Lippert Components and ENOVIA – An Improved PLM Experience

By Matthew
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

Read what Lippert Components has to say about their ENOVIA experience and with it, how they took on their PLM challenges and succeeded by:

  • Improving efficiencies
  • Improving access of information and sharing
  • Managing schedules more effectively

“The fact that ENOVIA has a rich web-based UI and is easily navigable has resulted in greater PLM user experience overall. Supporting the UI is a PLM foundation that will permit Lippert to manage continued growth.”

Access, read and download the Lippert case study inside our ENOVIA Community on 3DSwYm at this blog post

HERE

Lippert Components

This case study of Lippert Components, Inc. is based on a June 2016 survey of ENOVIA customers by TechValidate, a 3rd-party research service.

Moving to Modular Buildings? Better Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations

By Patrick
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Moving to #Modular Buildings? Better
Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations @3DSAEC #prefab

Building owners, designers and contractors are increasingly realizing the benefits of modular prefabrication. This trend, transforming the way construction components are delivered, is helping speed projects to market and leading to higher quality buildings.

The switch from stick-built construction to the assembly of manufactured components also makes the fabricator’s role more important than ever. Yet every manufacturer faces limitations that can impact their capabilities in delivering the optimum system to the jobsite.

When designers factor in manufacturer limitations, they can better select partners that can deliver the best possible end product.

Three challenges in particular must be addressed:

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: 3 Universal Challenges
of Building Product #Manufacturing

Factory machinery, with inherent limitations, is used for manufacturing building products.

Factory machines, with inherent limitations, are used for manufacturing building products.

1. Factory machinery’s capability limitations.

Compared to assembly in the field, manufacturing large system components in the factory presents a number of benefits in quality, safety, scheduling, and other areas. The benefits are limited only by the manufacturer’s capabilities, including the following:

  • Machinery size. The size of the available assembly table, kiln or other equipment will dictate the size of the finished component. A manufacturer’s capabilities can best be assessed by breaking down a design based on the capabilities of their machinery.
  • Local codes. Does the manufacturer’s machinery solution meet the local codes? For example, in the U.S. and UK, a welding machine is an acceptable solution for forming the rebar for a prefabricated concrete slab. In many Nordic countries, code prevents use of this type of machine.
  • Machinery layout. Lines must be organized so that a bottleneck does not delay the entire product’s delivery. By adopting a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly approach—with the use of universal connectors—manufacturers can outsource a single component or system that can easily be assembled in the factory or onsite.

 


Limited space presents challenges for prefabrication delivery processes

Limited space presents challenges for prefabrication delivery processes.

2. Limited space for storage and staging areas.

Manufacturers must address upfront two challenges in the logistics of getting product onsite:

Highway size limitations. Federal governments set minimum height and width requirements that will limit the size of pre-assembled systems. In addition, oversized products typically must be transported in daylight hours with an escort.

The space available for storing product. Factories cannot be stopped at the first sign of a site delay. If a problem arises on the site, a manufacturer may suddenly be faced with the need to store, for example, 1,000 housing modules. And what happens for manufacturers producing for multiple sites, where suddenly two sites experience delays? Having a buffer zone, such as a lot or warehouse space situated outside the factory or just off the jobsite, can be essential.

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Limitations of machinery, space & competitive
bidding wreak havoc on #AEC building projects @3DSAEC


Bidding processes don’t account for delivery and other realities of modular products.

3. Poor outcomes due to competitive bidding practices.

Today the reigning belief is that the best price comes from competitive bidding. Yet the bidding process actually is more likely to lead to the worst possible price. The bid component truly leads to about 15 percent of the 30 to 35 percent overrun most projects face as a result of redundancy.

There are two reasons for this:

Delivery is not addressed upfront. By creating a generic design that multiple parties are able to bid, there is no possibility of optimizing against the delivery process. By creating a time and material contract that uses the delivery process as the starting point, projects will come out with a better price.

Unknown factors lead GCs to bid high. Every project faces unknown variables, be it weather or an unforeseen site challenge. These factors cause contractors to pad their bid. But by working directly with the trades who will address these unknowns, it’s possible to get early insight into potential challenges.

Room for Improvement

The off-site or near-site manufacture of building systems leads to a more repetitive, reliable process. These processes can be simulated and studied for further optimization. By working with manufacturers as partners in the design process, projects can gain an edge in schedule, budget and quality.

clicktotweetClick to Tweet: Moving to #Modular Buildings? Better
Know Your Fabricators’ Limitations @3DSAEC #prefab

Related Resources

WHITEPAPER: Prefabrication and Industrialized Construction

Design for Fabrication Industry Solution Experience

Collaborative and Industrialized AEC Industry Solutions from Dassault Systèmes

Robot Miners of the Deep

By Catherine
Share on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

By Catherine Bolgar

A combination of technological advances, from such unrelated fields as smartphones, sensors and robotics, is pushing deep-sea mining closer to reality.

The sea floor is particularly rich with precious metals—more so than land deposits. Seawater seeps through cracks in the volcanic rock on the ocean floor along the edges of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Underground, the water is heated by the nearby magma. It dissolves the metals in the rocks then is spewn out through hydrothermal vents in a liquid “smoke” of fine mineral particles. The particles react with the cold sea water and settle to the ocean floor, creating deposits, called seafloor massive sulfides, that can be 10 to 20 times higher grade in minerals than those on land.

The ocean floor also has iron-manganese nodules, which can also contain copper, nickel and cobalt, and cobalt-rich crusts. The main metals sought in deep-sea mining are copper, gold, nickel and cobalt.

The main hurdles to mining these deposits have been technological. “There’s no wifi, no cellular service,” says Justin Manley, president of Just Innovation, a Boston undersea technology and robotics-consulting firm. Sound waves travel much more slowly underwater than through air, “so you can’t get the same kind of bandwidth” for communicating with the robots, he says. Equipment needs protection from the corrosive saltwater; the cold, which can decrease batteries’ power; and the pressure, which increases by one atmosphere for every 10 meters of depth, he says.

“People can’t dive to 1,600 meters,” says Mike Johnson, chief executive of Nautilus Minerals Inc., a Toronto-based company that’s the first commercial enterprise to develop a seafloor production system for deep-sea mining of massive sulfide systems. Nautilus was granted a mining lease in 2011 by Papua New Guinea for an area called Solwara 1 in the Bismarck Sea in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. Mining hasn’t yet begun, as parts of the seafloor production system aren’t yet completed.

Now we can do everything robotically,” he says. “In the short time we’ve been going seriously, about 10 years, I’ve seen huge changes in the quality of the technology, particularly things like mapping. A lot of the technology for sonar is developed in the military then declassified and put on the market. Similarly, there have been huge advances with battery tech and computing power.”

ConstructionA standout technology for Nautilus is a heave-compensated crane. The crane is on the ship to lower machinery into the water. This crane can hold the machinery exactly, say, 10 meters off the sea floor in order to stabilize it during precision work.

“Computers on the crane talk to computers on the boat,” Mr. Johnson explains. “They figure out where the hook of the crane is in 3D space. As sea swells come through, the crane takes in and lets out wire to make sure the hook stays in the exact position relative to the sea floor. It’s amazing to see. The hook hardly moves—we can watch it on video—even though the boat goes up and down all the time.”

A special ship is being built for Nautilus for the operation. It will have a moon pool, or a hole in the middle. The equipment, such as the pump and riser system, descends through the hole so the vessel sits directly above the pump. The vessel has to stay in place on a moving sea—called dynamic positioning. The ship’s computers talk to satellites to engage the propeller systems so the vessel doesn’t move more than two meters from a point on the sea floor, he says.

The riser was designed for the oil and gas industry to clear out the cuttings from deep-sea drilling, rather than to let them dissipate on the ocean floor. Deep-sea mining won’t dig below the surface, but will remove mineral-rich formations on the sea floor. A large central pipe will ferry slurry with the mineral cuttings up to the vessel, while two smaller pipes on the sides will send the seawater back down.

The seawater is filtered to four microns, or about a quarter of the thickness of a hair, “so we don’t return much,” Mr. Johnson says. And, on the advice of marine scientists, the water isn’t simply dumped overboard because the pH and temperature of water at 1,600 meters has a different pH level and is far colder—about 2.6 degrees Celsius—than the 30-degree Celsius surface water.

Different kinds of robots do the work. Autonomous underwater vehicles, or AUVs—torpedo-shaped robots loaded with sensors—go back and forth over a selected area, like mowing a lawn, to detect changes in the water’s chemistry (temperature, pH, turbidity) that can signal the presence of mineral deposits, says Mr. Manley of Just Innovation.

AUVs, which also are called unmanned undersea vehicles or UUVs, can be specialized to gather images from an area of interest, to create detailed maps.

Then the work is turned over to remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs, which remain tethered to the ship by a thick cord carrying electrical and fiber-optic cables. An operator on the ship, who watches the action via television screens, directs the ROVs. One kind of ROV, about the size of a small car, collects samples. The actual seafloor production tools that cut and collect the rock are massive—about 14 meters high and 16 meters long and weighing 300 tons, Mr. Johnson says. Because ROVs get electricity from the ship, they can stay underwater longer than the 18 hours of battery-operated AUVs.

With regulation and monitoring to ensure it’s done correctly, undersea mining could have a much smaller environmental impact than mining on land, Mr. Johnson says. The higher grade of mineralization and its concentration means less area is affected. The process has no tailings, because even the iron pyrite around the precious metals gets used. It doesn’t affect fresh water or human habitats.

“It’s why I like this project,” he adds.

It will have such a small footprint, compared to a mine on land. To stop a rush to the bottom we need good regulations and the system needs to be transparent.”

Perhaps technology will be the answer. Some underwater and surface robots are being developed that could stay in place for a year, Mr. Manley says, potentially offering a way for regulators to monitor mining sites remotely.

 

 

Catherine Bolgar is a former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe, now working as a freelance writer and editor with WSJ. Custom Studios in EMEA. For more from Catherine Bolgar, along with other industry experts, join the Future Realities discussion on LinkedIn.

Photos courtesy of iStock



Page 3 of 28312345...102030...Last »