ANSYS simulation
Additive Science determines optimum process parameters while print simulation tools facilitate the set-up and solving of print simulations.
Imagine you’ve found your killer additive manufacturing (AM) application. You’ve settled on your part and the best way to manufacture it, only to realise you now have to go through more pieces of software than you can count on one hand just to get from design to print. Factor in multiple design iterations and you’ve not only got a costly and lengthy production process but a pretty frustrating one too.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is the reality for many engineers today.
At the recent Additive Manufacturing User Group Conference, I caught up with Brent Stucker, Director of Additive Manufacturing at leading engineering simulation company ANSYS, to talk about how simulation is helping to overcome those common headaches with a traceable workflow and why manufacturers and product developers need to keep up with the new rules of AM.
“What our customers have been telling us is that they want to combine the workflow, they don't want to keep going from one software package to the next,” Stucker told TCT. “You have to have a CAD tool, a tool for build set up, a separate tool maybe for topology optimisation, a tool for simulation, maybe another to predict the micro structure, and then another to generate the scan vectors for the machine. We have customers who are using up to seven pieces of software in between design and print. So what ANSYS is doing is building a portfolio of tools that let us go all the way from finalising design to print all in an ANSYS workflow.”
The Pittsburgh-based company, which celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, is working extensively on condensing that workflow, delivering accurate scientific insight and ease of use through ongoing enhancements. And there’s a lot to keep-up with, as Stucker indicated during our conversation, vowing if you’re not using the latest version, you haven’t really tried the product yet.
The company released the second of three ANSYS 2019 updates (version R2) in early June, with a third edition scheduled for the Autumn. Along with numerous improvements to its Additive Suite and expanded materials capabilities in Additive Print, ANSYS has introduced Additive Science, a piece of kit which delivers an exploratory environment for engineers to determine the optimum process parameters along with meltpool sizes and material porosity for metal AM machines and materials. Fast forward to our conversation at AMUG, one of the newest arrivals for R2 is ANSYS Additive Prep which allows users to quickly orient parts, visualise heat maps and generate support geometries, which Stucker describes as bringing “best in class” simulation features into a combined workflow. Further updates penned for this year include microstructure prediction from a scan parameter set, something ANSYS has been testing internally for some time, while a tool to predict the effects of heat treatment is on the horizon for 2020.
ANSYS
ANSYS engine block simulation with credit
Study of engine block in ANSYS 2019 R2.
ANSYS’ AM capabilities are focused solely on industrial metal technologies, specifically powder-bed processes and primarily applications within aerospace and medical sectors where intense qualification is required. Stucker says the company is actively collaborating with major OEMs and plans to incorporate reading and writing capabilities directly with their machines by the end of this year. Given the rapid rate of hardware innovation, where new machine launches are a regular occurrence, this cooperation between hardware and simulation could be hugely beneficial, though Stucker adds in spite of the hype, some “still have a bit of baking to do in the oven”.
“One of the things I try to encourage people to do is, if your exact application is not ready, let's say you've looked at additive but machining is still better for you, don't check-out,” Stucker commented on the speed of machine innovation. “Things are moving so fast that a year from now the game might have moved, new rules are now available for this game.”
The good news is updates are happening all of the time from all corners of additive and in simulation, ANSYS continues to push out multiple updates every year. With the AM industry’s fast-changing nature, it’s not enough to rely on yearly developments or outmoded tools if you want to get the most out of the technology, as Stucker explained:
“People in simulation are used to very slow rates of improvement. There are customers who are using three, four or five-year-old versions of software. People who are three years behind are really behind in simulation but in additive, if you're even a release behind, you're losing out on capability and competitive edge that your competitors will have.”
Stucker has been active in AM for over two decades. He co-founded AM simulation technology company, 3DSIM back in 2015, backed by investment from UL, and later sold the company to ANSYS in 2017. Now under the guise of one of the world’s oldest software companies, Stucker says many of his goals for the software to this day stem from his 15-year career in metal AM research and a vision he and his team had to help further decrease the risks around metal 3D printing’s unpredictability. This longevity has allowed the company to be a little more strategic in their approach and Stucker estimates that around 80% of the features from that original wish list have now been incorporated into the software, with a little more left to go over the next couple of years.
My meeting with Stucker arrived shortly after Todd Grimm delivered his annual keynote on stage at AMUG. The AM consultant spoke about the push and pull between hardware and software and how the latter is now shouldering the load in AM progression. I asked Stucker for his thoughts on how that weight has shifted over his time in the industry:
“I think, in the past, we were constrained by hardware limitations. In the present, we're constrained by software limitations. There is a lot more you can do with a machine than a designer knows how to even think about without a software tool.
“But that process without software is a lot of trial and error. I'm completely convinced that as these software tools, shoulder more of the burden, the rate of innovation can go even higher. A lot of people are really sceptical that we can maintain this. I would be too if we said this rate of innovation has to be sustained based on hardware innovation and trained experts but the beauty is, with software, we don't need as many trained experts because that knowledge gets put into software. We have a gap in between the hardware capabilities and the software’s ability to take advantage of that. There will come a point where the software becomes more capable than hardware but right now, I do think that software is a bottleneck in innovation but it's not going to be for much longer.”
