Unfortunately, there are very few people that understand both computer science and structural engineering.
The software for that kind of modeling is apparently pretty basic, pretty expensive, buggy, etc.
I thought it was shut down largely because much better software simulations were made available; are they still kinda crummy?
Fluid simulation is a very difficult problem to simulate, structures are a lot simpler.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/americas-last-top-mode...
It does not mean that you just can't take a couple of web developers and make it usable, but as the market is small it might pass the price point with a supersonic bang...
They have a sheet with around 30 rows and 150 columns, and they have 100 of these sheets (in a single Excel file). Some parts use formulas, but usually when somebody needs to change something they need to go through every single sheet. The issue is now when they try to add new data Excel won't let them.
I don't even want to know how they share the file or do backups.
Goo thing you're in healthcare...
And that pushes the data back into the same spreadsheet and a relational database with change history.
Is there a queryable relational database?
Where I would invest (if I were Autodesk or their competitor) is in releasing CAD tools for free in exchange for a consent to use the designs/details internally for ML purposes. Would love to contribute if anyone is working on such a product.
The plan is to link CAD to the mathematics and then link the finite element to this as well. The system would also function as a sort of github for engineering where users can find and use functions to do most standard analysis. Email is in my profile if anyone is interested in talking.
I really like the equations and how you only allow to make formally correct equations (including units). Anxious to see how this develops.
(full disclosure: I am co-founder of a Software which tries to achieve the same aims using different concepts: www.valispace.com)
There are places for users to upload and store data as well - datasets.
As of now, the code solves equations in javascript within the browser. This is why documents have to be opened when a requirement changes - because I have no server side of the code to solve them without the browser. It isn't a long term solution, merely a step in the building on the platform. My next step is to add a server side code that is capable of solver more complex and larger equations on the server. When that is done, changes to requirements will update documents without the need to open them manually. I plan on using python and there are several large libraries available.
This will allow me to link documents to CAD. When the math changes, the CAD will change as well. Once that is done, I will add a finite element meshing and solution system to create an engineering platform that essentially does everything.
I like your site. It's nice to see other people addressing these problems. I am also an aerospace guy. I worked on the shuttle for a while and then designed some components for the Orion. Shoot me an email if you want to talk more.
You need computational geometry, computer graphics, and structural engineering expert level domain knowledge to implement anything. You need to create traditional 2D machine/construction design drawings from the 3D models. Then you need to sell it to corporations, whose work, most of all, must be dependable and free of guess work.
You need to know what sort of geometries you can use to model the reinforcements. Then you need to know how to design the system so it can handle very large amounts of geometry.
The worst of all is you need to deal with god awful industry standard formats- DWG, DGN, IFC, Step/Iges and so on. Maybe DWG import and export first.
To have any real chance you need a guy or two who are good with numerical code, someone who is familiar with e.g. Game engines, soemone who knows computer graphics, a structural engineer to tell how he does his job and what the thousand inconsistencies in the field are (this is not a trivial domain like housing or transport), a sales/marketing guy to connect and push the product.
And, like someone else estimated, the potential market is not gigantic - which is kinda funny because we all depend on reinforced concrete but don't need so many engineers for the design work...
These are much more standalone, and don't have many of the issues you listed.
No one I know is using the automated concrete design built into analysis programs like ETABS, Tekla, etc.
The utility of your software tools will be very limited if you are restricting yourself to only member design instead of total structure solutions like ETABS. Why should engineer pay you at all if they can use spreadsheet for free to do what you do with your SaaS?
> No one I know is using the automated concrete design built into analysis programs like ETABS, Tekla, etc.
Not too sure about this because I know quite a lot of people who are using these tools. Any reason why the people you know don't use ETABS or Tekla?
Why do businesses invest in new tech? Why pay for excel when I can use a pen and calculator? The answer is because it makes them more efficient. We have excel sheets to do the same thing, matlab code to do the same thing, and yet here we are paying for these member design tools because they are the most efficient for us. If you save an engineer even a couple of minutes for each element they are designing, you essentially pay for the software.
>Any reason why the people you know don't use ETABS or Tekla?
We do use ETABS extensively for analysis. We don't use it for design. It is foolhardy to trust the automated RC design in these software. That seemed to be the standard of practice around here, but perhaps it is different in other areas of the world.
Do you mind if I ask why? I'm working on a sort of general approach toward designing trustworthy engineering software, and I'm trying to collect as many reasons as possible for "can't trust the software".
Its not a distrust so much as a fundamental flaw. For simple gravity design it works fine, but even then we are using spColumn because its just quicker for us.
In the US there are about 281,400 civil engineers [1]. I couldn't find more detailed information on structural engineers.
-Assume about 10% are practicing structural engineers who need to design concrete structures = 28140.
-Assume a company wants 1 license for every 2 engineers = 14070. (I base this off the fact that my company has 6 licenses for 12 engineers, but we may be higher than average)
-Assume we could get 10% market share = 1407 subscribers.
-Assume $1000/subscriber/year = $1,407,000 from the US market
Obviously this isn't a very rigourous analysis.
[1]: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/civil-en...
Single seat licences are not the only revenue model. Once a product gains traction consulting, training and providing VIP helpdesk and bugfixing services factor in as well.
We are working since 1.5 years with some engineers on a software to solve this: www.valispace.com
I would be curious to hear from you whether what we are building with a focus on the space-industry also applies to structural engineering.
(For what it's worth, I'm doing something similar in the transport planning space. And yes, bridging the gap between that and modern CS is a substantial piece of work.)