Best Of

Hi @YHJ,

Here, let's think of the period of activation T = 1 / Fs. The buffer is receiving an input every T seconds and storing it. Its activation port "O" is activated with a downsampled signal (it gets activated every every N samples) and, when activated, it outputs all stored contents as a column vector.

The whole column vector is used as input for the PSD superblock.

Have a look at this simplified example, which I've also attached as a model:

A new value gets loaded into the buffer every second and, every 3 seconds, output is updated to be all contents of the buffer at once (in this case, buffer length is 3).

Rafael

Hi @Mr_Urban

Have you tried this tutorial? Is this similar to what you're looking for?

https://help.altair.com/hwsolvers/os/topics/solvers/os/topology_optimization_multi_material_chassis_example_r.htm?zoom_highlight=Topology+optimization

Hi @Joe_Ji0729 ,

Here are some tips:

1. Do I need to consider the thickness of the PCB in the model (using Cuboid instead of Rectangle)?> You can model the substrate using a cuboid and assigning to it the proper dielectric material and thickness. You can then solve using the SEP method.
2. Do I have to include the ground plane and the through holes in the model? How?> You can for instance define the lower surface of the cuboid as PEC, to model a ground plane. You can create the holes by first creating cylinders, then subtracting them from the substrate cuboid using the Construct > Modify > Subtract From feature.
3. How can I model the loads (Z38, Z36, Z35, Z37)? The schematic is also attached.You can add passive elements to you model by creating ports and adding corresponding loads using Source/Load > Loads/Network group > Add Load. I see though that you have loads with 0 ohms of value, so you do not need to model them actually.

For the model construction you can check out these examples that would help you see the steps of building the patch antenna part: Microstip Patch Antenna

Best,

Zeina

Hi @RolandJones

It's very kind of you to help me.

Best,

Thuy An

Hi @jc_794,

Although the query is related to the precision values settings in EDEM, it would be worthwhile to understand the precision settings in HyperStudy as well.

Under the 'File>Preferences' option, one can set the 'Display precision' (as shown below) in HyperStudy.

It might be helpful for your requirement. You can let us know if it was helpful.

Many thanks.

Kind Regards

Garima Singh

Hi, its good to look at the accuracy and repeatability of the results in any simulation (or experimental case as I don't expect this outcome is just related to simulation results). Just to confirm you fixed the particle positions and the size distribution with the 0.3,0.3,0.8 input and saw the same results in HyperStudy and EDEM, did you also do the same with 0.302,0.302,0.8 case?

It's worth highlighting that all HyperStudy is doing is calling the same EDEM executable so any difference in results is just due to running EDEM twice, independent really of how it's called. The variation in angle output seems reasonable for me given the test. The Inclined Plane test and also the Angle of Repose test are good tests but are not that accurate, especially at lower particle numbers. The are accessible tests and commonly used, they give good practical results but it's always good to look at the repeatability of the test.

If you have the same material properties and same size distribution but randomise the starting position (default EDEM factories have random positions) of the particles I would expect you to get a range of output angles for the same material properties, at a guess this would be around 1 degree accuracy but could see a greater variation than that.

Aside from the test if all the inputs to the simulation are identical (properties, size distribution, particle starting positions) you should expect repeatable results. Assuming we are discussing Double precision (GPU has different precision modes, link below) then the results should be the same within 16 significant figures, but this is only if the simulation is always run on the same hardware. A Intel CPU, AMD CPU, Nvidia GPU all may use different mathematical libraries which influence precision, also A+B does not always = B+A when considering the results to 16 significant figures and then a small variation in results at this level can result in 'larger' differences for a discrete system that is doing the same calculation millions of times for thousands or millions of particles. This doesn't mean the calculation lacks precision but may lack repeatability in some cases.

However I don't think it is a case of precision but the inclined plate test is only accurate or repeatable within a specific error bound, and running a few tests with random starting positions of the particles should help find what this error bound is.

Hi Shyam,

I believe it's following the method outlined in:

Parteli, Eric & Schmidt, Jochen & Blümel, Christina & Wirth, Karl-Ernst & Peukert, Wolfgang & Pöschel, Thorsten. (2014). Attractive particle interaction forces and packing density of fine glass powders. Scientific reports. 4. 6227. 10.1038/srep06227.

Hi @Sivaprakash_V ,

For the machinery tools extension, you need to download separately. For 2024.1, you can download it from here:

Best,

Christopher Fadanelli