Coopz Awardz: My Favorites of 2007

I have been taking advantage of the calm before the storm. This time of year always provides a couple of days to clean up the office, reflect on the year and plan for the year ahead. Here is a list of some of the cool things that I have come across over the last year.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Upfont CFD

Favorite Feature = Automatic Meshing
Favorite Type of Analysis = Pumps
Favorite Visualization Feature = Particle Traces
Most Underutilized Visualization Tool = Results Filtering

Favorite Pump Feature = Tabular Input for Rotating Speed

Favorite Electronics Feature = Fan Operating Point Output

Favorite Valve Feature = Motion

Travel

Airfare Search Engine = airfare.com
Airline = US Airways
Hotel Chain = Hilton (Hampton Inn)
Rental Car = Hertz

Chain Restaurant = Pappadeux's
Favorite Travel City (US) = Denver, CO
Favorite Travel City (nonUS) - London, UK

CAD/FEA

Easiest CAD Program = SolidWorks
Most Improved CAD = Inventor
Most Disruptive Technology = SpaceClaim
Biggest CAE War = ANSYS vs. Dassault Systems
Most Potential to Impress in 2008 = PTC
Predicted CAE War of 2008 = PTC vs. Autodesk
Most Potential to be Acquired = MSC or PTC

Communications

Mobile Phone = Treo750
Online Chat/Voice (personal) = Yahoo! Messenger
Online Chat/Voice (work) = MS Office Communicator

Personal

Favorite Food = Nachos

Favorite Drink = Starbucks Coffee

Football Club = Liverpool FC

How to travel internationally for half the price?

I am sure everyone has similar feelings at this time of year. Another "Holiday Season" is coming to an end. As much as I look forward to it every year, I am just about as happy to see it go and get back to some sort of normal life. Admittedly, everyone has a different view of normalcy.

Traveling for business is a major part of my life. Flying out of Philly, I am pretty loyal to US Airways. Majority of the time, I use their site to book my travel. But I also use Kayak.com to search other deals. If you have read any posts, you know that I am a big fan of really slick innovative interfaces. Check out a shot of theirs.

Their searching is similar to others (expedia, travelocity, orbitz etc). But the slickest thing they have, that I have never seen before, are the filters. I highlighted them above on the left, in red. Allows you to very quickly show non-stop only, select only specific carriers and the coolest part are the slider bars that allow you to narrow in on departure time, arrival time etc. Definitely go check it out.

But by far, the coolest travel site that I have found is AIRFARE.COM. This is way more than just another travel site. It appears that they purchase tickets in bulk. Therefore, their prices are more than half the price of everyone else. I have no idea how that can be. But take it from me, it just works. I have used them and they are the real deal. I travel to Europe often on Sunday evenings which the airlines love as a typical fare is ~$1800. Airfare's price is ~$900. What?! Yeah.. Go try it for yourself.

Standalone Meshers: Are they a dying art form?

I grew up in a world of CFD where the "code" consisted of a Pre-processor, Solver and Post-processor. Seemed pretty straight forward at the time. I now cringe when I hear those terms. Feels as though someone is dating themselves and using old slang. You know the feeling?!

However, there must be a large market for it as I still hear Harpoon, Gridgen and Hypermesh mentioned from time to time in various companies. Fluent still markets "GAMBIT" as a separate program/interfaces etc. ANSYS acquired ICEM CFD a few years back and morphed an FEA version, AI*Environment out of it as well. Plus, I always thought the guys at FEMAP had cool jobs. Their HQ was only a few miles from my home and I worked for a company that had close ties to them and visited their offices quite frequently.

Why did I think the FEMAP guys were cool? Well, they were able to fulfill a need out there in the market place that others could not. They were in an elite category but didn't necessarily give the vibe of an "elitist". They were hard working guys in this little office that were one of few in the engineering software world in the 90s. They have been since acquired by SDRC, then EDS, then UGS, then Siemens. You get the idea.

Meshing has come along way since then. The guys that were doing that stuff were way into it. It was not uncommon for meshing to take a couple weeks, literally. Seemed "streamlined" at the time, as I shake my head and type. Clearly there is still a market where large companies have "Meshing Engineers" on staff still. That market is getting smaller and smaller, but they will always be able to find jobs. They might have to look hard, but they are there.

The coolness of meshing is dying as well. We just take for granted that models can be meshed. We do not view it as an art form that it is. I still smile at the image to the left. Kudos ICEM! It is leap years away from being a push button, but it sure is pretty nonetheless. If you have numerous years of experience on a meshing program, I'd venture to say this would still take days to complete. This mesh was used for an aero-acoustics and aero-dynamics analysis, hence the need for a nice HEX mesh. This is hardcore analysis.

I do believe meshing is still an art form. However, the role of the artist has changed. I used to view the guy driving the mesher as the artist. But the real honor of artist should go to the developer. They are the ones that are up all hours of the night testing their masterpiece. They are being pushed constantly to develop a program that creates the perfect mesh in a click of a button. Anyone can take geometry and create a mesh of some sort. But to create an intelligent mesh that places the correct element type in the correct location with the correct quality everytime, he is the artist. You want to see automatic, check out the image below.

Model brought in directly from Pro/engineer and with one click, I created an optimal mesh. I tried refining the mesh, but found the original was more than adequate. Perhaps my taste in art is changing with age, but That! is a pretty mesh.

"LABS": Inside View of CAD Skunk Works

Not sure if these are specific to CAD vendors? But I have noticed that both SolidWorks and Autodesk have "Lab" sites. From what I gather, they are sites dedicated to "skunk works" projects and a place to give you a preview of very cool things to come.

It can be as simple as a "widget" that we can use to create structural members in Inventor. Or it can be as sophisticated as giving us full access to a beta program such as, "CB Model Pro" from SolidWorks.

Here is a screen shot of SolidWork's Labs

Here is a screen shot of Autodesk Labs

These sites are really cool. Probably only the really hardcore users are viewing them. But, they have a tremendous amount of information for everyone.

I just downloaded "CB Model Pro" from the SolidWorks' Lab site. It appears to be a free form modeler that the SW folks are working on. It rivals their Cosmic Blobs application. You start off with a bunch of primitive shapes that you can then pull, bend and push, as if it were a piece of clay. Check out what I was able to do in about 2mins.

Not sure what market this will serve, perhaps neither do they? But I think that is the point of the Labs sites. Gives those that are interested added functionality and a peak into the next new thing.

I always find the CAD war fun to watch. Each vendor trying to out-do the other. I am happy to be a spectator and reap the benefits. Go check them out.

Frosty the Snowman benefits from Upfront CFD!!!

Quick fun post of flow over good ole Frosty. Happy Holidays everyone!!!

Multiphysics: How it fits into the Upfront World!

There is quite a bit of buzz about multiphysics lately. In very simple terms, multiphysics refers to an analysis that involves more than one physical discipline. For example, a thermal stress analysis is a classic example of a multiphysics application.

However, when vendors are bragging about their multiphysics capabilities, they are usually referring to a more sophisticated type of analysis. Take fluid-structure interaction (FSI), for example. This typically refers to a coupled analysis where the fluid flow field is solved and the forces and pressures are mapped onto a structural mesh and the deformation is solved. The mesh is updated, the fluid solution is resolved and results are mapped over again and the cycle repeats itself. This type of capability is still in its infancy. It has applicability in some very specific applications, but in general, it is a very sophisticated type of analysis. These types of problems are only being tackled by the select few power users that happen to know both the CFD and Structural simulation sides of the house.

So, why is this type of simulation so difficult? There are many reasons. Let's start off with the mesh. Typically, a CFD simulation has a higher mesh count and interpolating the structural (coarser mesh) results onto the finer CFD mesh can be a challenge, especially as the structural mesh deforms. The next challenge is the non-linear materials. Often the structural materials are very soft and their deformation characteristics are non-linear. Last but not least, the analysis is intrinsically transient. The time step required by both the CFD and Structural side are quite different. So, controlling this and selecting the appropriate time step is important. Clearly, the user needs to know the CFD program very well and the Structural program just as well. Not to mention the intermediate program that allows for the communication between the two. There are often third party applications, such as MPCCI, used to communicate between the two solvers. There are vendors, such as ANSYS, that have the capability but it is still for the extreme power user in the group.

Up to this point, it should be pretty clear that there is nothing "upfront" about multiphysics. This is partially true. Design guys can use Upfront simulation to solve traditional Multiphysics problems in a very simple way. For example, we can always run the models "uncoupled". This simply means we can run the CFD side of the problem and use the results as a boundary condition to the structural side of the problem. We end the cycle right there. We do not then go back to the CFD model and update the mesh and resolve and continue. The uncouple approach can give some very insightful results without all of the complexity of solving the whole enchilada.

For example, we can run an Upfront CFD analysis and check forces/pressure on the walls to get an idea of the structural impact the flow has on the device. We can then estimate the load that can be applied to an Upfront Structural simulation to take it to the next level. It would be even better to actually map the results on an element by element basis from the Upfront CFD tool to the Structural solver. This process is very common and should be a click of a button.

Check out the cool image and animation above. Typical heat exchanger model with hot gas flowing in the top left, out the top right. Cooling water flows through internal tubes in an attempt to cool the gas. Very large temperature gradients, which can cause serious thermal stress on the tanks. A quick Upfront fluid flow analysis was done in CFdesign. The temperatures and pressures are automatically mapped over to ANSYS Workbench for the deformation/stress calculation. The geometry was then changed to optimize the design and reduce the high stress areas. Many different design variations were tested. This was all done in less than two days. This is a great example of an Upfront approach to a multiphysics problem.

Made in the USA is Taken for Granted

I just returned from a whirlwind trip to France and Switzerland. I love traveling to Europe. The scenery and culture are always fascinating. Plus, interacting with the engineering community is a continuous learning experience for me.

In many ways, it is exactly the same regardless of the country or region. But local customs and mindsets do prevail. Take CATIA for example. It is developed by Dassault Systemes in France. So, the major French auto makers, Peugeot and Renault both are heavy users. In addition, all of the affiliates are required to use it as well. Not much unlike it is with all of the auto makers. CATIA is definitely a powerful tool but it is undeniably the most difficult CAD system to operate. Just like anything, once you know it, all is well.

I asked some co-workers in France, what's the deal with CATIA? Is it a political thing? Are Dassault executives friends with the execs at the auto-makers? The simple response, "because they are both French companies". At first, I thought it was a secret "European" culture thing that we Americans wouldn't understand. But quickly I realized it made perfect sense. Of course a French company would by from another French company. I am sure there is more to it, but this is the simple explanation.

We used to hear "Made in the USA" all the time. It is something that is not positioned as much anymore. But maybe it is and we just take it for granted? Almost every single major CAD, FEA and CFD software package has been developed from the beginning in the US. It is something we on the sales side of things, simply state but take for granted. I think our customers take it for granted as well.

I think that I would see things differently if I was sitting in an engineering postion somewhere driving software made outside the US.

Swiss Engineering is into Industrial Design

Just spent a day at a medical device company in Switzerland. The first thing I noticed was that the working environment was very nice. Trendy, slick and sophisticated all in one. There are three major industries in this part of Switzerland: small mechanical devices, medical devices and of course, watches. Each take great pride in their work and provide a very nice atmosphere for their employees, vendors and customers.

The office park looked like most that we see in the US, but the minute you walk in, you notice right away that this company is different. Various art work is displayed everywhere. The furniture is modern and very high quality. Especially for an office.

The people are quite friendly and have a confidence that is very reassuring. They take great pride in their work and spend a great deal of time on the industrial design of their products. Some might question the length to which they go to make their stuff "attractive". But I noticed it right away, very impressive.

The geek in me was dying to know what ID software they used? Was it a partner of Pro/e? Icem surf, Alias, think3?? I know, I need a hobby... I was hoping it was think3. I haven't seen their demo in along time. I have always thought they targeted an interesting market. Unfortunately, I never did get an answer to my question.

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.

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...

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.

High School Students Use Upfront CFD to Win Submarine Race

Amazing! Chris Land is a high school teacher at Sussex County Technical School in New Jersey. He and his students compete against universities (yeah, universities) from the US, Mexico, Canada and the UK in a human powered submarine race. They are using Upfront CFD to compare their designs prior to prototyping. So even high schools appreciate faster, cheaper, better. Read the whole story here.

Very cool testament to how far along CFD software has come. I am a firm believer that all engineering software should be developed for the masses. It wasn't too long ago that an executive at a traditional CFD company compared Upfront CFD to "giving guns to children". Whoa, pretty heavy comparison.

The classic line "garbage in, garbage out" still applies. Engineering software should be developed for the masses, but users should attend training and understand the problem that they are trying to solve.

Clearly, high school students aren't expected to know everything about fluid mechanics in order to design a human powered submarine. But, with the guidance of their teacher they are certainly capable of interpreting whether one design is better than the other. This is the premise of Upfront CFD.

Funny how it parallels real life. Numerous companies have their designers running Upfront CFD and the results are being verified by a more experienced user.

CAD has becoming easier and easier to use, so only makes sense for Upfront Simulation to follow the trend.

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/

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/

Communicating and Sharing our 3D Designs

I remember back in the late 90s, there was a huge push to transition companies from 2D to 3D. Believe it or not, there is still quite a bit of buzz about it. Probably has to do with the fact that there are 4 million+ 2D AutoCAD seats out there. So, companies like Inventor, SolidWorks and Solid Edge are slugging it out to convert companies to 3D. Perhaps I am spoiled, but I can't imagine designing anyting mechanical in 2D. 3D, seems to becoming the accepted standard. I think the creation of the "mid-range" market (SW, Inventor & SE) really exposed companies to the idea of 3D. Prior to 1995, a seat of Pro/e was $20k and required a machine that was equally priced to drive. SW exploded on the market and totally changed the playing field. One "wow" factor that SW used in the late 90s (and widely used today) is "edrawings". It is a standalone viewer that provides a means to share, mark up and view models in 3D. One of the cool things they did was allow users to package up the viewer and model and send it to someone. This bypassed the need to have to download the viewer on the other end. Very cool for the time, however, email servers tend to strip off the "*.exe" these days. As you can imagine, every other CAD vendor jumped on the bandwagon and provided their own viewer. I recently tested out Autodesk's version called, Design Review. I really like their interface. Check out some of the cool navigation tools in the model window.
Things have come even further. We now want the ability to share our simulation results with the world. Check out the video below. It is a 3D viewer for CFD results. It can act as a standalone application or can be embedded inside a power point presentation. So, imagine presenting results to a team of engineers, or even better, non-engineers and have the ability to pan, zoom, rotate and animate your results. Cool stuff...

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..

CFD is Cool..it's even on YouTube

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...

How to stay in touch when on the road...internationally

Many of us are required (or choose, depends on your perspective) to be on the road for work and be away from those that are close to us. There are many ways to stay in touch..email, mobile phones, ims, webcam etc..

Even a few years ago this was a challenge. Remember the days before high speed internet? Local mobile plans were a real treat and calling cards still cost too much. Things have definitely changed quite a bit. Nearly everyone in the US has a nationwide mobile phone plan. Many have PDA phones that allow emails and texting. So, as long as you are traveling in the US, you can stay connected fairly easily. Maybe even connected too much, by some standards?

But once we travel outside of the US, things can get complicated. Well, let's face it, things get expensive. Making international calls are getting more reasonable, but roaming is outrageously expensive. Even if you pay the "upgrade" fee to "get the best" price. It costs ~0.99/min in Europe. So even a quick call home can be a few bucks, but usually much more.

One option is to get a prepaid SIM card for the perspective country and make the long distance call home. Still expensive and a drag to have to go through the hassle. I just returned from a trip to England and have found new ways to "call home".

I recently began using Yahoo Messenger to call home. The exact service is referred to as Yahoo Voice.
So, assuming that I can get descent quality high speed internet access, it has worked out very well. If I call pc to pc, it is free. Yeah, free. If I call pc to phone it is $0.01/min. That is half of the cost of its primary competitor Skype. Another really cool feature is "phone in" service. Allows me to choose a local number that anyone can call that will then ring me at my computer. If I am not there, they can leave a message. I can also forward my US office phone to that number so that I can retrieve voice mails while on the road. Otherwise, even checking voice mail would be a long distance call.

As long as the internet connection is descent, the sound quality is not bad. I did have slower connection in one hotel and the delay was quite annoying. I find that it is more of a hassle to ensure that my headset is working properly. Seems to have a mind of its own. Mutes the mic, uses the computer speakers instead of the headset. Simple reboot seems to clear up the issues. I am using a Plantronics DSP-400 headset.

Another perk when traveling is using a webcam. Currently
I am using a Logitech Quickcam Deluxe for Notebooks. I love the size and the image quality is descent. But I have to say, the stability of the camera isn't the best. It tends to crash my computer (BSOD) quite often. So, I have to be very careful when I use it not to have too much else running on my machine.

The key to both the headset and camera that I am using is that they are both fairly portable. The camera is literally the size of a box of matches. The headset folds neatly, but does have a clunky "voice enhancer" thing of some sort. Looks like a battery pack.

I feel like gypsy because my bag has so many things in it. But staying connected is important to me, so its worth it. These are the gadgets I use for communicating. I am also way into music, I'll save that for another time.

A Day in the Life of the Virtual Engineer?

Probably the most fundamental part of being a virtual engineer is that I work remotely for a software company. So, I work from a home office and work in a virtual office environment. This lifestyle is certainly not for everyone, but I can't imagine it any other way. People constantly ask what exactly do I do all day since I don't go into an office.

My primary responsibilities include pre and post sales technical support and training. Something we refer to as Field Services. So, I work closely with a team of engineers scattered all over the world. Most are in a similar situation and are fortunate enough to work from home. We work with our customers to ensure that they are successful using our tool to help them design and engineer better products. The software we develop is a fluid flow and heat transfer (CFD) simulation package. Conveniently referred to as virtual prototyping software.

Being in a virtual working environment has many advantages but also has its challenges. You have to be pretty disciplined and communication is critical. I am somewhat obsessed with communicating efficiently. It is easy to get caught up in the latest gadget that hits the market. But inevitably, it is a crucial part of our lives.

So, what are some of the tools we use to stay connected?

Obviously phone and email play a big part. We recently implemented MS Office Communicator (OC). An instant messaging program from MS. Integrates with Outlook etc. It has alot of really cool functionality such as file sharing, web cam and voip capability. What I like about it is that it is easy to have everyone log into the same server etc. We can then quickly see who is online and who is available etc. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/communicator/FX101729051033.aspx

Being in the software business, it is really handy to be able to have web meetings that allow us to share and view other's desktops. We have been using WebEx for quite a few years. Works fairly well. Many others out there like it, but we will probably stick with Webex for the time being.

When not in the office, I have a Treo750. Until the iphone hit the world, I thought the treo was the coolest phone out there. Easy to use, runs Windows Mobile. So grabbing calls, emails and texts are all very easy. I am in the process of seeing how I can incorporate
MS OC into my mobile device. This way I can be in instant contact with other members of the team.

Another service while on the road that has been invaluable is iPass (http://www.net-roamer.com). Essentially, it is a WiFi service that allows me to connect to the internet in airports, some hotels and coffee shops (Starbucks etc). Recently I found it very useful when traveling in England. Saved me having to pay ~$30 for a 24hr pass.

These are just some of the basics that we use. I would love to hear what others are using? I have recently gotten into using an im service to make phone calls. More on this very soon...

Ease of Use: Unique vs. Innovative

Every vendor claims that their product is easy to use. But I think there is a misconception on what easy to use really implies. Easy to use to one user, may be in fact counter-intuitive to another. There is a major difference between being unique and innovative when it comes to ease to use. Take, for example, CATIA and SolidWorks. Both owned by the same company. Granted developed from the ground up separately and arguably targeted to different markets.

But I don't believe there are two codes on the market that do much of the same things but are orders of magnitude different from one another in what I consider ease of use. Does easier to use mean less powerful? I'll save that for a different post.

But back to ease of use. I have been driving SolidWorks since SW95. So, I consider myself pretty capable. I have been driving CATIA for half as long. However, I just attended a CATIA course this past summer. I love intro training classes. I really don't believe there is a better way to become a power user than learning the "method behind the madness".

So there I was in a room full of guys from my company all power users of at least 2-3 separate CAD systems and many of us walked in with a biased dislike for CATIA. Why is that? Well, because it is drastically different than most of the other CAD systems. Clearly, CATIA has some more functionality than many of the others, but why is it so different?

I am not that picky of a user. I can usually figure stuff out. Roll with it, as they say. RMB for this one, rather than LMB. Ok, all good, I'll figure it out. But CATIA is drastically different in all aspects. Extrusion/protrusion is a PAD!? A cutout is a POCKET!? Ever try and rotate, pretty funky.

Sounds like I am just bashing poor ole CATIA. Not really. About half way through the first day of the training, I was actually digging it. Check out a faucet in CATIA R17 above. Keep in mind though, I was psyched that I was able to create a LOFT, SWEEP, booleans etc. Very basic things. I was beginning to understand what they expected me as the user to do. Seems counter-intuitive to me. Remember, I am looking at CAD from a simulation perspective. I don't really care about the detailing capability. But, I need to open a production level model and have a handle of the basic modeling functionality. I appreciate uniqueness, but not at a cost of learning "their" methodology. Rather I want them to adopt to "mine and yours".

Now on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have SolidWorks. I gotta admit, I really like SW. I always have. In the beginning, I was drawn to them because they were the underdog. Up against big bully Pro/e. But literally, SW changed the way people view CAD. But I will go one step further. I think they changed the way engineer's look at software in general. They have blazed the trail for FEA and CFD vendors to actually follow suit and concentrate on developing GUIs that can be driven by the masses. What I love about SW is that "they allow you to do what you want, how you want to do it". If that enters their marketing literature, I want my cut. Check out the same faucet in SW2008 below.

The look and feel of SW is pretty straight forward. They took a little fromn Pro, a little from UG etc and alot of their own special sauce all wrapped into one. So, if you like to have to fully define your sketch, ok. If you don't, ok. Are you a RMB kind of guy or do you prefer dialog boxes? When in a command there are no less than three ways to click "Ok". That is innovation in my book. It's not over crowding the interface but rather appealing to people from all walks of life. They definitely do things different than others, but when you see it, you get it right away.

Quite frankly, others are falling in line. Inventor has come leaps and bounds and is becoming a true competitor. UGNX5 is slick. I never thought I would say that. Others have some catching up to do, sorry Solid Edge. Pro/e, well, they are definitely unique.

I am fortunate to be working closer with european companies this year. So, perhaps, I will have a different take on CATIA as we move forward. Sitting in a Starbucks in London right now about to kick off a week visting companies in the UK. More soon..

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.

What is it like growing up in the CFD world?

I have worked in the Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) world for over 10 years. I have been fortunate enough to have worked with numerous products ranging from nearly all commercial CAD tools to ANSYS and other FEA tools. But the majority of my time has been devoted to the CFD world. Graduate work involved doing fluid flow measurements in the lab.

I then moved into writing small portions of CFD code to using some developed by others for specific applications. At the time, these codes seemed awesome. It was amazing what they could do at the time. Imagine spending a few weeks creating a grid by hand and being fascinated at seeing a few vectors on the screen.

But as we all know computer power and commercial CFD codes have come leaps and bounds since then. I love the fact that CAD vendors are being pushed to make their products easier and faster etc. Simulation software is not far behind.

There has always been a belief that if an analysis product is too easy to use, than it must not be any good? Pretty funny when you read it, isn't it? But its been a myth out there for along time.

I think we owe it to ourselves to push the vendors to create products that are not only cutting edge, but easy to use and make us more productive engineers.

PTC buying CoCreate? More on that in a bit....