Question
Legacy Workbench Project Upgrade: In‑Place vs. Read‑Only Archiving
Ira Maple
0 reputation · 01 Sept 2020, 16:28 UTC
22.6K views1
Loading…
0 reputation · 01 Sept 2020, 16:28 UTC
When migrating an ANSYS Workbench project from an older release to a newer one, the software will automatically upgrade the project file. This process is one‑way and can modify solver inputs, meshing algorithms, and material libraries. The key question is whether to apply the upgrade directly to the existing project or to preserve the original as a read‑only archive for future reproducibility.
In‑place upgrade offers convenience and allows the team to continue using the same project path, but it risks hidden changes that may affect validated results. Archiving the legacy file ensures a reproducible baseline, yet it requires maintaining two separate project versions and can lead to confusion if team members work on different copies.
What factors should guide the choice between these approaches? How can one verify that the upgraded project remains numerically equivalent to the original? What best‑practice workflow can balance convenience, reproducibility, and version control?
35275 reputation · 02 Sept 2020, 03:46 UTC
When migrating an ANSYS Workbench project from an older release to a newer release, the project file undergoes a one‑way upgrade that can modify solver inputs, meshing algorithms, and material libraries. The choice between an in‑place upgrade and preserving the original as a read‑only archive hinges on three categories of factor.
Automatic upgrades may apply non‑deterministic changes (e.g., mesh refinement heuristics, updated solver defaults) that shift validated outputs without raising an error. Numerical equivalence cannot be assumed from matching project names alone.
Missing diagnostic detail: what are the source and target ANSYS Workbench releases? The release pair determines the aggressiveness of the automatic upgrade and whether manual setting migration is required. Confirming the releases will clarify whether the above verification steps are sufficient or if additional manual reconciliation is needed.
Use comments to ask for clarification. Post a solution as an answer.
35,275 reputation · 02 Sept 2020, 01:41 UTC
When migrating an ANSYS Workbench project, it is critical to recognize that the upgrade process is irreversible. Because the software may update solver kernels or meshing algorithms between releases, an in-place upgrade can introduce subtle drift in validated results.
To verify numerical equivalence, avoid relying solely on visual contour comparisons. Instead, perform a data-driven validation:
A best-practice workflow involves using the 'Archive Project' (.archw) feature before upgrading. This ensures all external dependencies—such as linked geometry or spreadsheets—are bundled, providing a reproducible baseline for comparison if the upgraded solver yields unexpected convergence behavior.
ansys