Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
What is Ansys and Ansys workbench? 3
- Thread starter raju3444
- Start date
-
1
- #2
bagarbilla
Mechanical
ANSYS is the mother application, workbench is the eye candy version of Structural Analysis. with some more modeling tools than the mother application. u can say tht Workbench is b/w 3D modeling and ANSYS mother application.
i suggest if u have a little resilience to learning irritation, go fr ANSYS, and not workbench.
i suggest if u have a little resilience to learning irritation, go fr ANSYS, and not workbench.
Workbench is much more user friendly and easier to learn than ANSYS Classic. Although ANSYS Classic has more complex features, Workbench is better for most applications.
For in depth research and complex applications, use ANSYS Classic.
For everything else there's Workbench.
For in depth research and complex applications, use ANSYS Classic.
For everything else there's Workbench.
- Thread starter
- #4
-
2
- #5
I would disagree that Workbench is better for most applications. As always, you have to choose the right tools for the job in hand.
Workbench is heavily geometry driven: it will seamlessly interface with most CAD packages (Pro/E, UG et al) and provide geometry associativity and bi-directional interfacing. In English, that means you can develop geometry in the CAD package and provide a "link" between the geometry in CAD and ANSYS Workbench. You run both Workbench and the CAD application/s side-by-side and if any changes are made to the geometry in CAD you can update within Workbench on the fly - reasonable changes to the geometry will mean that if you meshed and set up your loads in Workbench, you can update the geometry in CAD and then update the model in Workbench with these changes on the fly.
Workbench is still being developed, but it now has most of the significant features available that ANSYS has, and has a better mesher in my opinion. Workbench also has a nice friendly interface, which is designed to be almost idiot proof (not sure this is a good thing).
So, Workbench or ANSYS? I personally always use ANSYS, but that's because I always model bottom up. There are pros and cons for each, and without knowing the details it's hard to give you specific guidelines. If your job is relatively simple (simple loads, for example) and you are dealing with 3D geometry (although 1D and 2D features are improving) then consider Workbench. Otherwise in the long run you may want to consider using ANSYS which, as mentioned, gives you access to all complex features (if your licence will allow).
------------
See faq569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com
Workbench is heavily geometry driven: it will seamlessly interface with most CAD packages (Pro/E, UG et al) and provide geometry associativity and bi-directional interfacing. In English, that means you can develop geometry in the CAD package and provide a "link" between the geometry in CAD and ANSYS Workbench. You run both Workbench and the CAD application/s side-by-side and if any changes are made to the geometry in CAD you can update within Workbench on the fly - reasonable changes to the geometry will mean that if you meshed and set up your loads in Workbench, you can update the geometry in CAD and then update the model in Workbench with these changes on the fly.
Workbench is still being developed, but it now has most of the significant features available that ANSYS has, and has a better mesher in my opinion. Workbench also has a nice friendly interface, which is designed to be almost idiot proof (not sure this is a good thing).
So, Workbench or ANSYS? I personally always use ANSYS, but that's because I always model bottom up. There are pros and cons for each, and without knowing the details it's hard to give you specific guidelines. If your job is relatively simple (simple loads, for example) and you are dealing with 3D geometry (although 1D and 2D features are improving) then consider Workbench. Otherwise in the long run you may want to consider using ANSYS which, as mentioned, gives you access to all complex features (if your licence will allow).
------------
See faq569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com
- Thread starter
- #6
Does it mean that in future it will be Ansys workbench only as like Catia V4 is stopped and V5 is developed. So if start learning now is it better to learn Ansys Classic or workbenches.
Is there much difference between older version like 5.6 and new Ansys Classic version I m finding little difficult to do the exercies with old material and new V11.0 software.
Thanks,
raj.
Is there much difference between older version like 5.6 and new Ansys Classic version I m finding little difficult to do the exercies with old material and new V11.0 software.
Thanks,
raj.
ANSYS are staying pretty tight-lipped about phasing out ANSYS altogether with Workbench. They have a massive challenge if they want to do that as far as I'm concerned, since ANSYS is so well grounded amongst analysts (founded 1972-ish) and within engineering companies themselves. As far as I'm concerned, I don't ever see the need to use Workbench given the type of work that I do, and particularly with regards to the QA/visibility problems that Workbench gives (e.g. it is pretty difficult to check someone's work given solely a Workbench database, whereas given an ANSYS input deck written in APDL, the whole picture is in front of you - this is something I queried with ANSYS some years ago and am still waiting...).
You would do yourself no harm in learning ANSYS first (particularly the structure of the code) since Workbench uses the same engine and solver. There is a great deal of difference between 5.6 and v12.0 (soon to be released) in terms of solver/element/multiphysics capability - but if you're using v11.0 you can still get access to the tutorials within ANSYS Help to get you started.
------------
See faq569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com
You would do yourself no harm in learning ANSYS first (particularly the structure of the code) since Workbench uses the same engine and solver. There is a great deal of difference between 5.6 and v12.0 (soon to be released) in terms of solver/element/multiphysics capability - but if you're using v11.0 you can still get access to the tutorials within ANSYS Help to get you started.
------------
See faq569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com
Hi,
in addition to what Drej said, I also think that starting with ANSYS "Classical" will lead to a very easy and fast "shift" to Workbench when needed, and it will give you a thorough understanding on how ANSYS "thinks". The vice-versa is not, in my opinion, true.
As a backside, ANSYS' plans are to incorporate ALL the capabilities of "Classical" into Workbench. When we were still on v.9, plans seemed to place this "turnover" into v.12. Now v.12 is behind the corner, and most likely it will not shutdown "Classical". But the indications are clear: no more development of the Constructive Solid Geometry part of "Classical", and ALL the developments in solvers and elements technology will be "targeted" to Workbench.
AFAIK, ANSYS wants to keep full support of the APDL language in Workbench through the "Commands Snippets", though the Java-based routine/macro programming should be further and further developed.
Regards
in addition to what Drej said, I also think that starting with ANSYS "Classical" will lead to a very easy and fast "shift" to Workbench when needed, and it will give you a thorough understanding on how ANSYS "thinks". The vice-versa is not, in my opinion, true.
As a backside, ANSYS' plans are to incorporate ALL the capabilities of "Classical" into Workbench. When we were still on v.9, plans seemed to place this "turnover" into v.12. Now v.12 is behind the corner, and most likely it will not shutdown "Classical". But the indications are clear: no more development of the Constructive Solid Geometry part of "Classical", and ALL the developments in solvers and elements technology will be "targeted" to Workbench.
AFAIK, ANSYS wants to keep full support of the APDL language in Workbench through the "Commands Snippets", though the Java-based routine/macro programming should be further and further developed.
Regards
- Thread starter
- #11
Thanks you guys for you valuable inputs. In the past 2 weeks I have seen Classic version and Workbench. I like working in Classic. As Drej mentioned workbench is idiot proof then it doesn't seem like working like an engineer. the more simple it become working would be less interesting.
I would like to know the comment of the experts.
Regards,
raj
I would like to know the comment of the experts.
Regards,
raj
bagarbilla
Mechanical
"As Drej mentioned workbench is idiot proof then it doesn't seem like working like an engineer."
So engineers work like idiots
... lol !!
I like ANSYS classic too ..
So engineers work like idiots
... lol !!I like ANSYS classic too ..
Hi,
IMHO you will have to know both. Starting with Classical makes sense, but I'd switch to WB as soon as you have an understanding of how Ansys "reasons" and "works". You could then come back to Classical for whichever problem WB can't (still?) handle, but it will also be interesting to see the differences (for example, the meshers), and how you can "incorporate" Classical capabilities INTO Workbench via APDL snippets... The solvers are the exact same in both environments, so it's trivial that the "potentialities" are exactly the same, in the end...
Regards
IMHO you will have to know both. Starting with Classical makes sense, but I'd switch to WB as soon as you have an understanding of how Ansys "reasons" and "works". You could then come back to Classical for whichever problem WB can't (still?) handle, but it will also be interesting to see the differences (for example, the meshers), and how you can "incorporate" Classical capabilities INTO Workbench via APDL snippets... The solvers are the exact same in both environments, so it's trivial that the "potentialities" are exactly the same, in the end...
Regards
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question