Michael Siener has a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering and experience designing and analyzing aircraft components. He currently works at the University of Cincinnati doing post-graduate work and ANSYS simulations. His resume highlights experience at Sikorsky, GE Wind Energy, Rolls-Royce, the US Air Force, and Peace Corps teaching engineering skills. Images show an ongoing gearbox analysis project in ANSYS and examples of axisymmetric and cyclic symmetric analysis techniques.

1. MICHAEL P. SIENER (RESUME PLUS SOME IMAGES)
Cincinnati, Ohio  USA
513-384-8971
mikesiener@yahoo.com
PROFILE
Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, with practical work experience in the design,
development and delivery of cost-effective solutions for aircraft as well as experience in the field
of wind energy. Exceptional ability in identifying cost-effective solutions to a wide range of
complex design/manufacturing/maintenance challenges. Now at University of Cincinnati doing
post-graduate work reestablishing engineering skills since Peace Corps. Currently use ANSYS
APDL (Classic) and ANSYS Workbench. (See education part of profile in Linkedin to see current
technical paper)
EXPERIENCE
University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati State Technical College
Reestablish engineering skills since US Peace Corps experience. At Cincinnati State learned
SolidWorks. Also employed by the college to teach Math fundamentals to machinists. Currently at
University of Cincinnati Engineering College using ANSYS and ANSYS Workbench on a daily
basis on a number of projects supplementing already extensive experience with ANSYS.
Independent study. (2013-present)
US Peace Corps
Taught Mathematics and Physics at two High Schools in Northern Uganda. (2009-2012)
Sikorsky Aircraft
Design-work and ANSYS (Both ANSYS Classic and ANSYS Workbench) stress /vibration
-resonance /buckling analysis full-time on two gearboxes, and shafting on tail rotor of Sikorsky
Ch-53 heavy-lift helicopter. A lot of contact analysis required. (2007-2009)
GE Wind Energy
Worked as Field Engineer on wind turbine blades. Main field engineer for GE-supplied wind farms
for all of North America. Troubleshoot blades problems in-the-field using proven Root Cause
Analysis (RCA) methodology. Use theoretical and analytical skills to solve issues on 110 foot long,
seven ton wind turbine blades. Used ANSYS occasionally but not every day. Directed technicians
on blade fixes (2004-2007).
Rolls-Royce Corporation
Worked as a stress analyst contract engineer contributing to the design of The LiftFan, a vertical
axis fan that aids in the vertical takeoff of the STOVL (Short Takeoff Vertical Landing) variant of
the joint strike fighter (JSF), the F-35B. Have demonstrated technical expertise in the design,

2. MICHAEL P. SIENER
Cincinnati, Ohio  USA
513-384-8971
mikesiener@yahoo.com
(continued)
analysis of components. Developed strong qualifications in analytical engineering, prototype
development, structural analysis and design of Liftfan components for the JSF. Performed finite
element analysis on component prototypes in the process of design optimization. Presented and
demonstrated prototype designs. Extensive experience in rotating structural analysis using ANSYS
APDL (Classic). Significant usage of contact elements required. (2002-2004)
U.S. Peace Corps
Taught Mathematics and Physics to high school students in Kenya. Developed courses, created
lesson plans that were adapted to fit varying learning styles and levels of ability. Overcame
cultural and language barriers to develop good relationships with local people. Motivated students
to take an active role in the learning process while setting goals to improve the quality of life for
themselves and their community.
U.S. Air Force
Worked for ACPO, The Advanced Composites Program Office of the USAF. as a civilian
Mechanical Engineer. Through and with this USAF group of engineers, modified “problem”
components and structures on aging aircraft, some times through the application of composites
technology, to reduce down-time and extend the mission of the aircraft.
Played a key role in re-engineering wing skin to reduce stress levels and eliminate cracking on T-38
aircraft. Original designer could not offer a solution that did not include replacing wings at a cost
of over $400,000 per plane. Conducted finite element analysis (Patran, MSC Nastran) to analyze
stress levels; identified a solution that enabled 800 aircraft to be modified at a fraction of the cost
of replacing wings. Results: Immediate savings of between 3 and 4 million dollars for the Air
Force, with additional savings as aircraft are modified on an as-needed basis.
Established and operated a structural testing facility. Researched and wrote specifications to
acquire instrumentation, peripheral equipment and facilities to test stiffness/strength on aircraft
structure prototypes for retrofitting to existing aircraft. Participated in both ground and flight
testing. Consulted on various projects such as NASA modification of a C-130 fuselage cutaway for
a telescope, Stealth Fighter-F117, F-22, A-10 wing leading edge modification. Did some
consultation work on the B-2 bomber.

3. Identified potential maintenance problems with exotic and composite materials being used in the
C-17. Suggested solutions to reduce maintenance costs and turnaround time while saving
significant costs on materials by streamlining inventory.
Interviewed and made hiring recommendations. Extensive experience in training engineers on
structural analysis and testing methods. Supervised technicians.
Started work with USAF as a GS-830-7 in 1983. Upgraded to GS-830-12 in 1990 to 1993.
(GS-830 is a Mechanical Engineer, in the General Schedule )
PUBLICATION & PRESENTATIONS
“Stress Field Sensitivity of a Composite Patch Repair as a Result of Varying Patch Thickness,” in
Composite Materials Testing and Design. Glenn C. Grimes, Editor. Philadelphia, PA: American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992 (listed as STP-1120). Paper from Master’s thesis.
Summary located at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992cmtd.conf..444S
COMPUTER SKILLS
Proficient with ANSYS, (also used Patran, MSC Nastran) Microsoft Office (Word, Excel,
PowerPoint). Fundamental knowledge of SolidWorks.
EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Post-graduate work in Mechanical Engineering Currently
and in 1998-2002
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT SACRAMENTO
Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering 1990
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Bachelor of Science in Engineering 1983
See Images that represent some of what I am working on now starting on the next page.

4. Gearbox Project at University of Cincinnati- As one can see, these next images do not represent
a functioning gearbox. It does not facilitate a change of direction of a drive train nor does it change
the shaft speed through gear interactions. This project is meant to provide a gearbox-like-assembly
where ANSYS capabilities can be used for analyzing displacements and stresses due to external
loads on the shaft which in-turn stress all contact areas. (As of now this project is not an exercise
in designing a drivetrain.) The bolts which would be much more numerous in a real gearbox (they
are few since the nonlinearities of bolt modeling really “eat” computer resources and I am limited
to the university-suppled Dell T3610 desktop for analysis) housing are modeled with ANSYS
pretension elements as well as the contact-target pairs needed to simulate the stressed conditions
that bolts “see”. The “design” of this non-functioning gearbox came through my experiences with
analyzing real gearboxes and the design-norms that they depend-upon. I created the CAD model
below from scratch with SolidWorks. The mechanical elements which lend to this particular finite
element model's nonlinearity are: two bearing/liner press fits, twelve bolts, contact between shaft
and two bearings, two large contact areas between covers and main housing body, large contact
area between main housing body and sump. (So far I have excluded contact between any gears.)
In addition gearboxes tend to have a degree of circularity about them. The shape of bell-housings
on a car tend to be conical, while differentials tend to be spherical, and there seem to be many
helicopter gearboxes whose shape approximates a cylinder, which favor the circular nature of the
shafting and the gears while lending strength. But I chose a more cartesian shape for this gearbox
while beefing it up heavily in the corners to prevent “parallelogram-ming”.

5. Fig. 1- SolidWorks CAD model of gearbox without top showing inside.
Fig. 2- SolidWorks CAD model, exploded view of gearbox

6. Fig. 3- ANSYS Workbench model after import of Solidworks parasolids geometry, transparent
view of gearbox
Fig. 4- ANSYS Workbench model results from preliminary stress analysis to prove viability of the
model. This is a contour plot of the postprocessed total deformation results from one load case.
Very preliminary since true pretension and contact conditions were not simulated. Load used was
an estimated proof load imposed downward on the bearing surface face.

7. Fig. 5- ANSYS Classic model total deformation contour plot results from preliminary stress
analysis on early housing using a different proof load than that used above.

8. The next several images are not related to the gearbox project but rather represent my review of
two types of popular finitel element analysis in order to save computer resources. The first type of
analysis is axisymmetric analysis. The second type of analysis represented after axisymmettry is
cyclic symmetric.
Fig. 6- Ansys Classic axi-symmetric analysis of a generic shaft: ANSYS has specialized elements for
this purpose and the idea works especially well for shafts in that what is seen below represents a
cross-section of the wall of a shaft.

9. Figs. 7- Ansys Classic cyclic symmetric analysis of another generic shaft:
(note- cyclic-symmetric analysis is very useful for turbine applications such as for gas turbines or
steam turbines, or any rotating machine, such is the nature of the geometry of many of their
components and the symmetry of loads imposed on them. I used it extensively on shafts since some of
the shafting I worked on either were of a large diameter with significant inertial loads imposed and also
had cyclic symmetric geometrical features which lent themselves to this type of analysis.)
typical steps followed:
Fig. 7a-- Step1: “Seed-mesh” cut boundary of a segment of the “cyclically reoccurring structure” that
is analyzed: ( I used a 120 degree section of a shaft here.)
Fig.- 7b, step 2: After creating a local cylindrical coordinate system and node rotation,copy seed-mesh
to other cut boundary of the segment of the “circular structure” that is analyzed:

10. Fig. 7c, step 3: Couple all appropriate DOFs of corresponding nodes on both cut surfaces:
whole model:
closeup of bottom of shaft:
Fig. 7d, step 4: Mesh entire model (which will stay true to the seed meshes) with higher order solid
elements taking care to include enough elements at critical locations:

11. Fig. 7e, step 5: Clear seed mesh, load appropriately (remember nodal cs), run solution, and post-process
results:
End of resume and images.