upfront « The Virtual Engineer

Desktop Engineering Magazine is Awesome!!!

February 8th, 2008 Posted in cae, cfd, cfdesign, desktop engineering, upfront, upfront cfd

Busy week, quick post. Desktop Engineering Magazine is one of my favorite magazines. There is an online version as well as the hard copy. I love having everything digital, but there is quite alot to be said for the glossy images that come out each month. Greatest thing, it’s free. Go check them out.

CAD Skills are No Longer a Requirement for Upfront CFD

January 27th, 2008 Posted in cfd, cfdesign, spaceclaim, upfront, upfront cfd

No Comments

The terms “Upfront CFD” and “CAD jock” used to go hand and hand. It wasn’t a requirement to have CAD chops, but it sure helped. The thought was that if you were familiar with CAD, you could easily pick up Upfront CFD.

It seemed to make sense. There were 1000s of engineers out there that were designing a variety of different products, driving CAD everyday and had a need to do a quick flow and thermal simulation. Better yet, they would want to me able to make a change in CAD and see the model update and per from a variety of “what if” scenarios.

But, the more the market matures and the more accepted Upfront CFD has become, the more people want it. Including engineers that simply are not driving CAD everyday. Whether it be that they are in R&D or there are simply other guys on their team that do the CAD side of things. Not a real big deal, they leverage their CAD guys and work hand and hand to make modifications to the CAD. Meanwhile they spend a majority of their time on the Upfront CFD side of things. But this process can be limiting.

Enter SpaceClaim. This was one of the sole purposes of their existence. They are the “go between”. Fully functional modeler that allows you to import CAD models from a variety of locations. You can then modify the geometry and add additional geometry. The thing that makes SpaceClaim awesome is that it’s interface is bone simple. Let’s face it, the whole process is bone simple. You can purchase it online, it’s cheap and no training required.. They have a few videos that you can watch and you are off and running. We now have a direct link to SpaceClaim.

Not a believer? Go check it out for yourself. You can download it for 30days. Check out the video I created above. Shows the process on the geometry side. It is Part 1 of a multi part series of videos I am creating for non-CAD guys who have a need for Upfront CFD.

The Fundamentals of Upfront CAE Should Start in the Universities

January 23rd, 2008 Posted in cfd, cfdesign, colleges, mechanical engineering, mechanical engineering magazine, school, university, upfront, upfront cfd

No Comments

A few articles were published in this month’s Mechanical Engineering Magazine, highlighting the usage of CFD & FEA in universities. Music to my ears. The dilemna seems to be how to incorporate this into an already tight curriculum? Hmm, considering the importance, I think the implementation can be worked out.

When I was in school, there was a big disconnect between the fundamentals of engineering and the engineering software tools. Looking back, I would have benefited way more if they were taught in tandem. I think schools have come along way over the years and this are a bit more in sync, but they can still be improved.

Unfortunately, like many others, I was forced to teach myself (and all the bad habits associated with it) most of the engineering software tools that were available. I was able to operate it and generate images, pretty sure they were right… Figured I’d post a cool spring loaded poppet valve simulation while I was on a tangent.

The author in the ME article makes a great point when she discusses teaching students how to use it to solve engineering problems, not necessarily how to make the picks and the clicks. I think the challenge is that the professors have to be proficient in the tools that are used. This is a tough one. Many of the university professors have extensive experience in R&D and tend to have a “specialty”. Difficult for them to have a wide background on various tools that are being used in the various industries. Let’s be honest, how many of them have any experience in Upfront CAE? If they were exposed to any of the tools, they were most likely traditional, older tools that focused on very sophisticated types of analysis.

Obviously, the tools are changing drastically over the years with a niche for helping engineers design faster, cheaper and better. There is no better community of people that will understand this fundamental concept better than todays engineering students.

Take a deep breath and imagine yourself back in your engineering classes. How much easier would it be if you were able to actually see the fundamentals of Bernoulli’s eqn or fully developed flow vs. not fully developed. How about heat transfer? How much easier would thermal contact resistance have been to understand if you could see a simple contour plot live?

More importantly, think of how it would have driven home the point on how to problem solve? How to take a very real problem, sketch it up parametrically, run an analysis and make a change to see the effects of the various parameters. “Make this dimension larger, it will then make this spot cooler”. No question, the fundamental equations have to be taught and fully understood. But we need to teach tomorrow’s engineers how to implement these equations and put them to good use in today’s world.

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

January 11th, 2008 Posted in cad, cfd, cfdesign, cosmos, embedded, fea, mechanica, srac, upfront

No Comments

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.

CFD is Cool..it’s even on YouTube

November 11th, 2007 Posted in cfdesign, fea, upfront, upfront cfd, you tube

No Comments

Amazing to see how far along CAE software has come. It is becoming more and more mainstream. So cool to see it being used in so many different applications. Programs are becoming easier and easier to use, it simply allows more and more people to use them. It was only a year or two ago that SolidWorks had the boys from Orange Country Choppers guest speakers at SW World.

The fact that people are posting clips on YouTube simply proves that CAE and specifically CFD are becoming mainstream.

There are literally countless videos of CFD, CAD and FEA examples posted on YouTube and even MySpace. It’s really awesome to see our little world becoming mainstream. See for yourself, go to http://www.youtube.com. Search for “SolidWorks”, “Autodesk Inventor” or any of the other mainstream packages out there. Funny if you search for “CFD”, you will get a bunch of Chicago Fire Department videos. But dig deeper, you’ll find them – try “cfd flow”.

It makes me wonder what the future brings? Meaning, exactly how mainstream will it become? We are already seeing the number of vendors reducing substantially due to acquisitions and mergers. Dassault Systemes has SolidWorks, Catia and ABAQUS (now re-branded Simulia). Siemens has Solid Edge, UGNx and its own NASTRAN version. Not to mention, ANSYS, who just seems to just be buying and buying. I posted earlier on PTC acquiring CoCreate. And last but certainly not least, Autodesk has finally entered the simulation market by purchasing Plassotech earlier this year.

What’s next? Who else will get into the mix? Adobe has entered quietly with their version of a 3D pdf. It is only a matter of time before this is being used all the time. It simply will expose 3D models that we engineers build everyday to the rest of the world.

I wonder if Microsoft, Yahoo, Google or even Apple will get into the game. Can you imagine Google being a CFD vendor? Or better yet, Steve Jobs demonstrating at a user conference? I am probably getting carried away. But you never know…