SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 1 An Analyst’s View: STEP-Enabled CAD-CAE Integration Stephen Gordon NASA’s...
-
Upload
alyson-copeland -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 1 An Analyst’s View: STEP-Enabled CAD-CAE Integration Stephen Gordon NASA’s...
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 1G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
An Analyst’s View:STEP-Enabled CAD-CAE Integration
Stephen Gordon
NASA’s STEP for Aerospace WorkshopJPL, Pasadena, CA
January 17, 2001
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 2G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
CAD-CAE Integration DomainsPurpose, Scope, and Scale of AnalysisCAD-Centric vs. CAE-Centric ProcessesCategories of Integration (What is truly ‘Seamless’?)De-Featuring Geometry (Content, Amount of Detail)Geometry ‘Gender Changing’ Needs and Tools“Simulation-Specific Geometry” vs. CAD Geometry
Collaboration (Inter- and Intra-Company)ISO STEP 10303 is not just about Data ExchangeAP209 is an Enabler for CAD-CAE Integration
AP209 = CAD + CAE + FEM + FEA + PDM (Mnemonic)
Backup Slides
Outline of Topics
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 3G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
CAE Functionality
Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) is made up of many varied and diverse functions, depending upon one’s organization and it’s structure.
My focus will be on the exchange and sharing of design and engineering data (largely geometry and material information) for use in computational analysis tools, specifically finite element method codes.
My purpose today is to define where I see, as an analyst, the potential and growing use for ISO STEP AP209.
There is no attempt to slight many other important (non-analytical) engineering functions in the CAD-CAE domain related to the overall design, approval, and life-cycle of the products we create.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 4G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
The key to understanding CAD-CAE Integration, is related to the scale, scope and purpose of the required engineering analysis - e.g. Finite Element Analysis (FEA).
It is not simply related to the existence of captured CAD geometry, a perception unwittingly left during product model ‘walk-throughs’.
The closer the scale, scope and purpose of an engineering analysis is to the type and detail of the existing CAD product model geometry, the greater the likelihood that a closely-coupled, automated, or even seamless integrated CAD-CAE process can be implemented.
CAD and CAE Integration
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 5G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Scope, Purpose, and Scale
Small-scale, single part optimization“Widgets & Gadgets”
Large-scale simulation, e.g. vehicle crash-worthiness
These may both employ the same software, but with significantly different models!
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 6G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Large-Scale Simulation, Full Vehicle Models
Part of the CAE Domain
Such analyses and simulations likely include multi-physics and media-
structure interaction
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 7G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
When the scale, scope and purpose of an engineering analysis are not consistent with the type and detail of the existing CAD product model geometry, a computer-assisted “man-in-the-loop” or semi-automated process may be more feasible and appropriate than a fully-automated process. (Still a place for engineering judgement.)
We have found that the time and cost to change, re-work, and de-feature CAD geometry can sometimes be greater than that for creating analysis models from readily-generated “idealized” geometry. (Not a popular view in today’s world!)
The more abstract, idealized geometry used for analysis is also referred to as “Simulation-Specific” or “FEA-Specific Geometry”.
CAD and CAE Integration
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 8G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Captured CADGeometry
DerivedIdealizedGeometry
Engr. Anal.Model (FEM)
SimplifyIdealizeDe-Feature
PaveMeshDiscretize
Analysis Model Creation (e.g. FEA)
ChangeType or“Gender”
Geometry is not always the same!
A mechanical engineer, a structural engineer, and a piping engineer may each require different forms of geometry capture.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 9G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Geometry Representation
Same Object ...
Multiple/Different Forms of Geometry Capture
1D Line (Curve)
3D Solid (Volume)
2D Surface (Shell)
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 10G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Exploded View - Same Geometry, Different Data Capture
1D Line (Curve)
3D Solid (Volume)
2D Surface (Shell)
“Gender Changing”
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 11G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
The value of engineering analysis and optimization early (‘up front’) in the design process is now readily accepted and is generally unassailable.
Unfortunately, there is often the perception (sometimes from MCAD vendor hype) that engineering analysis is a totally seamless process within CAD.
This view can be a disservice to many sectors of business, where solid product models have become the CAD approach of choice, but the wrong geometry for analysis.
Fortunately, articles in the literature have recently begun to reflect some of these different views on delivering analysis.
Integrated CAD-CAE Process
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 12G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Recent Articles Show Enlightened Views
“Three-Dimensional CAD Design and Analyzing with Shell Elements - A Soluble Contradiction?”, by M. W. Zehn, H. M. Baumgarten, & P. Wehner, NAFEMS 7th Int’l. Conf., Newport, RI, April 1999
“Don’t Change the Model Till the Simulation Finishes”, by Paul Kurowski, Machine Design, August 19, 1999
“Rookie Mistakes - Over Reliance on CAD Geometry”, by Vince Adams, NAFEMS Benchmark, October 1999
“Common Misconceptions About FEA”, by Vince Adams, ANSYS Solutions, Fall 2000
“Eight Tips for Improving Integration Between CAD and CFD”, by Scott Gilmore, Desktop Engineering, May 2000
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 13G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
“Don’t Change the Model Till the Simulation
Finishes”
by Paul Kurowski
Machine Design
August 19, 1999
When analysis geometry is not the same as design geometry!
“Simulation-specific geometry”or “FEA-specific geometry”
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 14G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
CAD-CAE Integration
Whether CAD-CAE applications can be closely-integrated and automated depends upon:
• The scale, scope, and purpose of the CAE analysis.
• The nature and type (order, or “gender”) of the captured CAD geometry.
• The amount of detail required for the CAE application.
Today’s bottleneck in CAD-CAE integration is not automated mesh (grid) generation, it lies with efficient creation of appropriate simulation-specific geometry.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 15G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
In general, the most automated CAD-to-CAE processes are for MCAE “same gender” geometry classes, eg. widgets and gadgets, or 3D volumes filled with 3D elasticity tet or hex solid elements; or piping analysis employing 1D geometry.
In the structures discipline, our ship product lines most often involve large scale, simplified geometry and analysis models, e.g. large assemblages of stiffened 2D plate/shell surfaces and framework structures.
However, enterprise CAD product model geometry capture is fundamentally 3D solid modeling supplemented with 1D “structures” entities.
Thin-walled structure is more accurately and efficiently analyzed as plates and shells.
The First “Problem” - Geometry Type
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 16G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
1D Lines, Curves
2D Surfaces
2D ‘Cut” Surfaces (or Sections)
3D Volumes
Beams, TrussesAxisymmetric Shells
Stiffened Plates & Shells
Plates & Shells
Plane Stress / Strain ElasticityAxisymmetric Solids(“Quasi-3D”)
3D Solid Elasticity
Creating Engineering Analysis Models
Geometry Type Analysis Model Type
Same “Gender” Geometry
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 17G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Creating Engineering Analysis Models
IdealizedGeometry
Analysis Model Type(Eg. FEM)
1D Lines, Curves
2D Surfaces
2D ‘Cut” Surfaces (or Sections)
3D Volumes
Beams, TrussesAxisymmetric Shells
Stiffened Plates & Shells
Plates & Shells
Plane Stress/ Strain ElasticityAxisymmetric Solids(“Quasi-3D”)
3D Solid Elasticity
Captured CADGeometry
CADStructures(1D)
CAD Solids(3D)
CAD-Centric Approaches
CAD Surfaces(2D)
Can be ‘Seamless’
‘Gender-Changing’ Required
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 18G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Creating Engineering Analysis Models
IdealizedGeometry
Analysis Model Type(Eg. FEM)
1D Lines, Curves
2D Surfaces
2D ‘Cut” Surfaces (or Sections)
3D Volumes
Beams, TrussesAxisymmetric Shells
Stiffened Plates & Shells
Plates & Shells
Plane Stress/ Strain ElasticityAxisymmetric Solids(“Quasi-3D”)
3D Solid Elasticity
Captured CADGeometry
3D Solid Product Model
CAD-Centric Process with a 3D Solid Product Model
Requires “Gender
Changing”
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 19G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
The Second “Problem” - Model Content and Amount of Detail
In general, the captured CAD geometry contains a great deal of detail, necessary for creating drawings and for manufacturing support, but too much detail for most idealized FEA models.
Therefore, the idealization portion of FEA requires simplifying the geometry, removing unwanted details which are not commensurate with the scale of the idealized FEA model. Examples include removing small holes, adding or removing fillets, even eliminating whole portions which may be idealized as a rigid mass, or may not be in the analysis at all!
This process of simplification is sometimes referred to as “suppressing the details” or “de-featuring” the geometry.
For welded structure adding features (weld fillets) to the CAD product model may be required for detailed stress analysis.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 20G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Welded Thin-Walled Structure with a 3D Solid Product Model
Portion of foundation for resilient mounts and shock snubbers
Weld material is annotated (e.g.weld symbols), but not explicitly captured as fillets in the product model (as it would be for a machined part)
JXXX
Joint Surface Index
Typical de-featuring might include eliminating the small holes but keeping the larger ones.
Whereas, a featuring change could be adding weld fillets to avoid stress concentrations or singularities at sharp corners.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 21G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Categories of CAD-CAE Integration
Category I - The CAD Geometry and the Simulation-Specific Geometry are the same (identical). This is the truly “seamless” case; there is no change in detail, no de-featuring, and no geometry gender changing required. Analysts and designers use the same (or duplicate copies of the same) geometry.
Category II - Existing (available) CAD geometry has the wrong content; it is too detailed and/or of the wrong type to support the scale, scope, and purpose of the required or most appropriate type of analysis. Changes are required to add features or remove unnecessary detail from, and/or modify the gender of, the CAD geometry to create Simulation-Specific Geometry amenable to analysis. Automated and semi-automated procedures are required.
Category III - Engineering analyses are performed first to define and refine a design concept using idealized geometry prior to establishment of the enterprise (CAD) product model. Simulation-Specific Geometry employed for analysis models will require modification and the addition of details and features to support drawings and manufacturing. Automated and semi-automated procedures are desirable.
CA
D-C
entr
ic P
roce
ss
CA
E-C
entr
ic P
roce
ss
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 22G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
CAD Geometry = Simulation-
Specific Geometry
Engr. Anal.Model (FEM)Pave
MeshDiscretize
Captured CADGeometry
Simulation-Specific
Geometry
Engr. Anal.Model (FEM)
SimplifyIdealizeDe-Feature
PaveMeshDiscretize
ChangeType or“Gender”
Start
CAD-Centric Approaches
Category I
Category II
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 23G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
A CAE-Centric Approach
Category III
Create CADGeometry
Simulation-Specific
Geometry
Engr. Anal.Model (FEM)
AddDetails &Features
PaveMeshDiscretize
ModifyType or“Gender”
Start
More mature or optimized concept prior to CAD geometry capture; designers add detail later for drawing creation, design disclosure, and manufacturing
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 24G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Category I
Solids Examples
Mechanical parts and components
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 25G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
TET Meshing HEX Paving
Automated model building options are readily available in almost all CAD and
CAE tools
3D Solids & 3D Elasticity Analysis
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 26G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Categories II & III
Thin-Walled Structures
(Where the product model is solids)
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 27G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
EB Example -Automated
Mid-Surfacing
CAD-Centric Category II
(Solids-to-Shells)
Welded Plate Tank Structure - Multiple Brep
Manifold Solids
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 28G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Solids
Mid-Surfaces
Trimmed and Adjusted Mid-Surfaces
1
2
Automated Mid-Surfacing
Category II (Solids-to-Shells)
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 29G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
COTS capabilities now exist for automatic
creation of mid-surface geometry and shell FEA
mesh.
Category II1. Thin-walled
solid part
2. Mid-surface geometry
3. Meshed FEA shell model
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 30G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Section of Stiffened Deck Plate
“DECK_ASSY”
Assembly with deck plate and replicated
(dittoed) tee stiffeners
(Example used in Nov. ‘98 PDES demo using PATRAN
and COMMANDS)
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 31G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Automatically created mid-surface geometry
Solid geometry
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 32G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
FEA Idealization #1
Explicitly Modeled Stiffeners
(8-noded shell elements shown)
FEA Idealization #2
Eccentric Beam Stiffeners
(4-noded shell elements with
2-noded eccentric beam elements)
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 33G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
CollaborationYou’ve heard a lot at this workshop about inter-company collaboration, multi-tiered supply chains, even world-wide collaboration.
Large companies, such as those many of us work for, often have separate groups and departments which requires intra-company cooperation and collaboration.
Integration with standards (such as ISO STEP) is a logical way to build an intra-company architecture of sharing between separate design and analysis organizations.
Such an in-house, multi-department business process built on standards is easily transitioned into an external collaborative teaming endeavor, when and if that would be prudent.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 34G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
The ISO STEP 10303 Standards are Enablers for Improved Design-Analysis-
Construction ProcessesToday’s business enterprises must have access to enterprise-wide PDM information which integrates design, analysis, construction and life-cycle support.
AP209 provides a means to more closely integrate design and analysis, by including nominal (CAD) geometry, various idealized CAE geometries, and associated FEM analysis models and results, along with PDM and separate version control.
Mnemonic: AP209 = CAD + CAE + FEM + FEA + PDM
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 35G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
AP209 = CAD + CAE + FEM + FEA + PDM
What is ISO STEP 10303 AP209?
Nominal CAD Geometry
Idealized CAE “Simulation-Specific”
Geometry
Finite Element Models
Finite Element Analysis Controls
& Results
Product Data Management Info
Mnemonic (Engineers like equations!)
One can use AP209 with any one or more of these pieces, but the real power lies with the assemblage of all these parts.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 36G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
STEP AP209Repository File
Archived
Design/Analysis
AP209
Snapshots
Design Analysis
STEP AP209 File
FEA ResultsFEA ControlsFE ModelsIdealized GeometryNominal Geometry
Design Model - PDM
AnalysisSTEP AP209 File
FEA Results
FEA Controls
FE Models
Idealized Geometry
Nominal Geometry
Design Model - PDM
Design
The ISO STEP 10303 Standards are not just about data
exchange!
AP209 captures and integrates design, analysis, and CM/PDM information.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 37G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Part
Part Version
Design Discipline Product Definition
Nominal Design Shape
Idealized Analysis Shape
Finite Element Analysis Shape
Analysis
Analysis Version
Analysis Design Version
Relationship
Analysis Discipline Product Definition
Assembly
Allow Analysis to Revise Independently of Design
Detailed AP209 PDM Concepts
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 38G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Recommended Practices for AP209
ME007.01.00
June 25, 1999
Nominal CAD Geometry
Idealized CAE Geometry
FEA Model
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 39G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
COTS Vendor Report Card
Category I A Mature, MCAD for solids good
Category II B-,C+ Improving, recent mid-surfacing attention
Category III D,F Very little for CAE-centric ‘leading design’, need shell ‘thickening’ tools, or ‘solids-on-demand’
Overall:Still too CAD-CentricContinued role for traditional FEA pre- and post-processorsAP209 is ready to support / enable more CAD-CAE integrationAP209 is more appropriate for CAE than AP203Need more vendor support for AP209
CAD-CAE Integration Status
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 40G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Back-up Slides
PDES & NAFEMS Activities
EB’s Prototype AP209
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 41G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Working with larger-scale test cases for AP209
coverage
PATRAN
COMMANDS
3847 Nodes
6743 Elements
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 42G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
NAFEMS Benchmark LE10
Thick Plate Pressure
NAFEMS Benchmark LE5
Z-Section Cantilever
Joint PDES & NAFEMS Activity
Recasting NAFEMS FEA Benchmarks into AP209 Format
NAFEMS Benchmark LE1
2D Plane Stress
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 43G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
AP209Translator
AP209Part21
File
Electric Boat’s AP209 Translator is Interfaced
with the COMMANDS FEA System
Binary
Ascii
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 44G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
AP209Translator
AP209Part21
File
Ascii
COMMANDSData Base
(CDB)
Binary
EB’s currently implemented prototype AP209 Translator is closely interfaced with EB’s COMMANDS Data Base using binary reads and writes. It was kept separate to enable appending multiple analysis models and results onto a single repository (Part21 file), or selecting and extracting one model with results.
Other features (next two slides) were implemented to aid developers as we learned about STEP and Express representation.
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 45G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 46G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 47G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Initial Checkout of AP209 Import to COMMANDS
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 48G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
Initial Checkout of AP209 Import to COMMANDS
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 49G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
EB’s AP209 Prototype
Geometry - Nominal & Idealized
FEA Model & Results
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 50G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
EB Chart 1
EB Chart 2
Common Intersection
Example = HEX20 Case -Dynamic Version of the
MacNeal-Harder Twisted Beam
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 51G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
EB Chart 1
SFG-GD/EB-1/17/01- 52G E N E R A L D Y N A M IC SElectric Boat
EB Chart 2