company. Recently Ed Miller, president of the strategic consultancyCIMdata Inc., stated, “With the recent announcements of majorautomotive and aerospace orders for enterprise solutions in PLM aswell as moving to open standards and joining the Design &Simulation Council, MSC.Software is getting traction andimproved execution as a leader in Virtual Product Development(VPD) solutions.”

Along with reinforcement from industry analysts, we are receivingvalidation from customers such as the Chrysler Group, which recentlyannounced the implementation of an engineering management systembased on MSC.SimManager. Larry Achram, director of AdvancedVehicle Engineering, Chrysler Group, stated, “This project willfurther improve the way we engineer our vehicles by implementing

common VPD processes, and itwill increase our ability to captureknowledge and reduce materialcosts. We chose to partner withMSC.Software because of theirexperience, technology, andexpertise in VPD and engineeringprocess improvement.”

Strategic PartnershipsMSC.Software is forming strategic partnerships with our majorenterprise customers to truly become customer- and market-drivenand to increase the value of our relationships. We will better align ourproduct development resources to our customers’ challenges and createroadmaps to help customers move to completely integrated VPDsolutions. Ultimately, these partnerships will increase their return oninvestment for their VPD implementations.

Executive Management ChangesMSC.Software has added several enterprise software executives to ourmanagement team, most notably Glenn Wienkoop as president andchief operating officer (see page 3). In addition, Rick Murphy has beennamed vice president of corporate marketing. Rick’s comprehensiveunderstanding of our customers and their product developmentprocesses, along with his 16 years of sales service with MSC.Software,will help us complete our transition (see page 20).

MSC.Software has heard the advice from our customers loud and clear – we are committed to being a customer- and market-drivenenterprise solutions provider with an open systems approach.In the coming months, we will announce additional ways we arefurthering our evolution. I look forward to sharing those with you in the next issue of Alpha.

In the last issue of Alpha, I wrote about how MSC.Software customers are better managing change through the increased use ofVirtual Product Development technologies and services. Over the lastquarter, I met with customers around the world and asked how wecould better support their business goals and expand our partnershipsto improve their product development processes. In almost everymeeting, I heard the same response, and it is that response which I want to address.

Most manufacturers have not yet fully automated the productdevelopment function. To do this, they want to rely on a select group of partners and not a single source. This is because no single technology company can meet all of a manufacturer’srequirements – leaving manufacturers to aggregate many tools into a combined solution.

So how can manufacturers build abest-in-class product developmentprocess? By selecting vendors whoare committed to being a partner– companies that are customer-and market-driven and devotedto open standards.

Customers gave me this advice: “Make sure MSC.Software is trulypartnering with customers and developing technology with openstandards.” Let me say it very clearly – we hear you! MSC.Softwareis committed to being a strategic partner and continuing our evolution into a customer- and market-driven enterprise solutionscompany. Here are examples to demonstrate that our progression is well underway.

Open StandardsWe know that an essential element of being customer-driven is ensuring we are an open standards company. Closed architectures do nothing to add value to and improve the productdevelopment process.

The latest version of MSC.Patran is enhanced with a number offeatures and functions, but none more important than dramaticallyimproved capabilities for interoperating with third-party CAD andCAE tools. This enhancement is part of a larger initiative around ourSimOffice solution suite, an initiative that you will soon hear moreabout; stay tuned.

In addition, MSC.Software joined the Design & Simulation Councilhosted by Collaborative Product Data Associates (CPDA), aconsortium focused on improving interoperability and creating open standards within product development technology (see article on page 8).

We are pleased that industry analysts are recognizing the impact ofMSC.Software’s transition to an open standards enterprise solutions

[ 1 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ FFrroomm tthhee BBeeggiinnnniinngg ]]

Evolution in Progress

α

MSC.Software:

“MSC.Software is getting tractionand improved execution as aleader in Virtual ProductDevelopment (VPD) solutions.”

Bill WeyandChairman and CEO, MSC.Software

DENSO Supplies Quality through Designer-Centric, [ 12 ]VPD-Focused Environment

An Interview with Dr. Shigeru Akaike, Chief Planner, IT Planning Center,DENSO Corporation, and Takao Imai, President and CEO, DENSOInformation Technology Corporation

[ On the Front Line ]

αlphaCover photos of Dr. Shigeru Akaikeand Takao Imai by Miki Isomura.

Editor Carrie B. Riedeman

World Editors Hiroko FujitaDr. Tony Kent

Design Hae-Jo Shin

Advertising Manager Tim Webb

Reader comments and suggestions are always welcome.

Contact the Alpha editorial staff at:

Corporate

MSC.Software Corporation2 MacArthur PlaceSanta Ana, California 92707

Telephone +1 714 540 8900

Europe, Middle East, Africa

MSC.Software GmbHAm Moosfeld 1381829 Munich, Germany

Telephone +49 89 431 98 70

Asia-Pacific

MSC.Software Japan LTD Shinjuku First West 8F23-7 Nishi Shinjuku1-Chome, Shinjuku-KuTokyo, Japan 160-0023

Telephone +81 3 6911 1200

ZZ*2005AUG*Z*ALPHA*Z*LT-MAG

MSC.Software: Evolution in Progress [ 1 ]

Glenn Wienkoop Named MSC.Software President & COO [ 3 ]

MSC.Software Management Team Strengthened with New Faces, Roles

Chrysler, MSC.Software Partner to Build New Engineering System

Interoperability Focus of New MSC.Patran Release

MSC.MasterKey License System Continues Growth

ELEB Accelerates Landing Gear Design, [ 4 ]Innovation with VPD ToolsCarrie Bachman Riedeman

Landing Gear FEM AnalysisRodolfo Wurzba, Márcia P. Tréz, Everton M. Sousa, ELEB

Virtual Layout of Hydraulic Hose Routing [ 16 ]Saves John Deere Time, Reduces DelaysBob Thomas

“This enhanced MSC.Marcpackage...gives us viabledesigns very quickly.”

P16

[ Case Studies ]

MSC.Software Re-Engineers Business [ 20 ]Approach for Higher-Value VPD

[ A Future Look ]

The Case for a Design & Simulation Framework [ 8 ]Michel Vrinat, Research Director, Collaborative Product Development Associates

[ In Other Words ]

[ From the Beginning ]

[ Company & Industry News ]

The Journal of Virtual Product Development

P4

P16

SP Optimizes Use and Quality of [ 18 ]Composite Material with VPDIon Cowley, SP Systems

P18

[ 2 ] MSC.Software

The MSC.Software corporate logo, SimOffice, MSC, and Simulating Reality, and the names of the MSC.Software productsand services referenced herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MSC.Software Corporation in the UnitedStates and/or other countries. NASTRAN is a registered trademark of NASA. All other trademarks belong to their respectiveowners. © 2005 MSC.Software Corporation. All rights reserved.

Airbus, global manufacturer of commercialand military transport aircraft, has beenrecognized as having the largest installation ofMSC.Software simulation products under theMSC.MasterKey licensing system outside ofthe Americas. Replacing individual productlicenses with software tokens, Airbus’MSC.MasterKey order includes compre-hensive and on-demand simulation

capabilities with MSC.Nastran, MSC.Marc,MSC.ADAMS, and MSC.Patran.

“This announcement validatesMSC.Software’s strategy of providingenterprise solutions, rather than single toolstargeted at the analyst community,” saidCharles Foundyller, CEO of Daratech, Inc., amarket research and technology assessmentfirm based in Cambridge, Mass. ContinuedFoundyller, “When combined with enterpriselicensing options such as MSC.MasterKey,extended design teams such as Airbus’ areable to truly leverage the advantages of virtualproduct creation.”

www.airbus.com

Sigmadyne, a leading optomechanicalengineering firm, has invested in theMSC.MasterKey Licensing System. “Even though we are a small firm, we have very advanced analysis needs,” said Victor Genberg, president of Sigmadyne.“MSC.MasterKey allows us to access high-end features such as optimization and superelements in MSC.Nastran, nonlinearcapabilities in MSC.Marc, and statisticalfeatures in MSC.RobustDesign, without thecost of a separate license for each product.”

www.sigmadyne.com

masterkey.mscsoftware.com

Glenn Wienkoop, an accomplished enterprisesoftware executive with 25 years of experi-ence, has been named MSC.Software’s newpresident and chief operating officer (COO).Wienkoop will be responsible for companyoperations including marketing and productdevelopment.

Wienkoop joins MSC.Software from BDNACorporation, where he served as presidentand COO. Previously he was president/COOat Portal Software, and held the same positionat Structural Dynamics Research Corporation(SDRC) prior to its acquisition by EDS in2001. During his tenure at SDRC he led thetransformation from a packaged softwareprovider to an integrated enterprise solutionsprovider. Wienkoop holds an MBA from theUniversity of West Florida and master andbachelor degrees in engineering from GeorgiaInstitute of Technology.

Volume 6 | Fall 2005 [ 3 ]

[[ CCoommppaannyy NNeewwss ]]

Glenn Wienkoop NamedMSC.Software President& Chief Operating Officer

MSC.MasterKey LicenseSystem Continues Growth;New Users Include Airbus,Sigmadyne

α

α

John Howaniec has joined MSC.Software assenior vice president, Americas salesoperations. With more than 20 years ofenterprise software experience, John was mostrecently president and CEO of Cohesia, anearly-stage enterprise software company. Priorto Cohesia, John was regional president atEDS, where he was responsible for sales,services, and marketing of UGS’ PLM line ofenterprise software products in the Americas.

Frank Kovacs has joined the MSC.Softwareteam as vice president of strategic alliances, anew position. He comes to MSC.Softwarefrom SupportSoft, where he served as vicepresident of strategic sales and strategicpartner development. Previously he heldexecutive positions at EDS PLM Solutionsand SDRC.

Rick Murphy has been appointed vicepresident of corporate marketing. Previouslysenior vice president, Americas operations,Rick has held several strategic sales positionswithin MSC.Software since joining thecompany in 1989.

Doug Campbell has been namedMSC.Software vice president and deputygeneral counsel. He joins MSC.Software fromKendle International, where he was vicepresident, general counsel, and corporatesecretary. Doug previously held key positionsat EDS PLM Solutions and SDRC.

simulation tasks and managing all of the dataand models associated with these processes.

Larry Achram, Chrysler Group’s director of Advanced Vehicle Engineering, said, “This project will further improve the way we engineer our vehicles by implementingcommon VPD processes, and increase ourability to capture knowledge and reducematerial costs. We chose to partner withMSC.Software because of their experience,technology, and expertise in the area of VPDand engineering process improvement.”

www.chrysler.com

MSC.SoftwareManagement TeamStrengthened with NewFaces, Roles

The latest version of MSC.Patran 2005 r2brings improved performance and enhancedinteroperability to one of the world’s mostpopular modelers. MSC.Patran 2005 r2continues MSC.Software’s open systemspolicy and has been updated to provideengineers with the best interoperability with today’s leading CAD and CAE tools,including CATIA V5R15, UGS NX 3.0,Parasolid 16, ABAQUS, LS-DYNA, andANSYS. Other significant enhancementsaimed at increasing user productivity havebeen implemented in MSC.Patran 2005 r2,including:

• Complete support for MSC.Nastran SOL600 and SOL 700 nonlinear analysiscapabilities

• Advanced surface and assembly meshing

• Topology optimization

• Group tree hierarchy functionality.

patran.mscsoftware.com

α

The Chrysler Group, a unit ofDaimlerChrysler AG, will partner withMSC.Software to implement an engineeringmanagement system based on MSC.SimManager,MSC.SOFY, and other software tools. Thenew system will orchestrate Chrysler Group’snoise, vibration and harshness (NVH), crash,and durability simulations by automating

Chrysler, MSC.SoftwarePartner to Build NewEngineering System

α

α

Interoperability Focus ofNew MSC.Patran Release

with VPD Tools

[ 4 ] MSC.Software

ELEB – EMBRAER Liebherr Equipamentos do Brasil S.A. – wasestablished in 1999 as a joint venture between the Brazilian companyEMBRAER (Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.) and the German-based Liebherr Group. However, its history began back in 1984, whenit started its engineering and manufacturing activities as a division ofEMBRAER, then called EDE (EMBRAER Divisão Equipamentos).

With a focus on the regional, executive, and commercial aviation anddefense segments of the global aerospace industry, ELEB develops,produces, and supplies after-sales support for its main products:landing gear systems and hydraulic and electro-mechanicalcomponents such as actuators, valves, locking device boxes, pylons,shock absorbers, and accumulators.

Due to its expertise and reputation for innovation, ELEB has been partof several important programs around the world. The companysupplied integrated systems for programs including the AMX fighter,the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter, the training and light-attack aircraftSuper Tucano/ALX, and the Aermacchi M-346 training aircraft. Oneof ELEB’s primary responsibilities is the design, development, and

production of the main landing gear for EMBRAER’s regionalERJ135/145 jets and the nose landing gear for EMBRAER’scommerical ERJ170/190 jets.

ELEB employs an integrated product development process that makesuse of state-of-the-art technology and tools such as CATIA andMSC.Software Virtual Product Development (VPD) software foranalysis and simulation. ELEB also relies on comprehensive facilitiesthat include laboratories and test areas.

With approximately 500 employees and annual revenues around $45million USD, ELEB continues to invest in expansion programs andnew technologies to conquer its space in the international market. Thecompany recently transitioned its standard licenses of MSC.Softwareproducts to the MSC.MasterKey licensing system, which providesflexible, token-based access to the MSC.Software product portfolio.

Although ELEB is the first Latin American customer to move to theMSC.MasterKey system, the company has been setting trends from thetime they first began using VPD technology. Rodolfo Wurzba,structural engineering supervisor at ELEB, says that the company hasbeen using MSC.Nastran since 1984, when it was known as EDE.

“In 1999, when ELEB was born,” he explains, “EMBRAER’sexperience with MSC.Nastran and MSC.Patran was shared with the

Carrie Bachman Riedeman is editor of Alpha magazine. This articlewas developed with the assistance of Paulo Sauer, EduardoTerciotti, and Thelma Tobaruella of MSC.Software Brazil.

Landing Gear Design, InnovationAccelerates ELEB

s

[ 5 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ CCaassee SSttuuddyy ]] EELLEEBB

ELEB product development department. The success of these VPDtools during the development of the EMBRAER 145 regional jet inthe 1990s was very important. We chose at that time to takeMSC.Software as our partner.”

Today, ELEB uses a full suite of MSC.Software products in its variousdevelopment projects, such as:

• MSC.Patran for linear and nonlinear analysis of landing gear mainstructural parts. Using MSC.Patran, ELEB structural analysisengineers are able to simulate static linear and nonlinear analysisconsidering limit and ultimate load conditions for landing andground maneuvers.

• MSC.ADAMS for dynamic simulation of shock absorbers andmechanism analysis for landing gear retraction/extension maneuvers.These analyses reduce the time needed to obtain dynamicparameters and loads which otherwise would require expensive droptests and physical prototypes.

• MSC.Marc for manufacturing process optimization. MSC.Marchelps ELEB find better structural designs by simulating largedeformations in cold work processes, reducing machining costs.

• MSC.Fatigue for fatigue life prediction for structural parts oflanding gear systems. This helps prevent fatigue failures incertification tests, saving time and cost.

The development of a new landing gear system for the EMBRAER170/190 regional jet family in recent years was a huge challenge for theengineering team – one successfully achieved using MSC.Nastran andMSC.Patran (see the technical case study below).

According to Wurzba, time savings due to reliable analyses is one ofthe biggest advantages VPD tools provide ELEB. “We have seen animpressive time reduction on each project, from design phase up tocertification tests,” he says.

“Structural failures during the tests were common before weimplemented VPD,” Wurzba explains. “Design and development of anaircraft took a decade of work from our drawing boards, mock-ups,buildings, and so on. When a structural test was performed on a testrig, failures were common. These failed parts were redesigned and testswere performed several times before we succeeded. It was a difficultchallenge to close this loop.

“Nowadays, working in a VPD environment reduces the schedule insuch a way that we have a unique development loop. The accuracygained from using VPD tools is essential to becoming morecompetitive. It minimizes risks in the certification test process andprovides time for innovation.”

Wurzba is seeing new benefits from the implementation ofMSC.MasterKey at ELEB: “Before MSC.MasterKey, we were able toperform only linear static and nonlinear analysis with MSC.Nastran ata single CAE station,” he says. “Licensing acquisition for other VPDtools was done separately, and from various suppliers. Thedevelopment of new tools was too slow, which is prohibitive in theVPD world. MSC.MasterKey enables our CAE engineers to performall analysis from their desks in a simple way.”

The easy access to VPD tools has had an impact on the company’sculture as well, Wurzba notes. “It’s very profitable – and fun – to hearanalysts exchanging their experiences with these products all the time,on their coffee breaks, at lunch time.... MSC.MasterKey has broughtthe real world of VPD to the ELEB product development engineeringteam.”

“Quick answers associated with product innovation” is a key reasonthat Virtual Product Development has taken hold at ELEB, Wurzbasays. “This is the way that we deal with our challenges. VPD isdefinitely not the ‘future’; it is an indispensable requirement to succeedin today’s product development world.”

energy when landing and braking, and duringgeneral ground manuevers. Energy absorptionis performed by a hydraulic shock strutstructure, which is made up of a piston and acylinder.

The cylinder, also known as the main fitting,is a critical part and is subjected to varioustypes of loads such as internal pressure,bending, shear, and torsion. Landing, taxiing,and braking are the dimensioning loadsconsidered in the landing gear development.During the baseline definition of the mainfitting, keeping in mind the goals of weightreduction, easy maintenance, high levels ofsafety, and low cost, SED engineers mustevaluate the stresses on this complex part. Inmost cases, the elementary equations from thestrength of materials theory are not accurateenough for this analysis. Therefore,MSC.Patran and MSC.Nastran are used in

total mass. The challenge for ELEB’sStructural Engineering Department (SED) isto design a landing gear that achieves reducedweight, easy maintenance, high levels ofsafety, and a low cost structure while meetingall airworthiness requirements.

The landing gear (Figure 1 above) iscomprised of a strut, shock absorber,extraction/retraction mechanism, brakes,wheels, and tires; its function is to absorb

Rodolfo Wurzba, structural engineeringsupervisor; Márcia P. Tréz, structural engineer;and Everton M. Sousa, product developmentengineer, are employed by EMBRAER LiebherrEquipamentos do Brasil S.A. (ELEB) in SãoJosé dos Campos, Brazil. They authored andpresented this paper at the 2004 MSC.SoftwareAmericas VPD Conference.

EMBRAER Liebherr Equipamentos do BrasilS.A. (ELEB) is responsible for the design,development, and production of theERJ135/145 main landing gear and theERJ170/190 nose landing gear. The designand integration process, which has becomeextremely sophisticated in the last few years,encompasses numerous engineeringdepartments, such as structures, weights, andrunway design. Depending on the aircraftcategory, landing gear assembly can rangefrom three to seven percent of an aircraft’s

Landing Gear FEM Analysis Using MSC.Patran and MSC.Nastran

Case Study

α

[ 6 ] MSC.Software

order to obtain accurate displacement andstress results, and additional tools are appliedto achieve convergence and reduce processingtime.

The nose landing gear (Figure 2 above)includes all components and parts required toperform the functions of gear extension,down-locking, up-locking, and energyabsorption. The nose landing gear is attachedto the aircraft structure by four ball-bearingpoints. The right socket pin has threetranslation directions fixed, while the left onehas two translation directions fixed, in orderto allow the “y” movement. The ball bearingis represented by multi-point constraint(MPC) elements.

As noted previously, this type of componentnormally experiences multiple loads,including internal pressure, bending, shear,and torsion. These loads are transmittedbetween contact surfaces from the ground tothe part and from the part to the aircraft. Inpractice, the loads transmission occursthrough bearings, sockets, and pressure at theinner surface. The pressure is applied straightat the solid element faces. SED engineersneeded a clear representation of these loads toget the most realistic results possible.

To evaluate displacement results at the mainfitting structure, TETRA4 elements wereemployed, but to analyze the stressdistribution in regions far from the contactpoint, more accurate TETRA10 elementswere used, along with ROD and BEAMelements. This solution saved processing timeduring the analysis. But in cases where thecontact area was the analysis focus, bothcontacting parts were modeled and GAPelements were employed (Figure 3 below).

boundary conditions can induce errors thatare only discovered late during the static testphase and therefore delay development.

A complete analysis of the main fitting wasdone in three steps: the first, a linear analysisof the whole main fitting; the second, ageometrically nonlinear analysis of the lowerstrut; and the third, a geometric and materialnonlinear analysis of this lower part.

Step 1: Linear Stress AnalysisA stress analysis was performed for thecomplete main fitting structure. The criticalload cases applied were landing and groundmaneuvering. Attachment points wereevaluated before dimensioning in order to geta faster convergence to the final design. Thiswas done by simple Strength of MaterialsTheory, where dedicated programs are used tocalculate lug and socket submitted tobending, shear, and torsion efforts.

The finite element model used in the linearanalysis was composed of 415000 nodes and265000 TETRA10 and BAR elements. Theloads and the boundary conditions wereapplied to the model and the reactions wereverified at the aircraft attachment points inorder to obtain values smaller than thetolerance established. Figure 4 below showsthe von Mises stress of a FEM analysis for acritical landing load case.

Because the linear stress analysis model doesnot represent the correct stiffness for someregions, detailed models must be developed inorder to obtain more accurate stress results.One of these regions is the sliding tubehousing. The main fitting and the slidingtube parts were completely modeled asdescribed in steps 2 and 3.

Step 2: Geometrical Nonlinear AnalysisIn regions with stress concentration, it isimportant to detail the components’ interfaceto better represent the contact between parts.The nonlinear analysis required a good

[[ CCaassee SSttuuddyy ]] EELLEEBB

ROTULAUxUyUzRyRz

CLAMPEDUxUyUzRxRyRz

Fy=64039H

SYMMETRYUxUyRz

GAP ELEMENTSSTIFFMESS=1E6

MAIN FITTINGLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS WITH 26457 AND 11294 ELEMENTS

PATRAN NASTRAN ANALYSIS

Boundary Condition1,2,3

Boundary Condition1,2,3

Boundary Condition1,3

MAINFITTINGLINEAR ANALYSIS

Because landing gear structural behavior canbe both plastic and geometrically nonlinearwith contact problems, MSC.Nastran andMSC.Patran are powerful tools for contact andplastic analysis.

The main fitting analysis can be performedon a single component or on the fullassembly. If the nose landing gear assembly ismodeled, it can bring some size complexitiesto the model as the number of elements andnodes increases. This increases processingtime and memory allocation needs, as well asthe number of iterations required to achieveconvergence. Therefore, the choice was madeto analyze a single part in order to reduceprocessing time and the number of GAPelements. This also allowed SED engineers to increase the number of elements in thecomponent model, since the elements ofother interfacing components were notincluded. For detailed models where thestiffness of the interface components isimportant, the modeling of these parts wasconsidered.

LoadingDuring aircraft landing and groundmaneuvers (taxiing, pivoting, turning,braking, engine run-up, and towing), loadsare transmitted from the ground to the mainfitting. Internal pressure is generated from the shock absorber deflection simultaneouslywith contact loads transmitted from internal parts.

A geometric nonlinear model is also capableof accounting for the direction of the loadapplication and secondary moment. If thestiffness of the assembly is known, it ispossible to use a linear analysis to simplify the inclusion of the secondary moment intothe applied loads. The effect of the secondarymoment is considered in the loads applied on the model with an amplification factor to take into account the variation of the load application point.

Model Size and Memory AllocationIn order to obtain more precise results, themesh size must be adapted to all regions ofthe part but primarily in the proximity of theconcentration points. For the main fittingmodel, approximately 420000 nodes werepresent, which required special allocation ofcomputer memory.

Boundary ConditionsBoundary conditions to represent thebearings and the contact point are needed tosimulate the real operational conditions ofthe model. A poor representation of

The Al7175-T74 aluminum tensile stress-strain curve is obtained from MIL-HDBK–5H.

Considering that structural weight is one ofthe principal challenges in aeronauticalengineering, analysis methodologies should beemployed to their fullest degree, asMSC.Patran and MSC.Nastran were in thismain fitting analysis. Nonlinear analysis hasbecome essential in main fitting development.

Because SED engineers could simulate thestress/strain analysis results early in theprocess, development time was reduced. Theanalysis results will also provide a fatiguedatabase, and stress levels in all parts of thecomponent can be previewed.

[ 7 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ CCaassee SSttuuddyy ]] EELLEEBB

stiffness representation of the componentsresponsible for load transmission from theground to the main fitting. Due to the linearFEM model size, the main fitting and slidingtube interface were not very well represented.Therefore, a refined geometrical nonlinearanalysis was performed using GAP andHEX8 elements (Figure 5 above left). It isinteresting to observe that the limit stressachieved in the FEM analysis is about equalto the limit achieved in a previouscertification test.

1ST STEP 2ND STEP 3RD STEP

N. ELEMENTS 265000 5658 5658

N. NODES 415000 9222 9222

2D ELEMENT TYPE BAR GAP GAP

3D ELEMENT TYPE TETRA 10 HEX 8 HEX 8

SOLUTION TYPE LINEAR (SOL 101)

NONLINEAR(SOL 106)

NONLINEAR(SOL 106)

PROCESSING TIME 9018.171 seconds 224.421 seconds 275.265 seconds

HARDWARECONFIGURATION

Pentium4/1806 Pentium4/1806 Pentium4/1806

CHANNELSTRAIN(1E-6)

TESTSTRESS(MPa)

NOMINALSTRESS(MPa)

FEMSTRESS(MPa)

% FEM/NOMINAL

E03101861 2617 172 185 209 13

R031062B61 3693.113 253 271 287 6

E03106861 3586.013 235 252 294 16

E03107561 -3280.658 -215 -231 -270 16

CHANNELSTRAIN(1E-6)

TESTSTRESS(MPa)

NOMINALSTRESS(MPa)

FEMSTRESS(MPa)

% FEM/NOMINAL

E031084-61 1424.513 100 93 110 18

E031086-61 4840.159 340 317 375 18

Table 3 – Test correlation for the nonlinear analysis

Table 2 – Test correlation for the linear analysis

Table 1 – Test correlation for the linear analysis

α

REFERENCES

MSC.Nastran User’s Manual, MSC.Software

Corporation.

Bruhn, E. F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle

Structures. Ohio, USA, Tri-State Off-Set, 1973.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation

Regulations Part 25, “Airworthiness Standards:

Transport Category Airplane.” Change 13,

Amendment 25-97, eff. June 26, 1998 and

Amendment 25-98, eff. March 10, 1999.

Step 3: Material and GeometricalNonlinear AnalysisIn the ultimate condition, the material issubjected to loads beyond yield. This makes itnecessary to input the plasticity materialcurve (Figure 6 above right). In this phase, ageometrical and material nonlinear analysis isperformed using GAP elements and materialnonlinearity. It is possible to show that theultimate stress achieved analytically is close tothe ultimate test stress value.

ELEB’s Rodolfo Wurzba (left) and Everton Sousa

do not apply. The detailed data necessary tofeed traditional tools is not available, and thetimeframe to get results contracts frommonths to days. The number of iterationsrises to high levels, with multiple assumptionsapplying to geometric descriptions, loads,materials, and environmental constraints.

The analysts involved are typically multi-disciplinary experts able to integrate resultsacross different domains. Essentially, theanalysts quickly describe a valid domain for agiven design and check the adequacy of thesolution selected for meeting the originalrequirements. They provide designers withenough information to size the main partsand components of a system in terms ofdimensions, cost, complexity, performancetargets, and compliance with regulations.

The two activities have very different, andeven conflicting, objectives, which in turngenerate disparate requirements for asupporting framework:

• Responsiveness versus accuracy

• Explorative iteration versus formalized process

• Small versus large teams

• Expert users versus operational engineers

• Light solution solver versus computer-intensive

• Simple set of input and output data versus a large volume

• Integrated cross-disciplinary activity versusdispersed analyses crossing multipledisciplines.

CAE Data Management versusKnowledge Management Many solutions address CAE datamanagement with file management

MSC.Software

Michel Vrinat is aresearch director withCollaborative ProductDevelopmentAssociates (CPDA), anindustry research firmformed by the formerPLM group of D.H.Brown Associates.This article isexcerpted from a

February 2005 CPDA report entitled “A CAEData Model for Simulation Frameworks.”

The Case for a Design & SimulationFramework

It is also a very intensive, demanding effortinvolving data and process synchronization.Detailed geometric information, loadsdefinition, boundary conditions, and materialcharacteristics have to be identified, accessed,adapted, and linked. All this informationmust be continuously updated with changesfrom other activities in design or manufactur-ing engineering to maintain the validity ofthe analysis for a given product configuration.Typical tools will be based on finite elementmodeling, requiring sophisticated idealizationof geometric models and time-consuminginput data definition. The usual timeframefor executing these tasks is three to sixmonths. Users are either experts of oneparticular domain (crash, CFD, fatigue, etc.)or operational engineers applying a well-defined process.

Very different from final design validation,the application of simulation early in design,during the conceptual phase, has beendeployed relatively recently. These efforts haveto be performed by a few expert people withlittle geometric information on the partdesign, and very light descriptions of loadsand boundary conditions. Assumptions aboutmaterial characteristics will change when newmaterials have to be used, which is typical ofcomposites. During the conceptual phase, theclassical methods for simulation and analysis

Simulation and analysis typically cover twodistinct domains of application – finaldetailed design validation and early designconceptual analysis. Each has radicallydifferent requirements for deployment.

The most recognized and common activityfor simulation and analysis is final validationof product performance by applyingjustification methods and tools on detaileddesign parts. This is a resource-intensivephase, involving people, software, andhardware. A typical aircraft justification phasefor certification in front of regulatoryauthorities will involve thousands ofengineers, hundreds of software tools andmethods, terabytes of data, and gigaflops ofcomputer power. The same applies for carcrash simulation, NVH (noise, vibration andharshness), CFD (computational fluid dynamics),and satellite performance verification.

compliance with regulations, if reused in a new one, represents tremendous savings.

With optimal reuse, teams in engineering,test, and manufacturing can then concentrateon the 20 percent of the product that is reallynew, and introduce significant innovation intheir focused area. When customization hasto be done, it will be a ‘delta’ work thatextends the existing design to slash theresources involved.

For products that require full customization,significant benefits in applying a re-usestrategy are attainable as well. The productstructure of a car or an aircraft is quitestandardized in terms of the type and role ofall its components. The process of validatinga particular type of part is well defined andstandardized. The method to apply, the typeof analysis to perform, the type of data to

collect, the type of modeling required, thetype of meshing if FEA is used, the loads, the material properties, the solution analysissolver, and the type of report to be generated– these factors are all known. They can becovered by standardized processes and templates.

By capturing and organizing the requiredinformation in a generic data model, specificto a type of part, the entire simulation andanalysis process can be automated and re-executed with different sets of input data andparameters. Analysis templates for each typeof part can be defined, including rules foridealization and discretization, material datasources, loads descriptors, boundaryconditions constraints, and standardreporting formats with pre-defined checkpoints and reference values.

Streamlining Simulation and AnalysisAcross All PhasesToday, there are no longer any validarguments to maintain the ‘black magic’status of simulation and analysis, available toa handful of brilliant experts as the only onesable to deal with the cryptic representationsof system behavior and laws of mechanics.Many decisions during product developmentphases are based, or should be based, onsimulation and analysis results rather thanassumptions and guesses. Any design engineershould be able to provide those results inshort order. That is not to say that anyengineer should or would be able to define

the process or determine the methodologyand tools to be applied. That is precisely the area the expert should address, based on experience and specific knowledge. Thatexpert should determine the right process, theassumptions for the analysis, the checks tovalidate results, etc. All of this knowledge canbe embedded into a methodology and processmodel, supported by the appropriate CAEdata model. Templates can be definedupfront, based either on standardized rulesand constraints or on a standardizedcomponents library that is adaptable to a particular project with minimum effort.

Simulation and analysis must become amainstream activity, with experts defining the approaches, but not directly executing the work themselves. That approach requiresthe definition of a complex but versatile CAE data and process model.

Streamlining Simulation and AnalysisAcross DisciplinesToday, simulation and analysis are performedin isolation, without sufficient collaborationwith design and test activities from an ITsupport point of view. Moreover, currentapproaches also isolate one discipline fromanother. This is a serious shortcoming. Mostsimulation and analysis covers the samesystem or part, shares data, and often involvesmutual dependencies on the results orchaining of execution of analysis codes.Multiple types of analysis may have to besynchronized, or executed in sequence,sharing parameters or intermediate resultvalues, such as:

• Structural static and dynamic analyses

• Kinematics simulation

• Material fatigue

• Thermal distribution

• Computational fluid dynamics

• Noise, vibration and harshness.

Also, different methods may apply as well.The most common and universal mathematicrepresentation is based on finite elementanalysis, but other methods such as finitedifferences or pure analytical methods can be applied. Sharing data and results acrossdifferent methods and tools is required.

Finally, the execution of simulation andanalysis will require many different tools,some commercially available and othersdeveloped in-house. All of the codes must be

approaches based on commercial PDMsystems. This is a very valuable approach inthe short term, to bring some organization tothe current CAE analysis environment. Mostof the time, data management consists of filesin directories with ad hoc naming conven-tions, lacking traceability, re-use, and accesscontrol except what is expected from a goodand organized engineer. A number of servicesand added-value features benefit users whenCAE data management is deployed:

• Tree structures, to represent analysis modelstructure

• Metadata, to identify what the data is allabout, who created it, why, etc.

• User profiles, to control data access

• File versioning, to manage revisions andchanges and maintain consistency betweeninput and output data.

Even so, a file management approach has alimited scope considering the requirementsfor overall design, simulation, and analysisprocesses. To bring real added value and tosupport full PLM integration across allproduct development activities, CAE datamanagement in its larger sense requires theapplication of knowledge management tocapture process constructs and rules.

Simulation and analysis represent highlyrecurring tasks, and the highest benefits andROI will come from the re-usability of anapproved process that covers requirementsidentification, methods selection, input datadefinition, analysis type and solver selection,analysis assumptions, and reporting standards.Multiple changes have to be enabled at verylow cost in time and resources to execute‘what if ’ scenarios, optimization, andsynchronization with design and otherengineering domains. Expertise is requiredupfront to define the analysis criteria, selectthe methodology and tools, qualifydiscriminating factors, and locate criticalpoints to control results.

Re-Use for Innovation and Cost ReductionMost industrial products today are built fromstandard components or sub-systems, withvery few changes that make the consumer feelit is a new offering with the latest enhance-ments. Up to 80 percent of a satellite, whichis by definition a ‘one-of-a-kind’ product, isbased on standard components and pre-defined configurations that fully respond to customer requirements. The real addedvalue does not derive from design engineeringsavings, but mainly in simulation and test. Acomponent from a previous project that isalready validated for performance and

Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ IInn OOtthheerr WWoorrddss ]] CCPPDDAA

“The highest benefits and ROI will come from

the re-usability of an approved process...”

participation of multiple vendors to driveconsensus while highlighting divergences. To begin with, a common definition of needs forms the basis for achieving internalconsensus, avoiding confusion over terms and focusing on the difficult task ofprioritization. That focus may in turn serve to clarify communications to the softwaredevelopment community, laying out the basis to accelerate the evolution of a designand simulation framework.

At the same time, the scorecard provides aframework for evaluating each of thesuppliers, for understanding end-userrequirements, and for refining and phasing inan implementation scenario efficiently andreliably. Progress on the scorecard with theleading vendors and selected, leading-edgeusers will help validate the prioritization ofneeds with a broader community of users andverify the capabilities of the major platformsin use in the market. With a rationalframework for presenting requirements,major users may present a consistent set of demands to their key vendors.

Hosted by CPDA, the Design & SimulationCouncil promotes a standard frameworkemploying common terminology to integrateand optimize the diverse specialist activitiescurrently fragmenting design efforts. TheCouncil currently includes the GeorgiaInstitute of Technology as an activecontributor, more than a dozen major end-user organizations, and a group ofvendors who collaborate as research sponsors. Initially funded solely by vendors,the Council has identified a design andsimulation CAE data model as its highestimmediate priority for research.

On the Webwww.cpd-associates.com

Join MSC.Software, CPDA, Audi, and IBMon Wednesday, October 19 for a VPDSolutions Webinar, “Engineering Processand Data Management.” This free, one-hourwebinar will present an overview ofsimulation process management and howcompanies are evaluating the benefits of this technology. Audi will review the factorsthat encouraged them to invest in simulationdata management. This webinar will giveyou insight into how your organization cancreate a structured simulation data portalacross your enterprise.

Wednesday, October 19, 20059:00am PST / 12:00pm (Noon) EST / 18:00 Central Europe

Look for additional details and registrationinformation at webinars.mscsoftware.com.

raising major barriers to integration withproprietary algorithms, features, and dataformats. Despite the deep sophistication ofdesign and analysis tools, the exchange ofdata often involves cumbersome manual andsemi-automatic transformations.

An effective design and simulation frameworkmust capture the knowledge used to combineand idealize design information for analysispurposes in a reusable and traceable format.Defined rules must map the idealizedinformation for analysis with design tosustain reusability and to automate dataexchange. The framework must supportperformance analysis upfront, as early as theconceptual design phase.

Technology supports the capability to buildan enterprise framework that coordinates andoptimizes all activities from high-levelstrategies to detailed operational tasks.Reference models that define the ‘best’current practices may serve as a basis forbuilding consensus, and for continuouslyimproving processes and approaches.

CPDA is driving the effort to define a score-card for a design and simulation frameworkthat canvasses the needs of multiple largeusers across multiple industries, with the

integrated so that any idiosyncrasies do notconfront the end user, independent of thesource of software.

Defining a CAE Data ModelA consistent CAE data model needs to bedefined to serve and represent:

• All data types needed for simulation,ranging from disciplines as different as CFDand structural analysis

• All relationships that apply to maintainconsistency across the data and otherexternal, dependent references

• The set of information that covers multi-disciplinary requirements

• Applicable rules (methodology, regulationconstraints, theory, etc.)

• Layers of information at different levels of abstraction

• Processes involved with other data modelssuch as design or requirements

• Usability model covering operations, userinteractions, and automation.

A CAE data model addresses the need fororganizing and structuring simulation andanalysis information from the early stage ofproduct development through all thesubsequent phases. It provides the level ofabstraction that supports multiple types ofanalysis, with multiple assumptions fordifferent models. Independent of the analysissoftware, it facilitates the standards and re-useof knowledge from past projects to reducecycle time and cost.

The CAE data model must be tightly linkedwith process modeling as well. It shouldautomate the execution of many stages andtasks in the decision and execution processes.These might involve company practices orregulatory constraints, support for specificskills, and access and synchronization withexternal data such as material, load, physicaltest, and design, to maintain consistencyacross disciplines and departments.

CPDA’s Design & Simulation CouncilA design and simulation framework lays thebasis for an integrated source of productinformation for design and engineeringanalysis, beginning upfront with conceptualdesign and continuing through detailing.Currently, multiple disciplines scatter datasets across diverse independent and manualsystems. Moreover, the coordination of designand analysis involves idealization, which mayrequire significant simplification ortransformation of design data. Design andanalysis present syntactical and semantic gaps,

MSC.Software

α

“[[ IInn OOtthheerr WWoorrddss ]] CCPPDDAA

MSC.Software is addressing the need forsimulation process and data management withMSC.SimManager, a Web-based environment thatprovides a systematic approach and infrastructurefor managing the processes and data required forcollaborative virtual product development.MSC.SimManager automates the execution ofsimulation processes, captures all intermediateand resulting data, and delivers crucial productperformance knowledge earlier in the design cycle.

For the most up-to-date conference details, registration

information, and highlights of past conferences, visit

http://vpd2005.mscsoftware.com

Americas Spring 2006 Australia May 2006Future Conferences

Keynote addresses from leading global manufacturers andstrategic partners, including Nissan Motor Corporation,Samsung Electronics, EADS, Ford Motor Company, MagnaSteyr, Qinetiq, and Bombardier Transportation

Management TrackGain unique insight into the challenges and benefits of anintegrated VPD environment through the experiences ofinternationally recognized companies

Technical TrackFind out how companies are creating innovative products,shortening development cycles, reducing cost and risk, anddriving product development with VPD technology

MSC.Software PresentationsLearn about the vision, current status, and future developmentroadmap for our three product lines: SimOffice, SimDesigner,and MSC.SimManager

Special Interest GroupsExplore specific products and services in greater depth; topics include fatigue and durability, data and processmanagement, nonlinear simulation, and more

Technology ShowcaseMSC.Software solution partners, including IBM, DassaultSystemes, HP, Hitachi, SGI, NEC, Fujitsu, CD-Adapco, Fluent,CoCreate, Intel, and many more, demonstrate the latest incomplementary software, hardware, and services offerings

Training SessionsOptional training on specific MSC.Software products offeredprior to or after the conference

Networking and Social EventsMeet colleagues from around the world and enjoy informaldiscussions; social activities include meals and eveningentertainment

Industries RepresentedAutomotive • Aerospace/Defense • Biomedical • Off-Highway &Civil Engineering • Consumer Goods • Electronics &Electromechanical • General Machinery & Fabrication • Power& Energy • Rail • Off-Highway and Civil Engineering • Marine &Off-Shore

Conference Features

Get the information, insight,and inspiration you need to achieve your productdevelopment goals.

Europe, Middle East, Africa

Munich, Germany – October 24-26

Taiwan

Taipei, November 1

China

Chendu, November 4-5

Japan

Tokyo, November 7-8

MSC.Software 2005Virtual Product Development Conferences

The best, and best-run, conference I have ever attended.It brought together CAD, CAM, CAE, and CAT aspects – design, manufacture, analysis, and testing.”

Once again, MSC.Softwarehas changed the game andraised the bar for engineeringtechnology conferences.”“

“

[ 12 ] MSC.Software

It has been a banner year for DENSO Corporation, a leading global supplier of

advanced automotive technology, systems, and components. Led by strong

domestic and overseas car production and increased sales of ITS (Intelligent

Transport Systems) car navigation systems and data communication products, the

company reported record highs for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005.

Consolidated net sales (US $26.2 billion, a 9.3 percent increase over 2004),

consolidated operating income (US $2 billion, a 13.4 percent increase over 2004),

and consolidated net income (US $1.2 billion, a 20.5 percent increase over 2004)

are clear signs that DENSO is on the right track.

Headquartered in Kariya, Aichi prefecture, Japan, DENSO produces automotive

OEM and aftermarket parts in engine, climate control, body electronics, driving

control and safety, hybrid vehicle components, and information and

communications. Its customers include all the world’s major carmakers. The

company is expanding its expertise into consumer-related systems and industrial

products such as household and industrial air conditioners, bar-code readers, and

industrial robots, while its R&D group is pursuing advances in areas including semi-

conductors and telecommunications.

Aiming to achieve customer satisfaction through quality products, DENSO

introduced computer-aided engineering (CAE) into their product development

process in the 1980s. DENSO Information Technology Corporation (I-TECH), a

DENSO spin-off, supports DENSO with advanced IT and continues to champion

the use of Virtual Product Development throughout the enterprise.

Today, both companies have a clear vision of CAE at DENSO as a technology for

designers, and utilize VPD as a key technology for improving product performance

and competitiveness. Recently, Hotsumi Baba, general manager for the sales

division of MSC.Software Japan, spoke with Dr. Shigeru Akaike, Chief Planner, IT

Planning Center, DENSO Corporation, and Takao Imai, President and CEO of

DENSO Information Technology Corporation, about the central role of Virtual

Product Development in their organizations and how its implementation has

impacted DENSO’s process and people.

DENSODr. Shigeru Akaike

Takao Imai

Phot

os b

y M

iki I

som

ura

Supplies Quality through Designer-Centric,VPD-Focused Environment

[ 13 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ OOnn tthhee FFrroonntt LLiinnee ]] DDEENNSSOO

Alpha: Please explain the relationshipbetween DENSO and I-TECH for our readers.

Takao Imai, I-TECH: I-TECH was foundedin 1997 by separating the developmentsection of DENSO into an independentcompany. The new company’s mission was tostrengthen the product development system,since the use of computers was becomingincreasingly important. In 2001, I-TECHbecame responsible for organizing theplanning, development, and operating system.

Akaike is the Engineering InformationOfficer (EIO) and leads the DigitalEngineering Group in DENSO. Akaike’steam plans the strategy for DENSO’stechnology information system. I-TECH isresponsible for realizing the strategy plannedby DENSO. That can mean a lot of things,but our main role is to first understand thestrategy, then develop the necessary com-putation technologies, introduce them to the teams within the DENSO group, andreport the results and needs collected throughdaily simulation work and operations back to DENSO.

Alpha: In an increasingly competitive market, how do you view the importance and usefulness of CAE in the productdevelopment process?

Dr. Shigeru Akaike, DENSO: Ourdevelopment team members are interested inshortening product development time basedon OEM product strategies. CAE is veryuseful for this. However, it is pointless if thedevelopment time is short but the quality ispoor. It is very important for us to secure andimprove product quality. This idea is includedin new company policies recently released bythe DENSO group.

CAE is an essential technology for improvingproduct quality. In order to realize shorterdevelopment time and assure product quality,CAE needs to be easy to use so that designerscan actually perform the simulation. How-ever, pursuing this could lead to pressing onebutton and using the results without eval-uating the data. Although CAE is required forproduct development, we must not forgetthat it is a tool.

Imai: I would like to point out two aspects ofthe usefulness of CAE. Ultimately, we seeCAE as “a numerical experiment performedinside a computer.” Ideally, CAE would

support our efforts to produce a good productquickly. The designer would be able toevaluate his idea within the computer andthen proceed to creating prototypes. If thatwere possible, we would be able to manu-facture a high-quality product from only one test.

The second point is that we want tomanufacture our products with concretetheoretical support. Ten years ago, when theperformance of our computers was not highenough to actually handle CAE, productdevelopment consisted of a trial-and-errorprocess. We would create a prototype,perform an experiment, break it, then createanother prototype, and so on. Today’ssimulation products are easy to use, but wecannot perform a simulation properly withouttheoretical support. From this point of view, I believe that the use of CAE will help usunderstand the essential qualities of theproduct, realize various functions and features based on theoretical support, and manufacture good products that have assured quality.

Alpha: CAE is performed either by designersor analysts according to each company’spolicy. How much analysis work do thedesigners in your company handle?

Akaike: If CAE is to be used for productdevelopment, designers must be able to use it.This has been our policy ever since we starteddigital engineering in our company. In orderto use CAE in the design process, it isessential that the designer can actuallyperform the task. Many aspects should beconsidered before judging who shouldperform the simulation, such as the size of theproduct, how much time is available fordevelopment, and the complexity of theproduct design. Since our products arerelatively small, it is difficult for the analyst tounderstand the designer’s idea in a shortperiod of time and perform the simulationaccordingly. If the designer cannot performsimulations frequently to evaluate his designs,our products will not be competitive. We inDENSO believe that the designer shouldperform CAE.

Alpha: There are various types of analysis,such as linear analysis or nonlinear analysis.Do you have a system that standardizes thesimulation process so that designers canperform the analysis?

Vibration analysis of an HVAC (car air conditioner)

Meshed model from a plastic forming analysis of a spark plug

“DENSO’s goal is to build a global VPD network.”Dr. Shigeru Akaike

[ 14 ] MSC.Software

[[ OOnn tthhee FFrroonntt LLiinnee ]] DDEENNSSOO

Imai: There are various types of analysisproblems; some are simple, some arecomplex. Although some of the analysisproblems are difficult, if that analysis isnecessary for the design, we want the designerto perform the analysis regardless of thedegree of difficulty. We developed a toolcalled SOL!BOX [a CAE simulator tool] that navigates the analysis process andprovides a library for the designer. It enablesautomation of the analysis procedure andembeds the know-how of a CAE specialist inan easy and flexible manner. This tool shouldbe helpful for all users even if they are notCAE specialists, as long as they have anengineering background and are familiar with the product.

Alpha: DENSO introduced CAE intoproduct development very early. What wasdone to popularize the use of CAE, and whatkind of difficulties did you experience?

Imai: In the 1980s, the engineeringsimulation section in the EngineeringComputing Department first started utilizingsimulation and expanding its use in DENSO.This team later became I-TECH. Thetechnical computer department continued toreport their activities every month to thedirector of the technical group, which was aslow but steady way to communicate toDENSO executives, informing them of theeffects and usefulness of CAE. There weretimes when we received harsh comments,such as “Do you think you can really createsomething inside a computer without actuallymaking it?” The members who continued toenlighten our executives under suchcircumstances really did a good job. In the

1990s, our main goal was to strengthen CAEin our group so that it would take root. Weheld sessions to introduce applicationexamples within the company, but it wasdifficult to spread the information.

Akaike: In the late 1990s, we needed tostrengthen digital engineering as a whole inproduct development. We gathered keymembers of several groups, created atheoretical analysis team, and did a thoroughtraining in CAE for one year. After thetraining, the members returned to theirgroups to promote CAE. This is what wecalled the “Satellite CAE concept.” Bygathering members from each group, we wereable to collect actual problems and performeffective training based on the real needs ofthe people concerned. This programcontinued for two years, and the number ofCAE users increased dramatically. Once thenumber of CAE users increased, we facednew problems such as how to support them and what tools to use. This led to the founding of I-TECH.

Alpha: How did you manage the manpowerissue in order to realize this year-long training program?

Imai: It would have been difficult to expecteach group to cooperate if we had simplysaid, “Please send your staff so that we cantrain them.” What we did first was secure abudget for 10 new members of the theoreticalanalysis team. Then we distributed these 10people to the groups that sent their staff toour group to participate in the training. Thislifted the burden for each group as far aspersonnel was concerned. After one year, thetrainees returned to their groups as the key

promoters of CAE. Consequently, the groupacquired more members. Of course, this planwas achieved with strong backup from thedirector of the technical group.

Akaike: Several years later, we started to seedifferences in the use of CAE in each group.After the internal training program, we spentthree to four years providing in-houseconsulting to the groups that were notutilizing CAE effectively. Among thosegroups, we sent CAE specialists to several ofthem to provide consulting. Although theywere aware of the necessity of CAE, some ofthe staff did not know what to do. In somecases, we would perform the simulation ontheir behalf.

Alpha: I assume you have several key toolsfor supporting your product design process.What are important factors for selecting thetools and building the system?

Akaike: In our case, the Information SystemsPlanning Department makes the selectionand distributes the software to each group.Ease of use and cost are the major factors fordecision-making. We perform detailedbenchmarks before we implement a newsoftware product. For example, we are usingMSC.Patran for structural analysis andSTAR-CD [CD-adapco] for fluid analysis,and we performed thorough benchmarksbefore deciding to implement these products.Since DENSO is a committee member ofJSAE [Society of Automotive Engineers ofJapan], we can also decide for ourselveswhether the quality of the software product isreliable according to the standards of theautomobile industry. Another point is that wedo not implement multiple software productswith similar functionalities.

Vibration analysis of a car air conditioner pipe

This article was written by Hiroko Fujita and translated by Reiko Ishizuka and MikiYamaguchi. Tomoji Takahashi assisted in its development.

[[ OOnn tthhee FFrroonntt LLiinnee ]] DDEENNSSOO

Volume 6 | Fall 2005 [ 15 ]

Imai: DENSO is a centralized company insome ways. Our business groups do not havethe authority to purchase software on theirown. The Information Systems PlanningDepartment inquires into the user needs ofeach group, examines various options, andselects the key software products that providethe highest value for the whole company.This not only improves the efficiency of thedesign process and license management, butalso enables the purchase of a large number of licenses and improves the scalability of our system.

This is also a benefit in that we want to beable to communicate our requests to ourpartner vendors as much as possible. Weconsider vendors who are willing to listen aspartners. Even if the product is good, if wecannot have that kind of partnership with thevendor, we cannot select their products to beour key tools.

Alpha: It is my impression that companies in the automotive industry standardize their use of software, whereas companies in other industries often use a variety of software products.

Akaike: That is true. I believe there are manycompanies who are using many more types ofsoftware products than DENSO. However, ifdifferent software products are used in eachresearch center or factory, for example, theywon’t be able to centralize license manage-ment or collect user needs in an organizedmanner. I believe this makes it difficult forthem to communicate their requests to thesoftware vendors. I think the use of softwareproducts should be centralized to somedegree, considering the ease of use, cost, andalso the client-vendor relationship.

Alpha: Do you plan to expand VirtualProduct Development (VPD) in yourcompany in the future? Please tell us whatgoals you have for the next five to 10 years.

Imai: Currently, we manufacture ourproducts in Japan. However, this will changein the next 10 years. The number of designsthat will be done overseas will double withinthe next five years, which means our overseasoffices will need the same system as ourheadquarters. We need to expand our SatelliteCAE Concept to include our overseas officesin this timeframe. Our future goal is to builda joint management system including ouroverseas CAE engineers; we believe it is veryimportant to build a global human networkas well as improve our communication skills.Ten years from now, our “Global SatelliteCAE Concept” should be a basic, ordinarypart of our company.

Akaike: DENSO’s goal is to build a globalVPD network so that some simulations aredone in England, some in the U.S., and some in Japan. Our CAE engineers will bestationed in each country.

Also, it is often the case that OEMs are using different tools in various regions.Instead of handling all the issues in Japan, we plan to utilize our global VPD network so that our CAE engineers can share data and communicate more effectively.

Alpha: What are your plans in Japan? For example, promoting innovativetechnologies, or having your designers cover a wider range of analysis.

Akaike: The activities we have done, that is,training our staff, supporting them remotely,and providing consultation, are the base ofthe pyramid that we have worked onthoroughly and steadily. From now on, wewill continue our current activities but alsostart thinking about the tip of the pyramid,and try to raise the overall level of ourtechnical skills. Coupled structural-fluid orstructural-electromagnetic/sound problems oroptimization problems are technical themesthat we are interested in.

Imai: In order to replace physical experimentswith CAE, the accuracy of the simulation isalso very important. Not only newtechnologies, but also the improvement ofsimulation accuracy will help raise the overalllevel of our technical skills.

Akaike: As for the accuracy problem, ourproducts are mainly parts, so there is alwayssome kind of fluid activity, namely air orwater, inside the completed product. As youknow, it is very difficult to measure fluid. Forexample, even if we put a sensor inside a pipeto record fluid activities, the sensor itself will

have changed the flow of the fluid, so theresults cannot be used. In such cases wherephysical experiments cannot give us the datawe need, a high accuracy is required for CAEto be able to reproduce the behavior.

Imai: It is possible to perform a qualitativeevaluation even if the accuracy is insufficient,if you choose the best out of several optionsand confirm by prototyping. However, asAkaike mentioned, in order to let thedesigner perform the analysis andimmediately move on to prototyping, theaccuracy of the simulation must be quitehigh. I believe this is one of the problems forCAE that needs to be solved. If this can bedone, then the effectiveness of CAE willexpand even more.

In the DENSO group, I-TECH is consideredto be a group of specialists with hightechnical skills. Our mission is to develop andpromote new technologies that match theneeds of the company and the times. Whatwe expect from MSC.Software are state-of-the-art simulation technologies andenvironments that are genuinely the best inthe world. Ordinary quality, or 70-80 percentof the highest quality, is not good enough.

On the Web

www.globaldenso.com

www.i-tech.co.jp/en

α

“What we expect from MSC.Softwareare state-of-the-art technologies andenvironments that are genuinely thebest the the world.” Takao Imai

exhibit dynamic motion. Guide loops andclamps must be properly placed to minimizewear and eliminate pinched and cut hoses. This requires analysis of thedynamic motion of hoses, interaction withother hoses, guides, and hardware surfaces.MSC.ADAMS is being used for modelingsuch machine dynamics as folding, articu-lating, dumping, and length extension due topressure, as if the vehicle were going throughits normal operations.

“The MSC.ADAMS analysis functionalityallows our engineers to view and betterunderstand the dynamic effects of physicalproperties, gravity, pressure, and contactsmuch earlier in the design process,” says KurtChipperfield, virtual reality engineer, JohnDeere Dubuque Works. “This allowsengineers to see how hardware changes willaffect hose routes long before the firstprototype is built and hose specifications aresent to suppliers.”

VR Hose builds an MSC.ADAMSmathematical model of the hose based on thephysical properties and route defined by the

[ 16 ] MSC.Software

minute routing of hoses delays theproduction of new products.”

Hose routing problems aren’t a phenomenonsolely in construction and agriculturalvehicles. These problems touch on allmachines and vehicles with pressure hoses forhydraulic, pneumatic, brake, and othersystems. There may not be as many hoses onan automobile with air conditioning, brake,and fuel line pressure systems, but these hosesmust also be routed to reduce wear andminimize exposure to extreme temperatures.

VR Hose, a virtual reality hose routing tool,was co-developed by Deere & Company andIowa State University for design andsimulation of hose routes before prototype.VR Hose allows engineers to trace routeswhile viewing or walking around a 3Dmodel, much as they would a physicalprototype when using cut-to-fit methods.

Bringing Motion into ViewMore recently, Deere engineers loaded VRHose models into MSC.ADAMS for dynamicanalysis. The VR Hose program providessimulation of static hoses, but many hoses

Bob Thomas is principal, Thomas & ThomasMarketing, in Studio City, Calif.

Hydraulic Hose RoutingVirtual

Saves John Deere Time,Reduces Production DelaysHydraulic hose routing in agricultural andconstruction equipment is a time-consumingprocess that is often done late in the productdevelopment cycle. Hoses need to be thecorrect length so they have sufficient slack. If they are not clamped and properly routedin and around other components, they willwear excessively, pinch, or cut. Hydraulichoses can measure between one foot and 50-feet long, and under pressure a 50-foothose can change in length by almost a foot.Commercial-off-the-shelf software forgenerating hose layouts in a CADenvironment does not consider physicalproperties such as weight and hose pressure or axial, torsional, and bending stiffness.

“More often than not, engineers apply thetrial-and-error, cut-to-fit method during thefirst prototype build,” says David Jackson,senior engineer, John Deere Technical Center– Moline. “As a result, 25 to 33 percent ofthe initial hose lengths have to be adjusted aschanges are made to the hardware. Last-

contact to be minimized. Since the D-ringkeeps the hose from moving out of position,it couldn’t be completely removed. Thesimulation also uncovered another wear issuewith the close proximity of hoses to themanifold cover. The solution was toreposition and reorient the D-ring.

Another analysis checked the length ofpressurized hydraulic hoses trapped betweensurfaces. The hose-to-surface interaction wascaptured in simulation, which allowedengineers to discover a potential issue with atight bend radius in the hose. One solutionconsidered was to replace the straight couplerwith a 45-degree coupler.

An Enormous AdvanceBefore the implementation of VR Hose andMSC.ADAMS, designing a hose to movethrough a range of motion on a backhoeboom or a front-end loader was essentially a‘best guess’ proposition. The optimal lengthof the hose and where to clamp it to avoidpinching, binding, or rubbing and causingexcessive wear couldn’t be determined until aphysical machine was available. Theengineer. By selecting Analysis in VR Hose,

the model is read into MSC.ADAMS. A rigidbody model is created in MSC.ADAMS forsimulating the dynamic motion of thesurrounding machine hardware. InMSC.ADAMS, beam elements are used forcapturing the flexibility of the hose.Properties used to define the stiffnesscharacteristics of the beam elements arecollected from physical test data. Contacts aredefined between hoses, guides, and hardware.

Because the hose is divided into manydifferent beam elements, one of the greatestchallenges is defining the contact relationshipbetween each of the beam elements and thesurfaces it contacts. The current processrequires an engineer to design the hose layoutand an analyst to set up the MSC.ADAMSmodel and define contacts, a complex andtime-consuming task.

Although stress and strain analyses are notrun, forces, loads, and velocities can becollected. Gravity, stiffness, and other factorsare considered in calculating the real path ofthe hose. Then the engineer can decide if thathose will work for a given application orwhether it needs to be lengthened, shortened,or rerouted.

In an analysis of the initial routing of twopressurized hydraulic hoses with anarticulating joint, Deere engineers were ableto see the hose making contact with a D-ringin the MSC.ADAMS simulation. Anexcessive wear issue was identified where thehose bends around the D-ring, requiring

[ 17 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ CCaassee SSttuuddyy ]] JJoohhnn DDeeeerree

combination of Deere’s proprietary tool withMSC.ADAMS allows Deere engineers to seethe dynamic motion of the hoses before thefirst physical prototype is built – anenormous advance that saves time andreduces late-stage design changes.

“We are developing VR Hose at the corporatelevel for use throughout the enterprise,” saysJackson. “To date it has been used in alimited production environment. Theobjective is to automate the process ofdefining the contacts between beam elements.This will allow VR Hose analysis to be put inthe hands of the engineer to design the hoselayout virtually.”

Chipperfield adds, “Eventually, we expectthat an engineer will be able to push a buttonand VR Hose will build the dynamic modelsand MSC.ADAMS will run the dynamicanalysis through a basic range of motion andindicate where changes, if any, need to bemade. That is the future.”e Routing

Simulation showing hose-to-surface interaction helpedengineers discover a potential issue with a tight bendradius in pressurized hydraulic hoses trapped betweensurfaces. One solution considered was to replace thestraight coupler with a 45-degree coupler.

In an analysis of the initial routing of two pressurizedhydraulic hoses with an articulating joint, an excessivewear issue was identified where the hose bends aroundthe D-ring, requiring contact to be minimized. Thesolution was to reposition and reorient the D-ring.

α

[ 18 ] MSC.Software

be expensive. The old method is also time-consuming and results can vary widelydepending on the skill of the laminator.

Draping Simulation Products from MSC.Software provided thesolution to the problem, since the softwarecan build upon 3D CAD models, which areusually available from customers. The CADdata can be easily imported into the finiteelement analysis (FEA) tool MSC.Patran andused by the SP engineering team to analysecomposite structures for stresses, strains, anddeflections when subjected to a series ofloading conditions. In addition to viewingand manipulating these models, the add-oncomposite module MSC.Patran LaminateModeler also allows the simulation of fabricdraping and the associated development offlat patterns from their complex surfaces. Bycreating a virtual prototype, MSC.PatranLaminate Modeler displays how the fibres ofa composite material will conform to thesurface geometry. Understanding this drapingmechanism and the resultant fibre directionsis especially important because these fibrescarry the loads in the structure.

going applications. These high-end materialsare now applied in serial production runsinstead of being used only for custom-madecars. With rising production numbers,material costs as well as componentmanufacturing cycle times must be reduced,and automation becomes key to success.

The complete body shell on the MG SV isproduced from SPRINT®, SP’s compositeproduct range which was created to fit theneeds of niche vehicle manufacturing. Themachine that cuts the SPRINT materials issupplied with electronic templates thatdetermine the cutter path. Two-dimensionalforms or ‘flat patterns’ need to be nested toensure optimum production rates andminimum material waste.

The flat pattern has traditionally beendeveloped from a 3D pattern or mould toolby skilled laminators who are well-versed inthe characteristics of the fabrics and knowhow they drape and form over complexsurfaces. The disadvantage of this traditionalmethod of generating prototype patterns isthat it requires physical models or prototypes,which are not always readily available and can

Optimizes Use and Quality ofSP

With headquarters in the U.K. andoperations in North America, Australia, andSpain, SP Systems has 25 years of compositesexperience in the marine, automotive, andwind energy industries. SP’s offerings includeheavyweight structural prepregs, liquidepoxies for infusion and laminating,structural paste and film adhesives, dryreinforcements, core materials, and extensivestructural design and process engineeringservices. SP is part of Gurit CompositeTechnologies, a group of companies who offeran unrivalled range of composite productsand services to their key markets.

The Automotive ChallengeAs a leading supplier to the automotiveindustry, SP provides carbon fibre materialsfor the production of high-performance carssuch as the MG X-Power SV. While in thepast these high-end materials were only usedfor motorsport or aerospace applications, thegrowing number of high-performance roadcars has dramatically increased the use andfuture potential for carbon fibres in road-

Ian Cowley is lead designer with SPSystems and is based in Southampton, U.K.

Composite Material

[ 19 ]Volume 6 | Fall 2005

[[ CCaassee SSttuuddyy ]]

Put into PracticeSP’s engineering team used this newtechnique to modify the kits for the MG X-Power SV, requiring a differing finish to thedistinctive side vents behind the front wheelcompared to the one offered in initialproduction vehicles. With a CAD model ofthe original mould surfaces available, thecomposite technologists could make thenecessary adjustments virtually – without theneed to re-design the required kit of materialsfor this complex area.

In a first step, the customer’s CAD geometrywas imported into MSC.Patran. When theappropriate surfaces were picked, theMSC.Patran Laminate Modeler coulddetermine the fibre directions in the plies andexport the flat patterns to produce virtualtemplates for this new kit, which could beanalysed and tested.

The flat patterns were nested to optimise thematerial and were automatically cut into kits,which were supplied directly to theproduction line. Due to this change withinthe development process, significant time andcost was saved. The quality of manufacturewas also increased dramatically as theproduction process was specified exactly.

Meeting Increasing Demands MSC.Software technology powerfullysupports the design-to-production processand offers SP’s customers an unprecedentedopportunity to analyse their components forstrength and stiffness as well as gain veryaccurately defined ply templates. In additionto many other capabilities related to stressanalysis, MSC.Patran Laminate Modelerallows the generation of accurate flat patternsin a fraction of the time and cost needed formanual development, thus saving materialand ensuring good quality components. Therealistic and accurate fibre angles provided bythe software allow a more accurate FEanalysis and thus offer a truly integrateddesign, analysis, and manufacture cycle ofcomposite structures.

With a growing list of prestigious customers,SP Systems has benefited from implementingMSC.Patran. Beyond serving the needs of theautomotive industry, the new templatetechnique with MSC.Software tools will be ofgreat value to other industrial areas, wherelarge volumes of composite components haveto be produced in less time.

On the Web

www.spsystems.com

patran.mscsoftware.com

ment. As plies might have darts or be slit toassist in the draping, defining them is atiresome process using a physical prototype orthe mould tool. Because the MSC.Softwaretools enable the engineers to determine plyshapes electronically, major reductions inmaterial can be realized by eliminatingunnecessary draping trials. The resultant pliesare developed into 2D flat patterns, which arethen output for a suitable 2D CAD packagesuch as AutoCAD.

To produce strong and stiff components, thedirection of the fibres has to be optimised tofollow the load paths. In addition, the ply (alayer of fabric) coverage and applicationprocedure must also be optimised so that theshear limit for the material is not exceeded.This limit can be identified by very simpletests on a small sample of fabric which, when sheared, will start to deformunacceptably. With the CAD modelproviding the virtual mould tool surface,

the optimum balance between maximum size of the plies and their deformation can be established quickly and effectively.

The laminator strives to cover the mouldsurface with the minimum number of pliesnecessary to meet the engineering require-

MSC.Patran Laminate Modeler allowsthe generation of accurate flat patternsin a fraction of the time and costneeded for manual development, thussaving material and ensuring goodquality components.

MSC.Software technologypowerfully supports the design-to-production process.

α

withVPD

In this way, MSC.Patran Laminate Modelernot only simulates the draping of fabrics overcomplex surfaces, but also optimises the useof material by providing accurate flatpatterns, enabling the engineers to go fromelectronic design to materials kit without theneed to manufacture a physical model.

MSC.Software is moving. Not in a physicalsense, but in an evolutionary way – from atechnology provider to a customer-driven,market-focused enterprise solutions organi-zation. As we strengthen our managementteam and board of directors with experiencedindustry personnel and focus on openstandards and strategic alliances with ourcustomers, we’re putting the foundation inplace to provide higher-value Virtual ProductDevelopment solutions to our customers.

After more than 40 years in business,MSC.Software understands not just theintricacies of computer-aided engineeringmethods and software, but more importantly,how that software will help an aerospacecompany get its next-generation aircraftcertified the first time out, or an automakerget its innovative new vehicle design tomarket faster. We understand how theproduct development process works in ourcustomer companies and the challengesunique to each industry we serve. Armedwith that knowledge, and backed by atechnology and services portfolio second tonone, MSC.Software is moving forward,reengineering our own business approach in aconcerted effort to deliver superior value tocustomers in all of our targeted markets.

Our customers can expect us to move beyondthe role of technology vendor to a partner-ship role that delivers a step-change inbusiness results. Customer, enterprise, andmarket needs will guide our decision-making

[ 20 ] MSC.Software

[[ AA FFuuttuurree LLooookk ]]

and resource allocation. Advances in each ofour primary product families – SimOffice,SimDesigner, and MSC.SimManager – willbe aimed squarely at the requirements of ourcustomers. Each product, each feature, will beanalyzed in light of one question: does thisprovide our customers and our targetedmarkets with the highest value possible?

Our customers, many of whom have beenusing our products and services for decades,consider us a trusted partner. Theserelationships are the lifeblood ofMSC.Software; they will not change, onlyimprove. We want to forge strategic allianceswith our customers to deliver the technologyand process innovation they need to achievetheir objectives. “What the customer needs”will be the rallying cry for everyMSC.Software employee, at every level andacross every functional group. How seamlesslyand successfully our products fit into acustomer’s enterprise and move thatenterprise forward will be the primary driverof our development and business activities.

So help us help you. Let us know what youneed to realize the value of Virtual ProductDevelopment. We will listen, and we will acton what we hear.

Technology comes and goes; it evolves andchanges. It is a means to an end, not the enditself. The people who use it and the goalsthey are working toward – that’s where ourmutual success lies.

“In order to understand the precise requirements of Airbus more completely,

MSC.Software has been a regular participant in our internal workshop

meetings. The input and support they provide has been a valuable addition to

the work of our own experts in defining our requirements and specifications.”

Alain Garcia, Senior Vice President, Engineering, Airbus

Rick MurphyVice President, Corporate Marketing, MSC.Software

• Participate in Webinars

webinars.mscsoftware.com

• Attend VPD conferences

vpd2005.mscsoftware.com

• Join the VPD Community Forums

forums.mscsoftware.com

• Take a VPDMM or

VPDMM-Lite Assessment

www.engineering-e.com/vpd

(free registration required)

Make Your Voice Heard

“What the Customer Needs”MSC.Software Re-Engineers BusinessApproach for Higher-Value VPD

α