Composites design is something that’s coming up a lot during my meetings with vendors. Only the other week I was looking at some simulation tools for simulation crack propagation across composite, multi-layered materials (that would be with the delightful chaps from Simulia when looking at Abaqus 6.10) as well as the composite design related tools in NX 7.5 from Siemens. Why the sudden concentration on composites? Facts are that these material types are becoming more and more commonplace outside of their traditional usage in Automotive. Only just this week the world’s first plastic plane (the Boeing 787) has landed on british soil for the first time at the Farnborough Airshow. Ok ok, it’s 50% carbon fibre but who can resist an overused cliche eh?.

Lamborghini’s new Composites centre brings a new level of expertise in an rapidly expanding field

Then an intriguing little press release popped into my inbox. It turns out that Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A has just opened a new Advanced Composites Research Center (ACRC) at its headquarters in Sant’Agata Bolognese, where the team will carry out research on innovative design and production methods for carbon-fibre elements. This has been built alongside development of an proprietary all-new, highly efficient production process for extremely complex carbon-fibre structures which has been “secured through an array of patents and constitutes a breakthrough into the next generation of carbon-fibre components.”

Read more…

This just came in as CD-Adapco that has just launched STAR-CCM+ /Power-On-Demand - which it is billing as a “revolutionary new product licensing scheme”. For those unfamiliar with the company, it develops the Star-CD range of computational fluid dynamics applications that are used is a huge ragen of industries to solve some very complex simulation tasks. Tasks, in fact, that often use super computing technology to solve. On my first visit to the company’s headquarters down in Hammersmith (I think), I was rather gobsmacked at the air=conditioned beast of a super computer room thats just inside the office - a testament to the computing horse power that CFD and other simulation tasks require.

But for me, this release isn’t about the move to the cloud at all. CFD vendors in particular have been using cluster-based solutions for decades, often accessed remotely - the use of the word cloud is a touch of jumping on the bandwagon. What this release is about is licensing. I had an interesting discussion many years ago with someone from CD-Adapco (along with other vendors in the same space) about how simulation licensing is, amongst many things, linked to CPUs and cores.

If you want your results more quickly, you use more CPUs. And as a result, you pay more. Something that is increasingly out of date as multi-core workstations have become ubiquitous - look at the latest desktop generation of workstations - my colleague and hardware wizard, Greg Corke has recently been testing workstations with 12+ cores - that’s a huge shift. As a result, it was always my opinion that per core or per CPU licensing would have to shift eventually as this increasing became the norm.

According to the press release, CD-Adapco changed its mind in 2008 when it introduced the “Power Session” licensing scheme,  which “gives users to access unlimited computational resources for a single fixed fee: breaking the relationship between software cost and hardware resources (number of cores) deployed in a simulation.” This latest release is an extension of that, allowing organisations to deploy the company’s solutions on a wider range of hardware and using third party ‘cloud’ services, such as Amazon’s EC2 service. Let’s be clear, this is going to be a costly license, after all, the company isn’t going to look to drop revenue levels, but at least its a move in the right direction - it’ll be interesting to see what the other major players in the game have to offer.

The ability to not only define the form of a product digitally, but to also simulate its performance and behaviour is something that’s been playing on my mind over the last few days. This followed a conversation with a couple of people. One felt that the tools out there, which are often integrated into the workhorse design tool, weren’t being used purely because of costs reasons. The other person provided a stark contrast, saying that simulation is absolutely key for many, as it allows you to add context and meaning to the geometry we’re all used to creating.

From my experience across both sides of the pond, there does seem to be a difference in how much simulation tools are adopted whether that’s motion analysis, computational fluid dynamics, finite element analysis or something else. A gut feeling tells me that in Europe, the awareness and background of designers and engineers gives them a better start at using these tools - if you’re experienced with them at university, then you’re more comfortable with diving in and having a go. it’s nothing to do with the actual quality of education, but rather than if you’re exposed to these types of tools as you also learn the principles of design, engineering and manufacturing, then you have a good foundation on which to explore further.

Take a look at this video from Siemens PLM. It shows the Simulation tools within Solid Edge. These are based on Siemens’ NX Nastran platform combined with the experience of the team behind FEMAP, one of the leading pre and post processing tools for FEA users. But what’s key to note is that not only are these tools powerful, but they don’t restrict what can be done, don’t restrict the fine tuning and optimisation of a simulation task.

Taking that idea further, this brings up the question of workflow. If simulation is going to become part of the product development workflow, you need several things to work together. Firstly, the CAD system should provide you with powerful tools for creating the geometry. Secondly, the simulation tools should be integrated with CAD system in a manner that supports rapid iteration. After all there’s no point in being able to model a part, simulate it, but then have to complete rework the part or parts to solve the issues you discover. Let’s be clear, I’m not saying this about integration in the same window (as is shown here) - that’s one of many options - look at the work that Ansys and SpaceClaim are doing as an example of how standalone simulation apps can be integrated with 3D design tools. Rather I’m saying that you need to be able to quickly work through issues and execute design change and rerun simulation. the last is that the design tool needs to be flexible enough to let you carry out those changes. It’s perhaps here that technologies as shown here (Synchronous Technology) can pay a real dividend, allowing quick experimentation.

So. To my point. Has your organisation invested in simulation tools? Are you using them? Is there something that stops you from using them? Is it knowledge, is it time, is it a clunky workflow? I’m curious..

Dassault Systemes has announced that BMW has signed a strategic 5-year global agreement to “pave the way to meet the automotive market’s new challenges.” According to the press release, “Through this agreement, the companies will establish a close link between their research & development centers that will not only improve the DS automotive product offering but also the BMW development and production process. Dassault Systemes software solutions support BMW in core areas for design and manufacturing process planning with Catia as the backbone for product development.”

The necessity to reduce C02 emission levels has forced automotive manufacturers to reshape their business processes to deliver greener cars. Fully embracing the cause of leaving a minimum carbon footprint on the planet, the implementation of the DS solutions will help automakers conceive, analyze and simulate eco-friendly low-emission vehicles like the Project I, a new Megacity vehicle, optimized for better performance and low energy consumption.

The BMW Concept ActiveE is powered by a new synchronous electric motor specially developed for this vehicle. Its maximum output is 125 kW/170 bhp, the maximum torque of 250 Nm / 184 lb-ft is available from standing as is typical for electric motors and remains available over an unusually broad load range.

The release also gave details of what BMW would be using:

By consolidating design in a single PLM software platform BMW can tap into “proven design” concepts and re-use them across all product lines achieving time savings in the design and manufacturing of new cars. The single platform also enables all designers, including development partners in the supply chain, to collaborate, which is another factor in streamlining the design process. Simulia realistic simulation solutions combined with Catia further allow BMW to virtually test their vehicle’s real-world performance early in the development cycle which helps improve product quality, while reducing time and cost of physical testing.

What’s also a small note in the press release is that:

“The agreement also defines a set of strategic projects where BMW will evaluate possible migration paths that ensure a smooth transition to Dassault Systèmes V6 PLM solutions for all its vehicle development programs.”

BMW already use Catia V5 and have been a flagship user for many years. This Thermoelectric Generator (TEG) that’s integrated in exhaust gas recirculation systems is typical.

There are many rumours and tales of unhappiness amongst many Dassault customers with the introduction of V6 - in both the small and very large account, with some major customers allegedly looking at a shift in platform for their product development. This shows that for some, and BMW have been a key account for DS for decades, the decision has already been made and the transition is a part of their long term strategy. Interesting that there’s no mention of Enovia.

Autodesk has just announced that Algor Simulation subscription users can get their hands on the Fatigue Wizard which allows you to perform fatigue simulation without all the complexity that’s often associated with the process. Perhaps the trickiest thing about Fatigue is not the fact that it’s taking on board the effect of time and cyclic loading on a product’s performance (which is usually quite easy to understand for those with experience in their products), but usually how you go about inputting that data into your system of choice. I find it fascinating that these types of simulation are now becoming, if not commonplace, but certainly available to the masses. I’ve also had quite a few conversations with users, both from an Inventor perspective and those already using Algor’s tools, about what Autodesk’s plans are for the toolset and things are progressing - slowly, but when you’re working with this type of technology, that’s time well spent.