It seems in every simulation job there is a constant struggle to prove the value of simulation to the top brass. They obviously want to cut costs and see $$ savings from each project.

But simulation does not really work that way. Many times simulation just confirms what people already know. Or sometimes simulation is looking way down the road where value is hard to predict..

Hi, I am a beginner in Ansys Mechanical and doing a transient thermal simulation in Ansys Mechanical. As number of steps is large, my PC has insufficient storage to store the temperatures at all nodes for every time step. I only need temperatures at a few nodes for every time step and need to save in a csv file. Are there any methods to do so? I tried "output selection" in "output control" of analysis setting, but it has no effect! Ansys documentation says, it works only for elemental-based results.

I am designing the drive base for a humanoid robot with:

• Two powered wheels (differential drive)
• One caster wheel
• Total robot mass ≈ 50 kg

The drivetrain layout is:

Motor → Coupling → Shaft → Bearings → Wheel

The shaft is supported using two bearings, and the wheel is mounted in an overhung configuration.

Hand Calculation

I calculated the shaft diameter using:

• Combined bending + torsion
• Von Mises failure theory

The overhung distance (distance between wheel center and nearest bearing center) is:

30 mm

Using hand calculations, I obtained:

• Required shaft diameter = 9.13 mm

For safety and manufacturability, I selected:

• Final shaft diameter = 12 mm

My ANSYS Boundary Condition Plan

Now I am trying to validate the shaft using static structural analysis in ANSYS, but I am confused about the correct boundary conditions.

My current plan is:

Loads Applied

1. Apply radial load on the wheel mounting face
2. Apply driving torque on the wheel face

Supports Planned

1. Fixed Support

At the opposite end of the shaft, I was planning to use:

• Fixed support

2. Cylindrical Support

At the bearing locations, I was planning to apply:

• Cylindrical support

with:

• Radial direction = fixed
• Axial direction = free
• Tangential direction = free

My Doubt

Is this boundary condition setup mechanically correct for simulating a shaft supported by bearings in a differential drive robot?

Or should I:

• avoid fixed support entirely?
• use cylindrical supports at both bearings only?
• constrain axial motion at only one bearing?
• model bearings differently?

Thanks.

Hey r/fea (or anyone with relevant connections),

I'm a computational engineer wrapping up my PhD (defense planned late 2026) and actively looking for roles in the Stuttgart/Baden-Württemberg area. I have a valid work permit so no visa sponsorship needed.

My background in short: 6+ years building multiphysics FEM simulation software in C++17/20, HPC parallelization (MPI, OpenMP, CUDA), Python automation pipelines, and numerical solver development. I've also done personal projects in C++ GUI using QT, performance profiling, and open-source scientific library contributions (deal.II, gmsh). Internship at Schaeffler AG in automotive dynamics simulation.

The kinds of roles I'm looking for:

Simulation software engineer / CAE developer / Berechnungsingenieur

HPC / research software engineer

Scientific computing / numerical methods developer

C++ software developer in engineering/physics domains

I'm open to defence, automotive, energy, manufacturing, aerospace and research institute environments.

If you work in any of these spaces or know someone who does or if you've navigated a similar job search in this region, I'd genuinely appreciate any pointers, referrals, or even just knowing which companies are actually hiring right now vs. just posting ads that go nowhere.

Happy to connect with you and any help that you might offer.

Thanks in advance.

I am about to perform a random vibration analysis on an trailer.

The excitation spectrum is given in a guideline. This guideline provides different excitation spectra for different vehicles, e.g.:

- (A) Applies to handling and transport by rail, river, sea, air, and road using suitable vehicles on well-maintained roads.

- (B) includes the conditions in the above case, as well as road transport involving the use of unsuitable vehicles and/or poor road conditions, and the handling of trolleys without suspension

As I understand from this definition the guideline provides excitation spectra for products, that are transported in e.g. a vehicle and not for the vehicle itself. Is it still plausible to use the given excitation spectrum as FEA-ready spectrum for my PSD analysis.

If so, do I need to consider local damping of the axes or is this already implicitly considered in the type of the given spectrum (suitable/unsuitable vehicle and good/poor roads)?

A footnote also says: "Low-frequency vibrations occur as part of the noise-like vibrations caused by the suspension systems of land vehicles.", which makes me further believe, that these spectra are not really suitable for a vehicle itself.

I am just trying to get my head around it.

For anyone interested, the given spectrum is the 2M5 spectrum defined in EN IEC 60721-3-2:2018.

For my masters thesis, I am working with FeBio to simulate the knee joint. Does anyone have experience with this software and can help ?

And would it better to just use Abaqus since it might have more documentation/tutorials ?

Just curious on peoples thoughts regarding the strength and weaknesses of tools they’ve used? Examples would be helpful if willing to share.

I prefer Ansys, Abaqus, and Simlab with a bias toward Ansys workflow due to the easy integrations via Workbench. Sure it make some assumptions that upset some people despite being able to change them and yeah… APDL commands are less than ideal but I can work notable faster in that environment than others.

What are people’s thoughts on Ansys versus say Hypermesh, Abaqus, Nastran?

Hello my dear engineering folks,

What do you think is the scope for freelancing as an FEA Engineer, even just for meshing or a complete report preparation with final results.

Is there a scope for this ?

I have 5 years of experience in CAE for FEA, currently working in service company that provides solution to other clients.

Curious to hear from anyone, what was the last mesh that took way longer than it should have? What tool, what went wrong, and what finally fixed it (if anything did)?

Asking because I'm a high schooler looking into meshing pain points for my project, and I'm honestly just trying to hear about what commonly breaks for diverse applications. Thank you so much!

So as the title shows, I am looking forward to finding work in the US, but I keep seeing in positions that the collegiate should be from an accredited university or college.

I currently have an engineering degree in a non ABET university and will have my masters in science degree soon (after my thesis) also in a non ABET accredited university (although its undergrad counterpart is ABET acc, I dont think it matters)

I've read that you can substitute it with an FE exam which I also need to qualify into.

My question is will I have a very hard time even if I get some years of experience in my home country? It's still probably a few years before migrating (family based) and what are my options in preparation?

Thank you!

Hey,

I am using RBE3 Elements with Nastran with FEMAP as Pre-post processor.

I am using it as a load equilized and have learned a way for it to work. I anyone wants, I can help you.

My next target: to learn to use it in nested form, as in connecting one RBE3 with another RBE3, I am struggling with stabalising the model once I connect an RBE3 with an existing RBE3.

the independent nodes are connected to each other and not the structure. Let me know if anyone can help. Thanks

I'm modeling two C Beams that has a 10 ton force right in the middle, also with a reinforcement piece in the middle. I want to model this system with a very refined meshing. What I'm doing is:

1.- In Design Modeler I used the split tool to create bodies with a "sweepable" shape.

2.- In Design Modeler, I create a new part for each beam, also I used the "Shared Topology" tool to create a better match between elements and nodes. I also use the "imprint" setting.

3.- In Ansys Workbench I see that every body has the right contacts, all set as bonded.

4._ I create the force (98.1 kN) in a small body that I created to simulate a point force. The beam has a length of 0.75 m, and this element is only 5 mm.

5.- I create the supports (cylindrical).

6.- Then I used sweep methods and edge sizing to get hex elements. I was tought that these are the better elements for "cubic" bodies.

So here is the thing: As I create the meshing "upgrade" the simulation stops running. I get the error of the image. As it is a unkown error, I open the Solution Information and I read the next error:

*** ERROR ***                           ELAPSED TIME =       6.544   TIME= 23:05:36
 The behavior of target elements (e.g.  46005, 46004) specified by real 
 constant 129 are not consistent.  Some of the elements belong to a     
 rigid surface, while others belong to a deformable surface.  If        
 intended to be a deformable pair, ensure that each target element has  
 full association (shares all the nodes) with the underlying solid      
 element.                                                               
 *WARNING*: The program could not find attached solid element for       
 contact element 45896.  Check the element connectivity data.           

 *** ERROR ***                           ELAPSED TIME =       6.562   TIME= 23:05:36
 Target element 45977 belongs to rigid target surface, while an         
 underlying element was found.  If intended to be a deformable pair,    
 ensure that each target element has full association (shares all the   
 nodes) with the underlying solid element.  

I don't understand what is going on. This is for my grad project, and I just wante the finest simulation as I can get.

I asked and AI and suggested me to supress the contacts that generates the error. I did and it created another error. Then suggested me to change the configuration of those contacts:

Formulation: MPC

Behavior: Symmetric

It don't work. I'm getting frustrated. I just want to finish my project and get my engineer degree. I would appreciate any help in order to get my simulation running.

Images of the actual simulation.

https://preview.redd.it/3ciua99vj81h1.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&s=c610f11b66ff7c978e55fea04a6360a784f1db9c

https://preview.redd.it/eg36ijxxj81h1.png?width=1355&format=png&auto=webp&s=eeab65f10cdb0222abad79042fc275b21c0d5565

https://preview.redd.it/jcps0f84k81h1.png?width=514&format=png&auto=webp&s=00a48e9a5eda9f89bd5523c62c85fb915beb7670

https://preview.redd.it/cel38o39k81h1.png?width=927&format=png&auto=webp&s=a0df7e9ef241e7b4a94f8a53e7be0a6ad57698bc

Buenas chicos, hoy me he encontrado con un problema en el trabajo. Estoy intentando hacer un modelo donde una orejeta macho unido mediante un bulon a unas orejetas hembra se carga, en primer lugar con una carga horizontal/axial y luego con una carga vertical. El modelo tiene una serie de tornillos 3D con pretension que atan dos placas que evitan que se abra la orejeta hembra. Estas cargas las divido en tres STEPs:

- Pretension

- Carga axial

- Carga vertical

Para los dos primeros steps tengo restringido 13456 la SURFACE donde se aplica la carga. Obviamente la carga se aplica en 2 en el step 2. Para el step 3 libero el grado de libertad 3 para poder aplicar la carga pero aquí viene el problema.

Para la pretension utilizo *PRE-TENSION SECTION en los tornillos. Luego en el step 2 utilizo *BOUNDARY, FIXED para fijar la pretension del step 1 y que no desaparezca. El problema viene en el step2 que para poder eliminar el grado de libertad tengo que usar *BOUNDARY, OP=NEW y reescribirlas todas. Cuando haces eso ya no puedes volver a usar fixed, y evidentemente se destensa el modelo en el tercer step.

¿Como hago para mantener la pretension en ese step? Tengo varias ideas, como medir la deformación del nodo de la pretensión en el primer step y meterselo en el step 3 como desplazamiento forzado, o volver a meter la carga de pretensión ya que a medida que se descarga, se vuelve a cargar con la pretension que le meto.

Estoy en regimen No lineal, y los 3 steps son mandatory

Gracias chicos.

Asking the professionals out there what their preference is for FEM SW.

Our company uses ANSYS and the price gouging is getting out of hand. However I know the capabilities and I've seen the warts. Primarily using

Static structural, transient, harmonic, random vibe & motion.

The other option is SC3D.

Where do you stand?

View Poll