![]() |
Search Options | |||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us | ![]() |
ACCESSION #: 9606210210 ANSYS ANSYS, Inc. 201 Johnson Road Telephone 412.746.3304 Houston, PA 15342-1300 Facsimile 412.746.9494 June 19, 1996 Thomas Greene, NRR/PECB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-11E4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ref: Accession 9601190322 Subj: Request for a Technical Review of a Draft Information Notice Regarding Erroneous Results from ANSYS 5.0A and ANSYS 5.1 Computer Codes Dear Mr. Greene: ANSYS, Inc. takes issue with the Draft Information Notice; we believe that it contains correct and misleading technical information. We do not believe this condition is reportable as described since the ANSYS numerical algorithms used in its solution are correct, The model which was developed by Holtec is an idealization which cannot be constructed in the physical world, and the results achieved by ANSYS are completely consistent with the engineering idealization and numerical methods employed. With reference to the two points described to the draft notice: 1. An explanation of this behavior was identified after Holtec's filing with the NRC, and is the agreed-upon explanation for the system-dependent solutions. Computer inaccuracy due to the idealized model and not ANSYS algorithms were the cause of the system-dependent solutions (see Holtec's fax dated June 19, 1996). 2. To date, we have not received the model which was used to generate the results you describe as item 2 (i.e. disparate results for forces and displacements are obtained depending upon the techniques employed to launch tho analysis runs). Your draft information notice was the first time we became aware of this claimed error. Therefore, we cannot review and comment on the results until an input file is made available to us. We have requested this information from Holtec and Mr. Y.S. Kim, NRR. In discussions with Holtec personnel, this behavior was never substantiated and may have been due to an aspect of their in- house submission procedure. Until we review the ANSYS inputs and techniques employed, we cannot rule out user error. illegible print Thomas Greene Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two June 19, 1996 Background A Holtec model was supplied to ANSYS, Inc. on August 7, 1995. The model had little damping in the gaps, severe nonlinearities, a path dependent solution, and a large number of small time steps, Analyses were performed using the Holtec model on two different Unix workstations which resulted in similar solutions. However, using Personal Computers the solutions were different. Recommendations were made in our October 18, 1995 letter to Holtec to modify their model so that these differences would be minimized, Those modifications resulted in a less than 5% difference in results from various Personal Computers. Further investigation of Holtec's model resulted in our realization that the reported condition was due to Holtec's model relying on perfect symmetry, The model was inherently unstable and prone to differences due to machine precision, The model's perfect symmetry resulted in symmetric and simultaneous contact with its enclosure, but only if the displacements were perfectly symmetric. A slight change in the models dimensions resolves the problem immediately and results in repeatable solutions on all platforms. Holtec now agrees that this is the phenomena which produced the differing results and that the structure they modeled could never physically exist. The way Holtec chose to model their problem made it inherently numerically unstable and prone to differences due to machine precision. The various hardware platforms on which we offer the ANSYS program have differences in the fundamental precision at which the computations are performed. Various supported hardware and operating system environments can provide as many as 80 bits of precision to 64 bits of precision. Any numerical representation with this many bits is more than sufficient for engineering accuracy in a simple linear static analysis without numerical complications. However, when hundreds of thousands, or millions of operations are repetitively performed on such numbers, the differences in final results can begin to creep up into significant digits that may be of interest to the engineer. For these reasons it is recommended that numerical sensitivity studies be performed to determine the solution sensitivity to small changes in the input. If, for instance, small changes in geometric locations (tolerances), material properties, convergence criteria or damping result in large differences in the solution output, then it is likely that tho modal or idealization is suspect. On the other hand, if small numerical changes in such input quantities have little effect on the end result, then the sensitivity of the solution to numerical precision can generally be eliminated as a concern. The Holtec problem is extremely sensitive. Thomas Greene Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Three June 19, 1996 Detailed Description of the Holtec Model The structure being analyzed is a very stiff cross-braced space frame, (approximately 70 in x 56 in x. 200 in high) represented in the transient analysis by a superelement. A superelement is a stiffness matrix representation of a linear portion of the model. In the transient, the superelement (which has no constraints of its own) is supported entirely by contact elements. At the top, 4 sets of contacts support +/- lateral motion with a gap of exactly 1.595 inches each. In reality, the structure is arbitrarily situated inside its enclosure, but the easiest way to input the 1.595 clearance is to assume a perfectly symmetric installation, The transient excitation is applied as a time-varying acceleration by using the ACEL command in the x, y and z directions. Since the structure is symmetric and the gaps are identical, the ux and uy displacements at the 4 top corner nodes are identical (for the displayed number of digits) until some small numerical difference causes one of the gaps to close at a fraction of a second before the others, The time at which this occurs is a function of the machine accuracy. It is only the high accuracy of double precision arithmetic which allows the 4 sets of contacts to close simultaneously for the first few collisions. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a simpler model as a 2 dimensional block bouncing on a flat structure. This model has been used by ANSYS to demonstrate differences caused by computer precision. We request that this information notice he put on hold until these technical issues have been resolved. We are confident that the behavior observed and reported is not an error in the ANSYS program. Sincerely, ANSYS, Inc. William J. Bryan Quality Assurance Manager cc: Holtec A. Soler ANSYS, Inc, D. Looman M. Imgrund J. Bittner D. Conover *** END OF DOCUMENT ***