For years, one company has dominated the pop science news cycle with its shockingly capable, eerily lifelike humanoid robots. This week, Boston Dynamics has announced a shift from hydraulic to electric, in the interest of making the Atlas humanoid robot more applicable for commercial applications. In the same breath, the company has announced a customer partnership with Hyundai to test and iterate the applications.

According to the press release, end effectors are a new focus for Atlas, with the company “exploring several new gripper variations to meet a diverse set of expected manipulation needs in customer environments.”

Atlas joins the Boston Dynamics Spot and Stretch robots as commercial products to come out of Boston Dynamics’ impressive R&D efforts.

Atlas—a timeline

1992 – Marc Raibert and Nancy Cornelius found Boston Dynamics, based on his work in the Leg Laboratory, with MIT and Carnegie Mellon.

2009 – PETMAN (Protection Ensemble Test Mannequin) unveiled, a walking humanoid robot designed to test PPE.

2013 – Atlas unveiled, with a video showing the humanoid robot being hit by objects and balancing on one leg.

2016 – New version of Atlas released, with video showing the robot walking freely over different outdoor terrain, doing backflips, and generally freaking everyone out. Like its predecessor, this robot is hydraulically actuated.

2017 – Update video, with Atlas jumping on platforms and boxes, and doing a wider range of dynamic movements, such as jumping while turning 180 degrees.

2018 – Update video shows Atlas running outdoors over uneven terrain.

2019 – Update video shows Atlas performing a wide range of gymnastic maneuvers, including flips, turns, leaps and somersaults.

2021 – The company releases an update video showing Atlas robots performing a parkour course, including running up and down stairs, crossing a balance beam, and performing broad jumps. According to a blog article released at the time, while backflip skills may never be valuable in a commercial setting, the series of athletic update videos released in the past years have been in the interest of developing commercial applications, because, “If robots can eventually respond to their environments with the same level of dexterity as the average adult human, the range of potential applications will be practically limitless.” By setting goals based on whole-body movements, Boston Dynamics is able to drive hardware and software innovation.

2024 – Electric Atlas unveiled, with the retirement of the hydraulic Atlas.

Why is Boston Dynamics developing humanoid robots, anyway?

According to the company, Boston Dynamics has focused on humanoid robots because of the bipedal platform’s ability to balance and move dynamically, in order to be able to navigate real-world challenging terrain. In addition, the humanoid structure can naturally navigate a world built for humans (benchtops, machines, doorknobs, wheelbarrows, etc.)

Great news for those who revel in the uncanny, ‘creepy’ factor as we watch the development of Atlas: With the new electric platform, Boston Dynamics has stated: “Atlas may resemble a human form factor, but we are equipping the robot to move in the most efficient way possible to complete a task, rather than being constrained by a human range of motion. Atlas will move in ways that exceed human capabilities.”

Will Atlas take my job?

Maybe, but only if your job is dull, dirty, or dangerous. Consistent with the message across the entire robotics industry, industrial robots don’t necessarily take jobs from people, they take over certain tasks, freeing up workers to do other tasks. For more on this phenomenon, check out https://www.engineering.com/story/robotics-innovation-is-the-key-to-re-shoring-the-trillion-dollar-apparel-manufacturing

The post Atlas humanoid robot designed to ‘exceed’ human movement appeared first on Engineering.com.

Here’s a look at how Forrester sees some trends for the coming year.

75% of industrial metaverse projects will rebrand to survive the ‘metaverse winter.’

“Industrial Metaverse” is the first big buzzword Forrester mentions in the report. The average layperson most likely heard the term ‘metaverse’ sometime between 2014, when Facebook acquired VR startup Oculus to develop social and gaming applications for VR technology. In 2021, Facebook rebranded to the name, ‘Meta,’ shifting its focus to developing a metaverse, or a virtual world environment accessed using VR devices, and hosting a variety of social and entertainment experiences. Sometime during the NFT craze of 2021 and early 2022, individuals even considered buying virtual property such as land and other virtual assets in the Meta metaverse.

However, like most other emerging technologies, industrial applications for the metaverse are in development. A Joint report from Siemens and MIT Technology Review described the industrial metaverse as an extension of digital twin technology. A fully realized industrial metaverse would connect the digital twins of a company’s equipment assets, products, supply chain, even public infrastructure and partners’ assets in a virtual world. Although it sounds a bit like The Matrix, the purpose would be to extrapolate the benefits of digital twin into every corner of the product lifecycle. These benefits include predictive maintenance, operational data insights, real-time monitoring and accelerated risk assessment.

Forrester predicted in 2023 that the tech sector would experience a ‘metaverse winter’ or a cooling of market growth as value-add applications lag behind technology. Forrester was more optimistic about the industrial metaverse since it was built on more realistic applications from the start, but the industrial metaverse is experiencing a similar cooling effect.

The report doesn’t blame the digital twin and industrial IoT technologies that power industrial metaverse with this slowing trend. As the report puts it, “The industrial metaverse phrase was an opportunistic rebranding of a group of existing technologies that looks increasingly unwise.”

As a result, the firm’s prediction is simple: vendors will rebrand these technologies to strike the ‘metaverse’ term, moving ahead with those building blocks. Manufacturing leaders in 2024 should focus on realizing benefits of proven technologies like augmented reality, the internet of things and digital twins.

Generative AI will not transform the business of manufacturing in 2024.

ChatGPT may be exciting, but can it write g-code? The answer is yes, GPT3 will return g-code for a CNC machine. However, the better question is: if I’m brave enough to run g-code that I got from ChatGPT and I crash the machine, will my manager fire me?

According to the report, manufacturing leaders are intrigued by the potential applications of generative AI (genAI) such as GPT, but they’re moving cautiously. According to Forrester’s July 2023 Artificial Intelligence Pulse Survey, 29% of AI decision-makers characterize their organization’s use of genAI as “experimentation.” Among manufacturers producing high-tech or industrial products, 47% are still at the experimentation phase.

Two factors explain this caution: Manufacturing workflows require complex interactions between a set of ecosystem partners and a range of expensive machines. Introducing new, largely untested technologies is simply too risky. The impact of mistakes on physical work is prohibitively high with lost productivity, damaged machines, or even injury.

The other factor is security risks related to careless use of public AI tools such as ChatGPT. Because ChatGPT is a learning model, it collects data from the inputs of users. In a high-profile incident early in 2023, three Samsung employees separately shared confidential information with the chatbot. These incidents included an engineer sharing proprietary source code with ChatGPT, another inputted the transcript of a meeting, and the third shared a manufacturing process to get the bot’s advice on process optimization. This information is now accessible to anyone using the service, demonstrating the risk of new technology being used by employees before a company has had time to provide training.

Of course, serious industrial applications of generative AI do not use public ChatGPT. According to Forrester, GenAI has a place, and companies already doing the hard work to structure, clean, and understand their IT and operational technology (OT) data are well placed to take advantage, but even they should proceed with caution in 2024.

30% of Fortune 500 manufacturers will dilute reshoring plans

Reshoring is the next buzzword Forrester tackled in the predictions report. While new American legislation has bolstered efforts, manufacturers such as Apple have noted that the reasons some manufacturing tasks have moved abroad comes down to more than labor costs.

While software and hardware automation is key to making reshoring initiatives viable, Forrester found that automation has taken longer to deliver competitive results on American soil compared to existing offshore solutions. The report highlights four obstacles:

1. Identifying processes that made good candidates for automation
2. Scaling individual software and hardware solutions
3. Achieving interoperability between solutions from different vendors
4. Finding and training local talent

These are solvable problems, but according to Forrester’s report, reshoring efforts shouldn’t be about starting fresh. Instead, manufacturers should look to tweak the balance between offshore, nearshore and local capabilities, understanding that this will bring back fewer jobs than some may hope.

Autonomous vehicle investors seek quicker returns in controlled environments

It’s almost 2024, where are our self-driving cars? For consumers who actually want one and are willing to shell out, the wait may be a little longer than Elon Musk originally predicted (before the end of 2016, for anyone counting). While certain municipalities have made legislative and regulatory progress, widespread penetration of cars enabled with the tech on public roads across America may not be in the cards for 2024, said Forrester.

However, the technology that enables self-driving cars has been finding disruptive and value-added applications in vehicles that drive in warehouses, factories and ports. Forrester predicts firms and their investors may shift from the passenger vehicle to the industrial world to see returns and progress faster. The advances made in these environments will be valuable on the roads, but a tangled web of law, demand, public acceptance and red tape still remain in the way.

The post Smart Manufacturing Predictions for 2024 appeared first on Engineering.com.

The automotive industry faces continuing challenges in 2023, including workforce issues, changing consumer demand, and advancing technology. Rockwell Automation’s recent State of Smart Manufacturing Report: Automotive Edition explores the ways manufacturing leaders are tackling these challenges.

In the report, respondents identified external and internal obstacles, such as balancing quality and growth, onboarding new employees and the microchip shortage. Overwhelmingly, when asked how they plan to mitigate these risks, the respondents indicated adopting new technology was a big part of the plan.

Engineering.com caught up with Bill Sarver, Global Director, Smart Manufacturing – Automotive/EV, Battery & Tire at Rockwell Automation to get his take on the technology manufacturers are leaning on to tackle the top 5 issues identified in the report.

Balancing quality with profitable growth

Manufacturers in the automotive sector identified the need to balance quality with profitable growth as their number one internal challenge in both 2022 and 2023. 43% of automotive manufacturing leaders believe this was their biggest internal obstacle in 2022 and 40% expect this to continue in 2023. How can auto manufacturers balance quality with profitable growth through automation and leveraging technology?

According to Sarver, a cloud-based quality management system (QMS) is one technology solution that can make a significant impact here. While PLM, ERP and MES systems are a popular investment choice for automotive manufacturers, Sarver says the quality department is often overlooked. “When it comes to quality, it’s like the last frontier for investment,” he said. 

A cloud-based QMS adds value by unifying manual or siloed systems and integrating them with the business, making areas for improvement more accessible and visible. This enables monitoring, management and corrective action, which improving process quality. “A cloud-based QMS enables users to simplify the whole development, maintenance and management of systems over time to improve efficiency, reduce manpower and improve profitability, while ensuring no-go products aren’t going out the door,” said Sarver. “And by the way, QMS is not anywhere near as expensive as an ERP or PLM system is—it’s fractions of that. You can get all this huge value out of a [relatively] small investment.”

Workforce issues

Respondents highlighted two critical workforce-related challenges: Onboarding new employees (39%) and worker retention (38%), both of which ranked in the top five concerns around growth in 2023. The workforce is critical to the industry’s growth.  How can automation and technology be leveraged to onboard and retain employees?

By creating a learning culture that extends training throughout an employee’s journey with the company, retention challenges can be mitigated as employees feel engaged, with an understanding of their opportunities for advancement.

“People come to you with a certain bias and skillset,” said Sarver. “You have to form them to your operating standards, train them to the requirements and make sure they’re certified to the capabilities you need, and then to transition from level to level.”

Rockwell’s Associate Management System aids organizations in managing these training and upskilling needs by laying out certifications, training schedules and timing to ensure training takes place. According to Sarver, virtual training plays an important role in achieving training goals. “If you’re getting a new piece of equipment, you can train employees remotely or virtually on the equipment, rather than waiting for the piece of equipment to show up. Let’s take a week or two out of that deployment time to start production, by doing it virtually.”

In addition to virtual training methods such as video, newer tech offers more immersive learning, such as VR and AR-based training. Rockwell and other industrial training vendors can offer services that use digital twin and CAD data of equipment, products and processes to create training experiences for these extended reality technologies. “It helps train employees, but it also helps troubleshoot any other issues in the equipment before it gets shipped,” says Sarver. So, there’s a virtual commissioning aspect and value to this AR and VR based training that the customer achieves. Training is one of the biggest use cases for AR and VR in manufacturing.”

Barriers to technology adoption and technology paralysis

Manufacturers in the automotive industry are adopting new technologies rapidly, but not without some friction. 48% of businesses report a lack of skills to manage smart manufacturing initiatives as the biggest barrier to adoption, while 46% report employee resistance to new technologies as the biggest barrier. How can automotive manufacturers overcome these barriers?

Sarver says automotive manufacturers should be more open to partnership. “Historically, the larger automotive companies are inwardly focused. For all the talk about partnering and bringing in and allowing partners to come in to really do part of their work, to be part of their workforce, to be part of their organization, it’s not there,” said Sarver.

By being more open to partnership with technology developers like Rockwell and many others, Sarver says automakers can bring in the expertise needed to open the discussion on the best tools to enable improvements. Automakers have strict IP protections, but NDAs or other protection policies are well accepted by these types of vendors.

“One company can’t do everything,” explained Sarver. “So it’s the ecosystem that we set up as well being able to compare technologies, demonstrate one versus the other, it eliminates some of this paralysis that exists out there in deciding what to do,” said Sarver. “It’s a challenge for them to decide because they don’t have the experience in all the newest technology. They have experience using it, but they don’t understand how to develop and how to deploy, which is a key area, and that’s what the vendors do. So it takes that development and deployment experience mashed up with that user together to eliminate some of these issues and concerns.”

In the survey, 46% of respondents reported employee resistance as a barrier to technology adoption. According to Sarver, it’s important to remember that this includes not only base level workers such as machine operators, but also management and IT personnel.

One major factor in employee resistance is the fear that technology will eliminate jobs. A key point here is technology such as automation doesn’t eliminate jobs, it eliminates tasks–typically dull, dirty and dangerous tasks. In many cases, personnel in these roles are upskilled for other tasks, such as robot programming or maintenance, rather than laid off. If it were true that automation eliminated jobs completely, manufacturing wouldn’t be facing the workforce challenges it is today.

“The way to get people engaged and buy-in is to get them involved upfront,” said Sarver. “One of the things that we find is we need to be cross-functional, because it’s not just a silo anymore, it’s not just quality, it’s not just operations, it’s not just maintenance. These things have to work together. So you have to build a cross-functional team.”

Next, said Sarver, these cross-functional teams can generate buy-in by understanding the specific tasks eliminated by the technology and how they can be upskilled into more technical roles and moved into other areas. This transparency builds trust with employees. “The companies that have been successful, they’ve reorganized their teams to be more cross-functional, to be able to have a team of people and a quality representative, a maintenance representative, an IT representative, so they all work together to go solve this bigger problem that crosses these barriers—that’s how you have to do it.”

Challenge 5 – External factors

In 2023, 54% of auto manufacturers expressed concerns about raw material shortages, while inflation (47%) remains a key issue. What strategies can manufacturers employ to help reduce the potential impact of these external challenges?

On the global scale, government efforts to nearshore and reshore manufacturing is one significant way to help manufacturers tackle these issues. But within the four walls of a factory, Sarver highlighted agile manufacturing as an answer.

“When we talk about material shortages, we talk about scheduling and resource planning. So when you get into resource planning, you’ve got to be able to take those inputs and changes. It could be a machine down on the plant floor, it could be a quality supplier issue. It could be a ship stuck off port. It could be any of these things. So you’ve got to be able to make that adjustment on the fly,” explained Sarver. “Historically production planning has been manual. Even though they’ve tried to do this with ERP systems with some automation, there’s still a manual function to it. Why? Because you have this disconnection off the plant floor to those systems, right? Number one. So one of the things we do is we connect the plant floor directly into those systems.”

By automating the connections and linking inputs from suppliers into these systems as well, Rockwell uses heuristic models together with an optimization engine to effectively schedule manpower, plants and production down to the machine operator level.

Staying Competitive

The State of Smart Manufacturing report highlighted that while today’s automotive manufacturers see technology as an opportunity to reap benefits and stay competitive, it can be challenging to learn and move fast enough to keep up with the rapid pace of technological change. By bringing in experts from vendors like Rockwell, savvy manufacturers can gain the expertise needed to not only make smart investments in the right technology, but also the correct business moves to ensure that people and policies move in line with technology to ensure their business navigates these obstacles effectively.

The post Auto Sector Leaning on New Tech to Address Major Challenges: Report appeared first on Engineering.com.

Robotic sheet forming is the first process enabled by Machina’s patented manufacturing platform. (Image: Machina labs)

Six axis robots have been a quintessential tool on the factory floor in applications like material handling and spot welding for decades. But as digital manufacturing technology continues to evolve, the industry has seen innovative applications emerge for these precise and accurate robots, including CNC machining, material deposition for additive manufacturing and even dieless incremental forming of sheet metal—also known as roboforming.

That term “dieless” likely made your eyes turn into dollar signs if you’re an engineer looking for new ways to take cost out of a forming process. Just as six-axis is touted as a differentiator for additive manufacturing, the ability of roboforming to produce a part without a die is a key advantage of it and other digital manufacturing processes. Indeed, these digital manufacturing technologies can turn stock material into finished parts without the need for custom tooling, only custom digital instructions.

What is robotic incremental sheet forming (RISF)?

The basic concept of this technique is a robot fitted with a hardened steel, spherical tool which is applied incrementally against the surface of sheet material, typically metal, creating a plastic deformation. Millimeter by millimeter, the deformation is gradually pushed and formed until the sheet stock is coaxed into the part’s final shape, not dissimilar to metal spinning, except without the rotation.

Incremental forming has been done using modified CNC milling machines since the 1990s. However, the advantage of robotic incremental sheet forming is the working area. With a CNC, the part size is limited by the bed size of the machine. If your shop has a large bed CNC machine, you’re likely making too much money operating it as intended to try incremental sheet forming with it.

In the past, roboforming may have been set up with two robots working in tandem, with one robot creating the deformation and another robot on the reverse side of the sheet providing back pressure. However, today’s setups are possible with only one robot. First, the sheet blank is secured in the blankholder (a steel frame). Then, the robot proceeds with the toolpath. Creating the toolpath for the robot requires analysis such as finite element analysis (FEA) to increase the structural integrity of the thin metal sheet. CAM software is also used to generate a toolpath from the CAD model of the desired geometry. For programmers familiar with CNC milling, the additional step of converting toolpath G-code to robot programming commands will be new. However, this is a well-documented process as it’s used in many applications, such as robotic CNC milling. Depending on the brand of robot you have, the vendor (such as FANUC or KUKA, for example) will likely have a software tool to convert the G-code into their proprietary robot programming language. Another option is to use a third-party robot programming software solution such as RoboDK.

Because roboforming does not require custom tooling such as a die, it is a process that supports mass customization—the robot can form 100 different part geometries for the same cost and in the same time as 100 identical parts. However, roboforming is outperformed by traditional sheet forming processes when it comes to mass production at scale, such as a stamping process in the automotive industry, for obvious reasons: per part, a robot moving incrementally is slower than a press.

Robot Requirements for Roboforming

Six axis robots have a much lower stiffness than CNC machines. The robot used for this process must have a high rigidity, which correlates to payload, to avoid deflecting as it exerts force on the sheet metal. The required payload of the robot will depend largely on the thickness of the material. In this study from 2006, Italian researchers Massimo Callegari, Dario Amodio, Elisabetta Ceretti and Claudio Giardini used a a COMAU Tricept HP1 robot, which was able to apply 15 kN of thrust in a working envelope of 2000 mm x 600 mm, with a repeatability better than 0.03 mm.

This video from the Bartlett School of Architecture UCL shows the roboforming process in action.

Why: Benefits of Roboforming

One of the key advantages of roboforming is the low barrier to entry. With the right six axis robot and a competent robot programmer, this process can be set up relatively quickly and easily. As a simple metal instrument, the end effector is not expensive and doesn’t require frequent maintenance. As a dieless process, the lead time from “art to part” is limited only by the programming time. Here are several other benefits of robotic incremental sheet forming:

Precision: automation produces more consistent results than manual processes, reducing scrap rates. In addition, as the geometry is produced incrementally, there is no springback as you may find with other sheet metal forming processes.

Improved safety: while a robotic cell requires safety precautions similar to a press, an automated process can reduce injuries associated with manual handling of heavy and sharp-edged sheet materials.

Mass customization: as a digital process, roboforming produces different parts at the same rate and for the same costs as identical parts, and production can be changed over at the touch of a button.

Small Batch Efficiency: producing small runs of parts with a process like deep drawing is prohibitively expensive. Because RISF eliminates the tooling, batch sizes as low as one are achievable at low cost.

Cost savings: automated forming eliminates high tool and die costs, and may enable the repurposing of a robot not currently applied elsewhere. Roboforming can help optimize production efficiency and minimize waste.

How Roboforming Can Reduce Costs

Digging into the cost advantages of a dieless forming process reveals the specific advantages. First and most importantly is the cost of the lead time required in die production. It can take days to design a die, and weeks to produce it, receive it and get it into production. In addition, dies require regular maintenance such as repair and refinishing past a certain threshold. In comparison, a robotic cell equipped for roboforming can start producing parts before the die would even be cut or cast.

Incremental forming also reduces scrap. Processes such as deep drawing involve trimming scrap from the part. While this scrap can be sold, incremental forming can reduce material cost by 12% compared to deep drawing.

Operation of a press is costly, including lubricants and maintenance. The maintenance and lubrication costs involved in a robotic cell for incremental forming are much lower.

Roboforming Use Cases

Like most other robotic cell applications, roboforming can easily be set up by hiring a robotic system integrator that will design and build the turnkey roboforming cell for customers. Just ask your system integrator about their experience with roboforming or robotic incremental sheet forming. For example,  Metal Automation Group, a US-based robotic system integrator, offers a turnkey package for roboforming.

Los Angles-based Machina Labs has developed a software platform for industrial robotics applications including roboforming, and has received funding from aerospace and defense giant from Lockheed Martin Ventures. Robotic sheet forming is the first process enabled by Machina’s manufacturing platform. Using material- and geometry-agnostic technology, the platform outperforms traditional sheet forming methods that rely on custom molds or dies. 

“At Machina Labs, we are creating the factory of the future; one where a variety of designs and physical products can be produced on-demand and at scale,” according to Edward Mehr, CEO and Co-Founder of Machina Labs. “With Lockheed Martin’s investment, we can accelerate development of our sheet metal Roboforming to better serve the need of the defense sector and give the United States a competitive advantage in speed of development for national security and defense products.”

Check out this entertaining video from popular science and technology Youtube personality Smarter Every Day on the subject of roboforming.

The post The What, Why and How of Roboforming appeared first on Engineering.com.

Virtual reality (VR) has long been a staple in science fiction as an immersive entertainment device, allowing users to interact with a virtual world. Today, digital displays, computer processing, and optics and sensor technology have reached a point enabling affordable VR devices, and they’ve found applications not only in entertainment and video games, but beyond, including art, education, medical science, engineering, manufacturing and design. Together, the different types of virtual and mixed reality technology are referred to as extended reality (XR).

Let’s take a look at the types of virtual and extended reality available for engineers, including the devices that run them.

Types of extended reality (XR)

What is virtual reality (VR)?

Virtual reality immerses the user in a computer-generated 3D environment. A headset equipped with displays and motion-tracking sensors fill the user’s field of vision with the image, and match the motion of the image to the head movement of the user, allowing the user to look around the virtual environment. Other peripheral input devices can also be used to move around within the virtual environment.

What is augmented reality (AR)?

Similar to the heads-up display on a fighter jet, augmented reality (AR) technology overlays computer-generated images onto the user’s field of vision. These devices employ transparent displays to allow light from the outside world to enter the user’s view. Motion tracking sensors are used to keep digital images aligned with the user’s vision relative to the real world. For example, if an AR device was used to give the user driving directions, an AR headset could use sensor data to display a “turn left” arrow at the correct place and in the correct orientation on the road. AR may also be experienced without a headset device. For example, some smartphone or tablet devices can use the built-in cameras and accelerometers to display not only the view from the camera, but also a virtual object that appears to occupy real space.

What is mixed reality (MR)?

VR involves interacting with virtual objects and not physical objects. AR involves interacting with physical objects with superimposed virtual images. Mixed reality (MR) brings the two together by creating an inter-reality experience in which the user interacts with both physical and virtual objects together. In MR, virtual objects are attached to physical objects.

How engineers are using VR, AR and MR

According to George Smith, marketing manager at Infisim, XR devices are useful in engineering for viewing and interacting remotely with designs and virtual objects. “Engineers may modify 3D models, simulate real-world settings, and interact remotely using these immersive technologies. AR, VR and MR help engineers optimize design processes, detect and fix difficulties early, increase training and skill development, and boost productivity and efficiency. These technologies enable engineers to innovate and optimize production processes, improving product quality and lowering costs,” Smith told engineering.com.

For example, in manufacturing, virtual reality may be used to explore and interact with a digital model of a piece of equipment, such as a turbine. A recent engineering.com survey found that XR in architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) is most commonly used for visualizing data, internal design reviews and stakeholder presentations.

An example of how AR might be used is in creating AR-enabled work instructions for maintenance or commissioning. PTC Vuforia is one product that enables this. With Vuforia, users see a virtual overlay indicating work instructions on their view of the physical part. This application speeds knowledge transfer and aids workers in following instructions accurately. As you can see from the below image, augmented reality can be a relatively basic experience, not requiring a dedicated headset device.

(Image: PTC.)

Mixed reality brings the two together. An example of a mixed reality experience could be a user wearing an MR headset performing maintenance on equipment, interacting with a digital model for reference while also working on the physical parts. The user could even interact with the digital model using their hands, just as with physical objects.

In manufacturing, one application for AR and MR that provides significant value is remote assistance. This enables a remote user (an expert) to patch into the view of a user on site (a technician with less expertise), and use voice communication while adding virtual images to the technician’s view to coach through the task. This saves travel time for more highly paid experts. For example, an offshore oil rig can save significant costs using XR remote assistance compared to flying the expert to the remote rig.

Most popular VR headsets with benefits and drawbacks

The most common piece of VR hardware is the HMD (head-mounted display), colloquially known as VR goggles or VR headsets. These devices may also come with controllers for manipulating the virtual environment.

VR headsets for engineers

HTC Vive Pro

(Image: HTC.)

The HTC Vive is an easy-to-deploy solution with a rich feature set. The HTC Vive may be a good fit for users new to VR, as it creates a virtual outline of the physical environment (the room you are using VR in) to remind users not to bump into objects. However, the Vive Pro requires a powerful PC and external tracking cameras.

Meta Quest 2 and 3

The forthcoming Meta Quest 3. (Image: Meta.)

The Meta Quest 2 is a standalone VR headset powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 system-on-chip. With a low price point ($300 to $400, depending on internal memory), it’s an easy option for exploring the world of VR. Primarily targeted at gaming applications, it’s nonetheless supported by some professional applications like KeyVR (more on that below).

In June 2023 Meta announced the successor to the Quest 2, the Meta Quest 3, which is expected to be available by the end of the year.

Varjo Aero

Varjo is an HMD manufacturer that makes XR devices including the Varjo XR-3 for MR and the Varjo Aero for VR.

One thing that sets Varjo apart is that professional engineers and designers are the main target of their products, whereas some other HMDs (including products not featured in this article) balance the consumer and professional markets.

(Image: Varjo.)

The Varjo Aero is a VR headset. One benefit of the Aero is that it is designed to be light, which is a serious selling point when you’re wearing a computer display on your face. Like the XR-3, the Aero features high resolution and built-in eye tracking.

Varjo devices currently require a base station PC with powerful minimum specs. Varjo devices are also very expensive compared to other HMDs on the market. For comparison, the HTC Vive Pro 2 costs approximately $800, while Varjo’s website currently lists the Aero for $1990.

AR headsets for engineers

Magic Leap

(Image: Magic Leap.)

Magic Leap is a dedicated AR headset designed for enterprise. As such, it has robust security and collaboration features relative to some consumer devices. Magic Leap offers software for virtual collaboration.

Android and Apple smartphones and tablets for AR

(Image: TeamViewer.)

The current generations of Apple and Android smart devices support AR features, such as viewing 3D objects in your environment, or using AR software such as PTC Vuforia. However, many of these consumer devices are not designed for factory environments. In addition, viewing on a handheld device is less immersive, and does not provide the hands-free experience of a headset.

MR headsets for engineers

Microsoft HoloLens 2

(Image: Microsoft.)

The Microsoft HoloLens 2 mixed-reality smart glasses allow users to see their environment while also interacting with virtual images via gestures. All the sensors—including cameras for motion tracking and gesture recognition, and microphones for voice commands—are in the headset, obviating the need for external tracking devices. One drawback of the holographic display is that because it allows in environmental light, black appears transparent in virtual images. This device is self-contained and does not need to be connected to a computer.

Varjo XR-3

The Varjo XR-3 MR headset uses HD video cameras to create video pass-through to present the user’s physical environment, instead of a transparent display, such as that of HoloLens or Magic Leap. On its website Varjo claims its devices feature photorealistic displays with sufficiently high resolution that the user’s eye can’t see the pixels, which are sometimes noticeable on lower-resolution displays (such as smartphone-display headsets). The XR-3 also uses LiDAR depth sensors and hand and eye tracking.

(Image: Varjo.)

Windows Mixed Reality headsets

There are several other HMDs on the market powered by Windows Mixed Reality, MR functionality that’s built into the Windows operating system. These include HMDs like the HP Reverb G2, Lenovo Explorer series, and others from hardware OEMs including Samsung and Acer.

(Image: Lenovo.)

Most popular engineering software for VR, AR and MR

PTC Vuforia

(Image: PTC.)

PTC Vuforia is an AR content development platform for industrial enterprise. The solution includes multiple apps: Expert Capture, Studio, Engine, and Chalk.

• Vuforia Expert Capture enables the creation of AR step-by-step instructions and AI-enhanced inspections to support front-line workers with expert knowledge.
• Vuforia Studio allows users to use 3D model data, IoT sensor data, and more to create AR experiences.
• Vuforia Engine is a software development kit (SDK) for creating augmented reality apps.
• Vuforia Chalk is a remote assistance tool which allows for live visual annotations.

Prospect by IrisVR

(Image: IrisVR.)

Prospect IrisVR is a VR tool designed to enable the most common applications for VR in architecture, engineering and construction, including viewing 3D models and plans in VR, and live immersive collaboration. One advantage of IrisVR is that it is headset-agnostic, and supports integrations with several popular engineering software tools, including Revit, Rhino and Navisworks.

TeamViewer Remote Assist AR

TeamViewer, a remote screen-sharing collaboration tool, has recently launched an AR assist tool which uses smartphone or tablet hardware to perform AR-enabled remote assist.

KeyVR

KeyVR is a product from software vendor KeyShot which allows users to import CAD into a VR environment. Users can view the model in a 360-degree virtual environment, including the ability to change materials and choose lighting. KeyShot claims the capability will allow users to make design decisions faster. The software also has a “connect” feature which allows multiple users to interact in the same virtual space, fostering collaboration.

Siemens NX

(Image: Siemens.)

Siemens NX supports VR as a way to review designs at human scale, giving you the ability to get up close and personal with full size models. According to the company, NX Virtual Reality is integrated into the desktop application and accessible with one click, extending familiar interactions into a truly immersive 3D environment. In addition, NX support for VR includes multi-user sessions to facilitate collaboration.

Are VR headsets ergonomic?

One consideration for professionals and VR gamers alike is what wearing an HMD for eight hours might feel like on the eyes, face and neck.

A 2021 study performed by Defence Research and Development Canada, Human Factors and Ergonomics Considerations when using Augmented Reality Head Mounted Displays—Literature Analysis Report, reported that “evidence suggests that the use of AR HMDs is unlikely to result in deleterious effects associated with comfort and physical safety.” The literature review study examined effects in four categories: General safety concerns, cybersickness, musculoskeletal impacts and visual impacts.

However, a study published in 2020 in the Journal of Medical Engineering, Experimental Setup Employed in the Operating Room Based on Virtual and Mixed Reality: Analysis of Pros and Cons in Open Abdomen Surgery, reported “an increase in the physical stress and reduced comfort due to the weight of the Microsoft HoloLens device, along with drawbacks due to the battery autonomy.” Engineers and designers may not be using the HoloLens for as strenuous a task as open abdomen surgery, but it’s an interesting consideration nonetheless.

Research in this field is ongoing, and as with all digital devices, experts recommend taking breaks and stretching muscles to reduce strain and risk of injury while using XR devices.

The post AR, VR and MR for Engineers: Headsets and Apps in 2023 appeared first on Engineering.com.

At this year’s Automate 2023 conference, the Association for Advancing Automation (A3) has honored Roberta Nelson Shea with the Joseph F. Engelberger Robotics Award, often described as the most prestigious award in robotics. For more than 45 years, Roberta Nelson Shea—currently the Global Technical Compliance Officer at Universal Robots—has been a central figure in the development of industrial robot safety standards in North America and around the world. As the convenor of the ISO committee, she led the introduction of ISO/TS 15066, which is the first document that defines standardized safety requirements for human-robot collaboration.

The Engelberger was previously awarded to another Universal Robots leader, Co-founder and CTO Esben Ostergaard, in 2018.

Engineering.com recently sat down with Nelson Shea to talk about her work and insights in the field of robot safety. Her answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Roberta Nelson Shea (RNS): Very early, the motivation was by the big three [GM, Ford and Chrysler (now part of Stellantis)] who said, “If we don’t have a safety standard, labor won’t accept this.” But as time went along the pushback was ‘safety adds dollars.’ Eventually, it was recognized that if robot manufacturers could build more safety in, then it would be easier for integrators, which would make it cheaper for the end users. It took a little bit of time for all this to permeate through the industry. But it was the beginning of the acceptance that robots and robot safety are cost-effective.

RNS: That’s true with robotics, interestingly enough, it’s not true with other machines. Robots are safer. If you look at statistics or ask OSHA, OSHA says we don’t have a problem with robots, because people end up safeguarding the robot. But you will find—and it is the end user who determines this—there are end users that are very conscious of safety and they really want to do the right thing. And for every one of them, you have others who are not as engaged or just not really understanding it.

RNS: This was before working for UR; I sometimes did safety consulting. I did one accident investigation on a press where a worker lost both hands. I did the machine review and the machine failed. The company knew it needed a complete overhaul of the control system but didn’t budget for it. They got a quote for it five years previous, and they decided that it cost more than they wanted to spend. They got the quote updated every year, as if to think about doing it, and never did it.

RNS: Generally speaking, robotics is more recent. We seem to have gotten people engaged and willing to move forward on safety. But we had to get over a hump in which there would be people saying: ‘But why do I have to do this?’

I think A3 helped out a lot with this back when they were RIA [the Robotics Industry Association], in that they put on a lot of training about risk assessment. We talked about a lot of application stories. It’s an industry that has quite openly discussed what hasn’t worked well. You will not find that really in other industries.

RNS: Well, there was a very early fatality, I think it was in Jackson, Mich., in which a person got in through the perimeter guard because there was an opening that was only 24 inches. I can’t get through that. And he went inside to just observe something because he was seeing some glitch. Frankly, most of the people around robotics that do get injured—and there are not many—but they tend to be the people who are engaged and really want production to work well. So, the worker went in to have a better look. And the robot went through its normal motion, but where he was standing meant that the backend of the robot hit him in the chest as it swiveled. Usually that would not have killed him. But he stood in front of a post that was installed to prevent the robot from exceeding its defined work area.

Ironically, the thing they installed to prevent the robot from crossing that position ended up being a crushing point. The discussion was not about what was done wrong there, because you can readily see that somebody identified, “Hey, we want to make sure that the robot doesn’t bash through the fence.” And this thing that was a safety post ended up introducing another hazard which was not fully recognized because the thought was nobody would ever be inside the perimeter guard.

What we really had to understand is why does somebody want to get in, and can we eliminate that need? That is why we’ve really pushed hard on root cause. Not only that, for the reason why that post was in there, there was also a big cry out from the safety committee, R15.06, to the whole robotics world, saying, hey, we need to have ideas about how we can better ensure that a robot won’t be able to exceed its motion limits without introducing hazards.

RNS: That’s a challenge I work with on a daily basis. As soon as you get out the very large players with strong unions and strong safety cultures into smaller places where—just because of the numbers of people—the odds of things happening are much lower. For these smaller ones, they don’t tend to have the expertise. I can tell you that there are some small enterprises that buy robots thinking ‘now they’re so smart, people aren’t going to be hurt.’ And that’s something we grapple with. UR came into the world with very small robots. Let’s be realistic, the risks associated with a three-kilogram payload are very different from the risks associated with a 100-kilogram payload. And by far the majority of robots by units in the field are over 100 kilograms.

RNS: The reality is, there’s no such thing as a safe robot. It’s the specific application that must be made safe. Even a tiny robot—if you equip it in an application where there are toxins, a torch or a knife—can be unsafe.

For a small enterprise, be vigilant about who you choose to do business with, ask a lot of questions. The most important thing to ask is “Do I think that the robot I’m buying has a name or a brand that is just not going to fold up in the night?” That’s just common sense.

For an integrator, [robotics system] OEM or robot-as-a-service (RaaS) company, are they a credible supplier? Ask about their risk assessment and if they would review it with you. I also encourage everybody to ask, “How will my people be trained to safely handle this? Do I need to add any safeguarding? The supplier won’t know what your plant floor looks like—there’s a lot of things that the supplier may not know—there should be a conversation and a willingness to discuss it.

RNS: If anything, I’m a little bit dismayed that people want to make everything cage free—I don’t understand it. People say it’s because [when it’s caged] you can’t move the robot around. But you can mount guards to the cart! I just look at it as a very commonsense thing.

Companies that mount robots on a cart to be transportable, they kind of fall into two camps. One ends up finding the place where they can best use it and never move it. The other one is more or less buying an OEM solution with safety built in. In fact, I just saw a really nice example of this for palletizing at Automate 2023. It was a solution for a palletizer, which includes area scanners. It’s installed together and it unbolts into two pieces so a forklift can move it wherever you want and then you bolt it together. That does make some sense for palletizing, particularly in some older factories where they built a line to make some goods, and then they built another line over there to make some goods, but they don’t run them all the time. Do you want to redo all conveyors and your whole factory floor, or do you want to every now and then use a forklift to pick up and move these two pieces and then use it at another place? And I thought that was quite clever—something made to be modular for not just shipment to the customer, but for the customer to move around.

RNS: That’s correct. The UR20 has the same safety system that we have in our e-Series, but the UR20 has all new joints. It’s a beautiful design where the joints have 50 percent fewer parts. People will get a cobot with the reach, payload capacity and speed of a traditional 20-kg to 25-kg payload robot, so The UR20 is going to have to be treated more like an older industrial robot. You still get all the safety features, of which most are very useful. However, you don’t really find great value from force limiting to protect a person, because you want to run it fast with high payload—that’s what it’s for. People should use a robot to their best advantage. Use the safety features to lock down how far the movement is, the directions of the movement, or decrease speeds if needed.

RNS: Our emphasis on task-based risk assessment. Before that, if you were a safety professional, you would identify hazards visually—just looking for obvious things. With task-based risk assessment you ask “What are all of the tasks associated with the setup, operation, troubleshooting and maintenance of the robot and the area where it’s used.” And then you ask “What are all the hazards an operator is exposed to?”

It sounds really simplistic. You just write a list of tasks, and you separately have a list of all the hazards, and then you match up the task with each of its associated hazards. Do we have an electrical hazard, a trip hazard, high pressure, clamps, impact by robot, impact by end-effector? Task-based risk assessment was something of an ‘aha moment’ that came about in the 90s in robotics and it has filtered out to just about every use in safety.

RNS: Focus on the root cause, use task-based risk assessment and fully engage people. The more people involved as a part of the risk assessment, the more people that view it as their “baby.” And these are the most important things you can say to people about robot safety: Engage all ideas, all opinions are of value.

RNS: That’s right.

The post Q&A with Engelberger Award Winner Roberta Nelson Shea appeared first on Engineering.com.

The additive sweet spot remains high-mix, low-volume parts, because no AM technology today can compete with the production scalability and speed of traditional processes such as molding. At the same time, AM makes possible radical new innovations that aren’t achievable using traditional processes. While the part volumes involved in automaking mean car manufacturers are still waiting for ways to harness the full potential of the latest 3D-printing technology, there’s been meaningful progress in one unsexy but important part of auto production: tool and die repair.

Some noteworthy case studies were revealed by Nils Niemeyer, general manager of additive solutions at DMG Mori USA, in a presentation he delivered at RAPID+TCT 2023, a major tradeshow for additive manufacturing. Niemeyer showed how Toyota and Voestalpine, a VW supplier, are using 3D printing technology from DMG Mori to repair machine parts, thereby saving money and reducing downtime.

Automotive Die Repair using Directed Energy Deposition (DED)

This part is a die used in the production of die-cast aluminum four-cylinder engines for Toyota sedans and SUVs. Using powder-blown DED additive manufacturing, the dies were repaired, providing 300 percent service life for the parts.

This image shows the die repair results: an unusable die with heavy wear was repaired to a like-new state using directed energy deposition in the 3D-printing process. (Image courtesy of DMG Mori.)

The conventional method for repairing these dies is TIG welding, a labor-intensive process. Engineers developed the new process to incorporate DED on a hybrid five-axis machine from DMG Mori that does both machining and 3D printing.

First, the die condition before repair is measured and assessed, then toolpaths are programmed to remove material on the worn surfaces, cracks and damage. Next, the areas are rebuilt with new metal added using DED. Finally, this material is machined to the final shape. Because this process is done on a single hybrid machine, all three operations are performed in a single setup, which greatly reduces lead time on the repair. The conventional TIG welding process required 96 hours and multiple setups at several workstations. In comparison, the DED process takes 31 hours, a reduction of over 60 percent. In addition, this process avoids transportation between stations. The cycle time for the near-net-shape deposition of material is much faster with DED than with manual welding.

Not only has Toyota achieved these improvements in the repair process itself, but the new repair process also delivers better results. Conventional welding done by humans is subject to human inconsistencies, and as a result conventionally-repaired dies were expected to provide 33 percent additional life compared to a new die. With the AM process done on the hybrid machine, the metal deposition is much more consistent and repeatable. With better quality metal deposition, the parts repaired by the new AM process provide 100 percent tool life, the same as a completely new die.

This provides a significant advantage in the die-casting production process. Because the conventionally repaired dies failed unpredictably, they caused unplanned downtime and required replacements to be kept in inventory. With the new process, die replacement can be scheduled around planned maintenance intervals, as the repaired dies fail predictably, in the same pattern as new dies that have never been repaired.

Another benefit of the new DED process compared to TIG welding is that the DED process has a lesser impact on assessed environmental damage categories than the conventional welding process.

Future Improvements

(Image courtesy of DMG Mori.)

Engineers at DMG Mori see opportunities for future improvements to this process. Specifically, 3D scanning can be used to create a point cloud and an STL of the unrepaired die after surface machining to remove damaged areas. Then, this point cloud can be compared to a digital model of the die. By creating automatic or semiautomatic toolpaths for the near-net-shape DED and final machining processes based on this comparison, the technology will be significantly more adoptable, as this will reduce the need for complex 5-axis CNC programming.

Automotive Die Production using AM Delivers Performance Improvements

As seen in the production of the GE fuel nozzle tip mentioned above, one major advantage of additive manufacturing is that it can produce geometries that are formerly only possible through expensive, multi-step fabrication processes, if at all. This part made by Voestalpine, a European automotive supplier to VW, demonstrates the ROI provided by this capability.

(Image courtesy of DMG Mori.)

This part was produced on a DMG Mori Lasertec 65 Hybrid machine, which is capable of directed energy deposition (DED) additive manufacturing. This die is used for casting a section of the engine bracket on VW’s 1.8L and 2.0L engine. VW produces 600,000 of these engine bracket parts each year.

(Image courtesy of DMG Mori.)

What makes this part unique is the core of the die is made of bronze—which has better thermal characteristics than tool steel—while the outer skin of the part is made from tool steel for durability. In addition, the part has internal conformal cooling channels to more effectively cool the die during operation.

To manufacture this part, the hybrid machine builds up the die in sections. As the first section is finished, the machine comes in with drilling and milling tools to prepare the cooling channels, then builds up the next section using additive tools.

This part offers several advantages over conventionally-produced dies. Thermal imaging shows the conventional die has hotspots which need to cool down, slowing throughput. On the hybrid-manufactured die, the temperature profile is 89 degrees C lower.

(Image courtesy of DMG Mori.)

A more homogenous die temperature during operation results in better part quality and higher throughput. X-rays of the cast engine brackets show pores and voids in the material, which leads to scrap parts. With the new die, these pores and voids were eliminated, driving down the scrap rate by 3.3 percent.

While that may not seem like much, since VW produces 600,000 of these engine brackets per year, this saves $183,000 per year on this single part. With the bronze material and the more complex part design, the new die costs only about $800 more, so the ROI is significant.

AM Advantage: Conformal Cooling

This case demonstrates the value of conformal cooling, a strength of additive manufacturing. Conformal cooling simply refers to the design of cooling channels inside mold and die parts that conform to the shape of the part, to provide more efficient cooling to the surface. Because these channels and surfaces don’t follow straight lines, they can’t be drilled.

The key benefit of conformal cooling is reduced cycle time, as better cooling means less time spent allowing the tool to cool down before running the next shot. According to Rock Hill, S.C.-based additive manufacturing technology developer 3D Systems, conformal cooling can reduce cycle time by up to 70 percent. Other benefits include reduced warpage, reduced scrap and reduced surface roughness.

The post The Unsexy Way 3D Printing is Helping Automakers appeared first on Engineering.com.

~ Bye, bye miss American Pie / Drove my Geely to the levee but the levee was dry ~

~ And she’ll have fun fun fun / ‘Til her daddy takes the Venucia e30 away ~

They don’t quite have the same ring to them, do they?

Engineers in North America’s auto industry may soon have new opportunities as China’s massive state-owned automakers seek to expand into this market. According to data from the China Passenger Car Association, overseas shipments of cars made in China have tripled since 2020 to reach more than 2.5 million in 2022. China is poised to become the world’s No. 2 exporter of passenger vehicles, behind Japan. A report from CarNewsChina.com states that indeed in Q1 2023, China was the world’s leading exporter of vehicles for that quarter, surpassing Japan and Germany.

(Source: carnewschina.com.)

In addition to Chinese brands owned by SAIC, Chery, Geely, Great Wall Motors, Chang’an and BYD, a few more familiar European brands such as Volvo, MG, Lotus and Volvo subsidiary Polestar are owned by Chinese parent companies. Tesla produces cars at Tesla China for the global market as well, contributing to the nation’s car exports.

The Chinese Passenger Car Association predicted that Chinese vehicle exports will reach four million by the end of 2023.

USA automakers losing to Chinese competitors in the Chinese market

According to a report from Shanghai-based consultant Automobility called State of China’s Auto Market, GM’s car sales in China fell by 20 percent from 2021, while Ford’s declined by 33.5 percent. In China, EVs (including battery EVs, or BEVs, and plug-in hybrid EVs, or PHEVs) are rapidly gaining market share against gasoline-fueled cars, rising to one in three new cars sold in 2022.

(Source: Automobility.)

China may make the best EVs

A key focus in the Chinese auto market is electric vehicles. As EVs become more popular worldwide, inexpensive Chinese brands such as BYD are challenging Tesla as well as other Korean and American makes in the segment. According to a May 2023 article from Business Insider entitled Say goodbye to the US car market as we know it: Cheap Chinese EVs are coming, U.S. EV sales hit a high of 800,000 vehicles in 2022, while Chinese consumers bought five million passenger EVs in the same period.

China’s dominance in its domestic EV market has its automakers developing a mastery in the space, threatening EV makers in Europe and the USA. According to a May 2023 from Allianz Trade called The Chinese challenge for the European automotive industry, the rapid domestic shift to EVs in the Chinese market has enabled Chinese EV makers to capture the bulk of sales at the expense of European automakers. Chinese automakers have taken this opportunity to scale and are now eyeing the European market.

“With the 2035 phase-out of internal combustion engines (ICE) looming, the automotive sector is on the cusp of a complete shake up, facing a transformation of its supplier base, changing customer needs, competition from new entrants and the reality of a less car-centric society,” reads the report.

European consumers are choosing more EVs than ever, states the Allianz report. This chart shows the growing diversification of new vehicle registrations by fuel type.

(Source: Allianz Research.)

Growth on U.S. soil may be more challenging for Chinese carmakers, however.

New tax credits for EV purchases favor made-in-America battery components and vehicles, and a Trump-era import tariff of 27.5 percent remains in effect on Chinese cars. In addition, American consumers may be less likely to support Chinese brands due to political tensions. One company, Geely, may have found a way around this tariff by producing its Link & Co EVs in South Korea.

In 2021, BYD (and any automaker based in China) was excluded from federal transit funding for clean transit vehicles.

Polestar is one Chinese-owned brand selling in the USA, and EV brand Nio plans to enter the country by 2025. According to Business Insider, large Chinese brands such as BYD and Geely may have to set up manufacturing operations in the U.S. to meet the high volume demands of the American market. However, because of the tariffs, Chinese brands may have to aim at the low-priced end of the passenger vehicle market—which, in many ways, is today an underserved segment of the EV market in North America.

Engineering innovation in China’s auto industry

Chinese automakers, like some of their counterparts in other manufacturing industries in the nation, have been criticized in the past for copying or infringing on existing designs. In 2019, a court in Beijing ruled that Jiangling Motor Corporation’s (JMC) Landwind X7 had several features that were directly copied from the Range Rover Evoque, and there are other examples. However, in spite of this reputation, China’s automotive engineers have developed some remarkable innovations.

One example of this is BYD’s so-called Blade Battery, a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery that has powered all BYD EVs since 2021. The Blade’s singular cells are arranged together in an array and then inserted into a battery pack, with the name based on the appearance of the thin cells arranged in the pack.

BYD claims the Blade Battery has numerous advantages, particularly with regards to safety. In nail penetration tests, the Blade Battery emitted no smoke or fire after being penetrated, and its surface temperature reached only 30 to 60°C (86 to 140 °F), according to BYD. Due to its optimized battery pack structure, the automakers says the space utilization of the battery pack is increased by over 50 percent compared to conventional LFP block batteries. In 2022, BYD began supplying Blade Batteries to Tesla’s factory in Germany to be used in the Model Y.

BYD’s Blade Battery. (Source: BYD.)

China’s “Big Four” automakers

In China, the “Big Four” automakers are SAIC, Dongfeng, FAW and Chang’an.

SAIC

China’s largest carmaker, SAIC (Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation) sold more than 5.3 million vehicles in 2022, ranking first in China for the 17th consecutive year. The company announced in an April 2023 press release that by 2025, sales of its self-owned brands, new energy vehicles (NEVs), and intelligent connected vehicles (ICVs), are expected to account for 60 percent, 50 percent, and more than 50 percent of its total sales volume respectively, while its overseas sales will make up more than 20 percent of its total vehicle sales.

SAIC has a 50/50 joint venture with GM to manufacture and sell Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac vehicles in Mainland China. SAIC-Volkswagen, another joint venture, sells Volkswagen, Skoda and Audi in China. SAIC USA is a wholly owned subsidiary, though SAIC vehicles are not currently sold in the USA.

Outside China, SAIC has manufacturing facilities in Chonburi, Thailand, Halol, India and one in Lahore, Pakistan. The company previously ran a manufacturing operation at the Longbridge Plant in the UK, but it has since closed, and a SAIC R&D facility remains there.

FAW Group

FAW is the second largest of China’s big four, behind SAIC. FAW operates joint ventures with GM, Volkswagen and Toyota to produce vehicles under these marks in China. Through a subsidiary called FAW Import and Export Corporation (FAWIE), the company operates overseas production facilities in Pakistan, South Africa, Tanzania, Ukraine, Vietnam and Russia.

Dongfeng

Dongfeng Motor Corporation, founded in 1969, deals in commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles, auto assemblies, parts and components, machines and equipment, and other automobile-related products and services. DFM’s sales revenue reached 90 billion USD in 2018 and it has 150,000 employees.

Dongfeng has joint ventures to produce Nissan, Kia and Citroen/Peugeot vehicles in China.

While DFM has a global presence, it does not currently have a presence in the UK or North America.

Chang’an Automobile

Chang’an is the smallest of the big four Chinese automakers. Joint ventures in China with familiar automotive brands include Ford and Mazda, and formerly Suzuki.

Internationally, Chang’an had an assembly plant in Poteau, Oklahoma for the Tiger Truck brand from 2007 to 2010. The Chang’an CS35 has been built in the Lipetsk region of Russia since 2016. The company also operates a production facility in Azerbaijan, and one in Karachi, Pakistan. The company also operates R&D facilities in Japan, Italy, Birmingham UK and Detroit.

BYD

BYD (it stands for “Build Your Dreams”) is not part of the “Big Four” in China, but it is still a major automaker from the country. Of the companies mentioned in this article, BYD is the most established and seems to be the most interested in the U.S. market. BYD manufactures passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, electric bicycles and rechargeable batteries. BYD is currently the world’s largest manufacturer of EVs.

BYD has a bus and truck factory in Lancaster, California, where it also makes batteries for the vehicles it manufactures. A factory was inaugurated in Brazil in 2015 for the production of electric buses. A bus plant was opened in 2019 in Newmarket, Ontario, to handle orders in Canada. BYD has an electric bus assembly facility in Europe in Komárom, Hungary.

According to a January 2023 article from Reuters entitled China’s BYD takes cautious approach to U.S. in global EV push, BYD spent much of last year conducting a study on how to set up a U.S. distribution network for its latest electric models. These efforts are mainly clouded by political tensions between the U.S. and China.

While these tensions are complicating efforts to bring these vehicles to the U.S. market, these companies remain committed to bringing vehicles stateside by 2025, and certainly within ten years.

The post Will You Drive a Chinese-Made Car in 2025? appeared first on Engineering.com.

At premium kitchen appliance manufacturer Sub-Zero Group, mechanical and fluid simulation have long been part of the engineer’s toolkit. But until this year, these were relegated to a “just in case” area of their engineers’ toolbox.

Traditionally, a new project at Sub-Zero began with drawings, then a prototype, followed by testing and development as the project proceeded towards manufacture. In this traditional research and development process, simulation was integrated for late-stage verification. Today, the company has realized significant benefits by utilizing simulation technology much earlier in the process, reducing physical prototypes by up to 50 percent, and accelerating development by nearly 20 percent.

“10 or 12 years ago, we began our simulation journey with a couple of seats of Ansys, one Mechanical and one Fluid. It started off as late-stage problem solving and firefighting,” said Terry Hardesty, Corporate Manager, Advanced Development at Sub-Zero, Inc. “At the beginning, our simulation team was only called upon when things went sour, and it was pretty frustrating when you realize a lot of this stuff could have been resolved much earlier on.”

The design engineering team at Sub-Zero included a few engineers who had experience with the capabilities simulation had to offer. They led a shift in how simulation was used by their team, but the traditional methods were deeply entrenched in the organization. Historically, simulation was viewed in the design engineering team as “opt-in.” Projects typically wouldn’t use it, but it was available. Hardesty
and other simulation champions aimed to shift towards “opt-out,” where engineers would see the value of simulation and use it on every project where it added value.

This change at Sub-Zero mirrors the larger trend that Scott Hanson, customer program director at Ansys, is seeing in many of its customers. The company has focused on creating one holistic platform to solve many physical problems, through acquisitions and development.

“We’ve seen an emerging trend in the last four years into product development simulation assessments, and customers interested in how simulation could have an impact on product development,” said Hanson. Incorporating simulation has benefits in production, such as reducing cycle time, improving quality and reducing waste. In product design, simulation can help engineers iterate faster and more cost-effectively, delivering a more innovative, more efficient and safer product.

To begin this shift at Sub-Zero, the team pulled engineers onto a new project early. Before the project requirements were even fully solidified, these engineers used simulation to lay foundational work and create useful models they then tweaked when requirements were finalized. Already, the improvements were obvious. “When we compared this project historically, we were able to eliminate one complete design iteration, which includes design, build and test. That’s a significant time and dollar expenditure on our part, equating to months,” said Hardesty.

In addition to speeding design and eliminating unnecessary prototype costs, the simulation engineers were able to iterate virtually. “It gives the engineers a lot more freedom to explore. To build up a full functioning prototype costs $10,000. That cost is prohibitive when trying six variants of the same design,” explained Hardesty. When design ideas are that expensive, engineers are forced to play it safe. With virtual models and simulation, engineers can take bigger risks with design. Simulation gives them license to try more ideas. This is transformational for design, and with this value demonstrated, other design team members began to buy-in to the advantages of using simulation as an active part of early development.

“What ends up happening is that customers are actually going through more design iterations by factors of 10 to hundreds,” said Hanson. “Things that weren’t necessarily possible before, either because we weren’t doing the simulation or because we didn’t have the hardware capacity to go do that. But we’re seeing that simulation and iterating in more design directions absolutely does have an impact on the design process, including physical prototyping.”

Hardesty has seen the same thing play out at Sub-Zero.

“We’ve gone through a transformation where simulation was once opt-in, where you can choose to use the new tool, to now where it’s opt-out, where if you’re not using simulation on a project, you have to justify why not,” said Hardesty. “There are a lot of good reasons why you wouldn’t. If you’ve got a really good understanding of the physics and you’re making relatively minor design changes, it may not make sense to go through the full process and do a full simulation.”

Increasing Adoption of Simulation Across Departments

Sub-Zero’s plans for a simulation sea-change don’t stop there. To learn more, Sub-Zero created what they call a simulation engineering council, which is a group of simulation users within the organization. “They understand the business really well,” said Hardesty. “They’re technical leaders in our organization, and they’re helping to set the vision for 2030. That’s something we didn’t have before.”

At Ansys, the experts encourage this type of thinking. “We’ve got customers today who are coming to us not with a discrete problem, but more around the business initiatives. How do I scale? How can simulation have an impact on quality, or my warranty?” said Hanson. “And that’s where the customers trust our experience to say, ‘Here’s what we would recommend.’ We can identify quantifiable and actionable items from a 12 to 18-month perspective that they can take on themselves. They could hire us to help them out or they can use a local partner.”

The vision for simulation at Sub-Zero now includes manufacturing engineering, electronic controls engineering, reliability and several other functional groups that simulation can benefit outside the current users, which only includes the design engineering group.

“We do have one use case in manufacturing doing some forming simulation, but our plan is to keep expanding it in a very measured and well-thought-out way,” said Hardesty. 

Infrastructure Changes to Support Simulation Technology

One important factor to note is that simulation is a resource-hungry tool for computer hardware. An organization can’t simply ask the IT department to push Ansys to engineers’ work laptops the way they would with Microsoft Excel. To implement more seats of Ansys, Sub-Zero had to make some infrastructure changes.

“We had an on-premise server cluster that was aging,” recalled Hardesty. “At one point, we thought we would try to go straight to the cloud, and we found some issues with that.”

Cloud computing is often lauded as the scalable solution for every manufacturer’s processing and data storage needs. In fact, Ansys has identified the trend of cloud solutions for simulation, and Hanson says the trend is mostly in the cloud.

“It reduces internal IT costs, which customers may not have expertise in, especially when it comes to simulation-specific software and all the integration points involved. Products are becoming more and more complex, and the simulations have become larger. That’s why we’re seeing customers moving in that direction,” Hanson said.

Sub-Zero found that a hybrid system worked best for their needs. It eliminated the complexity of spinning up virtual machines and allowed the IT department to procure the exact hardware—though it was costly—that was needed for the software requirements. “Right now, we’re built on a hybrid system, with an updated server cluster serving a lot of our users, and a few high-performance desktop machines for dedicated simulation,” said Hardesty. “These are really expensive computers,” he said. “I had a little sticker shock when I saw the graphics card costs. We even had a question if the decimal point was in the right place.”

But the capital expenditure worked out. Sub-Zero put the high-performance computers in dedicated offices, allowing engineers to work, train others and run complex simulations without distractions. This investment underlines the company’s renewed focus on simulation.

“These are dedicated rooms with nice big dual monitors and enough room for a mentor to be in there with a trainee as well. Likewise, if an engineer is doing a super intense simulation that they just need the additional focus, they can check out those rooms and only simulation users are even allowed to book those rooms. They got a nice room, and they’ve got a nice view, too. I’m kind of jealous,” said Hardesty.

This story is one in a series underwritten by AMD and produced independently by the editors of Engineering.com. Subscribe here to receive informative infographics, handy fact sheets, technology recommendations and more in AMD’s data center insights newsletter.

The post Sub-Zero Realizes Benefits by Using Simulation in Early Design Stages appeared first on Engineering.com.

The ‘digital twin’ may sound like a term from a sci-fi movie, but it refers to a technology that brings together real-time data, simulation and CAD modeling to allow manufacturers to gain real value by merging data from real-world assets, products or processes and turning it into a matching digital model used for analysis, simulation, virtual commissioning, product lifecycle planning and many more applications.

Since it’s invention in 1957, computer-aided design (CAD) has transformed manufacturing by providing many of the benefits of prototyping and technical drawing for communication, design development and optimization with better accuracy and lower cost than traditional, manual drafting and modeling techniques. In much the same way, early computer simulations provided a way to study the behavior and performance of physical objects in cases where real-world experimentation was too expensive and mathematical analysis was too complicated.

Digital twin brings these two technologies together to provide benefits in time savings, design optimization and product lifecycle management. However, a digital twin is more than a model. Data collection through Internet-of-Things (IoT) connected sensors is what brings the digital twin to life, enabling insights based on real data.

Digital Twin Applications in Product Design and Production

Have you ever wished there was an “undo” button in real life? That’s the advantage of a digital twin in product design. A simulated, digital model of the whole product and its manufacturing process enables cross-functional teams to bring contradictory requirements together, such as high strength and low weight, by using the digital twin as a single source of truth. In addition, a digital twin enables virtual prototyping and testing, saving time and costs while improving time-to-market. Data from previous versions of a product can be brought into the digital twin to solve existing problems and make improvements. In this design phase, the digital twin makes product development faster while keeping costs low.

From there, the digital twin of the product can be used to enhance production. Digital traceability of parts through the production process can improve quality and reduce defects. In addition, production data can be analyzed to improve design for manufacturing, reducing scrap, improving throughput and making production more ergonomic for workers.

For some products, the digital twin can remain connected to products during their entire life cycle. This provides insight to engineers and designers on wear, performance and usability. It also enables software updates to be developed and pushed to products in use, delivering a better user experience. Real-world data can also inform the next generation of products, including information about use cases, new features and more.

How is Digital Twin Implemented?

Creating a digital twin, whether it’s for a product, a piece of equipment or an entire facility, requires specialized software. Today, IoT technology vendors such as Siemens, PTC and Ansys offer software packages for plug-and-play twin building. These multi-technology packages include the modeling, simulation and IoT platform features needed to connect a model to the real data. However, digital twins can also be created using existing CAD, simulation, PLM, ERP and IoT platform software, connected via custom development or API, for example. Many manufacturers will hire system integrators to implement digital twins.

At a high level, the most important strategic consideration when implementing a digital twin is the data source. For example, a factory seeking to implement a digital twin of a CNC milling machine to enable predictive maintenance should consider which machine to equip with sensors, and when to collect data. Manufacturers should try to collect the right granularity and frequency of data for the application. More data is more expensive, but can produce more accurate results. For new implementations, it’s recommended to try a simpler use case that can provide ROI before delving into more complex solutions.

Computing Power: On-premise or In the Cloud?

While cloud computing from vendors such as AWS or Microsoft Azure is quickly becoming a ubiquitous service in many industries, some manufacturers may choose to use on-premise computers and server clusters instead of the cloud for a variety of reasons, including:

• Data privacy and security: Manufacturers may have concerns about the security and privacy of their data in the cloud. With on-premise computers, they can have more control over their data and ensure it is protected.
• Connectivity and reliability: In some manufacturing facilities, internet connectivity may be limited or unreliable. In these cases, on-premise computers provide a more stable and dependable computing environment.
• Regulatory compliance: Some industries have strict regulatory requirements around data storage and management. On-premise computers provide a better solution for meeting these requirements.
• Customization and control: Manufacturers may want more customization and control over their computing environment than is possible with cloud solutions. On-premise computers allow them to tailor their computing infrastructure to their specific needs.
• Cost: Depending on the size and complexity of their computing needs, it may be more cost-effective for manufacturers to use on-premise computers rather than pay for cloud services.

High-Performance Computing for Industrial Digital Twin

The advanced big data analysis and simulation required to power digital twins requires high-performance computers. The main advantage of on-premise computers for manufacturing is complete control over the hardware and configuration of the systems, enabling your IT department to build the optimal computing solutions for your application. In addition, IoT data sent to an on-premise server for processing does not require a reliable, high-bandwidth internet connection, reducing some costs.

The main advantage of cloud computing is scalability, reliability, ease of use and cost. For many businesses, plugging into a cloud service vendor is easier, faster and less expensive than trying to build an on-premise server solution, considering the costs of IT talent, hardware and software maintenance and security. Cloud services are highly scalable, allowing customers to buy more processing power or storage as needed. Cloud services provide a level of reliability, with secure, massive facilities and multiple redundancies. It’s difficult for on-premise solutions in many industries to compete, especially on cost, with the capabilities of cloud computing.

However, in specialized high-performance applications in manufacturing, building and maintaining a custom solution may be more cost-effective than trusting a cloud service provider.

On-premise solutions can even be air-gapped from the internet, providing ultimate protection from cybersecurity threats. These solutions can be more cost-effective in the long run, depending on the size and complexity of the computing needs or when regulatory compliance or geographical location makes internet connectivity less reliable. This ensures your digital twin technology operates smoothly and that data remains synchronized with the physical asset.

Lastly, control over hardware and software configuration allows IT teams to construct the optimal solution for computing needs, such as increased graphics processing power.

In summary, using on-premise high performance computers and servers for digital twin technology can provide manufacturers with greater control over their computing infrastructure, improved security and data privacy, potential cost savings and more reliable connectivity.

This story is one in a series underwritten by AMD and produced independently by the editors of engineering.com. Subscribe here to receive informative infographics, handy fact sheets, technology recommendations and more in AMD’s data center insights newsletter.

The post High-Performance Computing for Industrial Digital Twins: On-premise or Cloud? appeared first on Engineering.com.