• About
    • Who We Are
    • S.A.F.E.R. Simulation
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Aerospace & Defense
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Getting Started
    • Software FAQ’s
    • Documentation
    • Training
    • Consulting
    • Product Updates
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
    • Simulation FAQ
    • Simulation References
  • Resource Library
    • Case Studies
    • Webinars
    • Product Demos
    • Product Downloads
    • StressCheck Tutorials
    • Sim App & API Development
Serving the Numerical Simulation community since 1989
  • Contact Us
  • Register
Login

Forgot Password?

Login
ESRDESRD
ESRDESRD
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • S.A.F.E.R. Simulation
    • Partners & Providers
    • News & Events
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Applications
    • What We Solve
    • Aerospace & Defense
    • Detailed Stress
    • Composites
    • Fracture Mechanics
    • Residual Stress
    • Sim Apps
  • Products
    • What We Develop
    • StressCheck Professional
      • StressCheck Core
      • Solvers
      • Advanced Modules
      • Utilities
    • StressCheck Apps
      • CAE Handbook
      • StressCheck Tool Box
  • Support
    • How We Can Help
    • Getting Started
    • Software FAQ’s
    • Documentation
    • Training
    • Consulting
    • Product Updates
  • Simulation
    • How We Simulate
    • Simulation Governance
    • History of FEA
    • Dictionary & Terms
    • Simulation FAQ
    • Simulation References
  • Resource Library
    • Case Studies
    • Webinars
    • Product Demos
    • Product Downloads
    • StressCheck Tutorials
    • Sim App & API Development

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 1: Trends in A&D Driving Simulation

Home S.A.F.E.R. SimulationS.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 1: Trends in A&D Driving Simulation

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 1: Trends in A&D Driving Simulation

Nov 7, 2017 | S.A.F.E.R. Simulation |
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI – November 7, 2017

Relentless Business Drivers in the Aerospace & Defense Industry

The global aviation, aerospace, and defense industries face unrelenting pressure for ever-increasing levels of operational performance, lifecycle reliability, and mission robustness in their products, platforms, and programs delivered to commercial and military customers. This is occurring concurrently with greater demand for overall system performance that is faster, lighter, quieter, smarter, greener, and more connected. And of course, customers want all of this and more at less cost to procure, reduced time to deploy, and cheaper to maintain!

These business drivers have unleashed a level of interconnected complexity across nearly every organizational function, R&D process, and product line of the modern A&D enterprise. A new norm of debilitating complexity permeates today’s aerospace business throughout program management, requirements planning, system design, engineering analysis, manufacturing workflows, product line variants, supply chain collaboration, and in-service sustainment. While dozens of promising new technologies, software tools and enterprise solutions have emerged in recent years to advance these organizational functions, they have unfortunately added yet more layers of technical complexity along nearly every axis.

The U.S. Navy’s aircraft fleet requires high-fidelity structural analysis for design and to keep airborne over a longer lifecycle

A&D Program Pains and Engineering Stresses

While many OEM prime contractors and their supply chain partners have risen to meet the challenge of greater performance and higher complexity, others have struggled as evidenced by the number of major programs which encounter substantial overruns in budget or schedule, or both. Not that long ago the U.S. GAO reported that major defense programs experienced an average schedule delay approaching two years, with an average budget overrun of more than 25%.

As this trend is unsustainable, program managers are under substantial pressure to revisit obsolete assumptions and defend legacy thinking that impacts the technology maturity curve. One such example is the expectation that years of investment in the automation, standardization, and integration of tools for CAD, CAE, CAM, PDM, Visualization, and DMfg now make high concurrency of final design, tooling, testing, and manufacture of production aircraft less risky.

The inconvenient truth is that simultaneous advancements across numerous technology silos often injected more complexity and time than expected, and in doing so created new systemic risks especially after they were connected and integrated. As a consequence, there was often less, not more, time left in the schedule for final prototyping, optimization, supply chain collaboration, and flight testing. The pains of a new program often became the new stresses on engineering.

The high performance of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is made possible by a complex interdependent global network of partners and suppliers with design engineering contributions, not just manufacturing.

Diminishing Returns from Investing in More of the Same Technology

Faced with an avalanche of complexity, many legacy technologies – along with the organizational competencies, workflows, and tools built upon them – have become non-linear to further investments for improving. That is, an incremental improvement in one function does not always translate into immediate or scalable improvements across the entire product development ecosystem. Some highly-touted advancements often introduce more uncertainty and complexity than the interdependent web of new product development can quickly absorb. Aerospace managers have come to realize that a seductive innovation in one domain may cascade into a series of downstream hurdles that are not always fully understood at the onset of the new technology adoption maturity curve.

In response to schedule-eating, budget-busting complexity, engineering groups are seeking new methods and tools that aren’t limited to more of the same advancements to their organization’s competency and capacity to meet higher product performance requirements. They now demand that new investments also begin to distill out complexity and wring out risk which has become increasingly tricky to define and unwieldy to manage. Particularly attractive are new methodologies and technologies that are conceptually so simple, reliable, and robust that they may be used with confidence by engineering specialists as well as non-experts alike.

Simulation technologies and analysis software used in the structures, stress, strength, DaDT, materials, and manufacturing support groups are particularly ripe for simplification and “robustification”. Only then can the promise of the democratization of simulation to compress product development cycles through simulation-driven design finally be achieved, without adding yet more complexity and risk.

The State of Simulation and Modeling in Aerospace Engineering Groups

Over a period of four decades, application software developed for performing simulation based on the finite element method (FEM) has matured to deliver an ever-expanding list of functionality and features across a steadily widening computational spectrum of multiple physics. As finite element analysis (FEA) software products became more capable and feature-rich, they also became more complex to learn, time consuming to master, prickly to operate, and problematic to trust. FEA is justifiably referred to as an “art form” for expert analysts due to all the sources of assumptions, approximations, idealizations, discretizations, judgements, and errors an engineer must deal with to arrive at a “good” solution which they can defend in a design review.

What element type(s) and size(s) are best for performing detail stress analysis using legacy FEA codes – only the experts know!

The evidence speaks for itself that when different users attempt to solve the same computational mechanics problem by using different FEA software – or employing the same code but with subjectively different models, meshes, and element types used – it is not unusual to generate very different analytical results. It is no secret to the experts and their managers that most of the effort and time of FEA is spent in the laborious pre-processing steps of creating bad models to finally arrive at good ones, instead of in the post-processing stage leveraging the results to optimize design performance. Simulation analysts with deep FEA expertise rightfully take pride in their profession for mastering all the nuances and minutia which can influence the quality of their work.

As a consequence, some aerospace engineering managers think of FEA as definitely the best analysis tool for the highest quality results, but only after all other analysis methods have been exhausted! The use of engineering handbooks, design curves, empirical data, closed form solutions, previous designs, and elaborate spreadsheets to calculate and pencil-whip margins of safety is seen as preferable to spending more time building, running, debugging, and tuning finite element models. This is not to discount the power and accuracy of finite element-based stress analysis – especially when compared to the alternative of more physical testing – but just an honest assessment that there is a very significant cost to obtain the higher-fidelity solutions that FEA offers.

Engineering handbooks like he MIL-HDBK-5H and Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Stress are frequently extended well outside of their ranges, resulting in more errors and unknowns

Coming Up Next…

In Part 2 of this S.A.F.E.R. Simulation series we will examine the increasing demands on the structures engineering simulation function and the often misunderstood challenges they experience when using legacy analysis technologies based on the finite element method. The origins and differences between finite element modeling and predictive computational numerical simulation will be summarized. The capabilities of ESRD’s numerical simulation technology base, and software products build upon it including StressCheck®™ and Smart Sim Apps in a Digital CAE Handbook, will be overviewed. In Part 3 we will profile use-case examples from A&D that substantiate the benefits to engineers and value to their programs from the use of a newer generation of smarter simulation software that is Simple, Accurate, Fast, Efficient, and Reliable – S.A.F.E.R – for both the frequent expert and occasional non-expert user alike.

To receive future S.A.F.E.R. Simulation posts…

Tags: Aerospace and DefenseDetailed StressFatigueNAFEMSSimulation Governance
2

You also might be interested in

S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views: Toward Simulation-Driven Design

S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views: Toward Simulation-Driven Design

Feb 19, 2018

Introducing S.A.F.E.R. Simulation Views, where we invite colleagues, simulation experts, and A&D industry leaders to address simple questions about simulation. In this edition, ESRD's President & CEO Dr. Ricardo Actis is asked about the hurdles we must overcome to achieve simulation-driven design. [...]

‘3D Crack Growth Simulation: Advancements & Applications’ Webinar Recording Now Available

‘3D Crack Growth Simulation: Advancements & Applications’ Webinar Recording Now Available

Jul 23, 2019

On July 17, 2019 a joint webinar on the latest developments in FEA-based 3D crack growth simulation, titled “3D Crack Growth Simulation: Advancements & Applications”, was provided by ESRD’s Brent Lancaster, LexTech's James Harter and Hill Engineering's Joshua Hodges. In case you missed it, the webinar recording is now available!

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 3: FEM is not Numerical Simulation

S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry Part 3: FEM is not Numerical Simulation

Jan 29, 2018

In this third of our multi-part series on “S.A.F.E.R. Numerical Simulation for Structural Analysis in the Aerospace Industry” we will examine why Numerical Simulation is not the same as Finite Element Modeling and what this means to the structural analysis function within the A&D industry. [...]

Leave a Reply

We appreciate your feedback!
Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Looking for Resources?

Interested in a Demo, Evaluation or Purchase?

Have a Software Question, Issue or Feature Request?

Recent News & Events

  • Happy Holidays from ESRD (2021 Edition)
  • ASIP 2021 Conference Recap
  • ESRD to Exhibit and Provide Training Course at ASIP 2021

Quick Links

  • Getting Started
  • Product Updates
  • Software FAQs
  • Demos

Testimonials

  • “We have found StressCheck® very useful for computational fracture mechanics for both metallic and composite components. In recent years it has been extensively used in determining beta factors for RAAF’s C-130 Wing DTA locations and associated generic research.”

    Dr. Manfred Heller
    Head - Structural Mechanics, DSTO

Subscribe to ESRD News & S.A.F.E.R. Simulation

Want to be a part of the discussion? Sign up to receive blog posts and other ESRD updates:

Member Portal

  • Member Login
  • Member Registration

 

Contact Us

© 2022 · Engineering Software Research & Development, Inc. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Cookie Policy | Software License Agreement | Software Maintenance and Technical Support Policy

Prev Next
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits, as outlined in our Cookie Policy. You may adjust your cookie preferences within Cookie settings.
ACCEPT ALL
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
[contact-form-7 id="885" title="Untitled"]
ESRD, Inc. collects your information for the sole purpose of identifying interest in our products and technologies. The information you provide herein will not be shared with any other organization. Please ensure the fields are up to date and click "Download" to download the software.