Simulation > Verification Models for Creo Simulation Live > Benchmark Cases—Creo Simulation Live
  
Benchmark Cases—Creo Simulation Live
The following benchmark cases compare results of specific problems for ANSYS Discovery Live and Creo Simulation Live. All the benchmark cases are run on a machine with an NVIDIA Quadro P4000 graphics card.
Modal Analysis of a Robot Arm
Problem Statement: Consider a steel robot arm assembly with a fixed base. Calculate the first three natural frequencies and mode shapes of the assembly.
Material Properties
Boundary Conditions
Young’s modulus E = 2e11 Pa
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3
Fixed support
Results—Simulation quality slider at maximum position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Mode 1 Frequency, Hz
18.4
18.4
0.0
Mode 2 Frequency, Hz
24.2
24.2
0.0
Mode 3 Frequency, Hz
35.5
35.4
0.3
The following graph shows the convergence of Mode 1 vs the value of the simulation quality slider (fidelity):
Results—Simulation quality slider at default position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Mode 1 Frequency, Hz
20.3
20.3
0.0
Mode 2 Frequency, Hz
25.7
25.7
0.0
Mode 3 Frequency, Hz
39.1
39.1
0.0
Modal Analysis of a Printed Circuit Board
Problem Statement: Consider a printed circuit board assembly with fixed supports. The PCB is made of FR4 and all other components are assumed to have the properties of epoxy. Calculate the first three natural frequencies and mode shapes of the printed circuit board assembly.
Material Properties
Boundary Conditions
FR4
Young’s modulus E = 1.1e10 Pa
Density ⍴= 1900 kg/m​3
Poisson’s ratio ν= 0.28
Epoxy
Young’s modulus E = 1.1e9 Pa
Density ⍴ = 950 kg/m
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.42
Fixed support on five support holes as shown in the figure below.
Result Comparison—Simulation quality slider at maximum position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Mode 1 Frequency, Hz
301.7
302
0.10
Mode 2 Frequency, Hz
618.1
618
0.02
Mode 3 Frequency, Hz
824
825
0.12
The following graph shows the convergence of of Mode 1 vs the resolution size
Result Comparison—Simulation quality slider at default position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Mode 1 Frequency, Hz
335.5
334.8
0.20
Mode 2 Frequency, Hz
688.3
688.3
0.00
Mode 3 Frequency, Hz
918.3
916.9
0.15
Static Loading of a Bracket
Problem Statement: Consider the static loading of an aluminium bracket. The loading consists of an applied load of 200 N and two fixed supports. Calculate the maximum tip displacement and maximum equivalent stress in the rear cut-out of the part as a function of the position of the Fidelity slider in both Discovery Live and Creo Simulation Live.
Material Properties
Boundary Conditions
Loading
Young’s modulus E = 7.1 E10 Pa
Density ⍴= 1900 kg/m​3
Poisson’s ratio ν= 0.33
Two fixed supports as shown in the figure above
200N as shown in the figure above.
Results—Tip Displacement with the simulation quality slider at the maximum position.
Fidelity Slider Position (Percentage)
Displacement—m
ANSYS Discovery Live
Displacement—m
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
0
1.138E-04
1.034E-04
10.017
25
1.104E-04
1.060E-04
4.150
50
1.101E-04
1.051E-04
4.778
75
1.103E-04
1.072E-04
2.881
100
1.102E-04
1.074E-04
2.618
The following is a graph of the maximum tip displacement with the simulation quality slider at different positions
Results—Equivalent Stress in the rear cut-out with the simulation quality slider at different position.
Fidelity Slider Position (Percentage)
Stress MPa
ANSYS Discovery Live
Stress MPa
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
0
13.44
15.18
11.454
25
17.06
16.61
2.727
50
17.93
17.03
5.305
75
19.12
19.04
0.434
100
18.25
18.58
1.763
The following is a graph of the equivalent stress in the rear cut out with the simulation quality slider at different positions
Static Loading of a Rocker Arm Assembly
Problem Statement: Consider the static loading of a rocker arm assembly with variable fillet radii. The loading consists of an applied load of 600 N, a frictionless and a fixed support. Calculate the maximum equivalent stress.
Boundary Conditions
Loading
1–Frictionless constraint
2–Fixed support
600 N as shown in the figure
Results for maximum equivalent stress with the simulation quality slider at the maximum position
Stress MPa
ANSYS Discovery Live
Stress MPa
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
132.24
127.46
3.61
Heat Transfer in a Package/Heat Sink Assembly
Problem Statement: Consider the steady-state heat transfer of an aluminium heat sink, thermal interface layer and package assembly. The package generates 5 Watts of power and the outer surfaces of the heat sink have a convection boundary condition with a heat transfer coefficient of 5 W/m^2 degree C and fluid bulk temperature of 20 degree C. Calculate the maximum temperature in the aluminium heat sink and the maximum temperature in the assembly for a steady-state condition.
Material Properties
Boundary Conditions
Aluminium, K = 148.62 W/m degree C
TIM, K = 24 W/m degree C
Package, K = 2 W/m degree C
Package Heat Flow = 5 W
Heat Transfer Coefficient = 5 W/m^2 degree C
Fluid Bulk Temperature = 20 degree C
Results —Max Temperature with the simulation quality slider at default position
Results —Max Temperature with the simulation quality slider at default position
Results —Max Temperature with the simulation quality slider at default position
Results —Max Temperature with the simulation quality slider at default position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Max Temperature Heat Sink, C
42.46
42.42
0.1
Max Temperature, C
58.01
57.97
0.07
Results —Max Temperature with the simulation quality slider at maximum position
Results
ANSYS Discovery Live
Creo Simulation Live
Percent Difference
Max Temperature Heat Sink, C
41.34
41.29
0.13
Max Temperature, C
54.73
54.67
0.1