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.