Dassault Systèmes Announces Abaqus for CAITA Version 2.5 from SIMULIA

Dassault Systèmes recently announced that its SIMULIA brand for realistic simulation has released Abaqus for CATIA Version 2.5, the technology-leading software for advanced finite element analysis (FEA) in the CATIA environment.
 
"Abaqus for CATIA allows our design engineers to immediately evaluate how new concepts and design changes affect product performance," states Michael Thienel, MANN+HUMMEL GMBH, Filter Elements Business Unit. "This approach not only accelerates our development time, but also improves knowledge of our design's physical behavior, giving us greater confidence in our product quality during the development stage."

“Abaqus for CATIA helps us to minimize the number of software interfaces that we use during the development of our exhaust turbocharger,” states Markus Staedeli, ABB Turbo Systems Ltd. “With Abaqus for CATIA we can work seamlessly with the same geometry model throughout our virtual development process. This integrated simulation workflow provides significant efficiency gains for our company.”

The new release, available on the latest 64-bit computing architecture as well as 32-bit systems, provides tighter integration with CATIA through support of CATIA Knowledgeware, publications, and sensors, as well as ease-of-use enhancements such as automatic contact detection.

 “Abaqus for CATIA Version 2.5 addresses our customers’ requirements for tighter integration with CATIA and improved usability of advanced Abaqus features, such as contact and nonlinear analysis workflows,” states Steve Crowley, director of SIMULIA product management for Dassault Systèmes.  “This release is a key component of our strategy to deliver solutions that enable design engineers and expert analysts to collaborate efficiently throughout the product lifecycle by using approved methods, common FEA models, and synchronized data.”

The new product leverages CATIA’s Knowledgeware, which allows users to capture design knowledge and reuse it as best practices to ensure compliance with established standards. The new automatic contact detection feature simplifies the modeling process and reduces potential errors by providing a wizard-based interface that guides users through setup options and automatically detects all likely contact pairs.
 
For more information visit: www.simulia.com/products/afc_v5.html.

About SIMULIA
SIMULIA is the Dassault Systèmes brand that delivers a scalable portfolio of Realistic Simulation solutions including the Abaqus product suite for Unified Finite Element Analysis, multiphysics solutions for insight into challenging engineering problems, and lifecycle management solutions for managing simulation data, processes, and intellectual property. By building on established technology, respected quality, and superior customer service, SIMULIA makes realistic simulation an integral business practice that improves product performance, reduces physical prototypes, and drives innovation. Headquartered in Providence, RI, USA, with R&D centers in Providence and in Suresnes, France, SIMULIA provides sales, services, and support through a global network of over 30 regional offices and distributors. For more information, visit www.simulia.com.
 
About Dassault Systèmes
As a world leader in 3D and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) solutions, Dassault Systèmes brings value to more than 100,000 customers in 80 countries. A pioneer in the 3D software market since 1981, Dassault Systèmes develops and markets PLM application software and services that support industrial processes and provide a 3D vision of the entire lifecycle of products from conception to maintenance to recycling. The Dassault Systèmes portfolio consists of CATIA for designing the virtual product - SolidWorks for 3D mechanical design - DELMIA for virtual production - SIMULIA for virtual testing - ENOVIA for global collaborative lifecycle management, and 3DVIA for online 3D lifelike experiences.  Dassault Systèmes is listed on the Nasdaq (DASTY) and Euronext Paris (#13065, DSY.PA) stock exchanges. For more information, visit http://www.3ds.com. 

CATIA, DELMIA, ENOVIA, SIMULIA, SolidWorks and 3D VIA are registered trademarks of Dassault Systèmes or its subsidiaries in the US and/or other countries.

ICAM Releases Virtual Machine V17 Supporting Mill / Turn Centers

ICAM Technologies Corporation (ICAM) recently announced the release of Virtual Machine® V17, the latest version of its integrated graphical machine tool simulation / NC post-processing solution.

Deploying Virtual Machine as a harmonized productivity tool to CAM-POST®, ICAM’s NC post-processing development and management technology, delivers a powerful machine tool simulation environment enabling NC programmers to optimize and test programs against collisions and over-travel, easily and automatically during post-processing.

Virtual Machine V17 features all the necessary software components to fully support Mill / Turn centers including the ability to synchronize dual turret merging lathes, the capacity to accurately simulate constant surface speed as well as the provision to define and model lathe tool inserts and generic 3D tool holders. Virtual Machine also provides the environment to define a spindle or a lathe tool turret.

Additionally, Virtual Machine offers a unique “Timeline Control” that provides playback of NC programs at any moment within the machining cycle. This unique function allows programmers to visualize and test corresponding NC post-processors for maximum output optimization.

Other new and enhanced Virtual Machine V17 features include:

• Improved function to represent an assembly of multiple unique components.
• Collision testing supporting “nearness concept” allowing collision detection and reporting to account for safety margins.
• A new feature statically defined in the machine model, can be used to support machines with multiple heads and other complex machine architectures.
• New Virtual Machine specific macro functions are available to fully customize the behavior of complex models.

“As 5-axes CNC machines and controllers evolve, creating functional and productive NC post-processors is becoming more and more complicated and tedious,” said Brian Francis, ICAM’s Director of Research and Development. “For this reason, ICAM is focused on delivering integrated NC post-processing and machine tool simulation software tools that simplify the creation of advanced and optimized machine code regardless of the complexity of current and future CNC machines. For individuals interested to view a Virtual Machine V17 product demonstration, ICAM will be exhibiting at EMO 2007 in Hannover, Germany at Stand F12, Hall 6.”

Virtual Machine Mill / Turn Models with Timeline Control

About ICAM Technologies Corporation
For over 35 years ICAM Technologies Corporation has been specializing in the development and implementation of advanced NC post-processing solutions for manufacturers in major industries around the world. In 2002, ICAM has added an integrated machine tool simulator, Virtual Machine®, to its product mix that further strengthened its position in the NC manufacturing market. ICAM customers benefit from dramatic improvements to CNC machine optimization, NC programmer productivity and manufacturing process efficiency. ICAM's unique technology and services provide its customers and industry partners with the competitive edge that their business operations and customers demand

ICAM Technologies Corporation
Phil Masella
Marketing Communications Manager
Tel: (514) 697-8033
phil@icam.com

NAFEMS Benchmark Study - Take Time Now, Save Time and Money Later

Almost all of us who are involved with engineering analysis would agree that up-front simulation can benefit the design process. A recent study by the Aberdeen Group set out to try and prove that this was the case and to quantify it in some way. In this article, Chad Jackson from the Aberdeen Group, USA, summarises some of the principal findings of the study.

The market is telling manufacturers to “get it done quickly” and, at the same time, develop more, and more complex, products for demanding customers. The question is “How?” One answer that emerged almost a decade ago was to use simulation early, in the design phase. By now, one would expect widespread use of simulation in the design phase, but that’s not the case. When trying to figure out how to get things done more quickly, many manufacturers face a seeming paradox: will taking more time (to perform simulation in design) save time and money later (in testing)?To answer the question – in fact, to validate and quantify the benefits of early simulation — Aberdeen Group surveyed more than 270 companies primarily in the automotive, aerospace and defense, and industrial equipment industries, but with representation from sectors such as computer equipment and peripherals, high technology, telecommunications as well. About 28% of respondents were from large companies (with annual revenues above $1 billion); 40% were from midsize enterprises (with annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion); and 33% were from small companies (with annual revenues below $50 million). The research findings indicated that for some companies – top performers — not only does spending time on simulation in design save time in testing, but that early simulation assists these companies to hit their product development targets. Analysis of survey findings helped to identify these top performers and disclosed how they achieve these benefits – by reducing physical prototypes — as well as their best practices for leveraging simulation throughout the product development process. Two areas examined, ultimately to validate and quantify early simulation benefits, were company performance level and product complexity.

Identifying Company Performance Levels
Aberdeen categorized survey respondents by their responses to questions about key performance indicators (KPIs): hitting product development targets for product revenues, product costs, development costs, launch dates, and quality. These KPIs provide financial, process, and quality measures (Figure 1).

Based on aggregate scores incorporating all five metrics, those companies in the top 20% achieved “best in class” status; those in the middle 50% were “average”; and those in the bottom 30% were “laggard.” As expected, companies in the different performance categories show substantial differences – with best in class hitting all five marks at an 86% or better average. This classification connected early simulation to time and cost savings in general – especially because 100% of the best in class companies, in fact, reported using simulation early in design. But to quantify those benefits, Aberdeen had to look at and classify the complexity of survey respondents’ products as well.

Determining Prototype Costs and Time – Based on Product Complexity
One of the primary reasons manufacturers pursue simulation early in the product development lifecycle is to test product performance virtually, so they can be improved or “designed right the first time.” As a result, virtually tested products have a higher chance of passing physical prototype testing the first time. Overall, this translates into less time and lower development costs in the product development lifecycle.

However, translating reduced prototypes into hard costs and time depends on the complexity of the product. To get a clear picture of how prototype costs and time varied according to product complexity, Aberdeen categorized survey respondents’ products by measuring three key indicators: number of parts, length of development lifecycle, and number of engineering disciplines incorporated.

This measurement subsequently enabled differentiation of levels of product complexity. The following table describes the general characteristics of each of the product complexity categories from this study’s research (Table 1). Based on these categories of product complexity, there was, not surprisingly, a logical progression in the corresponding increase in time and costs as complexity increases (Table 3).

Avoiding Physical Prototypes with Virtual Prototypes
The two analyses above provide the key to answering the question — “Does using simulation during design eliminate unnecessary additional rounds of prototyping?” – with a clear “yes.” Survey findings showed that best in class companies averaged 3.0 prototypes compared to 4.6 for all other manufacturers.

Applying this difference of 1.6 prototypes to the different categories of product complexity yielded compelling results. The best in class manufacturers of the products with very high complexity get to market 158 days earlier with $1,900,000 lower product development costs than average performers. At the opposite end of product complexity spectrum, the best in class manufacturers get to market 21 days earlier and spend $12,000 less on product development costs than average performers. In short, there are very real benefits in early simulation that translate into a direct impact on time to market and product development costs.

Determining Best Practices in Using Simulation across the Lifecycle
How do the best in class achieve these benefits? After all, other companies use simulation early in design without achieving the same reduction in physical prototypes. Aberdeen also looked the strategies and tactics of best in class versus other companies to determine “best practices” in adopting and leveraging simulation both early in design and throughout the lifecycle. Aberdeen Group’s Simulation-Driven Design Benchmark Report examines these successful approaches – including to training and education, specific technology adoption and usage, and data management of simulation models. A complimentary copy is now available.

COMPUTING & ENGINEERING PERSONNEL LTD
The specialist agency for FEA, CFD, NVH analysts and designers. If you are recruiting or looking for a position, please call Phil Senior to discuss your particular  needs.

Unit R3 Verdin Exchange
High Street, Winsford
Cheshire CW7 2AN
Tel: 01606 860861
Fax: 01606 860971
Email: recruit_bm@caep.co.uk
Web: www.caep.co.uk

CAD Migration: Lessons from the Trenches

David Prawel, Longview Advisors Inc.

Numerous studies in recent years have shown that manufacturers have many different CAD systems - even large OEMs with well publicized “single CAD” strategies. For example, a May 2007 survey by CADCAMnet (www.cadcamnet.com) found that 70% of respondents from OEM companies used two or more CAD systems. The picture is even more complicated for suppliers, since they are required to support their customer’s preferred CAD format.

To complicate matters, as more powerful new features appear in CAD software tools, users need to upgrade and update their software to get access. Of course, users must take time to learn the new features, but worse, sometimes the CAD vendors make major changes to their software and provide a poor migration path for their customers, who are then left to figure out for themselves how to migrate their data. In an all-too-common worst case scenario, users settle themselves to recreating their data (usually out of frustration), rather than attempt to migrate it – a hugely costly endeavor, and most often not the best decision.

All the while, fierce competition continues to drive management to seek out every opportunity for cost savings, gains in efficiency and implementation of “lean” processes. New product programs need to bring innovative products to market faster than ever before. And re-using previous designs is an excellent means to this end. Unfortunately, CAD migration problems stand squarely in the path of these goals. While designers and engineers should be driving ever harder to re-use previous designs, they are spending more and more time re-inventing the wheel.

Research we just completed suggests the CAD migration problem is indeed huge. We estimate that discrete manufacturers worldwide will migrate approximately 60 terabytes of data this year, representing about $7.5 billion annually in cost – and a big business for the many engineering services companies around the world who perform CAD migration services.

The best way to mitigate the risk and impact of CAD migration on your organization is to develop and implement a methodology for migration. Start by creating and empowering a cross-functional team of experts from program groups, IT and your supply chain. This team should define your methodology and flesh out the processes that should be followed. They should meet regularly and define things like best practices, how to prepare and clean up data to be migrated, what data is required, validation procedures, quality expectations and how to measure it, and the like. They must be empowered to make changes and enforce the rules.
Here are some things to consider as you navigate your way through the issues…

Take a Good Look at Your Data
You need to understand the types and amount of data that need to be moved to the target environment, for example, CAD files, documents and specifications, configuration management data, change control data, etc. Look at how much of your data is documents vs. 2D CAD vs. 3D CAD. You should also look at relative file sizes - many large models or many small. And make sure you know where the data resides. Much of it will be in a PDM system or even an ERP, not in CAD files.

Consider the complexity of your CAD data. Do you have relatively simple geometric shapes in your CAD designs, like prismatic parts, castings, and the like, or do your parts contain relatively more curved surfaces and rounded edges? These more complex models are more difficult to migrate. Unfortunately there is no simple, hard rule. The complexity of your data will be a key determinate in the amount of cost you should expect to incur to migrate it, or recreate it.

Also, assess how much embedded product knowledge (features, history, constraints, PMI, annotations, etc.) is in your CAD data. And study how much of this knowledge is in drawings or documents, not in the CAD files. Are your models mostly dumb solids or just surfaces, or do you have a lot of features, constraint and/or PMI data that you will want in the new CAD environment? You may have to move the CAD models and then manually add the other information manually from paper documents.

Define a Migration Strategy
You need a migration strategy. Assess how much data you need to migrate. Relatively few situations require migration of all product data. This should be driven by policy (e.g. government) or need, and your opportunity/value for reusing the data. It is not uncommon to require only as little as 10% of your product data in a new CAD environment.

Selecting the best strategy for migration is usually program-dependent. If a program needs some data from a past design, it is usually advisable to migrate all that data. It’s important to look at all versions of a product data set and select the best one to migrate. If you’re dealing with a major variant of a product component, migrate all that data and leave the other sub-systems until you need them. Consider migrating data that has a change order against it. The rest may never be needed in the new CAD environment. Many strategies dictate the use of two different CAD systems for a period of time while one is retired.

It is often advisable to work with migration software and services providers, such as ITI Transcendata or Proficiency, to help build your methodology and execute it. They have software and deep expertise to tackle your requirements. They can use their software to get a good share of the work done automatically, and provide excellent services to help finish the job at your required level of accuracy.

For relatively simple data, today’s state of the art in automatic translation can deliver about 85% to 90% migration success, predictably, if you only need the solid models. If you need product knowledge, or just features, you can probably achieve 70% to 75% complete translation. For complex data without product knowledge, you can expect 75% to 80% complete automatic translation, but it’s impossible to estimate with product knowledge – it could be as low as 50% and high as 75%. In the end, you want to be able to compare the cost of manual re-creation against the cost of using migration services. Service providers will complete a large share of the migration automatically, but they’ll have to add a little secret sauce to get 100% of your data in your target environment. Migration is more expensive for fully featured data, but so is manual re-creation. In the end, a good migration methodology and strategy is also more valuable for these data. The most important consideration is the level of quality you require in the end.

You will see quotes from some service providers for $15 per hour for simple data, but actual costs typically end up as high as $30 per hour due to incidentals such as project management, coordination meeting time, rework or plotting, etc.  With some “low cost” off-shore migration service providers, it is not unusual to be charged incrementally for rework, even though they made the mistakes. Rates of $75 to $90 per hour are common for specialized “added-value” engineering expertise such as FEA or CFD.

Quality Validation & Certification
After your data is migrated, its accuracy must be validated. Quality is the most important factor in migration success, but it’s very difficult to assess. Make it the job of your data exchange team to build and execute your quality strategy. If quality is poor, users won’t trust the data. So the value of a dependable level of quality is huge. Checking part quality can often cost 2 to 6 hours per part, so avoiding checking every model is a huge value.

Assess how much migration can be accomplished at different quality levels. You may not actually require the highest level of quality, and may be able to migrate more of the data at a slightly lower quality level, and be able to afford services to fix specific problems that appear. This may be a better strategy than migrating all the data at the highest quality level. It is not uncommon that the total cost of 100% accuracy (and checking for it) will exceed the cost of outsourcing the entire project.

The best migration service providers can deliver less than 1 error per 50 modeled parts in migration from paper drawings to 3D models. It would be ideal if you could get a guaranteed sustained quality rate from your provider, but it’s very difficult.

And a final note – it’s extremely common to find a significant number of “undiscovered” errors in older CAD drawings, perhaps at least 1 error in 5 drawings. Therefore, one of the greatest paybacks for conversion is finding and correcting these “latent” errors in official design documentation.  Studies by the US Army indicate that as much as 10% of parts they ordered have to be reworked because the official drawing documentation was incorrect. This could potentially be a huge “hidden” value of migrating CAD data to modern 3D models.

In the end, whether to migrate data or recreate it seems like a simple question of ROI. But beware, others in the company may have a different perspective. As a good friend recently said “management sometimes think they can save money by firing all the janitors and making the engineers do that job too”.

Contact David Prawel directly at dprawel@longviewadvisors.com and/or visit the Longview Blog, 3D Ubiquity, at www.3dubiquity.com or the Longview Advisors Web site at www.longviewadvisors.com.