of liquid/gas separators proceeded by an
expander or throttling valve.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Using the customized two-phase code, the flow path designer can study the
influence of the geometry of a choke valve on the resulting droplet size
distribution and better assess the performance of the separator based thereon.

P, T, flow, LGR,
P, T, flow, LGR composition composition

Mach number
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

P, T, flow, LGR,
droplet size,
droplet number

P, T, flow,
composition

LTX separator

Improving Facility Performance

Essential for the optimization of the separation
performance of Twister is the prediction of droplet
sizes. The droplet size is determined by both the vapor
diffusion rate toward the droplets and the mutual
agglomeration of these droplets. The size distribution
mainly depends on the time interval of the nucleation
pulse. The droplet size distribution determines the drift
velocity of the liquid phase and hence determines the
separation efficiency. Appropriate models for this have
been implemented.
This customized CFX code also enables the
process engineer to better understand the relationship
between the performance of subsequent process
steps, e.g., the operation of a Low Temperature
Separator (LTS) fed by a choke valve.
Twister BV and ANSYS CFX have completed a
powerful CFD code validated for natural gas processes.
This unique CFD capability enables process engineers
to optimize engineering practices, while increasing the
performance of gas processing facilities. ■

*I.P. Jones et. al, “The use of coupled solvers for multiphase and reacting flows”; 3rd international conference of CSIRO, 10–12 December 2003, Melbourne, Australia.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

10
ANSYS for Virtual Surgery
FEA is a valuable tool that aids doctors in orthopedic operations.
By András Hajdu and Zoltán Zörgö
Institute of Informatics
University of Debrecen, Hungary
Analysis, imaging and visualization technologies
are being applied increasingly in medical applications,
particularly in evaluating different approaches to
surgery and determining the best ways to proceed in
the operation. In this growing field, one of the primary
focuses of our work applies finite element analysis to
orthopedic surgery: specifically, the specialized area of
osteotomy, where bones are surgically segmented
and repositioned to correct various deformities. We
chose ANSYS for this work because of the reliability
and flexibility of the software in handling the irregular
geometries and nonlinear properties inherent in these
materials.
Medical imaging technologies such as CT, MRI,
PET or SPECT deliver slice or projection images
of internal areas of the human body. These tools are
generally used to visualize configurations of bones,
organs and tissue, but they also have the ability
to export image data and additional information in
commonly known medical file formats like DICOM.
www.ansys.com
These files then can be processed by third-party
computer programs for assessing and diagnosing
the condition of the patient and planning surgical
intervention, that is, how the surgical procedure will be
performed. Other very promising fields include
telesurgery, virtual environments in medical school
education and prototype modeling of artificial joints.
The goal of the research is to develop computer
applications in the field of orthopedic surgery,
especially osteotomy intervention procedures based
on CT images. the team at the Institute of Informatics
uses this simulation technology to examine theories
underlying new types of surgeries as well as to aid
doctors in treating individual patients undergoing hip
joint correction. These two approaches have many
common tasks: extracting image data from diverse
medical image exchange format files, enhancing
images, choosing the appropriate segmentation
techniques, CAD-oriented volume reconstruction,
data exchange with FEM/FEA tools, and geometric
description of virtual surgery.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Building Orthopedic Models
CT data files. The first step in building an
orthopedic model is extracting an image file from
medical data exchange formats. As CT images
represent the X-ray absorption of a given cross-
section, the intensity values of their pixels represent
this 12-bit absorption rate, rather than common color
ranges. Since the slice density is usually reduced to
a minimum for in-vivo scanning, considerable
information often is lost, especially in complex regions
of the human body. For visualization purposes, this
deficiency can be compensated with interpolation
techniques, but no lost anatomical data can be
recovered in this way. Using these files for FEA work
thus often requires further enhancement.
Image enhancement and segmentation. As
given tissue structures have their own absorption rate
intervals, a windowing technique might be sufficient
for a simple visualization. However, because these
intervals can overlap, other tissue parts that differ from
our VOI (Volume Of Interest) remain in the image, after
applying the intensity window. Some conventional
procedures like morphological or spectral-space
filtering must be applied, as well as specific
techniques for CT segmentation. We found that other
methods, such as region growing and gradient-based
segmentation, achieved excellent results for bone
structures.
Volume reconstruction. The final goal of the
project is to develop an application to be used in
surgery planning on a routine basis by medical staff
Figure 1. Steps of volume (bone) reconstruction in ANSYS.
www.ansys.com
11
without experience in using CAD-related software. We
wanted this application to be able to transfer structural
data into a finite element modeling and analysis
software. Thus, volumetric information must be
represented in a geometrically appropriate way. There
is a difference between simple surface rendering and
geometrical volume reconstruction in CAD systems.
Volumetric data has to be represented using solid
modeling primitives, and reconstructed using related
concepts: keypoints, parametric splines, line loops,
ruled and planar surfaces, volumes and solids.
When extracting contour points of ROIs (Regions
Of Interest), we need to reduce the number of points
to approximately 10-15% by keeping only points with
rapidly changing surroundings. These points then can
be interpolated with splines, splines assembled to
surfaces and surfaces to solids. The major difficulty is
that CAD-related systems are designed to work with
regular-shaped objects, and bone structures are not
like that. However, to be able to execute FEA, it is
necessary to use this approach. Moreover, virtual
surgery interventions have to be carried out on
this representation, or in such a way that proper
geometrical representation of the modified bone
structure remains easy to regain. As is often the case,
conversion problems may occur when exchanging
data between CAD systems, so we perform the above
volume reconstruction procedure directly in the FEM
software using built-in tools provided in the package.
After testing many FEM programs, we chose ANSYS
software for this task. Figure 1 illustrates how they
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
12
Figure 2. Part of theoretical path and planar
intersection of the cutting tool.
reconstructed in ANSYS an 8-inch part of a femur
(pipe-like bone) using the mentioned procedure. The
entire reconstruction procedure was implemented in a
simple ANSYS script file.
A natural extension of this method seems to be
suitable also for bones containing more parts, holes,
etc. In this case, Boolean operations between solids
provided by ANSYS gives us a powerful tool. Another
challenging problem currently being investigated is the
reconstruction of those parts of the bones where the
CT slices contain varying topology (e.g., when
reaching a junction in some special bones).
Figure 3. Subtraction of the cutting tool from a
bone section profile in 2-D, and the 3-D outcome.
www.ansys.com
Approaches to Virtual Surgery
Planar approach. There are some cases when
information from 2-D slices is sufficient for performing
virtual surgery instead of 3-D solids. For example,
the first subject of our project – human femur
lengthening using helical incision – provided a good
opportunity for experimenting with 3-D interventions
performed in 2-D. By taking the intersection (dark
section on Figure 2) of the theoretical cutting tool path
(Figure 2 left) with the planes of the individual
CT slices, we subtracted these profiles from the bone
section profile (Figure 3).
After the volume reconstruction using this
technique, we obtained the modified bone structure
without the need for further intervention. Another
possibility is to use ANSYS to build up the geometric
model of the bone and the cutting tool from their
boundary lines, then to remove the solid defined by
the path of the cutting tool. The team wrote an ANSYS
script to obtain fast and automatic model creation.
In the case of the hip joint correction, some
intervention also might be simulated in 2-D, but
designating and registering ROIs on the slice set is
more difficult. However, handling volumes as a set of
unsorted 3-D points with additional attributes serves
as an intermediate solution.
Three-dimensional approach. In the first subject,
the 3-D approach adopted by us was the combination
of the volume reconstruction technique and
conventional CAD modeling. We reconstructed the
middle part (diaphysis) of the human femur, and, in the
same coordinate system, using the axis of the actual
bone, we constructed the solid object representing the
path of the cutting tool. This was achieved by applying
helical extrusion along this axis on a rectangle,
using the parameters of the actual osteotomy. By
subtracting these solids from each other, they
Figure 4. Subtracting a helix from the diaphysis.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Figure 5. Tetrahedron mesh for GL visualization
and FEA.
obtained the wanted solid object (Figure 4). This
Boolean subtraction was also executed by ANSYS.
As previously mentioned, they also work on
pre-operative analysis and comparison of hip joint
osteotomy. The 3-D reconstruction of this region
is more difficult because of the information loss
during the CT scanning procedure. There are many
consecutive slice pairs with large differences. In this
case, interpolation gives no satisfying results, and we
specialize in general methods to reduce the level of
user action required.
Our interface for virtual surgery is GLUT-based,
containing I/O tools for importing existing meshes and
exporting the model into a FEM/FEA environment.
Besides using similar scripts for building up the
geometry as described above, we also take advantage
of the mesh generator and manager capabilities of
ANSYS in data exchange. That way, we can import a
tetrahedron mesh used in OpenGL technology into
ANSYS for FEA analysis, for example, and ANSYS
geometry also can be exported as a tetrahedron mesh
for visualizing purposes. Figure 5 shows an example of
a tetrahedron mesh visualization in OpenGL.
FEM/FEA results. Using the volume
reconstruction approach, we needed only to translate
our internal representation to the scripting language.
Material types and parameters also can be defined
using scripts. The bone material model we used is a
linear isotropic one. After applying constraints and
forces on the nodes of the solids, they have tested
stress and displacement of the bone structure. Using
the obtained results, a comparison can be made for
the known osteotomy interventions of a certain type.
For femur lengthening, our experience indicated that
the highest stress values occurred around the starting
and ending boreholes of the cut, so we also
considered the usability of different borehole types
and helix with variable pitches, as shown in Figure 6. ■
Dr. András Hajdu is an instructor with the Institute of
Informatics at the University of Debrecen in Hungary and
can be contacted at hajdua@inf.unideb.hu. His research is
supported by OTKA grants T032361, F043090 and IKTA
6/2001. Zoltán Zörgö (zorgoz@inf.unideb.hu) is in PhD studies
at the Institute.
www.ansys.com
13
Figure 6. Different bar hole types and variable
helix paths to improve efficiency of lengthening.
References and Resources for Further Reading
H. Abé, K. Hayashi and M. Sato (Eds.): Data Book on
Mechanical Properties of Living Cells, Tissues, and
Organs, Springer-Verlag, Tokyo, 1996.
Z. Csernátony, L. Kiss, S. Manó, L. Gáspár and K.
Szepesi: Multilevel callus distraction. A novel idea to
shorten the lengthening time, Medical Hypotheses,
2002, accepted.
R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods: Digital image
processing, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts, 1992.
A. L. Marsan: Solid model construction from 3-D
images (PDF, PhD dissertation), The University of
Michigan, 1999.
K. Radermacher, C. V. Pichler, S. Fischer and G. Rau:
3-D Visualization in Surgery, Helmholtz-Institute
Aachen, 1998.
L. A. Ritter, M. A. Liévin, R. B. Sader, H-F. B. Zeilhofer
and E. A. Keeve: Fast Generation of 3-D Bone Mod-
els for Craniofacial Surgical Planning: An Interactive
Approach, CARS/Springer, 2002.
M. Sonka, V. Hlavac and R. Boyle: Image processing,
analysis, and machine vision, Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, Pacific Grove, California, 1999.
Tsai Ming-Dar, Shyan-Bin Jou and Ming-Shium Hsieh:
An Orthopedic Virtual Reality Surgical Simulator
(PDF), ICAT 2000.
Zoltán Zörgö, András Hajdu, Sándor Manó, Zoltán
Csernátony and Szabolcs Molnár: Analysis of a
new femur- lengthening surgery, IEEE IASTED
International Conference on Biomechanics (BioMech
2003) (2003), Rhodes, Greece, Biomechanics/34-38.
Web Links to More Information
http://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3-Dscanrep/
http://image.soongsil.ac.kr/software.html
http://medical.nema.org
http://www.ablesw.com/3-D-doctor/
http://wwwr.kanazawa-it.ac.jp/ael/imaging/synapse
http://www.materialise.com
http://www.nist.gov/iges
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
14

FEA in Micro-Robotics
Researchers use ANSYS to develop micron-sized, self-powered
mobile mechanisms.
By Bruce Donald, Craig McGray, and Igor Paprotny of the Micro-Robotics Group, Computer Science Department,
Dartmouth College; Daniela Rus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; and Chris Levey, Dartmouth Thayer School of Engineering

Mobile robots with dimensions in

the millimeter to centimeter range

have been developed, but the

problem of constructing such

systems at micron scales remains

largely unsolved.

The anticipated applications for mobile

micro-robots are numerous: manipulation of biological
cells in fighting cancer, for example, or stealth
surveillance technology where clouds of flying
micro-robots could monitor sites relatively undetected
by sight or radar. Micrometer-sized robots could
actively participate in the self-assembly of higher-
order structures, linking to form complex assemblies
analogous to biological systems. One could envision
such self-assembly to take place inside a human
body, growing prosthetic devices at their destination,
for example, thus alleviating the need for intrusive
surgery.
Targeting these types of potential future
micro-robotic applications, the Micro-Robotics Group
at Dartmouth College has been developing a new
class of untethered micro-actuators. Measuring less
than 80 mm in length, these actuators are powered
through a novel capacitive-coupled power delivery
mechanism, allowing actuation without a physical
connection to the power source. Finite element
analysis using ANSYS allowed us to test the feasibility
of the power delivery mechanism prior to actual
fabrication of the device.
The micro-actuators are designed to move in
stepwise manner utilizing the concept of scratch-drive
actuation (SDA). The functionality of a scratch-drive
Figure 1. Concept behind scratch-drive actuation, which
moves the micro-actuators in a stepwise manner. An elec-
trical potential applied between the back-plate (1) and an
underlying substrate (2) causes the back-plate to bend
down, storing strain energy, while the edge of a bushing
(3) is pushed forward. When the potential is removed from
the back-plate, the strain energy is released and the back-
plate snaps back to its original shape, causing the actuator
to move forward.
actuator is shown in Figure 1. The actuation cycle
begins when an electrical potential is applied between
the back-plate and an underlying substrate. The
back-plate bends downward, storing strain energy,
while the edge of a bushing is pushed forward. When
the potential is removed, the strain energy is released
and the back-plate snaps back to its original shape.
The actuation-cycle is now completed, and the
actuator has taken a step forward.
In contrast to traditional SDA power delivery
schemes (such as using rails or spring tethers), our
designs induce the potential onto the back-plate using

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

a capacitive circuit formed between underlying
interdigitated electrodes and the back-plate of the
actuator. A circuit representation of the system as
shown in Figure 2 indicated that the back-plate
potential should be approximately midway between
the potentials of the underlying electrodes. We
validated the power delivery concept for the specific
geometry of our design by modeling the system 15
through electro-static analysis in ANSYS. Figure 3
shows the volume model of the actuator and the
electrode field.
The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 4,
indicating the electrical potentials of the conductive
elements in the model. Additionally, a cut through the
air element shows the electrical potential from the field
propagating through it. The potential of the electrodes Figure 2. Simplified capacitive-circuit representation
in this example was set to 0 V (blue) and 100 V (red), of the system.
which represented the model boundary conditions.
The required potential of the back-plate was solved to
be approximately 50 V, validating the circuit-model
approximation. We also discovered that the potential
of the back-plate changes only slightly as a function of
the orientation of the drive in relation to the electrode
field. This indicates that the actuator can be powered
regardless of its orientation, so long as the device
remains inside the electrode field.
Additionally, we used the ANSYS model to
visualize the intensity of the electric field propagating
through the bottom layer of the insulation material, as
shown in Figure 5. We suspect charging of the device
due to charge-migration in the direction of the field, Figure 3. Volume model of the actuator and the electrode
and charges embedding in the insulating layer field, prior to solving the model in ANSYS.
underneath the drive. We anticipate that these charges
will cluster along the areas where the electric field is
the strongest. In future experiments, attempt will be
made to image this pattern using a scanning electron
microscope.
Following the finite element analysis, we have
successfully fabricated and actuated an untethered
scratch-drive actuator capable of motion at speeds of
up to 1.5mm/s—good pace for such a tiny device.
Our current work is focused on how to apply these
actuators to create steerable autonomous
micro-robotic systems. We anticipate further use of
ANSYS to model the electrostatic and mechanical
interaction of the system components to further
Figure 4. Results of the electrostatic analysis, indicating the
shorten our development cycle. In particular, we plan calculated potentials of the different model components
to use the ANSYS coupled-physics solver to after applying the boundary conditions.
determine the snap-down and operational
characteristics of our actuators. ■

Figure 5. Intensity of the electric field propagating through

the bottom insulation layer of the actuator.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Software Profile
16
The New Face of
ANSYS ICEM CFD
V5.0 represents a significant redesign for
the market leader in mesh generation.
Judd Kaiser, Technical Solution Specialist
The new user interface for ANSYS ICEM CFD brings
important benefits to all users and has undergone
extensive testing, with earlier releases of
AI*Environment and ANSYS ICEM CFD 4.CFX utilizing
essentially the same interface.
The learning curve for new users can be
dramatically shortened by way of an updated layout
consisting of tabbed panels, a hierarchical model tree
and intuitive icons.
Existing users can look forward to enhanced
meshing technology in a single
unified environment for shell,
tet, prism, hex and hybrid mesh
generation. Performance improve-
ment highlights for these users
include hotkeys (which provide
one-click access to the most com-
monly used functions), selection
filters and support for the Spaceball
3-D motion controller.
Getting Geometry In
ANSYS ICEM CFD is well-known
for its ability to get geometry from
ANSYS ICEM CFD remains the clear
virtually any source: native CAD choice for meshing complex geometry.
packages, IGES, ACIS or other Shown is a tet/prism mesh for a race
formats. The package continues to car wheel and suspension.
be unique among mesh generators
in its ability to use geometry in both CAD and faceted
representations. Faceted geometry is commonly used
for rapid prototyping (stereo lithography, STL), reverse
engineering (where the STL geometry comes from
techniques such as digital photo scan) and biomedical
applications (where the geometry can come
from techniques such as magnetic resonance
imaging [MRI]).
One major development is that V5.0 is the first
version of ANSYS ICEM CFD capable of running
within the ANSYS Workbench Environment. As the
common platform for all ANSYS products, Workbench
www.ansys.com
provides a common desktop for a wide range of CAE
applications. With ANSYS Workbench V8.1 and
ANSYS ICEM CFD V5.0 installed, ANSYS ICEM CFD
meshing is exposed as the Advanced Meshing tab.
Geometry can be transferred seamlessly from
DesignModeler to ANSYS ICEM CFD.
Fault-Tolerant Meshing
Having the geometry in hand doesn’t do you any good
if you can’t create a mesh. Fault-tolerant meshing
algorithms remain the heart of the
ANSYS ICEM CFD meshing suite.
Using an octree-based meshing
algorithm, ANSYS ICEM CFD Tetra
generates a volumetric mesh of
tetrahedral elements that are projected
to the underlying surface model. This
methodology renders the mesh
independent of the CAD surface patch
structure. This makes the meshing
algorithm highly fault-tolerant – sliver
surfaces, small gaps and surface
overlaps cause no problem. The mesh
has the ability to walk over small
details in the model. Control is in the
hands of the user, who has the flexibility
to define which geometric details are
ignored and which are represented
accurately by the mesh. Tetra’s computation speed
has been improved with V5.0. As an example, a test
model of 250,000 elements and moderate geometry
complexity required 32% less CPU time during
meshing when compared with the previous version.
The Delaunay tet meshing algorithm was added
to the meshing suite in the previous version and has
undergone numerous improvements, including
support for density volumetric mesh controls.
For viscous CFD applications, tet meshes can be
improved by adding a layer of prism elements for
improved near-wall resolution for boundary layer
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Prism before
Images showing a cut through a hybrid hex/tet mesh of a wind tunnel/missile configuration before and after adding a layer of prism elements
on the wind tunnel walls. Note that the prism layer is included for both the hex and tet zones (new feature in V5.0).
flows. ANSYS ICEM CFD Prism also has been
improved for this release. Prism layers can now be
grown from surface mesh without the need for an
attached volume tet mesh. Perhaps more significant,
prism layers can now be grown from both tri and quad
elements. This means that it is now possible to grow a
prism layer in a combined hybrid hex/tet mesh.
Integrated Hex Meshing
ANSYS ICEM CFD Hexa remains a leader in getting
high-quality, all-hex element meshes on geometries,
which most competitors wouldn’t even attempt a hex
mesh. The key to the approach is a block structure
that is generated independent of the underlying
arrangement of CAD (or faceted) surfaces. Think of the
block structure as an extremely coarse all-hex mesh
that captures the basic shape of the domain. Each
block is then a parametric space in which the mesh
can be refined. For CFD meshes, the ability of this
parametric space to be distorted to follow anisotropic
physics makes it very efficient at capturing
key features of the flow with the lowest possible
element count.
Dassault Systemes recognized the power and
promise of this methodology, selecting ANSYS ICEM
CFD technology as the only hex meshing solution to
be offered integrated into CATIA V5. CAA V-5–based
ANSYS ICEM CFD Hexa offers hex meshing that
maintains parametric associativity to the native CATIA
Design Analysis Model.
New in V5.0, Hexa has been fully integrated into
the new user interface. Hex meshing functions are
housed in the blocking tab, and block structure
entities are organized on the blocking branch of the
model tree. In addition to reworking the user interface,
several operations have been significantly streamlined.
New methods of creating grid blocks have been
added. The process of grouping curves and defining
edge-to-curve projections has been made more
www.ansys.com
17
Prism after
efficient. Most operations now take advantage of
multi-selection methods, such as box and polygon
select. The addition of blocking hotkeys is a real
time-saver, giving the user single-keystroke access to
the most frequently used operations.
For shell meshing, V5.0 offers unstructured 2-D
blocks, combining the best of ANSYS ICEM CFD
Hexa and the patch-based mesher formerly known as
Quad. The creation of blocks for 2-D shell meshing
has been automated, so that blocks can be created
automatically for all selected surfaces.
Mesh Editing
ANSYS ICEM CFD offers maximum flexibility in its
mesh editing tools, whether it’s via global smoothing
algorithms or techniques to repair or recreate individ-
ual problem elements. These tools provide one last
place to work around any bottlenecks.
Noteworthy are new unstructured hex mesh
smoothing algorithms, which strive for mesh smooth-
ness and near-wall orthogonality while preserving
mesh spacing normal to the wall. Two new quality
metrics have been added in order to help quantify
mesh smoothness: adjacent cell volume ratio and
opposite face area ratio.
Scripting Tools
ANSYS ICEM CFD provides a powerful suite of tools
for geometry creation, model diagnosis and repair,
meshing and mesh editing. All of these tools
are exposed at a command line level, providing a
formidable toolbox for the development of vertical
applications. Every operation performed can be stored
in a script for replay on model variants. This power can
be extended by using the Tcl/Tk scripting language,
enabling the development of entire applications.
These tools enable users to get around virtually
any geometry or meshing bottleneck, getting the mesh
you need using the geometry you have. ■
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 CFD Update: What’s New in Computational Fluid Dynamics

18
Blood Flow Analysis Improves Stent-Grafts
Coupled ANSYS and CFX fluid structure simulations help
researchers develop optimal surgical recommendations,
improved stent designs and proper stent placement.
By Dr. Clement Kleinstreuer, Professor and Director of
the Computational Fluid-Particle Dynamics Laboratory
and Zhonghua Li, Doctoral Student, Biomechanical
Engineering Research Group, North Carolina State
University

One of the more intriguing challenges in modern

medicine is the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms
using stent-grafts: tubular wire mesh stents
interwoven with a synthetic graft material. The device
is guided into place through a small incision in the
groin and then propped open in the aorta, thus
reinforcing the damaged area of the artery. For
reasons that were not well understood until recently,
however, some stent-grafts move out of place. This
migration may again expose the weakened aortic wall
to relatively high blood pressure, potentially leading to
sudden aneurysm rupture and death.
Developing an understanding of stent-graft
migration and finding suitable solutions is our current
work at the Biomechanical Engineering Research
Group (BERG) of North Carolina State University in LEFT: Representation of a cross-section of an abdominal aortic aneurysm
Raleigh. We are using a pairing of computational (AAA) with a bifurcating stent-graft. RIGHT: Representation of an aortic artery
aneurysm (bulge on left) between the renal artery (to the kidneys, top) and the
fluid dynamics (CFD) interactively coupled with iliac bifurcation (to the legs). Aside from the color shading chosen, this is
computational structure analysis. Using coupled CFX what the surgeon would see before starting to implant the stent-graft.
and ANSYS Structural models in these fluid structure
interactions (FSI), we are learning what goes on inside
the aorta before and after a stent-graft is surgically Studying Stent Migration
inserted, and how the stent-graft might migrate or The stent migration problem in abdominal aortic
dislodge. aneurysm (AAA) repairs is critical to the patient’s
Most studies assume that artery walls are stiff survival. When the stented graft slides out of place
with regard to the pressure changes that come with axially, the weakened or diseased artery wall is
each heartbeat, and that arterial wall thicknesses re-exposed to the high blood pressure of pulsating
are constant both axially and circumferentially. Neither blood flow. That greatly increases the possibility of
is usually true, especially for older patients with AAA-rupture, which is usually fatal. Easily overlooked,
hypertension, a group that suffers most from aortic aneurysms are the 13th leading cause of death
aneurysms. in the United States.

Wall displacements and pressure/stress levels for Resteady=1200, using CFX and ANSYS: (left) axisymmetric AAA,
and (right) stented AAA, where the stent-graft clearly shields the weakened aneurysm wall from the blood flow

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004


Using five case histories, CFX and ANSYS
Structural were used to compute the incipient
migration forces of a stented graft under different
placement conditions. In the process, we modeled
different artery neck configurations, variable arterial
wall thicknesses, transient hemodynamics and
multi-structure interactions.
The actual stented AAA model in ANSYS
consisted of a lumen or bulge in the artery wall, an
endovascular graft shell, a cavity of stagnant blood
and the AAA wall.
Using iterative fluid structure interaction was an
intense computational problem as ANSYS Structural
and CFX exchanged coupled variations in wall flex and
geometry, requiring several new flow and structure
results at each time step. The ANSYS Structural
problem centered around nonlinear, large deformation,
contact and dynamic analyses.
Insight into Physical Processes
The CFX post-processor in conjunction with our
programs gives us a great deal of insight into the
physical processes. It helps us to spot critical areas
where platelets or low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) may
clump together, and, ultimately, it helps us with design
optimization of stent-grafts and secure stent-graft
placements.
The coupled CFX and ANSYS results were
validated with experimental data sets and with clinical
observations.
Surgeons and scientists know that forces
triggering stented graft migration include blood
momentum changes, blood pressure and artery wall
Velocity distribution in non-stented Wall stress and velocity distribution in stented
axisymmetric AAA model axisymmetric AAA model
www.ansys.com
Schematic representation
of an axisymmetric AAA,
including implanted stent-graft
with relevant analytical data.
19
shear stress, inappropriate configurations of the
healthy aortic neck section, tissue problems in the
aortic neck segment and biomechanical degradation
of the prosthetic material.
To set the model stent-graft into motion, an
increasing pull force was applied with an APDL
subroutine. Coulomb’s Law was used for each contact
element’s friction coefficients, but the simulations
revealed a nonlinear correlation in large displacements
between the migration force needed to move the stent
and the friction coefficients. The simulation also
revealed that the risk of displacement rises sharply in
patients with high blood pressure.
Coupled ANSYS and CFX fluid structure
simulations verified that a stent-graft can significantly
reduce the risk of an aneurysm rupture even when
high blood pressure is the fundamental cause. Clearly,
these tools for blood-flow-stent-artery interactions are
valid, predictive and powerful for optimal surgical
recommendations, improved stent designs and proper
stent placement. ■
For this study, CFX-4 was linked to ANSYS with
Fortran to perform fluid-structure interaction.
Presently, generalized, fully representative stented
abdominal aortic aneurysm configurations are being
analyzed, employing ANSYS and CFX-5.
Cardiac cycle (time level of
interest: t/T=0.32, Re=550)
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 CFD Update: What’s New in Computational Fluid Dynamics
20
Simulation Helps Improve Oil
Refinery Operations
Analysis assists in reducing coke deposits while improving
hydrocarbon stripping.
By Dr. Peter Witt
Research Scientist
CSIRO Minerals
Maintenance work on a coker unit at Syncrude’s
oil sands plant in Alberta, Canada.
www.ansys.com
During oil processing, heavier products are broken down by high
temperatures into lighter products in cokers. This “cracking”
process strips off lighter liquid hydrocarbon products such as
naphtha and gas oils, leaving heavier coke behind. The challenge
that CSIRO Minerals has been helping Syncrude resolve is how to
best reduce coke deposits that build-up in their fluid coker stripper
while maintaining or improving hydrocarbon stripping.
Syncrude Canada Ltd. is the world’s largest
producer of crude oil from oil sands and the largest
single-source producer in Canada. CSIRO (Australia’s
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation) is one of the world’s largest and most
diverse scientific global research organizations.
CSIRO Minerals is a long time user of CFX and in
collaboration with the Clean Power from Lignite CRC
developed the fluidized bed model in CFX-4. Because
of its robust multiphase capability and its ability to be
extended into new application areas, CFX is used
extensively by CSIRO Minerals in undertaking
complex CFD modeling of multiphase, combustion
and reacting processes in the mineral processing,
chemical and petrochemical industries.
In the past, physical modeling had been used to
understand the flow of solids and gas in the stripper.
This modeling is performed at ambient conditions, so
scaling of both the physical size and materials is
required to approximate the actual high temperature
and pressure in the stripper. This scaling process can
introduce some uncertainty in understanding the
actual stripper operation.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 0.0 secs

By using CFD modeling to complement the 21

physical modeling programs, scaling is eliminated and
the actual dimensions and operating conditions are
used. Furthermore, CFX simulation provides much
greater detail of the flows and forces in the stripper
than can be obtained from physical models or from
the plant. This is due to the difficulty in making
measurements and visualizing the flow in complex 5.0 secs
multiphase systems.
Syncrude senior research associates Dr. Larry
Hackman and Mr. Craig McKnight explain that
extensive cold flow modeling (but not CFD modeling)
had previously been used to investigate the operation
of the fluid bed coker stripper and the gas and solids
behavior in the unit. McKnight notes this project with
CSIRO Minerals resulted in detailed, high quality
reports, which provide “a new understanding of the
fluid coker stripper operation.” Hackman indicated, 9.0 secs
“By using CFX to gain a better understanding, it is
anticipated that design changes will be identified to
improve stripping efficiency, reduce shed fouling and
optimize stripper operation.”
To most efficiently perform the simulations and
utilize the results, the two companies are leveraging
the distance separating their facilities. When it is night
in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada where Syncrude
Research is located, CSIRO Minerals staff is hard at
work in Australia performing analyses and posting 13.0 secs
results (including pictures and animations) on their
extranet. The next morning, the group in Canada can
view progress of the modeling work and provide
feedback for a quick turnaround.
In this way, CSIRO is utilizing CFX technology to
assist Syncrude in determining how best to utilize their
current plant to get maximum throughput and thus
make the most of their capital investment. ■

16.5 secs

Three-dimensional fluidized bed model of the Syncrude fluid

coker “stripper.” The model predicts the motion of bubbles (in
purple) rising from injectors in the lower part of the bed and
the complex flow behavior of coke particles. Flow simulations
provide insights into the stripper
operation, which are then used to
improve the design. 0.75
Gas Volume 0.68
Fraction
0.60
0.52
0.45 20 secs

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 CFD Update: What’s New in Computational Fluid Dynamics
22
CFX-5.7 Brings Powerful Integrated
Tools to Engineering Design
Latest release enhances core CFD features and gives
users greater access to ANSYS tools.
By Michael Raw
Vice President, Product Development
ANSYS Fluids Business
Released in April 2004, CFX-5.7 demonstrates
the continuing development of core CFD technologies,
plus leverages ANSYS technologies to provide
an exciting new series of capabilities for CFX users.
This latest version contains the most advanced
CFD features available, representing a powerful
combination of proven, leading-edge technologies
that provide the accuracy, reliability, speed and
flexibility companies trust in their demanding fluid
simulation applications.
ANSYS Integration
CFX customers are now gaining access
to state-of-the-art geometry modeling
software with ANSYS DesignModeler, a
Workbench-based product that is our
new geometry creation tool providing
www.ansys.com
bi-directional associative CAD interfaces to all major
CAD packages. The CFX-5 mesher, called CFX-Mesh
and based on the advancing front inflation tetra/prism
meshing technology, has been implemented in
Workbench as a native GUI application that is easy to
use and closely integrated with DesignModeler.
ANSYS ICEM CFD meshers, including the unique
hexahedral element meshing tools, are also now
available in Workbench. They provide meshes for the
most demanding CFD applications and are well
known for their robustness when applied to very large
or complex industrial CAD models. The combination
of ANSYS DesignModeler, CFX-Mesh and ICEM
CFX data can be interpolated
directly onto ANSYS CBD
files, providing a flexible route
to transfer CFX results to an
existing ANSYS mesh.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 It is now possible to perform
texture mapping in CFX-Post
CFD meshing technology provides a comprehensive
CAD-to-meshing solution for CFD applications. As this is
often the most time-consuming stage of CFD simulation,
this represents a genuine time-saving benefit to ANSYS
CFX users.
The latest release introduces a fluid structure
interaction (FSI) capability for when the interaction of a
fluid around the solid is important, such as fluids-induced
stresses and heat transfer. A simple-to-use, one-way
transfer of data from a CFX solution to ANSYS provides
for seamless passing of thermal and loads information
from fluids to structural analysis. This approach
automatically interpolates the data into the ANSYS CBD
file format. For more complex FSI situations, such as
large-scale solid deformation or motions in which the
two-way influences are important, CFX-5 can dynamically
interact with ANSYS stress analysis. ANSYS Inc. has the
unique distinction of offering the industry’s only native
connection between such components, which means
ease-of-use, flexibility and reliability.
Core CFD Enhancements
As our flagship CFD simulation product, CFX-5.7 has
been significantly enhanced for this release in several
modeling areas, including moving mesh capability,
general grid interface support of conjugate heat transfer,
advanced turbulence models, multiphase models, as well
as pre- and post-processing improvements. These
enhancements are briefly described in the sections that
follow.
When fluid flow simulations involve changing
geometry (as in devices such as valves, pistons or gear
pumps, for example), CFX-5 moving mesh options can be
used. Several mesh movement strategies are available:
prescribed surface movement with automatic mesh
morphing, explicit 3-D mesh movement via user functions
or multiple mesh files, remeshing with topology change
and combinations of these strategies. These strategies
cover almost every conceivable mesh movement needed.
The Generalized Grid Interface (GGI) is now
supported for Conjugate Heat Transfer (CHT), allowing the
solid and fluid or the two solids to be created and meshed
separately — and set up to reflect the needs of the
physics in each zone independently. The heat transfer
and/or radiation between the two objects can then be
analyzed by connecting the two domains using GGI.
CFX-5.7 adds two innovative turbulence models to
its already comprehensive suite for turbulence analysis.
Turbulence is present in most industrial flow, and
accounting for this phenomenon appropriately can
make a great difference in the accuracy of a
simulation. CFX-5.7 will introduce the
Transition Turbulence model, which helps
to accurately predict the laminar-to-
turbulent scenarios often key for
heat transfer prediction, e.g. in
turbine blades. In addition,
the detached eddy (DES)
transient turbulence
model has been
www.ansys.com
23
Reacting particles are a feature of this release, including
a fully featured coal combustion model.
completed. Unique to CFX-5, this model combines the
efficiencies of a Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
simulation in attached boundary layer regions with the
ability to compute the large eddy transient structures using
LES.
Current multiphase capabilities have been extended,
and an algebraic slip model (ASM) has been added. Using
an algebraic approximation for the dispersed phase
velocities, ASM is highly efficient even for a large number of
dispersed phase size groups. A first implementation of the
Multiple Size group model (MUSIG), accounting for a wide
spectrum of particles sizes and shapes at every point in
dispersed two-phase flows, has been added with access
through the CFX Command Language (CCL).
The material properties editor in CFX-Pre, the CFX-5
physics pre-processor, allows users to select materials
from groups to ensure proper interactions with their
physical model set-up. This helps to avoid errors in
selecting or combining materials.
A multi-component, customizable particle model is
now available as part of the Lagrangian Particle Tracking
capability. Reacting particles features include evaporating,
boiling and oil droplet models, as well as a fully featured
coal combustion model. These models are often key to
accurate simulations in the power generation industry.
Some of the improvements now in CFX-Post include
the ability to easily compare results between different
simulation results or time steps, CGNS data support,
surface streamlines, text labels that update automatically,
surfaces of revolution, display of particle subset in particle
tracking and texture mapping.
Development is now focused on future releases,
which will provide for a closer interface with the ANSYS
Workbench Environment, including more enhancements
to fluid-structure interaction capabilities as well as the
continued investment in core CFD technology. ■
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 CFD Update: What’s New in Computational Fluid Dynamics

24
How many holes do we need
to dig? Construction costs
can exceed $1 million for a
new 22m diameter tank at a
water treatment plant.

Improving Water Treatment Systems

Engineers design compact,
more efficient secondary
clarifiers with the aid of CFX.
By David J. Burt
Senior Engineer
MMI Engineering

A secondary clarifier is the final treatment stage of a traditional

activated sludge sewage works. It separates solid precipitate
material from effluent water prior to discharge. Because of recent
changes in environmental legislation, many treatment works in
Concentration profiles through a cross section of
the UK are required to carry increased throughput or meet more the clarifier approaching 8000 mg/l solids in the
stringent effluent quality limits. This means that more clarification blanket. This tank features an Energy Dissipation
capacity is needed. But with land in urban areas scarce and Influent EDI, optimized stilling well diameter and
construction costs high, there is an increasing need to maximize additional Stamford baffling below the effluent
weir.
the performance of existing units rather than build new ones.
The standard technique for designing a final clarifier is mass
flux theory. However, this method uses a one-dimensional settling
model and cannot account for the ‘density current’ flow typical in
a clarifier. Even if the clarifier external design satisfies mass flux
theory it may still fail, or perform badly in practice because of the
internal flow features. Often designers are forced to allow a for
a 20% factor of safety in tank surface area to allow for the
shortcomings of mass flux theory. With CFD modeling, it
is possible to capture all of the flow processes to show
short-circuiting, scouring of the sludge blanket and solids
re-entrainment to effluent. This means it is possible to design
more compact units or retrofit existing units with internal baffling
to allow for higher loading.
By augmenting the standard drift flux models in CFX,
engineers at MMI have established a set of validated and verified
models for clarifier performance. These models include settling A useful post-processing idea is to track stream
algorithms and rheological functions for activated sludge lines for the solid phase velocity field. In this
mixtures. The models have recently been used at a number of case colored with G scalar to show where floc
may experience greatest shear.
UK sites to optimize final effluent quality for increased load. ■

MMI Engineering is a wholly owned subsidiary of GeoSyntec Consultants

and provides a range of environmental, geotechnical, hydrological
and civil engineering services. Further details can be found at
www.mmiengineering.com and www.geosyntec.com.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Managing CAE Processes
Upfront Analysis
in the Global
Enterprise
Early simulation is especially important when engineers at
dispersed locations must collaborate in product development.
By Fereydoon Dadkhah
Mechanical Analysis and Simulation
Delphi Electronics and Safety
Two important side effects of the continuing pressure
to reduce product development time and development
costs have been the increased use of analysis in the
early stages of design and the development and
manufacturing of many products at overseas sites.
Upfront analysis has been identified by many
companies as a critical stage of product development
due to the many benefits it provides. Done properly,
upfront analysis can shorten the design cycle of a
product drastically by identifying problems early
before substantial investment of time and material has
been made in the product. In the earlier stages of
design, engineers have more options at their disposal
when changing a design to address problems
uncovered by analysis. As a product’s design
approaches completion, many design modification
options are eliminated due to a variety of reasons
such as manufacturability, cost, system integration,
packaging etc. Therefore, problems that are
discovered later in the process are generally more
expensive to implement. Once a problem is
discovered using upfront analysis, all the viable design
options can also be evaluated by employing the same
analysis techniques. As a result, when a prototype is
finally built and tested, it is much more likely to pass
the tests than if upfront analysis had not been used.
Another fact of today’s global economic
environment is that many companies have moved
beyond establishing manufacturing-only facilities
overseas to performing some of their product
development activities at the overseas locations
as well.This global footprint can lead to situations
where a product is conceived and its performance
requirements specified in country A, it is then designed
and tested in country B and mass produced in country
C. Therefore, development centers have to be flexible
enough to respond to the needs of their local market
as well as be able to develop products for
different, distant markets. Once again, the shortened
design schedules makes the use of CAE mandatory,
especially in the early stages. Because of the
distributed product development process, it is
important that all the engineers and designers use the
www.ansys.com
25
same processes
and techniques.
Using analysis as an
integrated part of product
development enables engineers
from around the world to collaborate
in unprecedented ways.
Many of Delphi Corporation’s customers are
global companies which market and sell their products
around the world. It is therefore important for all of
Delphi’s resources to be used to satisfy our customer’s
needs regardless of where the need arises. Recent
programs at Delphi Electronics and Safety (Formerly
Delphi Delco Electronics Systems) have involved just
such a scenario. Engineers from three different
countries have been involved in the design process
from the moment contracts are awarded. Even while
some the system features are being finalized,
the resources of the company around the world are
mobilized to analyze and evaluate the component
designs. Finite element analysis is used extensively to
evaluate component performance. In many cases
the early analysis indicates that modifications
are necessary. The modifications are made and
assessed until all problems are eliminated. Engineers
responsible for making design modifications can use
the local resources as well as those abroad to ensure
the viability of their design. For example, many
engineers at Delphi Electronics and Safety’s design
centers around the world have been trained to use
first-order analysis tools. These engineers are usually
able to use analysis to eliminate many design flaws.
However, often they need help in completing the
picture, either because of shortage of time and other
resources, or because they lack the specialty skills
that are available at other sites.
Finally, one of the most important reasons for
performing upfront CAE is simply that many of
our customers require it. In many cases, customers
have developed extensive validation requirements
that use simulation extensively in the concept
approval phase. ■
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Simulation at Work
26
Z X
Analysis of Artificial
Knee Joints
ANSYS provides fast, accurate feedback
on new orthopedic implant designs.
Founded in 1895, DePuy is the oldest manufacturer
of orthopedic implants in the United States, with a
reputation for innovation in new product development.
The company has patented a wide range of
replacement knee systems, the first of which was
developed more than 20 years ago. One of these
types incorporates a state-of-the-art mobile bearing,
which offers a wide range of options to allow the
surgeon to match the implant to the patient’s anatomy.
Figure 1 illustrates a typical replacement knee.
In one recent application, two sizes of a
replacement knee design were analyzed at different
angles of articulation using ANSYS. Initially, finite
element results were compared with known
experimental measurements obtained on one of the
two sizes at three angles of articulation. Once
correlation had been achieved, the same methodology
was used to analyze the other design at various angles.
Meshing Critical Components
The replacement knee design is composed of two
components: the femoral component and the bearing.
Figure 2 shows the solid geometry of the design
in ANSYS after importation of the CAD model in
Parasolid format.
www.ansys.com
Both the femoral component and the bearing
were meshed with 3-D higher order tetrahedral
elements. The meshing of the two parts was made
fully parameterized. The mesh on the underside of the
femoral component was made sufficiently fine to
ensure minimal loss of accuracy in the geometry of the
curved contact surfaces.
A coarser mesh was used in the interior and on
the upper side of the femoral component, since
its material was significantly stiffer than that of the
bearing, and, consequently, very little structural
deformation was expected. Another option was to
mesh the contact surfaces of the femoral component
with rigid target and the load applied to a pilot node.
A similar approach was used for the bearing,
as the size of the elements was more critical in the
contact region than other non-contacting surfaces.
However, a mesh density even finer than that on the
contact surfaces of the femoral component was
desirable in the bearing to ensure a good resolution of
the contact area and stresses.
An indiscriminate refinement of the mesh on all
the upper surfaces of the bearing proved to be
computationally too expensive, and a new meshing
procedure was developed and tested by IDAC, a finite
element analysis and computer-aided engineering
consulting firm and the leading UK provider of ANSYS
and DesignSpace software.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Figure 1. One of DePuy’s knee implants Figure 2. Solid geometry of orthopedic
incorporates a mobile bearing that offers a knee design in ANSYS after importation
wide range of options to allow the surgeon of the CAD model in Parasolid format.
to match the implant to a patient’s anatomy.
Running the Analysis
A preliminary contact analysis was first run with the
original mesh density prescribed to the bearing, then
the elements that were in contact with the femoral
component were further refined for the subsequent
solution. An example of this mesh is depicted in Figure
3. The image illustrates the stress distribution in the
contact area between the bearing and the femoral
component. These stress distribution plots can be
created in the ANSYS program for any point in time
during the nonlinear solution.
It was found that excessive geometric
penetration at setup produced stress singularities and
that, therefore, the contact pair should be checked
prior to the solution. Localized peak contact stresses
also could be produced by the discretization of
the otherwise smooth contact surfaces. The mesh
refinement level for the elements in the vicinity of
contact after the preliminary contact analysis may be
increased, but at the expense of a longer solution time.
Apart from contact stresses, the total contact
area was also an important aspect of the design being
studied. The total contact area was obtained from
summing the areas of all contact elements showing
partial or full contact. This generally leads to an
overestimation of the actual contact area (although it
was considered insignificant given the high mesh
density in the contact area).
All analysis work described in this project was
performed on Intel-based personal computers running
the ANSYS program. DePuy are users of ANSYS and
the parametric models created by IDAC have been
supplied to DePuy for their engineers to perform
further analyses and modifications in-house.
www.ansys.com
27
Figure 3. Analysis shows stress distribution
in contact area between the bearing and
the femoral component.
Benefits: Speed and Accuracy
“Following on from this study, and working with IDAC,
a number of our own engineers have been able to do
further comparisons of a new design against an
existing product in various loading conditions,” says
James Brooks, a senior mechanical design engineer at
DePuy. “This has rapidly allowed us to get a good
indication of the performance of the product before
testing.”
Fiona Haig, a mechanical designer at DePuy,
reports additional benefits of the analysis solution.
“IDAC’s macro allowed us to quickly and consistently
replicate physical testing that would normally have
taken weeks to undertake in our labs. In addition, it
permitted us to gain detailed information on stress and
deflection, which can be difficult to detect in physical
tests. The macro has proved an invaluable tool in the
comparison and validation of new implant designs as
well as proving a highly effective learning aid for our
core team of FEA users,” explains Haig. “The results
achieved using IDAC’s analysis method closely
correlated to the results of those physical tests
previously undertaken in our labs. This validation
has allowed us to extend the application of this
methodology to the evaluation of a range of new
implant designs, providing feedback accurately and in
a short time frame.” ■
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 More Design Insight,
28
Faster... Quickly study the design impact of
varying geometry, even without a
parametric CAD model.
The combination of the ANSYS Workbench
Environment and DesignXplorer VT provides ANSYS
users with powerful tools for gaining significant insight
into designs when working with a CAD system.
Bi-directional parametric associativity with the parent
CAD package, made possible by the ANSYS
Workbench Environment, makes understanding
the design impact of varying geometry easy and
comprehensive.
But what if this is an old design and the user
cannot find the geometry files for the part? Or perhaps
you have the geometry, but it is in a non-associative
format such as IGES or Parasolid. Maybe the
geometry is parametric and regenerates robustly, but
the parameters created by the designer are not the
ones that make sense for the analyst. For instance, the
parameters’ definitions might be chained together so
that it is impossible to vary one feature without
changing others. Perhaps a consultant provided the
user with only the FEA or “math model” and the
original geometry used to create the model isn’t
available, or it might take too much time to recreate.
This is quite often the case with legacy models.
Typically, this would be the end of the story. But with
the combination of ParaMesh and DesignXplorer VT, it
is just the beginning.
Figure 1. Sample model of engine torsional damper.
www.ansys.com
By Pierre Thieffry, ParaMesh and Variational
Technology Solutions Specialist and Raymond
Browell, Product Manager, ANSYS, Inc.
Take an inside lok at how these tools can be used
to study a legacy model like the engine torsional
damper model shown in Figure 1.
To optimize this engine damper, perform the
following six-step procedure:
1. From an existing ANSYS database write a
“.cdb” file.
2. Import the .cdb file into ParaMesh.
3. Create the mesh morphing parameters within
ANSYS ParaMesh. (Note the name of the
parameters and their order of creation. This
information will be mandatory in the next
steps.)
4. Declare the mesh morphing parameters by
editing the ANSYS input file
5. Perform the Parametric Solution using ANSYS
DesignXplorer VT.
6. Post-process with Solution Viewer, the
DesignXplorer VT post-processor within the
ANSYS Environment and, if desired, optimize
the results.
Figure 2. Parameter definitions used for mesh morphing.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Even for Legacy Models 29

Creating an ANSYS .cdb file is easy for ANSYS

hole_position
users, and importing the model into ParaMesh is no
Minimum Value
different than reading a file into any package, so skip
to Step 3. Figure 2 shows the parameter definitions we
will create in Step 3.
The first parameter adjusts the inner diameter of
the structure by moving the inner surface nodes and is
named “inner_diam,” and it has a range of variation of
–0.5 mm to +2 mm with an initial wall thickness of
2mm.
The second parameter adjusts the width of the hole_position
slotted hole and is named “hole_diam,” which has a Maximum Value
range of –2 to +2mm, with an initial value of 4 mm.
The third parameter is the radial location of the
slotted hole and is named “hole_position,” which has a
range of –3 to +3 mm and has an initial value of 45mm.

angle_position
Minimum Value

inner_diam
Minimum Value
angle_position
Maximum Value

inner_diam
Maximum Value
Figure 3. Extremes in part geometry obtained by varying mesh morphing
parameters.

The fourth parameter is the location of the start of

the bevel angle bend and is named “Angle_position,”
which has a range of –6 to +2mm with an initial value
of about 20mm.
Hole_diam Comparing the images in Figure 3 indicates the
Minimum Value
extremes of the part. The boundary conditions applied
are: symmetry boundary conditions on the planar
faces, structure is clamped on the central hole and an
inward radial pressure applied on the external surface.
For Step 4, edit the ANSYS input file (see Figure
4) and declare the ParaMesh mesh morphing
parameters so that DesignXplorer VT will know to
solve for them. As seen in the sample file, the
Hole_diam parameters’ definitions are straightforward. To access
Maximum Value the ParaMesh parameters from within the ANSYS
DesignXplorer VT solution, use the SXGEOM
command.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Starting with a sensitivity histogram as shown
… in Figure 5, the sensitivity of maximum stress with
/SX respect to each of the mesh morphing parameters is
30 SXMETH,,AUTO evident. These values are interpreted such that for a
change from the minimum value to the maximum
! Define the output results value of the parameter hole_position, the maximum
SXRSLT,disp,NODE,U,ALL,, stress increases by 103MPa. For the hole_diam
SXRSLT,sigma,ELEM,S,ALL,, parameter, the maximum stress decreases as the
SXRSLT,mass,ELEM,MASS,ALL,, parameter increases.

! Define the file where the parameters have been created

SXRFIL,tor_spring,rsx

! Declare the shape parameters

SXGEOM,inner_diam
SXGEOM,hole_diam
SXGEOM,angle_position
SXGEOM,hole_position

FINISH

/SOLU

! Prepare for a DXVT solution

STAOP,SX
Figure 5. Sensitivity diagram.
Figure 4. Sample section of the ANSYS input file.

This brings us to Step 5, which is solving

the model with the mesh morphing parameters using
DesignXplorer VT.
DesignXplorer VT uses a new and exclusive
technique called Variational Technology. In a traditional
finite-element analysis, each change of the value of
any input variable requires a new finite element
analysis. To perform a “what-if” study where several
input variables are varied in a certain range, a
considerable number of finite element analyses may
be required to satisfactorily evaluate the finite element
results over the range of the input variables. In other
methods, it is important to remember that each design
candidate requires a complete re-mesh and re-solve.
The benefit of Variational Technology is that only
one solution is required to make the same type of
Figure 6. Histogram showing sensitivity of stress, displacement
forecast that other methods provide. The “response
and mass with respect to morphing parameters.
surface” created by DesignXplorer VT is an explicit
approximation function of the finite-element results
expressed as a function of all selected input variables. DesignXplorer VT’s Solution Viewer allows the
Variational Technology provides more accurate results, user to view the sensitivity of multiple results to the
faster. input parameters. In the histogram shown in Figure 6,
Now post-process the analysis using the Solution we see the sensitivity of the Maximum Von Mises
Viewer, the DesignXplorer VT post-processor within Stress, Maximum Displacement, and the Model Mass
the ANSYS Environment. with respect to all of the mesh morphing parameters.
The above sensitivities are relative ones. The
“angle_position” parameter has essentially no effect
on the stress.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 With the initial structure, there is a maximum Von
Mises Stress at 305MPa, a maximum displacement of
0.06 mm and a mass of 116g. It is ideal to keep the
maximum stress under 265Mpa and keep the mass as
low as possible. To reach this objective, the above
sensitivities give some ideas about the changes to be
made. The parameter “hole_position” has the most
influence on the stress and has to be lowered.
Moreover, it does not affect the mass, so it is a critical
parameter for stress reduction only. The same holds
for the inner_diam parameter’s effect on the mass. It is
the most influent on mass, and has little effect
on stresses. To reach the objective, expect two
parameters to be lowered.
Figure 7. Design curves created by Solution Viewer.
Additionally, DesignXplorer VT’s Solution Viewer
allows you to view your parametric response as
either design curves such as those in Figure 7, or as
response surfaces as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Response surface created by Solution Viewer.
www.ansys.com
Note the complexity of the response of this
torsional damper with respect to the input parameters.
As seen in the design curves, all but one of the
responses to the input parameters are nonlinear. The 31
response of the stresses to the hole_diameter has a
definitive kink in it. The reason for that is tht the
maximum stress jumps from one location to another
when the parameters are changing. Simple Design of
Experiment (DOE) curve fitting of results to selected
samples would not have typically discovered this.
One of the unique features of DesignXplorer VT is
the instant, real time availability to the entire finite
element solution for anywhere in the parameter
domain. Pick any combination of parameter values
and see a contour display of the finite element results.
This is directly available, unlike DOE, DesignXplorer VT
already has the results available for the user.
Figure 9 shows a contour of Von Mises Stress
from directly inside the Solution Viewer, for the
parameter hole_position at -3mm, 0 and 3mm. The
color scheme is the same for all meshes, so we really
see the evolution with the given parameter.
hole_position
at -3mm
hole_position
at 0
hole_position
at 3mm
Figure 9. Stress plots created by Solution Viewer with respect to varying
parameter hole_position.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Software Highlights

DesignXplorer VT also includes powerful
optimization and tolerance capabilities. Using the
32 optimization capabilities built into the Solution Viewer,
optimize the part. As stated before, minimize the mass
of the part while keeping its maximum stress under
265 MPa.
The optimization needs in this case only 63
iterations. These are achieved in 60 seconds – an
amazingly short time considering the number of
iterations. This is because, as mentioned earlier,
DesignXplorer VT has the entire finite element solution
for anywhere in the parameter domain. No additional
solutions are required.
The final maximum stress is 265Mpa. The final
stress value is more than 10% below the initial stress
value. The final mass has also been lowered to 101g, a
saving of 13% which is a better solution in terms of
both stress and the mass.
The powerful combination of ParaMesh and
DesignXplorer VT opens doors to analyses that never
before existed. Previously, you had to guess, or
optimize manually. Now parametric analysis is
available, no matter what environment is being used:
Workbench for those that have parameterized CAD
models, and ParaMesh with DesignXplorer VT for
those with models without parametric CAD.
That is the value this powerful combination of
ANSYS ParaMesh and ANSYS DesignXplorer
provides: more design insight, faster...even for legacy
models. ■

Procedure Overview

2. Import the .cdb file into

1. From an ANSYS ParaMesh
existing
ANSYS ANSYS ParaMesh
model, write
a “.cdb” file Create 3. Create the mesh
(CDWRITE) an morphing parameters
ANSYS within ANSYS ParaMesh
.cdb file

4. Declare the mesh

morphing parameters
by editing the ANSYS file .rsx
input file (file.dat) (or .van)
Start with an (Be sure to have
ANSYS consistent names)
database

Edit the input file ANSYS DX VT

(file.dat) by adding the and SXPOST
following commands:
SXGEOM, SXRFIL, 6. Post-process the
SXMETH parametric results and
optimize the part
5. Perform the Parametric
Solution by using ANSYS
DesignXplorer VT

Follow these six steps in using ParaMesh and DesignXplorer VT to optimize legacy models, even if you do not have geometry or if
the geometry is non-associative. ParaMesh easily prepares these models so they can be studied with DesignXplorer VT to arrive at
quick insight into the design impact of varying the geometry.

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Tech File
Demystifying Contact Elements
Part 1 of 2:
What they are, how they work and when to use them.
By John Crawford
Consulting Analyst
If you analyze enough problems,
chances are good that sooner or
later you’ll run across one that
requires the use of contact
elements. Contact elements are
used to simulate how one or
more surfaces interact with each
other. For most analysts, our first exposure to contact
elements can be a little confusing because of the
variety of elements and the multitude of special
features that are available.
We have to determine which contact elements
are appropriate for our problem, resolve any
convergence problems that might arise during
solution, and check the results for reasonable and
accurate answers. Let’s see if we can clear up some of
the mysteries that surround the use of contact
elements. We’ll begin by talking about the elements
themselves.
Node-to-Node Elements
In the early days of finite element analysis, there was
one type of contact element: the node-to-node variety.
The early versions of node-to-node contact elements
were CONTAC12 (2-D) and CONTAC52 (3-D). More
recently, CONTA178 (2-D and 3-D) was introduced to
encompass the capabilities of both of these elements
and also introduce some new features, such as
additional contact algorithms. Node-to-node contact
elements are simple and solve relatively quickly. Their
basic function is to monitor the movement of one node
with respect to another node. When the gap between
these nodes closes, the contact element allows load
to transfer from one node to the other. What does this
really mean and how does ANSYS know when the
nodes are touching?
www.ansys.com
33
Remember that an analysis is made up of one or
more load steps, and each load step has one or more
substeps. Within each substep there can be several
nested layers of equilibrium iterations. The precise
number and manner in which they are nested is
dependent on the solver, how many nonlinear features
are being used and several other things. Contact
analyses are nonlinear and therefore require their own
equilibrium iteration loop. At the end of each contact
equilibrium iteration, ANSYS checks to see if the
status of each contact element has changed. It also
calculates a convergence value (usually force
equilibrium) and compares it to the convergence
criteria. If the element status has not changed and the
convergence criteria has been met, ANSYS
determines that the solution for this iteration has
converged and moves on to the next outer iteration
loop, the next substep or the next load step, or stops
solving altogether if the analysis is now complete.
If at this point you’re a little confused, don’t
worry. The critical ideas to remember from this are
the following:
• Contact analyses are nonlinear in nature
• ANSYS performs a special equilibrium
iteration “loop” when doing a contact analysis
• Contact elements have a “status” that
indicates if they are open, closed, sliding, etc.
• ANSYS checks the element status and the
convergence criteria at the end of each
contact equilibrium iteration to determine if
equilibrium has been achieved
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Tech File
34 These characteristics are true for all types of contact
elements. While they may seem a little primitive when
compared with the newer contact elements, node-to-
node contact elements have a lot going for them.
They’ve been around long enough to have had their
bugs worked out many years ago, and their extensive
use over several decades means that there is a vast
experience base to draw upon when setting up and
debugging an analysis. CONTAC12 and CONTAC52
can have nodes that are either coincident or non-coin-
cident. While the majority of applications involve using
non-coincident nodes, coincident nodes can be use-
ful for certain analyses. If coincident nodes are used,
the orientation of the contact “surface” that exists
between the two nodes must be defined. The initial
condition gap or interference can be provided by the
user as being either positive (gap) or negative (interfer-
ence), or automatically calculated from the relative
positions of the nodes.
Node-to-node contact is also available in
COMBIN40. COMBIN40 is a rather unique element
because it also includes a spring-slider, a damper
(which works in parallel with the spring-slider) and
a mass at each node. Any of these features can be
used alone or simultaneously with any or all of the
other features.
While node-to-node contact elements are very
useful, there are some limitations that must be kept in
mind when using them. One limitation is that the
orientation of the gap is not updated when large
deflection analyses are performed. Another limitation
is that these elements do not account for moment
equilibrium. This does not present a problem when a
line drawn between the nodes is normal to the contact
surface because in this instance the moments are
zero, but care should be taken in each analysis to
recognize whether this is the case or not. If not, it is
important to consider what effect this might have on
the results. It is the responsibility of the analyst to
recognize whether this condition is present and
whether it introduces an unacceptable error that
invalidates the usefulness of the analysis.
Node-to-node elements can always be generated
manually, and, depending on the model, you can often
use the EINTF command to make them as well.
www.ansys.com
Node-to-Surface Elements
The next evolution in contact elements was the
introduction of node-to-surface contact elements,
such as CONTAC26 (2-D), CONTAC48 (2-D),
CONTAC49 (3-D), and the recent addition of
CONTA175 (2-D and 3-D). The major enhancement
offered by node-to-surface contact elements is that
they allow a node to contact anywhere along an edge
(in 2-D) or a surface (in 3-D). Rather than a node being
confined to contacting a specific node, a node can
contact the edge of a certain element. This has
significant benefits when objects translate or rotate
relative to each other. Node-to-surface contact
elements are capable of simulating large relative
movements with accuracy.
Because CONTA175 includes all the capabilities
of the other node-to-surface contact elements and
has other features that these elements do not have,
CONTA175 will replace the other node-to-surface
elements in future versions of ANSYS. Beginning in
ANSYS 8.1, CONTAC26, CONTAC48 and CONTAC49
will be undocumented, and they will eventually be
removed from ANSYS.
There are several ways to generate node-to-
surface contact elements. They can be made
manually, but this becomes impractical when making
more than a few elements. GCGEN and ESURF are
commands that are frequently used to generate
node-to-surface contact elements, with GCGEN being
the easiest and quickest way to make CONTAC48 and
CONTAC49 node to surface contact elements, while
ESURF is used to make CONTA175 node to surface
elements. To use GCGEN, you make two components,
one that contains the nodes from one of the contact
surfaces, and another that contains the elements from
the other contact surfaces, and then use GCGEN to
automatically generate node-to-surface contact ele-
ments between every node and every element that are
in these components. To use ESURF, you select the
elements that the CONTA175 elements will be
attached to and their nodes that are on the surface
you wish to place the contact elements onto, making
sure that you have the proper element attributes active
(TYPE, REAL and MAT), and then issue the ESURF
command.
Last but not least, the Contact Wizard can be
used to generate node-to-surface contact elements
and is usually the easiest and quickest way of making
them.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
Surface-to-Surface Elements
The latest evolution of contact element technology has
been in the area of surface-to-surface contact. This
allows contact to take place between one or more
edges in 2-D, or one or more surfaces in 3-D. There
are several important characteristics that make
surface-to-surface contact elements very different
from their less sophisticated ancestors.
• Surface-to-surface contact is not defined by a
single element, but by two types of elements
called targets and contacts.
• Any number of target and contact elements
can be identified as being a set or group.
Contact can take place between any contact
elements and any target elements that are in
this group.
• ANSYS uses the real constant number to
identify the target and contact elements that
are in a group. All target and contact elements
in this group have the same real constant
number.
Two-dimensional contact problems can be
simulated using either CONTA171 or CONTA172 with
TARGE169, while three-dimensional problems would
use either CONTA173 or CONTA174 with TARGE170.
Want to continue receiving
ANSYS Solutions?
Visit www.ansys.com/subscribe/
to update your information.
Plus, you’ll have the chance to sign
up to receive CFX eNews and email
alerts when the latest electronic
version of ANSYS Solutions
becomes available!
www.ansys.com
CONTA171 and CONTA173 are appropriate for edges 35
and surfaces made from linear (no midside nodes)
elements while CONTA172 and CONTA174 can be
used with edges and surfaces made from quadratic
(having midside nodes) elements. Both CONTA172
and CONTA174 can be used in a degenerate form on
surfaces made from linear elements.
The introduction of surface-to-surface contact
elements has brought about big improvements in
solution efficiency and has also broadened the types
of contact problems that can be modeled. They offer
many new and improved features, such as the ability
to contact and then bond two surfaces together,
automatic opening or closing of gaps to a uniform
value, and a variety of contact algorithms, to name just
a few.
You can generate surface-to-surface contact
elements by using series NSEL, ESEL and ESURF
commands. The Contact Wizard automates these
steps and makes the generation of surface-to-surface
contact elements quick and easy in both 2-D and 3-D.
Now that we have been introduced to the contact
elements that are at our disposal, we’ll follow up next
time with some helpful hints on how to use them. ■
Part two of this article, to appear in the next issue of ANSYS
Solutions, will discuss various aspects of using contact
elements, including modeling tips and setting appropriate
stiffness.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Tips and Techniques

Contact
Defaults in
36 Workbench
and ANSYS
Intelligent default
settings solve
common problems
fast with minimal
user intervention.
By ANSYS, Inc. Technical Support

As every experienced FEA analyst knows, no two KEYOPTs and real

contact problems are exactly alike, so there is no
silver bullet combination of KEYOPT and real
constant settings that will successfully work for all
problems. That explains the many features
available today within the contact elements. It also
explains, in part, the rationale behind the different
default settings sometimes found in the different
environments. As migration between Workbench
and ANSYS environments progresses, it is
important for analysts to recognize that, although
the contact technology used in both of these
environments is exactly the same, some of the
default KEYOPT and real constant settings are not.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize all surface-to-
surface contact element (CONTA171–174)
constant properties
with their respective
default settings in each environment. Those that
have different defaults in the different environments
are highlighted in bold italic.
KEYOPT(1): Select Degrees of Freedom (DOF)
This option gives you the freedom to assign the
contact DOF set consistent with the physics of the
underlying elements. ANSYS surface-to-surface
contact technology offers an impressive
combination of structural, thermal, electric and
magnetic capabilities. When building pairs through
the ANSYS environment with traditional ANSYS
Parametric Design Language (APDL), users must

Table 1: 8.0 Default Contact KEYOPTs

KEYOPTs Description ANSYS APDL Contact Wizard Workbench Workbench
Default Linear Default Nonlinear
(bonded, no sep) (standard, rough)
1 Selects DOF manual automatic automatic automatic
2 Contact algorithm Aug Lagrange Aug Lagrange pure penalty pure penalty
3 Stress state when super element no super elem no super elem n/a n/a
is present
4 Location of contact detection point gauss gauss gauss gauss
5 CNOF/ICONT adjustment no adjust no adjust no adjust no adjust
6 (blank)
7 Element level time increment control no control no control no control no control
8 Asymmetric contact selection no action no action no action no action
9 Effect of initial penetration or gap include all include all exclude all include all/ ramped
10 Contact stiffness update btwn loadsteps btwn substps btwn loadsteps btwn loadsteps
11 Beam/shell thickness effect exclude exclude exclude exclude
12 Behavior of contact surface standard standard bonded n/a

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

Table 2: 8.0 Default Contact Real Constants
Real Constants Description ANSYS APDLContact Wizard Workbench
No. Name
1 R1 Target circle radius 0 n/a n/a
2 R2 Superelement thickness 1 1 n/a 37
3 FKN Normal penalty stiffness factor 1 1 Note 1
4 FTOLN Penetration tolerance factor 0.1 0.1 0.1
5 ICONT Initial contact closure 0 0 0
6 PINB Pinball region note 2 note 2 n ote 2
7 PMAX Upper limit of initial penetration 0 0 0
8 PMIN Lower limit of initial penetration 0 0 0
9 TAUMAX Maximum friction stress 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20
10 CNOF Contact surface offset 0 0 0
11 FKOP Contact opening stiffness 1 1 1
12 FKT Tangent penalty stiffness 1 1 1
13 COHE Contact cohesion 0 0 0
14 TCC Thermal contact conductance 0 0 Note 3
15 FHTG Frictional heating factor 1 1 1
16 SBCT Stefan-Boltzmann constant 0 0 n/a
17 RDVF Radiation view factor 1 1 n/a
18 FWGT Heat distribution weighing factor 0.5 0.5 0.5
19 ECC Electric contact conductance 0 0 n/a
20 FHEG Joule dissipation weighting factor 1 1 n/a
21 FACT Static/dynamic ratio 1 1 1
22 DC Exponential decay coefficient 0 0 0
23 SLTO Allowable elastic slip 1% 1% 1%
25 TOLS Target edge extension factor note 4 note 4 note 4
26 MCC Magnetic contact permeance 0 0 n/a
Notes:
1. FKN = 10 if only linear contact is active (bonded, no sep). If any nonlinear contact is active, all regions will have FKN = 1 (including bonded, no sep).
2. Depends on contact behavior, rigid vs. flex target, KEYOPT (9) and NLGEOM ON/OFF.
3. Calculated as a function of highest conductivity and overall model size.
4. 10% of target length for NLGEOM,OFF. 2% of target length for NLGEOM,ON.

set this option manually. The default will always be
KEYOPT(1) =0 (for UX,UY). When building contact
pairs in the ANSYS environment using the contact
wizard, KEYOPT(1) is set automatically according
to the DOF set of the underlying element. In
Workbench, this option also is set automatically,
depending on the underlying element DOF set.
KEYOPT(2): Contact Algorithm
ANSYS contact technology offers many algorithms
to control how the code enforces compatibility at a
contacting interface.
The penalty method (KEYOPT(2) =1) is a
traditional algorithm that enforces contact
compatibility by using a contact “spring” to
establish a relationship between the two surfaces.
The spring stiffness is called the penalty parameter
or, more commonly, the contact stiffness. The
spring is inactive when the surfaces are apart (open
status), and becomes active when the surfaces
begin to interpenetrate.
The augmented Lagrange method (KEYOPT(2)
= 0) uses an iterative series of penalty methods to
enforce contact compatibility. Contact tractions
(pressure and friction stresses) are augmented
during equilibrium iterations so that final
penetration is smaller then the allowable tolerance.
This offers better conditioning than the pure penalty
method and is less sensitive to magnitude of
contact stiffness used, but may require more
iterations than the penalty method.
The Multi-Point Constraint (MPC) Method
(KEYOPT(2) = 2) enforces contact compatibility by
using internally generated constraint equations to
establish a relationship between the two surfaces.
The DOFs of the contact surface nodes are
eliminated. No normal or tangential stiffness is
required. For small deformation problems, no

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 Tips and Techniques

iterations are needed in solving system equations.
Since there is no penetration or contact sliding
38 within a tolerance, MPC represents “true linear
contact” behavior. For large deformation problems,
the MPC equations are updated during each
iteration. This method applies to bonded surface
behavior only. It is also useful for building surface
constraint relationships similar to CERIG and RBE3.
MPC is available as a standard option when
modeling bonded contact in both ANSYS and
Workbench environments.
The Pure Lagrange multiplier method
(KEYOPT(2) = 3) adds an extra degree of freedom
(contact pressure) to satisfy contact compatibility.
Pure Lagrange enforces near-zero penetration with
pressure DOF. Unlike the penalty and augmented
Lagrange algorithms, it does not require a normal
contact stiffness. Pure Lagrange does require a
direct solver, can be more computationally
expensive and can have convergence difficulties
related to overconstraining, but it is a very useful
algorithm when zero penetration is critical. It also
can be combined with the penalty algorithm in the
tangential direction (KEYOPT(2) = 4), when zero
penetration is critical, and friction is also present.
The ANSYS environment uses the augmented
Lagrange by default. The Workbench environment
currently uses the penalty method, but the default
can be changed via the Options Menu at 8.1. MPC
is available as a standard alternative in both
environments. The Pure Lagrange options are
available in ANSYS, but can be accessed in
Workbench via the pre-processor command
builder. At version 8.1, Pure Lagrange is available in
the Workbench environment. Table 3 summarizes
all the algorithms with pros and cons of each.
KEYOPT(9): Effect of Initial Penetration or Gap
Properly accounting for or controlling interferences
and gaps can sometimes be the difference
between success and failure in simulating a
complicated contact relationship. There are several
contact options available to control how the code
accounts for initial interference or gap effects:
(0) Include everything: Include an initial
interference from the geometry and the
specified offset (if any).
(1) Exclude everything: Ignore all initial-
interference effects.
(2) Include with ramped effects: Ramp the
interference to enhance convergence.
(3) Include offset only: Base initial interference
on specified offset only.
(4) Include offset only w/ ramp: Base initial
interference on specified offset only, and
ramp the interference effect to enhance
convergence.

Table 3: Contact Algorithms

Algorithm Pros
Pure Penalty Offers easiest convergence in least
number of iterations
Augmented Minimizes penetration; better
conditioning than penalty; less
sensitive to contact stiffness
Pure Lagrange Offers near-zero penetration;
zero elastic slip (no contact
stiffness required)
Pure Lagrange on Same as Pure Lagrange, plus
Normal; Penalty simulation of friction is handled
on Tangent most efficiently
Multipoint More efficient than traditional
Constraint (MPC) bonded contact; offers contact
betweenmixed element types;
offers CERIG RBE3 type constraints
Cons
Requires contact stiffness and
allowance for some finite
penetration
Might require more iterations
Might require more iterations;
might also require adjustment to
chatter control parameters unique
to this algorithm; can produce
overconstraints in model
Same as Pure Lagrange
Can produce overconstraints
in model
When to Use
Helpful when contact convergence
is a challenge and minimal penetration
is acceptable (Default in Workbench)
The default for surf-to-surf and node-
to-surf in ANSYS, as it has proven to
produce the best quality results in the
most common applications
(Default in ANSYS)
When zero penetration is critical
When zero penetration is critical
and friction is present
Recommended for large bonded contact
models to enhance run time and for
contact between mixed element types
and surface constraint applications

www.ansys.com ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004

 In ANSYS, the default KEYOPT(9) = 0 is to
include everything. In Workbench, the default is to
exclude everything (1) when linear contact (bonded,
no separation) is defined and include with ramped
effects (2) when nonlinear contact (frictional,
frictionless, rough) is defined.
KEYOPT(10): Contact Stiffness Update
When using the penalty and/or augmented
Lagrange method, contact stiffness has long been
recognized as a critical property that influences
both accuracy and convergence. Too high a
stiffness will ultimately lead to convergence
difficulty; too low a stiffness will result in
over-penetration and an inaccurate assessment of
surface pressures and stresses at the interface.
In an effort to arrive at a good balance
between these extremes, automatic stiffness
updating between loadsteps (KEYOPT(10) = 0) and
substeps (KEYOPT(10) = 1), or between iterations
(KEYOPT(10) = 2) was introduced as an
enhancement to traditional trial-and-error methods.
In ANSYS, when contact is built via APDL, the
default is to update stiffness between loadsteps.
In ANSYS, when contact is built via the Wizard, the
default has been changed to update between
substeps. This is considered to produce the
most robust contact simulation in most cases.
In Workbench, the default behavior is still between
loadsteps, but the default can be changed via the
Option Menu at Version 8.1. These defaults may
change in future releases as further enhancements
are made.
KEYOPT(12): Behavior of Contact Surface
ANSYS contact technology offers a rich library of
surface behavior options to simulate every possible
situation. These options are as follows:
(0) Standard: (Referred to as “Frictionless” or
“Frictional” in Workbench) normal contact
closing and opening behavior, with normal
sticking/sliding friction behavior when
nonzero friction coefficient is defined.
(1) Rough: Normal contact closing and
opening behavior, but no sliding can occur
(similar to having an infinite coefficient of
friction).
(2) No Separation: Target and contact
surfaces are tied once contact is
established (sliding is permitted). This is not
available as a standard option in Work-
bench, but can be accessed via the
pre-processor command builder.
www.ansys.com
(3) Bonded: Target and contact surfaces are
“glued” once contact is established.
39
(4) No Separation (always): (Referred to
simply as “No Separation” in Workbench)
Any contact detection points initially inside
the pinball region or that come into contact
are tied in the normal direction (sliding is
permitted).
(5) Bonded Contact (always): (Referred to
simply as “Bonded” in Workbench) Any
contact detection points initially inside the
pinball region or that come into contact are
bonded. (Design-space Default)
(6) Bonded Contact (initial contact): Bonds
surfaces ONLY in initial contact, initially
open surfaces will remain open. This is
not available as a standard option in
Workbench, but can be accessed via the
pre-processor command builder.
The default surface behavior in ANSYS is
nonlinear “standard” for simulating the most
general normal contact closing and opening
behavior, with normal sticking/sliding friction.
In Workbench, the default behavior (which can be
changed via the Options Menu at Version 8.1), set
up with automatic contact detection to simulate an
assembly, is linear Bonded Contact (Always).
Real Constant(3): Normal Penalty Stiffness
Factor (FKN)
Users control the initial contact stiffness used by
multiplying the calculated value by a factor, FKN.
The default value for FKN used in ANSYS (APDL or
Wizard) is 1.0. In Workbench, FKN = 10 if only linear
contact is active (bonded or no separation). If any
nonlinear contact is active, all regions will have FKN
= 1 (including bonded and no separation).
Real Constant(14): Thermal Contact
Conductance (TCC)
This constant dictates the thermal resistance
across the interface of contacting bodies in
applications involving thermal analysis. The default
value in ANSYS for TCC is zero (perfect insulator).
In Workbench, the default is automatically
calculated as a function of the highest thermal
conductivity of the contacting parts and the
overall model sizethus essentially modeling perfect
thermal contact. ■
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
 Guest Commentary
Putting Quality
40
Assurance
in Finite Element Analysis
Part 2 of 2:
Step-by-step ways to best implement a quality assurance program.
By Vince Adams
Director of Analysis Services
IMPACT Engineering
Solutions, Inc.
The NAFEMS document
“Management of Finite Element
Analysis—Guidelines to Best
Practice” states that a quality
assurance program should be
developed to serve an organization, not vice-versa. To
address this concern and the barriers described in Part
1 of this series, IMPACT Engineering Solutions has
developed a suite of QA tools that can be customized
and scaled to meet the needs of a wide-range of
product development teams and industries. This suite
of tools for QA includes: process audits, management
education, user skill-level assessment, user education/
continuous improvement, pre- and post-analysis
checklists, project documentation, data management,
and analysis correlation guidelines.
Process Audit
The first step in establishing a QA program should be to
document existing processes and company goals,
including technical, organizational and competitive
goals. Developing an understanding of how products
are developed, what the historical issues and
challenges have been, what interactions exist, and how
simulation technologies can best impact a company’s
bottom line should precede any recommendations.
A process audit should evaluate not only the tools
used by an engineering department but also identify
additional state-of-the-art tools that can impact the
design process or allow simulation activities to grow
beyond current limitations. A process audit should help
ensure that all groups involved in the design process
are on the same page. Finally, the process audit should
put some monetary values to typical tasks so that
potential savings and opportunities for gains can be
more readily identified. The report generated from the
process audit should be a living document that
allows periodic review of critical components and
observations.
Management Education
A recent survey indicated that management, for various
reasons, was the greatest barrier to success of FEA in
product design by the users who responded. Helping
www.ansys.com
managers set proper expectations regarding the
capabilities and limitations of analysis is often the
single most important step in improving the quality
and value of simulation at a company. Management
training should also include a discussion of the
validity of assumptions and results, quality control
concepts and an overview of the skills that they
should expect their team members to possess to be
productive with FEA.
User Skill Level Assessment
Skill level assessment may be the most difficult and
controversial component of a QA program, and the
one with the most far-reaching impact. Skill level
assessment isn’t technically difficult as there are
several areas of expertise that are fundamental to the
successful use of analysis. The difficulty lies in the
potential for perceived threat. Consequently, users
must be shown that the program is not a test but a
tool to help them better understand their skills and
needs. The program we have developed is
composed of four sections in which candidates:
• Demonstrate a basic understanding of
engineering mechanics (failure theory, stress
concepts, material properties, etc.)
• Show a working knowledge of finite element
analysis (terminology, concepts, capabilities,
meshing, boundary conditions, etc.)
• Solve hands-on sample problems (using FEA
tools that are to be part of their job)
• Present a portfolio of past work they have
performed (reports, screen shots, models,
plots, etc.)
The assessment report provided back to
management should include not only performance
results but also a plan for improvement for that
individual (including courses and other support
options, as well as special skills that might be shared
with others in the organization. Finally, some sort of
indication of a user’s level of competence and/or
approved responsibility level should be noted,
without negative connotations that could be
misconstrued.
User Education/Continuous Improvement
A proactive and forward-thinking QA program should
identify areas of growth and knowledge required to
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
keep skills of users sharp. A company can’t be
confident that users are state-of-the-art in their
techniques and tools unless they are exposed to
people and techniques outside of their familiar
surroundings. The process audit conducted at the
beginning of the program should identify critical
skills and techniques that are needed to maximize the
benefits of simulation, while the skills assessment
should identify which users need work in those
techniques. Employee growth should be planned, not
expected to happen haphazardly. Knowledge and
documentation of the next plateau for each user or
group of users, with clear milestones, will help ensure
that quality is maintained. It is also preferable to insist
that all users at an organization go through a standard
set of courses so that all are using the same language
and have been exposed to the same data.
Pre and Post-Analysis Checklists
NAFEMS has developed an excellent starting point
for companies looking to implement checklists as a
quality control tool. We suggest taking these a step
further and customizing them for a particular
company’s tools and analysis environment. As part of
a total QA program, clients should be able to access
these forms online via an Intranet or the Internet, and
they should be made available as part of the project
documentation as described below. We’ve found that
when these simple checking tools are bypassed,
minor errors in data entry and interpretation can cause
major problems in the decisions based on FE data.
Project Documentation
Too few companies have standard report formats for
analysis while many companies don’t mandate reports
at all. Despite the obvious loss of intellectual capital a
company will experience when an analyst leaves the
organization without documenting their work, a
company loses one of the most important quality
control tools in the analysis process when reports
aren’t completed. A QA program for analysis must
include a report format that transcends groups,
specializations, or departments. Analysis data on
seemingly unrelated components could still provide
insight and prevent repetition of work. In addition to
providing details of the recent work, a project report
should include references to similar historical projects,
test data and correlation criteria. A report should
indicate the source of inputs and assumptions as well
as comment on the validity of these assumptions.
Additionally, a company would benefit from linking test
and analysis reports, even to the point of using similar
formats for the two related tasks.
Data Management
As companies begin to evaluate their PLM (product
lifecycle management) structures, the organization of
analysis or other product performance data must be
included in the initial planning. D.H. Brown and
Associates have investigated the needs of CAE data
management and have found that structured PDM
(product data management) systems may not be up to
the task. PDM systems were typically developed to
www.ansys.com
manage revisions and bill hierarchies, not the
simplified geometries, results formats, and validation
databases required for an analysis program. While
every company must develop its own PLM and data
management system that best fits within their
organization, a QA program for analysis must tap into
that system, formalize it if need be and provide means
for policing the archiving of analysis data so that a
company’s intellectual property and investment in
simulation is secure.
Analysis Correlation Guidelines.
Unfortunately, companies rarely correlate their finite
element data with physical testing. And when testing
is used, set-ups are often inappropriate, proper
procedures are not followed and sufficient data points
not gathered. Therefore, thought should be given to
multiple validation points to ensure that boundary
conditions, material properties and geometry are all
properly specified to provide consistent correlation.
The analyst and the test technician should work
closely together to devise a test intended to correlate
the analysis modeling assumptions. Care should be
taken to evaluate the validity of constraints in the
model, especially fixed constraints, as these can lead
to gross variations in stiffness when comparing test
results to analysis results. A QA program for analysis
should bridge the gap between test and analysis, and
document procedures for correlating FE data. ■
Part 1 of this article in the previous issue of ANSYS Solutions
discussed ways to overcome barriers to effective quality
assurance in finite element analysis.
Vince Adams is co-author of the book “Building Better
Products with Finite Element Analysis” and the inaugural
chairman for the NAFEMS North American Steering
Committee. He currently serves as Director of Analysis
Services at IMPACT Engineering Solutions, Inc.
(www.impactengsol.com), a consulting firm providing design
and analysis services and support to industrial clients in a wide
range of industries around the world. Vince can be reached at
vadams@impactengsol.com.
Quality Doesn’t Happen by Accident
Even if their product lines are similar, no two companies
operate alike. Consequently, no QA program can be assumed
valid for all companies without running the risk of forcing an
engineering organization to cater to the needs of the system.
In our training programs, we identify geometry, properties,
mesh and boundary conditions as the key assumptions in any
analysis and the most likely sources of error. If nothing else, a
QA procedure for FEA must provide a crosscheck on these
factors. Ideally, all users in an organization will possess all the
skills required to competently perform analyses. However, as
the technology proliferates further into the design process, as it
should, the likelihood of that required ideal skill level becomes
less and less. So management of engineering organizations
need to foster a quality environment so that analysis can be
used to its full potential. Remember, quality doesn’t happen by
accident. Only with planning, standardization, education and
diligent follow-through can a company truly feel confident that
quality in FEA is assured.
ANSYS Solutions | Summer 2004
Unparalleled CAE performance and infrastructure
The fastest CAE performance on the planet just got more versatile
Choose between:
■ Intel® Itanium® processor’s fastest floating point in the industry.
■ The CAE software portfolio offered by HP-UX, Linux and
Microsoft® Windows®.
■ The cluster capability of HP Integrity servers.
■ The value offered by HP ProLiant industry-standard servers.
■ The pre/post processing power offered by HP Workstations.

Whatever your choice, HP and our CAE partners deliver.

www.hp.com/go/cae

Screen images courtesy of (left to right): ANSYS® ICEM CFD™ Cabin Modeler™ and
ANSYS® CFX®
Intel and Itanium are registered trademarks of the Intel Corporation
in the United States and other countries.
Microsoft and Windows are U.S. registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
© 2004 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.