A structural result is useful when a reviewer can identify the design and assumptions behind it. Keep the CAD revision, analysis inputs and physical test configuration together as an evidence package. When the design changes, review which conclusions still apply before reusing an earlier plot.
Why the revision link matters
In its September 2005 ThinkPad Z60 announcement, Dassault Systèmes described CATIA V5's role in designing an internal magnesium protective cage. The announcement supplies historical design context, but no reproducible loads, mesh or physical-test dataset. A present-day analysis decision needs those records for its own product.
For an enclosure review, start with the exact CAD and assembly revisions, the decision to be made, and the output that answers it: deflection at a connector, stress in a defined region or another agreed quantity. Set the acceptance rule with the responsible engineer before examining the result.
Preserve the complete analysis package
On narrow screens, scroll the table horizontally. Keyboard users can focus it and use the arrow keys.
| Item | Record | Change requiring review |
|---|---|---|
| Geometry and assembly | CAD revision, simplifications, contacts and fasteners | Wall, rib, opening, joint or attachment changes. |
| Material | Grade, condition, property source, temperature and model | Substitution, processing or operating-temperature changes. |
| Loads and constraints | Magnitude, units, direction, locations and physical justification | New supports, load path, mass or boundary conditions. |
| Numerical setup | Software version, element/model choices, mesh and solver controls | Different formulation, mesh, nonlinear assumptions or convergence behavior. |
| Validation | Specimen identity, fixture, measurement method and raw data | Physical configuration or test condition differs from the modeled case. |
Save input files and solver logs beside the result, with a stable run identifier. Document suppressed features and why they can be omitted for the selected output. A model made easier to solve still needs to represent the question being asked.
Check numerical sensitivity and physical agreement
Ansys Mechanical 2024 R2 convergence documentation describes successive mesh refinement and result comparison, with limits on supported analyses. Select a refinement study appropriate to the actual solver and quantity. A stable result under mesh changes addresses numerical sensitivity; material and boundary-condition assumptions need separate evidence.
Close the design change with an explicit decision
For a proposed rib change, identify the baseline and candidate revisions and repeat the affected load cases. Compare the same output locations, units and scales. A moved peak or changed contact state may require a new interpretation even when the plot looks similar.
Record the engineering conclusion, supported conditions, unresolved discrepancies and approver. If the physical specimen differs from the model, either reconcile the configuration or state the narrower conclusion. Use CAD review context for shared viewing and PLM change control to retain the approved evidence with the released design.
Use the working record
Download the editable working record. It includes the task-specific fields, instructions, fictional example and source references needed to preserve the evidence behind a decision. Complete it with the people responsible for the actual process.