> > 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 PaPoisson’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 FR4Young’s modulus E = 1.1e10 PaDensity ⍴= 1900 kg/m​3Poisson’s ratio ν= 0.28EpoxyYoung’s modulus E = 1.1e9 PaDensity ⍴ = 950 kg/mPoisson’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
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 PaDensity ⍴= 1900 kg/m​3Poisson’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—mANSYS Discovery Live Displacement—mCreo 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 MPaANSYS Discovery Live Stress MPaCreo 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