CFDシミュレーション (和訳例)

Development of a high-throughput fine line metallization process using CFD simulation




To demonstrate the development of a centrally fed parallel dispensing system by means of analytical and numerical fluid simulation




To study the novel parallel high-precision fine line dispensing unit currently in development at Fraunhofer ISE




Rheological data from highly viscous, shear thinning, yield stress metal pastes used for thick film metallization approaches in photovoltaics were fed into a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation tool.




Rheological behavior of two different non-Newtonian, yield stress dispensing pastes was compared with that of water in terms of their laminar pipe flow profile.




Different nozzle geometries were analyzed using a commercial CFD simulation tool with respect to the evolution of pressure, pressure gradient, velocity, and shear rate distribution.




A prototype parallel dispensing unit containing ten nozzles was designed and optimized using the same tool until a homogeneous paste distribution to all nozzles was ensured.




The influence of fabrication tolerances, especially those related to nozzle diameter, was isolated and a suitable fabrication process was chosen.




Process optimization using a single nozzle approach led to an average finger width below 35 μm.

単一のノズルを用いた加工の最適化法ではフィンガー幅の平均が35 μm未満になった。



A detailed analysis of the process stability of parallel-dispensed cells will be given in a future study.



Logotypes of official company names, as well as all-purpose company name logotypes, are specifically designed to harmonize with other design elements. Horizontal and vertical layouts in Japanese and English version are available.
Logotypes of official company names should be re-produced through the use of digital data.

Isolation guidelines are set in consideration of the relationship to other design elements. This rule does not apply for display designs such as signs with limited space or cases that are specially designed according to an items’ individual characteristics.

Generally, display color should be Black (K100%), or solid printing (100%) when printed in single color display setting. Reversed display may also be permitted, depending on the background color.

Other substitute fonts may also be used in cases where the designated Japanese or English fonts cannot be obtained.

Adjust the size of selected official company name logotype (English) accordingly with the purpose of usage. Adjust the width and length of the arrow line to the best balance with the display size of corporate signature.

Utilize digital data re-producing the corporate signatures indicated here, and use color samples to ensure that the colors are as similar to the basic display colors as possible.

These combination patterns show the most basic display methods applied to various items. Use these combination patterns for reference when determining the right display positions according to an item’s purpose or available space.

Do not combine any other elements other than the brand logotype with the arrow mark.

Do not place other ostentatious elements nearby, even if outside the area of isolation.

When displayed in single color, do not use improper colors (yellow, light or fluorescent colors) or colors that are low in visibility.

Do not display on a background color that contrasts poorly with the basic display colors.

Upon introducing this promotional logotype, be sure that you take utmost care in considering the best display in relation with the corporate symbol so that our brand image is not tarnished in any possible way.

However, when the above usage is desired, the Public Relations Division must be contacted beforehand.

This brand identification manual provides you with an important communication tool to convey messages of brand image accurately and effectively. To enhance corporate brand value, it is essential to understand brand meanings and launch effective long-term implementation plans.

All the printed items and elements in this Manual are not camera-ready copy. Copying and/or cutting from this Manual are prohibited.

All trade symbols, logos or markings provided in this Manual are the registered or unregistered properties of this or other companies and use of any of the above without permission is prohibited.

If you have any questions regarding the usage of the corporate symbol and other elements, be sure to contact the division in charge.

All the printed items and elements in this Manual are not camera-ready copy. Copying and/or cutting from this Manual are prohibited.

Distributing or removing this Manual from the office to render to any parties other than the authorized persons or affiliated corporations within the Group is absolutely prohibited. Should print outsourcing or lending of this Manual to contractors be necessary, a confidentiality agreement must be formed and strict control over this Manual be maintained by taking measures such as keeping a logbook to record every removal/return of this Manual.


Even if your vendor of choice has a reference architecture, understand how your environment differs from a generic reference architecture and how that may impact your performance or user

There are several common reasons enterprises choose to adopt these technologies. These include simplified management, security and compliancy, and enabling mobile work styles.

A structured project approach, combined with the correct use of the best tools available in the industry today, will help organizations that are investigating, testing, migrating and using virtualized desktop environments to design, build and manage well-performing centralized desktop infrastructures at the lowest cost possible.

Many tools are available to help. They can help make better decisions during the project phases, and to help to keep out of trouble, during the resulting production phases. But which ones to choose, and when to best use them?

Some of these decisions may have been made already if you have standardized on particular vendors for components.

In either case, it’s a complex stack of components, and changing any one of them may impact the performance of your solution.

Customers may have standardized on one for their server workloads.

This selection may be impacted by the support, performance, application compatibility, or functionality available in various versions.

For example, changing the version of Microsoft Office from 2010 to 2013 can result in up to a 20% decrease in user density.
例えば、Microsoft Officeのバージョンを2010から2013に変更すると、結果としてユーザー密度が最大20%減少する可能性がある。

Other changes, like excluding files in the base image from antivirus scans, may significantly increase density.

It’s important to keep results from previous tests and configurations to use in comparing performance to compare measurements and determine if there’s value in implementing the change.

With the results of tests before and after the change has been implemented, the next step is to decide whether to deploy the configuration change into the production environment.

If the tests indicate that the change will result in improved performance or density, the decision to deploy is an easy one.

While these can indicate how much load the host hardware is under, there’s not a direct correlation between hardware load and end user experience.

For example, monitoring might report that CPU is at 100%, but users currently on the system may not be seeing an impact in their usage.