White Paper: Practical Implementation of Best Practices For Analysis in A Design Environment

Practical implementation of best practices
for analysis in a design environment
White Paper
Maximizing the business impact of technology requires far more

than just buying the right point functionality and handing it off to
the analysis department. Digital simulation needs to be at the core
of every PLM business process because it enables management to
make faster, more informed decisions. Overall, increasing use of
digital simulation leads to better products that are more salable,
have better performance and higher margins, all of which directly
benefit the bottom line.
Issued by: Siemens PLM Software. 2010. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. All rights reserved.
White Paper | Practical implementation of best practices for analysis in a design environment | 1 July 2010
Contents
Executive summary............................................................................. 3
Introduction........................................................................................ 4
Workflow ............................................................................................ 5
Wizards and knowledge ...................................................................... 7
Simulation Process Studio ................................................................... 8
Example process showing steps, options and a brief description ........ 9
CAE PLM workflow directions............................................................ 13
Executive summary
Business initiatives such as Lean Design and Design
for Six Sigma demand the use of best practices.
However, the restrictions of software complexity,
software customization, user training and user CAE
knowledge all combine to make this a difficult
challenge. This paper describes a new approach to
providing a flexible method for the CAE analyst to
author guidelines that will keep a designer user (with
limited CAE experience) within a safe route through
the CAE landscape. This will ensure that the end user
obtains realistic and reliable results and frees up the
CAE analyst to carry out the more difficult and
complex work. Being able to repeat these processes
ensures that the analyst and company best practices
can be followed.
Introduction
There are two main business initiatives that are being
studied, investigated and implemented in current
leading product design and manufacturing companies. They are Design for Six Sigma and Lean Design.
The successful implementation of Six Sigma (SS)
manufacturing processes has been well proven, but a
more recent trend has been to extend this concept
into the product design and development phases and
was named Design for Six Sigma (DFSS). Implementing DFSS involves re-engineering the design and
development processes to improve the design quality,
and consequently the manufacturing quality. Simulation of product performance is an intricate part of
improving product quality and must be part of DFSS
processes.
Lean Design is all about reducing waste in the design
and development process, and is strongly linked to
DFSS. There are a number of business drivers that are
influenced by Lean Design and are enabled by
simulation tools and processes.
1. Fewer physical prototypes

Simulating product performance is the major
influence in reducing the number of physical

prototypes that need to be built and tested.
2. Less design and development time
Design changes driven by simulation result in
better, and fewer, decisions being made. This will

result in less time and money spent on rework.
Building and testing fewer physical prototypes
reduces development time scales.

Process efficiency is the major part of achieving
Lean Design, which requires companies to reduce

the time and effort required to transfer or translate
information, improve data accuracy and lower the
cost of reworking their data.
3. Reduced bottom line costs
Higher quality product design leads to reduced
material, warranty and component costs.

Lower R&D costs can be achieved by reducing the
number of physical prototypes and physical tests

needed during product development.
Process efficiency leads to reduced ongoing costs
in software purchasing, maintenance and training.

This paper will show how these business drivers and
the initiatives of DFSS and Lean Design are influencing the use of simulation tools in the short term, and
how they will change the way CAE is used in the
product lifecycle.
Workflow
The business initiatives of DFSS and Lean Design are
forcing companies to bring simulation tools to a wider
community. It is no longer acceptable that simulation
is not used in the product development cycle, and
indeed it is now a competitive imperative that
companies succeed in this effort.
Many engineering companies design and produce
variants or similar products. The analytical work is
based upon best practices developed over the years
by experienced engineers and analysts. This can
result in day-to-day analytical work being reduced to
a repeated set of connected steps with small variations. Often, even more non-regular tasks are
accomplished using a series of subprocesses. This
repeated set of connected steps can be classified as a
workflow, as illustrated in Figure 1.
In the past, many different methods have been
developed to instill discipline into the simulation
workflow, including hard coding these workflow with
simplified interfaces, macros or programs. Many of
these methods have been successful in saving time
and therefore money. However, by their very nature
these solutions are inflexible.
A number of industry organizations have been
instrumental in promoting best practices, training and
education and this has improved the quality of the
simulation workflows while achieving DFSS and Lean

Design goals. However, the training and best practices tend to be aimed at the expert analyst and not at
the design analyst. There is also the question of trust
in, and quality of, the results. Even though a designer
analyst is following laid-down guidelines and best
practices, there is always a concern that the results
may not be valid.
The CAD/CAE vendor-produced software and customized systems are directly aimed at the designer
analyst and repeatable workflows, but the software
applications have yet to discover the fine line
between the needs of the designer analyst and the
expert analyst. The programming languages used for
macro customization give the user little ability to
allow the flexible use of the macro/program. Also,
these require an extensive knowledge of the CAD/CAE
application(s) and a programming language.
It should also be noted that current attempts to
capture CAE workflows are focused on the minutiae
of model prep, boundary conditions, meshing,
solving, etc. An ever increasing drive is to link
different CAE solutions, to manage data and to
manage the overall CAE process within product
development, becoming an integral part of the
product lifecycle management (PLM).
GMPT CAE workflow engines

D esign input
Vehicle systems
performance
simulation
Vehicle specs
and
requirements
Solid model
geometry
Lab data: head gasket

characteristics
NX
Balance
requirements
Matlab/TRSAT
Airflow and
combustion
Valvetrain and
engine performance
Powertrain specs
performance and
cooling
requirements
Airflow model
Airflow characteristics
Surfseg, ICEM, Hypermesh
Fluent, Star CD, GMTEC
Engine
Engine
performance
performance
(torque, HP)
(torque,
GTPower
GTPower
Rotating and
reciprocration
Bearing loads
Flare
Lubrication and
cooling
Head block and

exhaust
Map HTCs to
structural model
EnSight
Transient thermal
strucural analysis
Abaqus
Piston rod and

crank analysis
Nastran, abaqus,
CFDA
Coolant flow
Analysis: flow
rate HTCs
Fluent, Star CD
Special head
and block
Post processing
Inspect
Piston rod and

crank models
Hypermesh, recip
soft codes
Coolant flow, tetra

mesh model
Hypermesh
Head and block

FEM model
Hypermesh
Information being interpeted and re-entered

General Motors Corporation, Daratech Summit, February 2005
Figure 1: Example workflow.
Performed by analysis group

Performed by analysis group or designing engineer
Wizards and knowledge

The use of wizards is an increasingly popular solution
that companies can use to automate their workflows
and facilitate their DFSS and Lean Design objectives.
Anyone who has installed software on a Windows PC
will be familiar with the concept of a wizard. These
applications offer a simple user interface to step the
user through a series of selections, and then the
wizard proceeds to carry out the complicated work of
installing the related software. There are many
wizards on websites to step users through the process
of selecting and ordering new products.
There are also many existing wizards available for
specific CAD/CAE systems. Industry-focused wizards
have proven themselves to be very effective, including wizards for:
Simple linear static part analysis
The latest wizards are able to take advantage of the

built-in knowledge engines in the CAD/CAE systems.
Thus, not only can the wizard step the user through a
workflow, the wizard can take advantage of the
knowledge built into the design. The example shown
in Figure 2 is an optimization wizard where the user
can choose from a list of the physical properties of
the model that define the optimization goal. As the
optimization proceeds, the knowledge engine keeps
this value up to date.
The advantages of these wizard applications can be
seen in those use cases or industries where the
workflow is very well defined, and the variation in use
is rigidly bounded. However, in the case of CAE
workflows, the use of hard-coded wizards has limited
appeal as they often do not match the customers
best practices.
Mold tool design

Progressive dies
Automotive dies
Optimization
These CAD/CAE and manufacturing wizards step the

user through the workflow, enabling the user to
interact with the geometry and its models, as well as
to build further geometry, select sizes based on
model size and interface with external data files.
Options can be presented to the user as a fixed list,
including instances where the user can select specific
items, such as materials or sizes.
Figure 2. Example CAD/CAE wizard.
Simulation Process Studio

As previously discussed, there are areas where a hardcoded wizard is very effective, but increasingly there
is recognition for a need to be able to build custom
wizards. This drive has been held back by the need to
employ high level programmers to develop the
wizard. These skills exist within the software vendor
companies, but in general not at the end user
customer companies and it is here that the local
workflows are needed to suit local best practices.
A new approach is now available to address many of
these issues. NX Simulation Process Studio software
enables the CAE analyst to author guidelines that will
provide a designer user (with limited CAE experience)
with a safe route through the CAE landscape. This will
ensure that the end user obtains realistic and reliable
results, and frees up the CAE analyst to carry out the
more difficult and complex work. Being able to repeat
these processes ensures that the analyst and company best practices can be followed.
Figure 3: Simulation Process Studio user interface.
Simulation Process Studio does not generate rigid

automation like a macro. Instead, it guides the end
user down a best practice route to achieve realistic
and reliable results. Figure 3 shows the user interface
layout of Simulation Process Studio. The black area on
the left is the layout area where the user drags and
drops the process steps and connects them together.
The top right panel shows the properties of the
selected component, and the bottom right panel
shows the user how it will look when the user runs
the wizard. Off-the-shelf drag-and-drop steps,
including user-defined branching, leverages the rest
of NX CAE and its modeling functionality.
Example process showing steps,

options and a brief description
1. Initial welcome step defines the solver
environment. The default solver environment is
the industry standard NX Nastran; other solver
options currently supported are MSC Nastran,
Ansys and Abaqus.
2. The material selection step allows the author to

prompt the end user to select specific material
from the presented list. Most of the following steps
can be extended using flexible and advanced
knowledge rules.
3. This is an example of a user-defined step that can

be used to access one, or multiple, functions from
anywhere in NX. In this case the author is using the
idealize geometry function to allow the end user to
simplify the model geometry. For example, the
user could remove all holes less than a specified
diameter, or remove all blends less than a specified
radius. The author documents the best practice in
the online help to guide the user to make the
correct decisions for the part in question.
4. The ideal mesh size controls are available for the

author to define at this step. This can be left to the
end user to decide or the author can also build
enough knowledge into the wizard to force this
meshing step to be automatic and remove the
choice from the user. In this example, the author
has allowed users to specify their own ideal mesh
size, or to ask the system to estimate a size based
on the geometry.
5. At this stage the author allows the end user to

select only a face (or multiple faces) to define the
fixed constraint(s); i.e. all DOF are fixed for nodes
that eventually lie on this face when the part is
meshed. Note that all steps can have specific URL
links for best practice documentation; below is the
help page that applies to this step.
10
6. The author can guide the user in placing specific

types of loads, load orientations and even specific
load values. Knowledge rules can add further
guidance for the user.
7. The author has decided to have the end user check

the completeness of the model. This will present a
short report to the user with any errors or
warnings highlighted. Should any errors or
problems occur, the end user is directed to stop
and consult the analyst for advice.
8. The solve can be set to automatically run without

the end user being asked. In our example, the
author has allowed the user to decide to run the
solution. Note in this case, the author has decided
to implement a company best practice that
prohibits the use of the mesh adaption option.
11
9. The author has numerous options that enable

users to determine what result they want to view.
In this example, the author has turned on the
fatigue, deformation, Von Mises stresses and the
answer quality displays. Best practice documentation teaches the end user to look at the red,
yellow and green quality answer display to see if
the answers are reliable. The documentation
shows the user how to interpret the other types
of display results.
10. If there is a best practice requirement to

document all analysis work, then the author can
include a reporting step. Optionally, the author
can stipulate that screen snapshots of each of the
results should be captured and included in the
report.
11. At the end of the process the user is given the

choice of saving the CAE data associated with
this process. This option would let the analyst
study the model, boundary conditions and results
before sign off. Alternatively, the author can
define this as an automatic step by specifying no
save; this is feasible since the process is only
being used to guide and optimize the design.
12
CAE PLM workflow directions

Companies commonly use multiple CAE systems from
different software vendors to perform simulations for
use by different disciplines (e.g., structural and fluid
simulation applications). One of the most common
(but often forgotten or taken for granted) approaches
is to link different applications in order to compare
physical test results against theoretical analysis
assumptions.
Sometimes these different disciplines can be treated
independently, but more often they are linked in
some way. This can be achieved by using built-in
multi-physics applications, linking of solvers using
message passing interface (MPI) techniques, and
allowing customers to create their own techniques to
transfer data between applications. However, in many
cases, the link between applications or solvers is not
so tightly defined.
All of these situations are part of the product
development lifecycle and are considered to be PLM
issues. Using the Simulation Process Studio in the PLM
context will provide a method of guiding the user
through the tasks necessary to link multiple CAE
systems from different software vendors. Then, PLM
can function as a data and process management
backbone that companies can use to achieve their
DFSS and Lean Design objectives.
13
About Siemens PLM Software

Siemens PLM Software, a business unit of the Siemens Industry
Automation Division, is a leading global provider of product
lifecycle management (PLM) software and services with nearly
6.7 million licensed seats and 63,000 customers worldwide.
Headquartered in Plano, Texas, Siemens PLM Software works
collaboratively with companies to deliver open solutions that
help them turn more ideas into successful products. For more
information on Siemens PLM Software products and services,
visit www.siemens.com/plm.
Siemens PLM Software

Headquarters
Granite Park One
5800 Granite Parkway
Suite 600
Plano, TX 75024
USA
972 987 3000
Fax 972 987 3398
Americas
Granite Park One
5800 Granite Parkway
Suite 600
Plano, TX 75024
USA
800 498 5351
Fax 972 987 3398
www.siemens.com/plm
Europe
3 Knoll Road
Camberley
Surrey GU15 3SY
United Kingdom
44 (0) 1276 702000
Fax 44 (0) 1276 702130
Asia-Pacific
Suites 6804-8, 68/F
Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
WanChai
Hong Kong
852 2230 3333
Fax 852 2230 3210
2010 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management

Software Inc. All rights reserved. Siemens and the
Siemens logo are registered trademarks of Siemens AG.
D-Cubed, Femap, Geolus, GO PLM, I-deas, Insight, Jack,
JT, NX, Parasolid, Solid Edge, Teamcenter, Tecnomatix and
Velocity Series are trademarks or registered trademarks
of Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
or its subsidiaries in the United States and in other
countries. All other logos, trademarks, registered
trademarks or service marks used herein are the
property of their respective holders.
X4 5500 6/10 C

White Paper: Practical Implementation of Best Practices For Analysis in A Design Environment

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

White Paper: Practical Implementation of Best Practices For Analysis in A Design Environment

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Practical implementation of best practices

for analysis in a design environment

Maximizing the business impact of technology requires far more

1. Fewer physical prototypes

influence in reducing the number of physical

better, and fewer, decisions being made. This will

reduces development time scales.

Lean Design, which requires companies to reduce

material, warranty and component costs.

number of physical prototypes and physical tests

in software purchasing, maintenance and training.

simulation workflows while achieving DFSS and Lean

GMPT CAE workflow engines

Lab data: head gasket

Surfseg, ICEM, Hypermesh

Fluent, Star CD, GMTEC

Head block and

Piston rod and

Piston rod and

Coolant flow, tetra

Head and block

Information being interpeted and re-entered

Performed by analysis group

Wizards and knowledge

The latest wizards are able to take advantage of the

Mold tool design

These CAD/CAE and manufacturing wizards step the

Figure 2. Example CAD/CAE wizard.

Simulation Process Studio

Figure 3: Simulation Process Studio user interface.

Simulation Process Studio does not generate rigid

Example process showing steps,

2. The material selection step allows the author to

3. This is an example of a user-defined step that can

4. The ideal mesh size controls are available for the

5. At this stage the author allows the end user to

6. The author can guide the user in placing specific

7. The author has decided to have the end user check

8. The solve can be set to automatically run without

9. The author has numerous options that enable

10. If there is a best practice requirement to

11. At the end of the process the user is given the

CAE PLM workflow directions

About Siemens PLM Software

Siemens PLM Software

2010 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi