cad

cad / cfdesign / customer portal / fea / solidworks / upfront cfd — View Comments
13
Jan 08

The Upfront CFD Market is Maturing: Relationships are Crucial

It is a fun time to be in the Upfront CFD industry. Things have certainly come along way. It wasn’t too long ago that the CAD companies were campaigning for companies “to make the transition from 2D to 3D”. Everyone was developing really cool transition tools that would help users convert their 2D drawings into 3D parts and assemblies. I am sure this still applies to some, but I think a good percentage of companies have at least considered making the move. The list of improvements in 3D MCAD tools is endless. There has been a step change in ease of use, automation and productivity over the last few years. Even the graphics and displays have improved dramatically. Check out the image (no photo rendering required) below from our friends at SolidWorks.
Advancements have been made across the board in other products as well. A few years ago, many engineering organizations considered structural FEA as a “nice to have”. Now it can be said that many engineering organizations consider FEA to be part of the critical path. This was due to a number of factors. FEA codes are now easier to use, they can leverage native MCAD models and FEA has been integrated into the engineering design process. FEA companies partnered with their customers, listened to what they were saying and adapted to the changing market.
You are now seeing a surge in the adoption of CFD into the engineering design process. CFD has been around for a number of years. It primarily has been used by CFD specialists or farmed out to the vendors. Clearly, there is still a market for this. But CFD should be and can be part of the design process. Check out the image below a guy on our team worked on recently.

It is the responsibility of the vendors to make you successful. This goes above and beyond whether the product is easy to use. It has to do with whether or not the vendor has a plan and reputation to make you successful. Let’s be honest, there are alot of options out there. The decision should go well beyond the cost and ease of use. Here is a quick list of questions, I’d be asking.

How dedicated and experienced is the vendor in solving your particular problem?

Do they have examples, references, success stories?

Do they fully understand your needs?

Do they have an implementation plan?

Do they have a services group? Have you spoken to them prior to your decision?

Will your particular problem be discussed in training or are you stuck with standard non-related examples?

How is support handled? Do they have a Customer Portal or Online Community? Will you be transferred around from specialist to specialist? What does the “escalation” procedure look like?

cad / cfd / cfdesign / cosmos / embedded / fea / mechanica / srac / upfront — View Comments
11
Jan 08

CAD-Embedded or Not CAD-Embedded: That is the Question?

This is a question that many engineers have faced when evaluating various types of “add on” functionality to their existing MCAD system. Whether it be CAM, FEA, CFD or PDM, there are many options out there.

Depending on the level of sophistication, the answer to the question is not so easy. Let’s take PDM, for example. It makes sense to me that users should be able to check things in and out of the vault, have full revision control etc all within the CAD environment.

How about CAM? The question gets a little more complicated. How much will users be using the CAM software? How complicated are the parts? Will the users be driving the CAM software daily? If you have to think twice about any of these, then it makes sense to consider whether or not the “CAD-embedded” solution has all of the bells and whistles you’ll need.

Now, how about FEA? Let’s take Pro/Mechanica for example. It was one of the original fully embedded FEA programs out there. PTC acquired RASNA and tightened the integration. Mechanica always stuck to its roots. P-method, liner static analysis with steady state thermal capbilities. Nothing more, nothing less (for the most part). So, in this case, if it fits your needs and you are a Pro/e user, makes sense to go the CAD-embedded route.

Let’s look at COSMOS/Works. They have done quite well for themselves by embedding inside SolidWorks. But there was always this option to “upgrade” to the full suite, COSMOS/M. Now that SolidWorks owns the former SRAC, it is probably not as much of an issue as they are focused on the full product within SW. But suppose SW didn’t purchase SRAC. Users risk that there will be a disconnect between the two different development teams. Now in this case, there was a happy ending.

But now, suppose the SRAC folks had an agreement with SolidWorks, Autodesk and UG? Can we count on the fact that they have a close knit relationship with all equally? Do all of their graphics work the same? Is their UI framework flexible enough to be embedded in all of those systems equally? SRAC made a smart decision. They picked one, focused and delivered. In this case, they made a smart pick. Good for them!

There are many companies out there that claim that their solution embeds in all of the CAD tools. Some even claim to have an upward path to their “flagship” offering if your needs grow beyond their embedded capabilities. Yikes! How focused are the vendors on their CAD embedded solution? Is it just a marketing campaign to claim “me too”? These are the questions I would be asking.

Point is, is CAD-embedded all that is cracked up to be? It can appear to have its advantages. But I wouldn’t let it sway my decision. I would put it in the nice to have column.

Consider these points when making the decision whether to go with CAD-embedded.

Is the CAD embedded tool developed and owned by the CAD vendor? If the codes are not developed by the same people, there is bound to be a disconnect.

If you want to run a CFD analysis, for example, does it occupy your CAD license?

How many products does the vendor develop? How much of their focus/$$ comes from the product you are evaluating? Is it their bread and butter?

Don’t be fooled by the carrot of CAD-embedded with promises of an “upgrade” path.

Check out this cooling fan model I have been working on, cool stuff.

cad / cfd / cfdesign — View Comments
11
Dec 07

Upfront CFD may seem like a Foreign Langauage to Some

I have been in Paris for the last few days. Getting around pretty well, but definitely feel out of place. I consider myself fairly worldly, but always find it a little bit more difficult finding my bearings in France compared to other European countries. Combination of the culture, the food and my inability to read and speak French :)
I began thinking of the countless meetings where I met with Product Design Engineers and discussed the concept of Upfront CFD. Some meetings go extremely well, everyone gets it. We are all on the same page; big Upfront love fest.
But there are others, where this is a sense of uncomfortable hesitation; sometimes fear. There are some engineers that are just not comfortable with change. Tough to change their ways, but its possible. There are others that “see” the value but have no idea even how to start. Similar to me staring at a menu in France. I “see” the value, food looks and smells fantastic, I am just not sure where to begin. So, I tend to stick with what I know and seek guidance from the waiter to get me where I want to be.
May seem like an odd comparison; perhaps the jet lag is getting to me. But I find that there are a number of engineers that want to get going with Upfront CFD. They clearly fit the target audience. They are product development guys that are driving CAD everyday and are spending a tremendous amounts of time and money on prototyping. They just need to be guided along. This is where I spend a good portion of my workday and I love it.
I thrive on listening to the challenges that product development guys face everyday. I love to bridge the gap between their problems and an Upfront CFD solution. Let’s face it, CFD terminology can be scary. Most engineers do not want to make a career out of driving CFD software. They simply want to perform fluid flow and thermal simulations in a non-threatening environment. They want things put in their terms, not CFD jargon.
When looking for an Upfront solution, ensure that the vendor you are working with understands your problem and can “translate” it into a solution.
cad / cfd / cfdesign / upfront cfd — View Comments
8
Dec 07

Upfront CFD really means CFD for Product Design

Just read a post by a buddy of mine that addresses the issue that many companies are truly never “upfront” in their design processes. They, in fact, are always somewhere “downstream” in the design process. He makes some really important points on the fact that “upfront” is multi-faceted. Click the link above to get his perspective.

I think I may take for granted that people see the value in Upfront CFD. Sometimes it seems very simple and straightforward, other times not so much. I think almost everyone would agree that if we started with a clean sheet of CAD and begin sketching up conceptual designs, it would be great to study the fluid flow and thermal aspects of our designs. We could quickly and inexpensively get great feedback on our desktop from an Upfront analysis. Take it further, we can change the CAD in an effort to improve performance, repeat and compare. It would save a great deal of time, reduce the number of prototypes and save $$$ in the long run, not to mention reduce the time to market. The classic “faster, cheaper, better”!!! Unfortunately, this scenario is a reality for some and an unrealistic dream for others. To give you a taste, check out the redesign of a Power Inverter below. Notice the two different flow patterns based on two separate vent designs.

In fact, many of us are on the go constantly, old designs come back to haunt us, new designs are constantly evolving and we are constantly put under the gun to bang out a quick fluid flow/thermal simulation. What I want out of an Upfront CFD tool is..

  1. A tool that is easy to use that leverages my parametric CAD data. It should speak my language, not CFD jargon.
  2. Meshing is crucial. I want it to be easy, fast and reliable. The less decisions I have to make, the better. Essentially, the more automatic, the better. But it has to be reliable.
  3. Upfront CFD doesn’t mean entry level CFD. I need a wide-variety of physics. Nothing that requires a PhD, but those that I consider the fundamentals – incompressible/compressible, newtonian/non-newtonian, thermal (conduction, forced & natural convection + radiation), solid body motion (poppet valves, rotating components) etc..
  4. Accuracy is important. I want the software to have built-in intelligence. Select the appropriate scheme/solver etc. Tell me, when it is converged etc.
  5. Really, really slick results visualization. Contours, vectors, isosurfaces, traces, animation etc. Hardcore data – XY plots, Wall Calculators.
  6. Ability to share and collaborate my data with technical and non-technical folks.

Shameless plug - but all of the above exists in only a few tools out there. Arguably, a “few” is kind of stretching it. Some are better than others. I have driven most of them myself. Happy to give my opinion, so feel free to ask. Over the next few weeks, I plan to give my opinion anyway. It doesn’t mean that that traditional CFD tools are wrong, just means that each has their place. Much, much more to come on this front…

cad / cfd / cfdesign / upfront cfd — View Comments
5
Dec 07

Online Communities are the New Platform for Technical Support!!!

How many times have you called for tech support and have been prompted to press #2 for this, # 4 for that, #5 to repeat all of the options? However, what you are looking for doesn’t seem to be one of the options? When you finally get someone on the phone, you feel like you get nowhere? Is it obvious, that I am not a fan of calling tech support? However, there are others out there that expect to pick up the phone and get someone live on the first ring – to each his own.

I am more into finding the answer myself. However, I don’t like reading the help manual. I like trying to find information in a user forum. There is a great chance that another user, just like me, has run into the same issue. Many of our peers are kind enough to give you the solution to the problem. Sometimes members from the vendor are moderating and provide some valuable insight. Often, the information is provided in simple terms not long winded non-specific text that exists in the help manual. Others on the other hand, wouldn’t know where to begin in a forum.

Some vendors are blazing the trail and are providing technical support via video. This is awesome! Remember, I am not a fan of reading the docs. However, there are some people that would rather read the docs cover to cover. I would rather watch someone do it, provide a quick demonstration and then allow me to try it myself. Others are overwhelmed with the fast pace of the video content. They feel like they are cheated if they can’t read it word for word.

Another tech support model that is becoming popular is the Live Chat. You simply, log into the support site. Click the icon, it places you in a queue and you wait your turn. You receive a message that its your turn and you begin a instant message session with a support person. I LOVE this! Dell does it, my mobile phone provider has it. It allows me to do other things as I am waiting in the queue. Fortunate enough for me, I have two computers. So, when I need help with one, I chat on the other. Allows me to talk on the phone, answer email, tinker with my CAD model while at the same time getting valuable tech support. I know some people reading this think IMing is for the kids. Good, smaller queue for me.

Point is, there are various forms of technical support out there. Which do you prefer? I think you should have a choice. You should be able to get support the way you want it.

I like the idea of a “Community”. Picture a website as an entry point where you can go for information and answers. You have options, watch a video, read or post to a forum, chat live with a support person, read FAQs, self-service for things such as license keys or even grab the number to give support a call. Next time you invest in new technology, push to find how support works? Make sure your “option” is available.

cad / cfd / cfdesign / hvac / upfront cfd — View Comments
28
Nov 07

HVAC designers should be using Upfront CFD everyday!?!

Seems logical, right? What other industry deals primarily in air flow and thermal management? A typical HVAC designer/engineer spends his time sizing duct work, fans/blowers and attempting to evenly cool or heat large areas. Seems like a no brainer that they would be using Upront CFD. They certainly have the need. But, in fact, it is not commonly used in this industry.

There are many guys/gals in this industry that have a tremendous amount of experience and designs are based on rules of thumb etc. I did a bit of this back in the day in the nuclear world and was priviledged to use a “ductometer”. So, in general, it has worked up to this point. Unfortunately, it has worked at a cost. Units are often under and over sized, which results in high utility costs. Not to mention the impact on the environment. Flow straighteners are used in a pinch. The cost of retro-fitting existing designs can be tremendous. So, why isn’t Upfront CFD being used?

I think there are many reasons. Primarily, I think that the traditional CFD tools are too expensive, too complicated and are quite frankly, just overkill. The Upfront CFD market has been primarily targeted to folks that are driving MCAD (Pro/e, SW, Inventor etc) tools. HVAC guys are designing in 3D, but are probably using AutoCAD and MicroStation. They actually have access to 3D CAD files via an SAT output from AutoCAD, but it can be clunky.

Times are changing. Many architectural firms running AutoCAD are being exposed to Inventor. Believe it or not, Rhino is popular in this world. There are other simple inexpensive modelers also being used, such as, Alibre. Not to mention new comers, SpaceClaim.


Check out the image above of a Server Room. This is becoming more and more critical in the last few months. Large rooms with tremendous amount of heat being generated by rack after rack of computers. The rules of thumb just aren’t cutting it. We recently visited a company where they were popping floor tiles up so that they can control where the air would go. Pretty crazy.

There is a huge push to make everything “greener”. So, I suspect that HVAC guys will be out there searching for a solution. There are tools out there that are primed and ready to address the issues. Go check them out… http://www.cfdesign.com/

cad / cfd / cfdesign / solidworks / upfront cfd — View Comments
23
Nov 07

The "Manufactured" vs. "Simulation" CAD Assembly

There is a clear distinction between the “manufactured” CAD assembly and the “simulation” CAD assembly. When using simulation “Upfront” in the design process, we prefer to have a conceptual model that does not include all of the nuts, bolts, interferences etc. We would rather only include those parts and features that are critical to the type of analysis being conducted. So, for a flow analysis, we only really care about the “flow path”, everything else is just additional info that may take time to address with little to no value to the analysis. If we include the thermal effects, than we need only the critical components and can ignore tiny components (bosses, fillets, chamfers etc) that will only make the model larger but can be simplified or ignored. Often times, this can reduce the solution time by up to 1000%. So in real numbers, this can result in a model taking less than an hour vs. overnight. To go one step further, this can result in doing 10 Upfront CFD simulations in a day or two rather than a week or two. Pretty signicant.

Sometimes, we are lucky enough to start with a clean sheet and build a conceptual model from scratch. But more often than not, we have a legacy model that needs to be redesigned or the next generation design will leverage legacy parts. So, what are the things we are looking to simplify or eliminate so that our models will run as fast as possible? The easiest question to ask yourself “if I get rid of it, will it alter my results by more than 5%”? If you don’t know, than you should probably keep it.

So, here is a quick checklist if you are doing an Upfront CFD analysis…

Always, always start simple and work to the more complex.

Get rid of all fillets, chamfers and small edges. Keep only those that are in the “flow path” and will alter the flow behavior substantially.

Get rid of interferences and tiny gaps. Best to ensure that parts are coincident and/or concentric.

Leverage “alternative” assemblies (simplifid reps in Pro/e, configurations in SW, Levels of detail in Inventor etc).

Don’t be afraid to re-assemble a simulation-only assembly. It is sometimes quicker to assemble a model from scratch rather than simplifying the original.

These are obviously guidelines. You have to weigh the time needed to simplify the model versus that of the time we are saving. I have found that time spent on simplifying almost always pays off in the end. Being able to identify the”ideal” model may take some experience. But the vendor you choose should be able to give you quick guidelines that should be able to get you there. Make sure that they understand your design process.

Much more to come on this in the coming weeks. I’d love to spark a discussion on which product has the best tools for simulation folks. I definitely have my own opinions. Also sparks the question, how about a tool for the simulation guys that do not drive CAD? Well, appears as though SpaceClaim boys are here to save the day. http://www.spaceclaim.com/

ansys / cad / cfd / cfdesign / fea / upfront cfd — View Comments
15
Nov 07

CFD is easier than other FEA Simulations!?!

Sounds as though I am going against the grain here a bit? There are many engineering management teams that feel CFD is beyond their reach. The perception is that it is complicated, difficult to use and require a PhD to drive it. However, Structrual FEA has become almost as common as 3D CAD in many organizations. Often done “upfront” in the design process. So are structural problems so much easier to setup and solve?

In fact, there are a fair amount of decisions to be made when setting up a structural simulation of a typical mechanical assembly. Often, constraining the model can be a challenge. Also, how the parts interact can pose some questions and requires some experience to choose the correct settings. Is it bonded, sliding, frictional contact etc? What exactly is a “penalty method”?Does the model undergo large deflection, causing the analysis to be non-linear? How about material properties – elastic or plastic? FEA vendors, such as ANSYS, MSC and COSMOS have improved their interfaces substantially over the years. Some allow you to read the CAD model directly into the FEA interface. Others leverage the CAD interface and are “CAD-embedded”.

So why is CFD so scary? Well, for one the equations are intrinsically non-linear. Meshing has posed some challenges, as CFD simulations tend to be more mesh sensitive than structural problems. But, the need is there. There are 100s, 1000s of companies that manufacture valves, pumps, manifolds, flow meters, fans, nozzles, medical devices, ducts, hoses etc that could substantially benefit from a flow simulation tool. Not to mention thermal effects. Think of how many mechanical designers are working in the electronics industry that would love to be able to ensure their products will not overheat once they hit the market.

If we think about the decisions that need to be made to set up a flow simulation, they are actually quite a bit less than their structural counterparts. Typically, a flow rate or pressure at the inlet and a pressure at the outlet. Material properties are just density and viscosity. Still cautious? You should be.

There are many CFD vendors that have been around for along time and have been very successful. The merger of CFX and Fluent under the ANSYS umbrella makes them the super power of CFD. Right? How about the guys at Star-CD? They speak the language of fluid guys, analysts. They are very good at what they do and serve their market very well. It just doesn’t seem like they are ready to enter the design community. Can’t say that I blame them. It is a complete cultural shift for them. Sure, they have “entry-level” tools but there is a huge difference between entry-level and an upfront design tool.

Entry level is exactly that. It implies a first step, the need for more at some point. Perhaps OK for some companies. But it can have a mixed message. It can be a risk for a company to make the entry level product part of their design process, but then hit the ceiling very early and then have to move on to “the real deal”. They are now required to learn yet another interface, a new process, make bigger more complicated decisions. This step typically requires a significant additional investment in implementation or worse, the need to hire a specialist. Regardless of which path is chosen, the end result is the same. Less productivity, more time wasted and a lack of ROI in the end.

Instead, companies should make the assessment early on as to what their needs are for say the next three years. What kind of problems will you need to solve? What resources do you have or could you get to solve those problems? But more importantly, partner with a vendor that is focused on solving your types of problems, your way. If you are an Inventor house and design and manufacture valves, then the folks you are working with should surely be versed in both of these. They should speak your language, not require you to speak theirs.
There are vendors out there that are focused on this market- the Upfront CFD market. Certainly, don’t want this to come across as a shameless plug. I am clearly a believer. But then again, I have seen all sides of the argument. Proof is in the pudding. Take a look for yourself. Jump on Google and see what all the hype is really about. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. More to come..

cad / cfd / cocreate / icem / spaceclaim — View Comments
1
Nov 07

PTC buys CoCreate…why?

I just grinned ear to ear when I read this. Not sure exactly why? Perhaps, because I can’t for the life of me figure out how PTC will incorporate yet another technology that is quite different than Pro/engineer into their portfolio. But maybe that’s the cool part, I am now intrigued and will be watching it closely.

I have used both CoCreate and Pro. Definitely, not a power user of either but can drive both fairly well. They couldn’t be any more different. That, again, that is what intrigues me. Also, how will ICEM Surf come into play? Are all three going to be merged into a new hybrid blend?? Lots of buzz out there about hybrid modelers.

I’d love to be in the product management meetings. Maybe I am the only one? But what a challenge – both technically and commercially.


I wonder if PTC is feeling the heat from the new comer, SpaceClaim? SC has a similar non-feature based approach that CoCreate has been preaching all along. I have been driving SC for the last few months. I think the interface is awesome (check the image above). Totally different approach than the traditional CAD tools on the market. Lots of grabbing and dragging. I use it primarily to create and modify models for analysis. So it works nicely for me. But then again, I am in the targeted market for SC. Check out the cool image below.