«

»

Aug 25

SolidWorks Simulation

Today, while running a simulation, I saw on Twitter that Roopinder Tara had put up a new blog post titled ‘Practicing FEA Without a License’. Naturally, I surfed on over because, well, the title described me. The gist of his post was that CAD jockeys shouldn’t be doing analysis, it should be left to PE’s.  That’s what I took away from it anyway.

Here’s my thing, I don’t necessarily disagree with him. To a point. Yes, I run analysis, but they’re based off of input from the guy who signs my checks. In previous positions, the input would come from someone at that same level. We’d discuss what needed to be included, forces, restraints, etc. But, when it came down to setting up the simulation I had to do it because I was the one who knew the software. I was the one who was hired to do it, among other things. I suspect that that is the same in many companies, as well as with resellers. Frankly, it doesn’t make sense for a reseller to hire a PE as a Sales Engineer. Seems like a waste of a couple of very important initials. So, yes, the sales engineer is going to be a CAD Jockey. No harm, no foul.

When I was working for a reseller, I never had the opportunity to demo Simulation. I’m not sure I would have wanted to, either. Not because I don’t think it’s a good product, but because it’s outside my comfort zone. I don’t know anywhere near enough about FEA to say whether its results are always dead nuts on. One of the things that Roopinder brought up in his post was how just adding an extra zero when setting up a simulation could totally hose the results. Makes sense, but I don’t think it’d be just CAD jockeys making those mistakes. To that end, adding an extra zero while doing hand calcs, would have the same effect, no?

Here’s what it boils down to for me. You don’t have to be a PE to run Simulation, but I also wouldn’t stake my reputation on the solely on the results. You have to have someone that knows FEA double-check your inputs and results. I know I do. If I mess something up, people die and I sure as hell don’t want that on my conscience.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
  • http://gabijack.com Gabi Jack

    Hey Jeff,

    I haven’t read Roopinder’s article, but I think I agree with you. I don’t think being a PE guarantees that no mistake will be made while running simulation software and I also think that you don’t absolutely need to be a PE to use simulation software. However, as you said, you do need to have a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the engineering fundamentals in order to come up with a good model, set up the simulation and interpret the results successfully. Perhaps, that’s what he tried to convey?

    However, this is not exclusive of simulation software of any particular kind. The case would be exactly the same had you decided to solve the problem “by hand”, without the use of commercial FEA software or even FE methods. However, if you decide not to use FEA, then you’ll quickly run into a different issue, the one of needing to simplify your problem enough so you can actually find a solution for it without the need of FE methods, and then figuring out if that solution is really good enough for the problem at hand. Yes, because we have to remember from our days in college that the methods we learned from classical mechanics always assume some ideal situation that is not really the case in real life. Either way, you will still need to have strong knowledge and understanding of engineering fundamentals to come up with the model and interpret the solution. So, taking that into account, shouldn’t we all be PEs? LOL I know, I know, someone will come up and find a hole in my logic soon, I know. :-)

  • http://www.kevindesmet.com Kevin De Smet
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline