The Splintering Needs of Engineering Simulation

elica_numerica1_0_0--400x300

A couple weeks ago, I found myself in an interesting conversation. I was talking with a software executive who was considering starting up a new software company in the simulation space. His most basic question was “where is the greatest need in simulation today?”

I’ll be frank; I struggled to answer. Not because all of simulation’s problems have been solved. Far from it. But it was difficult because the answer varies so widely depending on the ‘who’ and the ‘what’ of it. The needs of simulation users in different phases of the design cycle have diverged significantly. Let me explain.

Simulation in Concept Design
Before development projects are officially funded, organizations assess and compare many different possible candidates for new products. The same holds true early in detailed design, when engineers iterate and explore different shapes for key components. The key in both scenarios is to understand the design space so the best selection can be made.

This translates into specific critical capabilities. Concept geometry tends to be simplistic and representative, perhaps even in 2D. So integration into fully detailed 3D models with CAD isn’t as important. Automated simulation iteration, such as design of experiments, maps out the performance in the design space. Lastly, topology optimization, which suggests new shapes for consideration, is highly applicable.

Simulation in Detailed Design
In this stage of design, there are two objectives. Users want to compare and contrast slightly different variations of a design, allowing them to pick the right branch of the design decision tree. They also need to dimensionally size geometric traits of a design.

From a simulation capabilities perspective, these users need a few important capabilities. Tight integration with 3D modeling is critical. So is direct modeling to assist in simplification and abstraction. Parametric optimization and sensitivities allow users to hone in on the right size of the component by finding the right balance between design criteria, such as weight, performance goals, and maximum stress that leads to failures.

Simulation in Validation and Verification
Here, the goal is crystal clear: Don’t let a design move forward that will fail in prototyping and test. For the organization, this is a critical step to avoiding delay in releasing designs to manufacturing . It also avoids the cost of building new prototypes and paying for testing iterations. Furthermore, this task typically falls to the simulation analyst group, which has an extremely long queue of simulation work.

For this phase, accuracy of the simulation tends to rise to the top of the list. This translates to a combination of capturing best practices and solver tuning. It is critical to take multi-physics into account as combined phenomena across structural, dynamics, thermal, excitation, fatigue, chemical and more can easily account for failures. For example, thermal expansion can directly impact the structural performance components. Chemical reactions affect the fluid dynamics behavior of fluids flowing through pumps and valves. Lastly, a point often overlooked is that simulation automation is very important. Because there is such a long queue of work for simulation analysts, they need tools to help them get their work done more quickly so they can expand their bandwidth.

The Takeaway
See why this wasn’t such an easy question to answer?

There are challenges related to simulation up and down the design process. And there are emerging technologies that are beginning to address them. But if you are looking to improve the effectiveness of simulation in design, whether you are an engineering leader or prospective software CEO, there are widely varying problems that can be addressed. Each needs very different solutions.

Recap and Questions
In concept design, the emphasis is on exploring performance variation in the design space. Tight integration with 3D modeling isn’t as critical, but simulation automation and topology optimization is beneficial.

In detailed design, the need is to compare the performance between slight variants as well as size components. Tight integration with CAD and direct modeling is crucial. Parametric optimization and sensitivities are highly useful.

In verification and validation, the key is to avoid prototyping and testing failures. Simulation accuracy and multi-physics rule the needs of users here. Simulation automation is advantageous in that it expands the bandwidth of simulation analysts with deep queues of work.

Well, there’s my take. Ready to sound off? Do you see the needs of users in these different phases of design differently? How so? Furthermore, what other simulation capabilities do you think would make an impact in each of these areas? I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

Take care. Talk soon. Thanks for reading.

Editor’s Note: For information PTC’s simulation products, visit our PTC Creo Simulate page. You can also learn more by visiting our PTC Creo Advanced Simulation Extension page.

This blog post has been licensed for hosting by PTC. The concepts, ideas and positions of this post have been developed independently by Industry Analyst Chad Jackson of Lifecycle Insights.

This entry was posted in Creo Benefits, Creo Technology, Reinventing Design and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

One Comment

  1. Posted Apr 2, 2014 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Hi Chad, great summary on the situation in the mechanically oriented simulation space.

    For my part I see the paradigm evolving to start earlier than that of geometry. Functional simulation (model), based on the requirements of the system rather than simply the mechanics to be precise. This is a level higher than geometry and for some a step too far, but certainly of high value for complex/multidisciplinary projects.

    For my part I think the world of simulation will change radically over the next few years. 1) to take advantage of model based technologies as mentioned above at early and evolving stages of design (through test) and 2) to capture and simulate the whole ‘product’, ‘assemblies’ and ‘parts’ at varying levels of fidelity through the lifecycle. To the latter standards such as FMI will play a large part in allowing this to happen.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Archives

  • Connect with PTC Creo