Consider being an Organ Donor

Not one of my typical posts. But this has been an important topic to me for as long as I can remember. I remember "checking the box" on my driver's license renewal form many, many years ago. I don't think I gave it a ton of thought at the time. But over the years, I am convinced that it is one of the best choices I have ever made.

Not looking to offend or open up a big ethical debate, this is simply a personal opinion. There are 98,207 Americans on the waiting list for various organs as of 8:16pm this evening. Think about how you would feel if a parent, sibling, friend or even worse, a child needed an organ. You would surely hope that there was one available. Others feel the same.

Give it some thought. Consider paying it forward. Honestly, when the time comes, you will not need them anymore.

Here are a few links...

United Network for Organ Sharing

The Gift of a Lifetime

Lighting is the Hot Industry for Upfront CFD

The trend for lighting designers is to emit as much light as possible for a given input power. Various new applications are evolving everyday. There has obviously been a huge push to make things "greener". This pushes engineers to optimize their designs and maiximize efficiency. LEDs are the hottest thing right now. No pun intended.

Designers are always trying to cram these light sources into tiny little areas. This causes major issues on how to cool the devices. Most of the time, they do not have the luxury of actively cooling the lights. They have to rely on natural convection and have to be creative on the various types of heat sinks they use. This is a perfect application for Upfront CFD.

In the past, there was tons and tons of trial and error. Hand calcs and best practices only go so far. It is impossible to account for the various shapes and sizes of the heat sinks. It is much faster and cheaper to build your design in CAD, run an analysis, verify that the temps are within spec and then make a change and optimize.

A really cool article was recently published that highlights how Upfront CFD was used to ensure that gigantic lighting displays are cooled properly. The lighting displays are used in stadiums and the Las Vegas strip.

Literally seems like these lighting applications are popping up everywhere. Seems odd that lighting companies wouldn't have been the first people in line to jump on the Upfront CFD train?!?

CAD Skills are No Longer a Requirement for Upfront CFD

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

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

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

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

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

Today's Generation Instinctively Understands Upfront CFD

I was working last night on a few things and my little girl (21mos), came over and grabbed my mouse as she likes the red light underneath. Typically, I just disable it and she will play with it for awhile. But this time she went straight for the mouse pad and began moving her little fingers to position the mouse. Did she know exactly what she was doing, probably not. But she proceeded to explore, hit a few keys and an application opened. She was thrilled. Point is, today's generation, which is tomorrow's engineers, are born in an era where computers are the standard. It will only evolve from here. They allow today, what couldn't even be conceived yesterday.

The challenge for today's engineer's is to think outside of the box and use different, more modern methods to design better products. Years and years of man hours have been honed to develop testing procedures and best practices. Now software vendors are coming in and saying there is a better way. "Can't be! There is no way that the computer can give us the same reliable results. We don't trust the results". This is the challenge.

It is up to the software vendor to provide you with the confidence that the tool can reduce the number of prototypes and that it can provide you valuable insight that testing simply cannot. The vendor does this through reputation, years of experience, testing of their own and years of hard work. Ensure that they have put the same amount of care into validating their solution as you have to yours. It's the same thing.

I think deep down, it is a hard value proposition to deny. Upfront CFD/CAE/FEA, whatever, is here to stay. It simply works. It is obviously, not for everyone. There are some engineering houses that are dealing with problems beyond the scope of upfront analysis. For those, you either hire a specialist or you outsource.. However, if you partner with the right company, there are many ways to approach many different problems.

New, young engineers will not know a time that Upfront analysis, was not the norm. Exciting time for them, actually. They are coming into the market with high expectations. "Of course, I should be able to leverage my CAD model!" "Of course, the mesh is automatic. Why wouldn't it be?" It is a part of the way they think, they will want to get their hands on the software and try various things because they are not intimidated.

They are used to instant gratification. It is a part of their DNA. They are used to the idea that if you don't have it, someone will, and I will buy their stuff. It really pushes us in the software world to excel. I love it!! It forces me to fight and do a really good job to make satisfied users. That, to me, is job satisfaction at its finest.

The Fundamentals of Upfront CAE Should Start in the Universities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's All About the User Interface

I have been using Camtasia software quite a bit recently to create some really cool videos on my laptop. Basically recording a bunch of "how to" videos for customers. For those that aren't familiar, Camtasia is the big brother to SnagIt. If it's still not ringing a bell, go check them out. Really cool stuff.

Constantly amazes me how much I am drawn to a really cool, well thought out and snazzy interface. I have been using Camtasia 4 for awhile and for the most part, pretty happy. Like all software took me a little time to figure it out, fell into a routine, all is well. They have some awesome recorded quick tips on how to use it etc. I watch them from time to time, very helpful.

It was new release time and every time I opened Camtasia 4 it would check for updates and give me an offer to upgrade. I robotically clicked "cancel" every time. I received the obligatory email reminding me of the upgrade. Being a software guy, I respect the persistence. They have to make a living. However, I still ignored their offer. Until one day, I was sitting in an airport, I clicked the link to check it out.

Check out the screen shot (using SnagIt) above. First thing I noticed was the familiar "Play" button in the middle of a thumbnail, so I clicked it. The surrounding window went transparent and a video with audio began showing me the "new features". Looked awesome. Second thing I noticed was that they modernized the GUI a bit, cleaned it up, changed the color scheme. They also added a quick little editing toolbar for me to use. Bottom line, it all looked cool. I understood for the most part some of the new features? I immediately saw the benefit of the editing toolbar. But what caught my attention once again was that it looked cool, easy and FUN to use. I needed to have it. I was going to be more productive with the latest version. At least, that is how I was justifying the upgrade fee.

Point is, I love videos, I don't want to read your new features. Just show me. Plus if you make it look cool, even better. Put some cool colors in there, I definitely need that. Plus if you add some functionality that I understand simply by looking at it, awesome.

I made the upgrade decision mostly only my reaction to the new look and feel of the tool that was already treating me ok. No ambition to upgrade until I saw it.

The Upfront CFD Market is Maturing: Relationships are Crucial

It is a fun time to be in the Upfront CFD industry. Things have certainly come along way. It wasn't too long ago that the CAD companies were campaigning for companies "to make the transition from 2D to 3D". Everyone was developing really cool transition tools that would help users convert their 2D drawings into 3D parts and assemblies. I am sure this still applies to some, but I think a good percentage of companies have at least considered making the move. The list of improvements in 3D MCAD tools is endless. There has been a step change in ease of use, automation and productivity over the last few years. Even the graphics and displays have improved dramatically. Check out the image (no photo rendering required) below from our friends at SolidWorks.

Advancements have been made across the board in other products as well. A few years ago, many engineering organizations considered structural FEA as a "nice to have". Now it can be said that many engineering organizations consider FEA to be part of the critical path. This was due to a number of factors. FEA codes are now easier to use, they can leverage native MCAD models and FEA has been integrated into the engineering design process. FEA companies partnered with their customers, listened to what they were saying and adapted to the changing market.

You are now seeing a surge in the adoption of CFD into the engineering design process. CFD has been around for a number of years. It primarily has been used by CFD specialists or farmed out to the vendors. Clearly, there is still a market for this. But CFD should be and can be part of the design process. Check out the image below a guy on our team worked on recently.

It is the responsibility of the vendors to make you successful. This goes above and beyond whether the product is easy to use. It has to do with whether or not the vendor has a plan and reputation to make you successful. Let's be honest, there are alot of options out there. The decision should go well beyond the cost and ease of use. Here is a quick list of questions, I'd be asking.

How dedicated and experienced is the vendor in solving your particular problem?

Do they have examples, references, success stories?

Do they fully understand your needs?

Do they have an implementation plan?

Do they have a services group? Have you spoken to them prior to your decision?

Will your particular problem be discussed in training or are you stuck with standard non-related examples?

How is support handled? Do they have a Customer Portal or Online Community? Will you be transferred around from specialist to specialist? What does the "escalation" procedure look like?

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

This is a question that many engineers have faced when evaluating various types of "add on" functionality to their existing MCAD system. Whether it be CAM, FEA, CFD or PDM, there are many options out there.

Depending on the level of sophistication, the answer to the question is not so easy. Let's take PDM, for example. It makes sense to me that users should be able to check things in and out of the vault, have full revision control etc all within the CAD environment.

How about CAM? The question gets a little more complicated. How much will users be using the CAM software? How complicated are the parts? Will the users be driving the CAM software daily? If you have to think twice about any of these, then it makes sense to consider whether or not the "CAD-embedded" solution has all of the bells and whistles you'll need.

Now, how about FEA? Let's take Pro/Mechanica for example. It was one of the original fully embedded FEA programs out there. PTC acquired RASNA and tightened the integration. Mechanica always stuck to its roots. P-method, liner static analysis with steady state thermal capbilities. Nothing more, nothing less (for the most part). So, in this case, if it fits your needs and you are a Pro/e user, makes sense to go the CAD-embedded route.

Let's look at COSMOS/Works. They have done quite well for themselves by embedding inside SolidWorks. But there was always this option to "upgrade" to the full suite, COSMOS/M. Now that SolidWorks owns the former SRAC, it is probably not as much of an issue as they are focused on the full product within SW. But suppose SW didn't purchase SRAC. Users risk that there will be a disconnect between the two different development teams. Now in this case, there was a happy ending.

But now, suppose the SRAC folks had an agreement with SolidWorks, Autodesk and UG? Can we count on the fact that they have a close knit relationship with all equally? Do all of their graphics work the same? Is their UI framework flexible enough to be embedded in all of those systems equally? SRAC made a smart decision. They picked one, focused and delivered. In this case, they made a smart pick. Good for them!

There are many companies out there that claim that their solution embeds in all of the CAD tools. Some even claim to have an upward path to their "flagship" offering if your needs grow beyond their embedded capabilities. Yikes! How focused are the vendors on their CAD embedded solution? Is it just a marketing campaign to claim "me too"? These are the questions I would be asking.

Point is, is CAD-embedded all that is cracked up to be? It can appear to have its advantages. But I wouldn't let it sway my decision. I would put it in the nice to have column.

Consider these points when making the decision whether to go with CAD-embedded.

Is the CAD embedded tool developed and owned by the CAD vendor? If the codes are not developed by the same people, there is bound to be a disconnect.

If you want to run a CFD analysis, for example, does it occupy your CAD license?

How many products does the vendor develop? How much of their focus/$$ comes from the product you are evaluating? Is it their bread and butter?

Don't be fooled by the carrot of CAD-embedded with promises of an "upgrade" path.

Check out this cooling fan model I have been working on, cool stuff.

Yahoo! Widgets make my desktop look cool

Being an interface snob, I have always been jealous of my brother's Apple/Mac interface. Looks way cooler than everyone else. Same feeling I had back in the day when I was rocking the Atari and my buddy up the street had Intelivision. Being a huge fan of Asteroids, I was psyched to have Atari. But his machine definitely looked cooler.

Anyway, when Vista was announced, I was stoked. Finally, I can now have a cool desktop like my brother's Mac. But then, oh no, Vista is a giant nightmare. All I really wanted was the "Sidebar" that Vista was rolling out. I then found that Google had one that you could install on winXP, but quickly was disappointed as it is a big clunky thing. My brother's MAC was still cooler. Sound like I am whining?

But, alas, check out Yahoo! Widgets. I love them. Cool little add ins that you can install that "float" on your desktop. So, I can rearrange them, however I want. I can customize the look and feel. Some have been developed by Yahoo and some by whoever. So, obviously, there is a big risk that they will not work or have limited functionality. But some are really cool and let you change colors etc.

Check out a portion of my desktop above. There are literally scores of different things you can have. I stuck with the basics: clocks for the various time zones I work in, a calendar with a preview of events from Outlook, local weather and an XM radio player.

Each has odd little quirks like, "bleeding" through both Pro/engineer and SolidWorks? If you maximize both CAD systems, the odd behavior goes away. So, as long as I know how to fix it, I am good with it.

When Google burst onto the scene, I felt bad for Yahoo! As you have seen in other posts, I am becoming a loyal fan.

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..