No grid needed, predictions in seconds. Jiying 2.0-s is now live, predicting displacement, strain, and stress for 3D linear elastic problems. Visit jiying.io to try it online

From handwritten equations to modern supercomputers, we continue to explore how computation can help us understand the physical world.
What if every simulation could accumulate into knowledge, helping us understand the next entirely new design?
Today, Jiyng Technology's physics foundation model, JIYING 2.0-s, is officially launched. With a short film, we share our answer.
▼ Click to watch the launch video
[Insert launch video]
Physics simulation allows us to validate designs before manufacturing. Yet within vast amounts of simulation data lies physical laws that can be learned and transferred.
The core of JIYING 2.0-s is generalization.
Enable the model to learn from existing physical data, apply the learned laws to new engineering problems, and make past computations the foundation for the next prediction.
New geometry. New loads. New materials.
One model.
No mesh required. Second-level prediction.
We hope to enable engineers to validate an idea faster and explore more design possibilities with greater ease.
From geometry, to physics.
Let machines understand physics.
Visit jiying.tech to learn about JIYING 2.0-s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glypJMj757g

I have released an early Windows CAE utility called CrashLens Reporter.

It batch-processes exported LS-DYNA result folders and generates structured PDF and Excel reports for comparing simulation runs.

The current version supports exported ASCII, CSV, and XY-style result files. It does not directly read binary d3plot or binout files yet.

I would appreciate feedback from CAE/FEA users on which outputs and metrics should be prioritised next.

Examples:

- GLSTAT

- MATSUM

- RCFORC

- SPCFORC

- NODOUT

- SECFORC

Product/demo pages:

https://payhip.com/b/1BkPG

https://payhip.com/b/M9QVz

CrashLens Reporter is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ansys.

Hello everyone,

I’m currently working on a thrust ball bearing simulation using Abaqus (implicit dynamics), and I’m encountering significant oscillations in the contact force (CFNM). I’d like to ask for advice on how to reduce or eliminate these oscillations.

🔧 Model Overview:

• Analysis type: Implicit dynamic analysis

• Simulation time: 0.01 second

• Material: All parts are steel with elastic–plastic behavior and I add some density + damping

• Ball settings: The balls are modeled as rigid bodies

• Contact pair: Balls and inner ring

• Contact formulation:

  • Surface-to-surface

  • Hard contact (normal behavior)

  • Friction coefficient: 0.2

  • Contact damping factor: 0.2

📌 Boundary and Loading Conditions:

• The balls rotate around the inner raceway (orbital motion)

• Each ball is subjected to a vertical force (toward the race)

• The raceway is fully fixed at the bottom

• Due to friction, the balls also spin around their own axes

❗ The Problem:

The CFNM (contact force in the normal direction) shows strong oscillations throughout the simulation. This instability leads to unreliable force results and makes it difficult to extract meaningful physical insights (see example plots below if needed).

✅ What I’ve Tried:

• Using soft contact (reduced oscillations, but I need to retain stiffness accuracy → hard contact is necessary)

• Applying smoothed initial loading using amplitude curves

• Mesh refinement in the contact area

• Adjusting contact damping (set to 0.2)

Unfortunately, none of these methods sufficiently reduced the oscillations.

❓ Questions:

1. Are there more effective ways to reduce or suppress contact force oscillations in implicit dynamic simulations?

2. Is my current contact damping value (0.2) too high or too low? Any empirical guidance?

Any advice, suggestions, or experience sharing would be greatly appreciated. I’m happy to provide figures or portions of the input file if helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Beam Ball FS Benchmark. 

TCAE is a simulation environment for comprehensive CFD, FEA + FSI, and optimization in a single workflow. Take a look at the study of the Beam-Ball FSI benchmark. This study is unique, because the exact solution can be evaluated analytically, and the analytical solution can be compared with the simulation results. The particular goal of this study is to investigate and compare the deformation of a beam with a ball at its end, stressed by the airflow. 

Full Case Study (download available):

https://www.cfdsupport.com/beam-ball-FSI-benchmark.html  

PDF:

https://www.cfdsupport.com/download/TCAE-CFDSUPPORT-Beam-Ball-FSI-Benchmark.pdf

A forum category to discuss and exchange information, ideas, and knowledge related to the context of FEA and FSI. The goal of this category is to serve as a community of users, developers, and experts who interact and collaborate on various aspects of the software, such as usage, development, bug fixing, and feature requests. Joining this discussion group is a great way to learn from others and stay updated on the latest developments in open-source FEA and FSI. Specifically using Calculix but not exclusively.