Fields marked with a * are required

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Very Real Skillset Challenges to Simulation Driven Design

References Cited

Mechanical Computer Aided Design (MCAD), Mechanical Computer Aided Engineering (MCAE)

It feels like we’ve been talking about simulation driven design for a really really long time. Doesn’t it? The whole idea is to setup and run simulations of a product’s performance early in the design cycle and base design decisions off those results. This approach is in contrast to using simulation towards the end of the design cycle, prior to prototype and testing or even just prior to design release, to validate and verify product performance. It might seem like a nuanced difference to some, but theoretically it can make a huge difference.

While this approach seems to hold a lot of promise, it’s been hard to find many engineering organizations that have put it to use successfully. Why? We can come up with a variety of potential reasons such as cultural or process change push back or potentially a lack of software usability or automation. But I think there’s another more fundamental problem. In my mind, I think it’s critical to have four types of skills to perform a simulation driven design approach.

  1. Background in Engineering Science: To really use simulated performance to drive design decisions, you first have to know what the the results of any calculation, by hand or by computer, first mean. This includes the understanding of various engineering sciences such as statics, dynamics, thermodynamics and many others that span other engineering disciplines. Without this background, there’s no context in which to understand what the calculated values actually mean. For example, making a design decision is risky when you don’t know the difference between Von Mises and shear stresses.
  2. Understanding of the Computational Methods: Next, to make sound decisions based on simulations, you need to understand the underlying method used to calculate resulting values. For example, the Finite Element Method (FEM) and Finite Difference Methods (FDM) can provide very different results based on how calculation models are setup. Furthermore, each method uses some basic assumptions and simplifications. If you don’t know the fundamentals of each of them, then you can interpret the results incorrectly.
  3. Familiarity with CAD Software: The entire purpose of a simulation driven design effort is to actually use the results to help make design decisions as opposed to just verifying and validating performance before design release. That means results should drive changes in the design and ideally the design model. However, the design model is often built up using specific methods used to capture design intent. In some parts, the thickness of specific walls must be maintained. In other parts, a specific dimension must be based on another dimension. That’s why the design needs to be changed through the definitions created in the design model. But more fundamentally, CAD models are often simplified to enable faster simulations. For examples, some rounds that have no impact on the results might be removed.
  4. Knowledge of Simulation Software: While simulation calculations of very simple designs could be performed by hand, anything close to a real part or product leads in to mathematics far too complicated for manual calculations. Simulation software automates much of the work to setup, run and then review calculation results. This would include activities such as defining loads, constraints, complex material properties and the like. This requires software skills above and beyond CAD software knowledge.

So there’s four sets of skills that you need to really perform simulation driven design. Where’s the problem? The issues lies in the fact that very few, perhaps no one, in the engineering organization has this combined set of skills. Let’s take a look at some common roles and see.

  • Drafters – For the sake of today’s conversation, let’s say drafters spend more than 75% of their time creating, modifying and standardizing drawings. Given that, drafters may have skills in area #3. That is they might know how to use CAD software to manipulate the 3D model in the boundaries of original design intent. But they often do not have the educational background to address areas #1, engineering science, and #2, computational methods. Furthermore, they often don’t have the experience for area #4 in how to use simulation software.
  • Designers – Again, to set a baseline, let’s assume designers spend more than 75% of their time creating and modifying 3D models. But let’s also assume they do not have a bachelors degree in engineering. Given those assumptions, individuals in this role would readily have skills in area #3, CAD software, and area #4, Simulation software that would be embedded in CAD software. However they would be lacking in areas #1, engineering science, and #2, computational theory. They would be able to generate a color fringe plot of stresses on a component. However they wouldn’t have the confidence they made the right fundamental assumptions around setting up the simulation model nor in interpreting the results.
  • Engineers – As we have for the past two roles, let’s define a baseline here. Engineers have a bachelors degree in engineering. Furthermore, let’s assume they have lifecycle responsibilities for products. That means they’re shepherding a product through the entire development cycle, not just defining it in the design phase. They would have the knowledge in areas #1, engineering science, and #2, computational methods. However because they are often addressing ‘firedrills’ everyday, they are very infrequent users of CAD. So their skills in area #3, CAD software, may or may not be enough for a simulation driven design approach. Also, I’d expect they are don’t have time to setup and run simulations themselves. I would imagine they wouldn’t have the skill set in area #4, Simulation software, either.
  • Analysts – As for a baseline for this role, let’s assume that an analyst dedicates more than 75% of their time to performing simulations. Furthermore, let’s assume they have at least a bachelors degree in engineering, if not a more advanced degree. This role has the educational background in area #1, engineering science, and area #2, computational methods. They also have deep knowledge in area #4, simulation software. Area #3, CAD software, would most likely be their one weak area. However the integrations between CAD and Simulation software could at least in part address that shortfall. By and large, this role has almost all the knowledge and skills to drive simulation driven design. The only remaining issue would be bandwidth. There are often far fewer analysts than engineers. And they often are dedicated to the big, nasty, hairy simulation problems around verification and validation for design release or change orders.

Now there may truly be mitigating circumstances. There are training programs to address the fundamentals of engineering science and computational methods for non-engineering degreed roles. There are easier to use CAD software for engineers like Spaceclaim and the upcoming Creo from PTC. There are integrated CAD and Simulation environments for engineers and analysts such as NX from Siemens PLM and CATIA/SIMULIA from Dassault Systemes. But have do these efforts really mitigate the concerns around these four knowledge and skill sets?

What are your thoughts? Is a background in engineering science and computational methods really necessary for simulation driven design? Do you think the CAD and Simulation software offered today enable engineers and analysts to truly perform simulation driven design? Sound off and let us know what you’re seeing in your job.

Take care. Talk soon. And thanks for reading.

Chad Jackson is an Industry Analyst at Lifecycle Insights and publisher of the engineering-matters blog. With more than 15 years of industry experience, Chad covers career, managerial and technology topics in engineering. For more details, visit his profile.

Like this post?

Sign up now to get more like it

Fields marked with a * are required

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

  • Chad, this is spot on! You’ll probably get some angry feedback from engineers who use CAD and simulation well, and from analysts who have no problem learning CAD. But, I think your generalizations are correct if you look at the 80/20 rule across both populations.

    I believe that the hardcore CAE work should be done by specialists who spend most of their time doing simulation. You’ve got to move them upstream of design to get to real value, though. We’re finally seeing a shift by the big CAD companies towards offering new, free-er form tools built with this kind of user in mind, though. SpaceClaim, the new AnyRole apps envisioned for Creo, SolidEdge w/ Sync Tech, and Autodesk Fusion are going to make Simulation Driven Design a reality– so long as people don’t get too hung up on the whole “the geometry from the CAE stage MUST automatically update the geometry in the drafting stage.”

    At the same time, I think there is a very real need to have Design Engineers (BS in Engineering required) doing simulation as a natural part of their process. But, you have to pay attention to the fact that they wear so many hats and take products cradle to grave. I now believe the best approach for these people is to develop custom simulation apps specific to the exact product they are engineering. These apps will have very few inputs, and have been honed/created by analysts to offload the simpler “1st pass” CAE work. In this way, you can get to the ease-of-use required for users to actually adopt these tools.

    Good little video I put together on this topic here:
    http://lifeupfront.com/2010/09/01/expert-upfront-cae-roi/

    • Anonymous

      Hi Jeff: I think you made some excellent points and I agree with Chad, the skill-sets are essential for success in Simulation Driven design.

      One point you make is also spot on:

      “SpaceClaim, the new AnyRole apps envisioned for Creo, SolidEdge w/ Sync Tech, and Autodesk Fusion are going to make Simulation Driven Design a reality– so long as people don’t get too hung up on the whole “the geometry from the CAE stage MUST automatically update the geometry in the drafting stage.” Don’t forget the leader in 3D Direct Modeling – Kubotek KeyCreator – but…

      What if there was an application where the geometry automatically updated the from the Simulation, do you think that there would be a market for this? How would this help make simulation based design a reality?

      Scott

      • Thanks Scott. I don’t know enough about KeyCreator– I used to know a little about Cadkey ’99. But sure, I’m in favor of anyone with this vision in mind.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think geometry automatically updating based on simulation is great. That can lead to great optimization techniques. SpaceClaim has some exciting possibilties in this area with ANSYS and any other code that wants to take advantage of the API.

        I’ve even seen some cool stuff where an FEA result can remove material from a starting model to get down to something that looks like a human bone (perfection).

        But, that’s not what I’m referring to in the point above. I just think the geometry required for CAE input is radically different to what’s needed for final detail and manufacturing. You have to ask what the ROI is in trying to keep those two hooked together (very hard to do, imposes lots of time consuming bookkeeping constraints, cuts down on freedom).

        • Great comments Jeff and Scott.

          I think from a large scale perspective, manufacturers would like a grand vision of associativity everywhere. However I think when it comes down to it, software can get pretty complicated pretty quick. And that in turn makes it difficult for engineers to be productive with the software. It’s kinda like a global optimization vs. a local optimization problem. Do you want associativity and risk losing engineering participation? Or do you provide more bite sized applications that ensures engineers will use them?

  • Chad, this is spot on! You’ll probably get some angry feedback from engineers who use CAD and simulation well, and from analysts who have no problem learning CAD. But, I think your generalizations are correct if you look at the 80/20 rule across both populations.

    I believe that the hardcore CAE work should be done by specialists who spend most of their time doing simulation. You’ve got to move them upstream of design to get to real value, though. We’re finally seeing a shift by the big CAD companies towards offering new, free-er form tools built with this kind of user in mind, though. SpaceClaim, the new AnyRole apps envisioned for Creo, SolidEdge w/ Sync Tech, and Autodesk Fusion are going to make Simulation Driven Design a reality– so long as people don’t get too hung up on the whole “the geometry from the CAE stage MUST automatically update the geometry in the drafting stage.”

    At the same time, I think there is a very real need to have Design Engineers (BS in Engineering required) doing simulation as a natural part of their process. But, you have to pay attention to the fact that they wear so many hats and take products cradle to grave. I now believe the best approach for these people is to develop custom simulation apps specific to the exact product they are engineering. These apps will have very few inputs, and have been honed/created by analysts to offload the simpler “1st pass” CAE work. In this way, you can get to the ease-of-use required for users to actually adopt these tools.

    Good little video I put together on this topic here:
    http://lifeupfront.com/2010/09/01/expert-upfront-cae-roi/

    • Anonymous

      Hi Jeff: I think you made some excellent points and I agree with Chad, the skill-sets are essential for success in Simulation Driven design.

      One point you make is also spot on:

      “SpaceClaim, the new AnyRole apps envisioned for Creo, SolidEdge w/ Sync Tech, and Autodesk Fusion are going to make Simulation Driven Design a reality– so long as people don’t get too hung up on the whole “the geometry from the CAE stage MUST automatically update the geometry in the drafting stage.” Don’t forget the leader in 3D Direct Modeling – Kubotek KeyCreator – but…

      What if there was an application where the geometry automatically updated the from the Simulation, do you think that there would be a market for this? How would this help make simulation based design a reality?

      Scott

      • Thanks Scott. I don’t know enough about KeyCreator– I used to know a little about Cadkey ’99. But sure, I’m in favor of anyone with this vision in mind.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think geometry automatically updating based on simulation is great. That can lead to great optimization techniques. SpaceClaim has some exciting possibilties in this area with ANSYS and any other code that wants to take advantage of the API.

        I’ve even seen some cool stuff where an FEA result can remove material from a starting model to get down to something that looks like a human bone (perfection).

        But, that’s not what I’m referring to in the point above. I just think the geometry required for CAE input is radically different to what’s needed for final detail and manufacturing. You have to ask what the ROI is in trying to keep those two hooked together (very hard to do, imposes lots of time consuming bookkeeping constraints, cuts down on freedom).

        • Great comments Jeff and Scott.

          I think from a large scale perspective, manufacturers would like a grand vision of associativity everywhere. However I think when it comes down to it, software can get pretty complicated pretty quick. And that in turn makes it difficult for engineers to be productive with the software. It’s kinda like a global optimization vs. a local optimization problem. Do you want associativity and risk losing engineering participation? Or do you provide more bite sized applications that ensures engineers will use them?

  • Hi Chad,

    I think you did a really good job dividing up the skills and breaking up the roles in this post. However, I think to really answer your question on simulation driven design, you need to take it an next step and break down the types of analysis and what the customer needs. For example:

    1.) Are we talking simple linear statics problems with metal or are we getting into non-linear problems or using advanced materials (like plastics or composites). Is it dynamic analysis? Is it heat transfer or CFD?

    2.) Are you using FEA to reduce the number of cycles in your design/test cycle? That is different situation than FEA to validate a design that may get much less physical testing or where you are trying to use FEA to reduce physical testing cost.

    3.) are you making mission critical designs where failure results in loss of life, or are you making sure your plastic bottle doesn’t dent too much if you squeeze it?

    The point is, how you answer questions like those above would have a lot of bearing on how your question gets answered.

    • Great points. To infer a little bit, are you saying that some failures are more serious than others? If that’s the case, I’d absolutely agree.

      Fundamentally, what I’m hearing you say is something akin to a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), right? I think a lot of the discussion in the industry is very focused on simulation execution instead of attaching it to this sort of fundamental work. Now that might be a good topic for another post!

      • “some failures are more serious than others” – certainly that is one point.

        There are some great topics around FEA to talk about. We just need more simulation users to get as active as the CAD folks :-)

  • Hi Chad,I think you did a really good job dividing up the skills and breaking up the roles in this post. However, I think to really answer your question on simulation driven design, you need to take it a next step and break down the types of analysis and what the customer needs. For example:1.) Are we talking simple linear statics problems with metal or are we getting into non-linear problems or using advanced materials (like plastics or composites). Is it dynamic analysis? Is it heat transfer or CFD?2.) Are you using FEA to reduce the number of cycles in your design/test cycle? That is different situation than FEA to validate a design that may get much less physical testing or where you are trying to use FEA to reduce physical testing cost. 3.) are you making mission critical designs where failure results in loss of life, or are you making sure your plastic bottle doesn’t dent too much if you squeeze it? The point is, how you answer questions like those above would have a lot of bearing on how your question gets answered.

    • Great points. To infer a little bit, are you saying that some failures are more serious than others? If that’s the case, I’d absolutely agree.

      Fundamentally, what I’m hearing you say is something akin to a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), right? I think a lot of the discussion in the industry is very focused on simulation execution instead of attaching it to this sort of fundamental work. Now that might be a good topic for another post!

      • “some failures are more serious than others” – certainly that is one point.

        There are some great topics around FEA to talk about. We just need more simulation users to get as active as the CAD folks :-)

      • Marcus Rademacher

        I think another point (that I heard, at least) in burhop’s post is that there are varying levels of sophistication of simulation, depending on the phenomena you’re trying to simulate. Linear static FEA is commonly available within CAD tools, and is designed for and used by CAD designers. More complex stuff involving nonlinearity can be a huge step up in required knowledge, however. So companies making a bracket might be able to get away with designers or engineers doing their simulation, as long as their goals are restricted appropriately.

        • Great and valid point Marcus. You’re absolutely right.

  • Joe

    From my experience at Boeing years ago on the Board.
    To understand this, all you have to do is look at who signs off a design. This used to be a drawing, now with 3DPMD (3D Part Model Definition) it gets a bit more complicated. But that is a completely different subject.

    Drafter/Designers – Fit, Form and Function
    Group Engineer/Designer – Design Management and oversight
    Lead Engineer – Project Management

    Outside the group.

    Stress Analysis
    Material
    Manufacturing

    The question is how much simulation is necessary??

    Most of the stress analysis was a quick look and a signature. But in groups like landing gear there was a bit more scrutiny as compared to payloads, flight deck, interiors, etc. and you may have a stress engineer in the group. At Boeing the drafters, designers and engineers would stay in the same group or discipline for their whole careers. When a new airplane would be started they would move these folks to the same group in the new airplane bringing their expertise. Experience is the key to fast and reliable design. We do not want to recreate the wheel.

    You are asking to bring stress in at the beginning of a project, and be involved through out the program. That would take a lot of resources for a large project with thousand of engineering personnel. Most of the time the stress engineering would be twiddling his thumbs.

    The only time I have seen a combination of any of the above disciplines are in small companies were the projects were small enough to be handle by a couple of engineering personnel.

    • Thanks for posting your points Joe. Good to hear from someone on the ‘front lines’ as you’d say.

      I think you bring up a big executive objection to SDD: how can I afford to invest the time up front? The value prop is to spend more time up front with simulation and reap the advantage in avoiding multiple prototypes and rounds of testing. But it certainly can be hard to convince an executive to believe it. And it’s even harder to stand up for it as a technical champion when it’s your reputation on the line too.

      You made another great point around ‘sign offs’ on a design. You’re correct in that individual accountability happened in the past through signatures. How is that handled in Boeing now? Any insights there? The transition to PDM/PLM has turned it into a fast-paced mass production affair. Would love to hear your thoughts on that too.

      • Joe

        I really think that SDD would only be worth it with a family of parts where the data could be used over and over. Most engineering is one unique part after another.

        PDM/PLM is not fast paced at Boeing. I started to write about the problems but after the 3rd page I said this is just too much. Let’s just say it has created more problems than it has fixed.

        Here are a couple of little articles I wrote for my user base that give my viewpoint. There are more articles that may interest you.

        The Data Management Mess..

        http://tecnetinc.com/DATA%20MANAGEMENT%20MESS.html

        To Draw or not to Draw!!

        http://tecnetinc.com/todrawornot.html

  • Joe

    From my experience at Boeing years ago on the Board.
    To understand this, all you have to do is look at who signs off a design. This used to be a drawing, now with 3DPMD (3D Part Model Definition) it gets a bit more complicated. But that is a completely different subject.

    Drafter/Designers – Fit, Form and Function
    Group Engineer/Designer – Design Management and oversight
    Lead Engineer – Project Management

    Outside the group.

    Stress Analysis
    Material
    Manufacturing

    The question is how much simulation is necessary??

    Most of the stress analysis was a quick look and a signature. But in groups like landing gear there was a bit more scrutiny as compared to payloads, flight deck, interiors, etc. and you may have a stress engineer in the group. At Boeing the drafters, designers and engineers would stay in the same group or discipline for their whole careers. When a new airplane would be started they would move these folks to the same group in the new airplane bringing their expertise. Experience is the key to fast and reliable design. We do not want to recreate the wheel.

    You are asking to bring stress in at the beginning of a project, and be involved through out the program. That would take a lot of resources for a large project with thousand of engineering personnel. Most of the time the stress engineering would be twiddling his thumbs.

    The only time I have seen a combination of any of the above disciplines are in small companies were the projects were small enough to be handle by a couple of engineering personnel.

    • Thanks for posting your points Joe. Good to hear from someone on the ‘front lines’ as you’d say.

      I think you bring up a big executive objection to SDD: how can I afford to invest the time up front? The value prop is to spend more time up front with simulation and reap the advantage in avoiding multiple prototypes and rounds of testing. But it certainly can be hard to convince an executive to believe it. And it’s even harder to stand up for it as a technical champion when it’s your reputation on the line too.

      You made another great point around ‘sign offs’ on a design. You’re correct in that individual accountability happened in the past through signatures. How is that handled in Boeing now? Any insights there? The transition to PDM/PLM has turned it into a fast-paced mass production affair. Would love to hear your thoughts on that too.

      • Joe

        I really think that SDD would only be worth it with a family of parts where the data could be used over and over. Most engineering is one unique part after another.

        PDM/PLM is not fast paced at Boeing. I started to write about the problems but after the 3rd page I said this is just too much. Let’s just say it has created more problems than it has fixed.

        Here are a couple of little articles I wrote for my user base that give my viewpoint. There are more articles that may interest you.

        The Data Management Mess..

        http://tecnetinc.com/DATA%20MANAGEMENT%20MESS.html

        To Draw or not to Draw!!

        http://tecnetinc.com/todrawornot.html

  • Matt

    After reading through the post and comments, from a total engineering stand point there a lot of good comments and opinions. But the things I see missing from this, are the construction realities and limitations. Software can almost provide engineering without boundaries. I don’t know how many of you have ever built your own designs and proved them out but it can become more challenging than the engineering side. I have been on both sides of the street and more often than not the engineering side becomes time constrained, then cheating comes into play. This directly affects every part of the build side. Nothing “real” is ever as it is. I am not saying you can’t get very close, because you can, but due to the quantity of variables you have, it is impossible to accommodate them all and keep a robust process. Then we are back to time allotted time for engineering again. In the end, I think you must be careful not to over-engineer. We live in a cost driven world. If you can hit 85% of your mark, the time it takes to reverse engineer is minimal compared to trying to accommodate every variable.

    • That’s a really great point Matt. Engineering work is constrained from every angle. I tried to simplify things in this post to specifically look at the skill set issues related to this topic. It otherwise would have been a book. But you’re absolutely right. Tim is a real issue and I think you approach a point of ‘diminishing returns’ very quickly.

  • Matt

    After reading through the post and comments, from a total engineering stand point there a lot of good comments and opinions. But the things I see missing from this, are the construction realities and limitations. Software can almost provide engineering without boundaries. I don’t know how many of you have ever built your own designs and proved them out but it can become more challenging than the engineering side. I have been on both sides of the street and more often than not the engineering side becomes time constrained, then cheating comes into play. This directly affects every part of the build side. Nothing “real” is ever as it is. I am not saying you can’t get very close, because you can, but due to the quantity of variables you have, it is impossible to accommodate them all and keep a robust process. Then we are back to time allotted time for engineering again. In the end, I think you must be careful not to over-engineer. We live in a cost driven world. If you can hit 85% of your mark, the time it takes to reverse engineer is minimal compared to trying to accommodate every variable.

    • That’s a really great point Matt. Engineering work is constrained from every angle. I tried to simplify things in this post to specifically look at the skill set issues related to this topic. It otherwise would have been a book. But you’re absolutely right. Tim is a real issue and I think you approach a point of ‘diminishing returns’ very quickly.

  • Billmce

    It’s a process thing. One needs to modify the product definition process in any sort of organisation with moderate or more complexity. You do this with the ideally with engineers, possibly with designers or analysts. Engineers would have the best shot at understanding the problem space with minimum grief in my my humble opinion. They will need the support of an analyst to get up to speed. It would be nice if the tool set they are given to do it in was easy to use and robust in terms of getting answers for at least moderately complex problems without the need to add all kinds of extraneous items to insure stability/convergence of the calc- particularly with contact problems.

    • Bill, thanks for your comment. I think you have good points. There certainly are a lot of people that drop technology into the same process and expect it to affect organizational performance. You definitely need to look at the process too. Thanks for commenting!

  • Billmce

    It’s a process thing. One needs to modify the product definition process in any sort of organisation with moderate or more complexity. You do this with the ideally with engineers, possibly with designers or analysts. Engineers would have the best shot at understanding the problem space with minimum grief in my my humble opinion. They will need the support of an analyst to get up to speed. It would be nice if the tool set they are given to do it in was easy to use and robust in terms of getting answers for at least moderately complex problems without the need to add all kinds of extraneous items to insure stability/convergence of the calc- particularly with contact problems.

    • Bill, thanks for your comment. I think you have good points. There certainly are a lot of people that drop technology into the same process and expect it to affect organizational performance. You definitely need to look at the process too. Thanks for commenting!

  • Pingback: Is Teamwork the Key to Simulation Driven Design? | engineering-matters.com()

  • Great and valid point Marcus. You’re absolutely right.

  • Pingback: Breaking Down Autodesk’s Vision for Simulation | engineering-matters.com()

  • Anonymous

    Rather belated post on this – I’ve just found your blog from the SpaceClaim white paper on release-to-CAD.
    Thought you might want to know about something Toyota power train had PTC do earlier in the decade along these SDD lines. Among a bunch of interesting things, PTC built a sort of wizard between Pro/E and Mechanica that leveraged Toyota engine block design/analysis expertise to help “regular” engineers do more of the heavy lifting in SDD – like hold their hands in de-featuring, meshing, loading, and interpretation of analysis results. Don’t know how well this turned out in practice.
    Actually, speaking of release-to-CAD, Toyota Body-in-White has a development milestone that seems similar (in English this would be called CAD Freeze) and is one of the two or three milestones (depends on what you call a milestone) the BIW PD process has.

    • Jeff, thanks for chiming in on the Toyota use cases.

      In terms of SDD, I think that could truly work. Unfortunately, you often need the right design context to make it work. I’ve seen that asking engineers to ‘translate’ how loads and BCs on an example engine block apply to a cell phone is too much of a stretch. And unfortunately, the companies that can afford to setup a ‘helper’ system in their design context is extremely few and far between.

      Interesting point about Toyota and their development milestone. I didn’t realize that.

      Again, thanks for commenting. This has been valuable!

  • Pingback: http://www.urgentcashrelief.com()

  • Pingback: Taux Pret Immobilier, Simulation pret immobilier meilleurs taux()

  • Pingback: find here()

  • Pingback: iniciarsesion.blogspot.com()

  • Pingback: pagina web()

  • Pingback: via()

  • Pingback: poemasdeamor()

  • Pingback: mas info()

  • Pingback: acerca del autor()

  • Pingback: saludbelleza()

  • Pingback: Is Teamwork the Key to Simulation Driven Design? - Lifecycle Insights()

  • Pingback: Will MSC's Apex Revolutionize Simulation? » Lifecycle Insights()

  • Pingback: Is Teamwork the Key to Simulation Driven Design? » Lifecycle Insights()