How intuitive CAE apps accelerate product development

Today, companies face multiple challenges in launching increasingly complex products to the market faster. In particular, the lack of specialized knowledge available from simulation experts in the field of computer-aided engineering (CAE) often slows down product development. Easy-to-use CAE applications can remedy this situation and significantly improve the way products are developed and optimized.

Isolated expertise as a bottleneck in product development

However, daily practice reveals that answering supposedly simple questions, such as the effects of a material change on the deformation behavior of a component or the functional consequences of minor, production-related changes to the component geometry, via simulation, still demands significant organizational effort.

Complex issues require the exchange of numerous pieces of information between the involved process partners. Examples of this include providing current CAD statuses on the part of the design department or feeding back existing test results into the simulation. In addition, relevant decision deadlines and available simulation capacities must be considered. The execution and evaluation of the simulation usually demands specialized expertise, often isolated in expert groups and only available to a limited extent.

Providing access to expert knowledge throughout the organization

Therefore, the goal should be to break down barriers to using simulation technologies, making them accessible to a broad user group – regardless of their technical expertise. The way to achieve this can be termed as “technical democratization of simulation”. It involves integrating existing technical know-how into intuitive CAE applications and making them available to all users company-wide through a CAE business layer.

Three steps to the CAE business layer:

  1. Analysis
    The initial step involves a thorough inventory of the existing CAE processes within the company. This helps to identify the most important processes based on their relevance to the application and to decide which ones are suitable for the development of a CAE application according to the cost-benefit principle.
  2. Standardization
    The next step is the standardization of the identified CAE processes which needs the expertise of the calculation engineers. The requirements for the input factors of the CAE process, such as necessary parameters and data, as well as the desired output from the CAE process, are clearly defined. Since simulation processes are typically a complex interplay of different software tools, particular attention is paid to error handling in case potential issues arise during the ongoing process.
  3. Automation
    Subsequently, the CAE application is developed and implemented in the company. Deployment on a software platform available throughout the company, which also hosts the data required and generated for the process, ensures comprehensive traceability

Successively, a CAE business layer is created which unites the CAE applications.

CAE apps dashboard in CONTACT Elements (© CONTACT Software)

Concerns and opportunities

Broad access to simulation technologies does not mean everyone becomes an expert but users are guided through complex processes. An integrated error-handling system reacts to incorrect inputs or deviations in the expected data. Experience shows that expert skills and simulation expertise are not devalued. On the contrary, experienced engineers with a wealth of practical experience and methodological know-how remain indispensable. Through general usage, they can focus on more challenging tasks, accompany decision-making processes, or concentrate on the advancement of simulation methods.

Conclusion: User-friendly CAE applications combine efficiency and innovation

The company-wide provision of user-friendly CAE applications marks an opportunity to establish simulation methods even earlier and more consistently in product development. More users are involved in the process, utilization of resources improves, innovations can be advanced more efficiently and enhanced products will be brought to market in less time. At the same time, it allows simulation experts to focus on more demanding tasks.

Asset Administration Shell as a catalyst of Industry 4.0

“Country of poets and thinkers” or ” Country of ideas”: Germany is proud of its writers, scientists, researchers, and engineers. And of its meticulous bureaucracy, which aims for absolute precision in statements or indications. Combined, this often results in awkward word creation when naming technical terms. A current example of this is the “Verwaltungsschale” (literally: administration shell), whose innovative potential and central relevance for Industry 4.0 are not immediately apparent.

What exactly is a “Verwaltungsschale”?

The “Verwaltungsschale” is not a dusty administrative authority, but the very German translation of the English term “Asset Administration Shell” (AAS). The AAS is a standardized complete digital description of an asset. An asset is basically anything that can be connected as part of an Industrie 4.0 solution (for example, plants, machines, products as well as their individual components). It contains all information and enables the exchange and interaction between different assets, systems, and organizations in a networked industry. Therefore, it is pretty much the opposite of a sluggish authority and currently the buzzword in digital transformation.

As with many new topics, definitions of AAS vary and are quite broad. From very specific like the Asset Administration Shell as an implementation of the digital twin for Industry 4.0 to the loose description of AAS as a data plug or integration plug for digital ecosystems.

I prefer the representation of the AAS as a metamodel for self-describing an asset. With this metamodel, further models can be generated to provide collected information. Through the use of software, these models are then “brought to life” and are made available to others via interfaces.

Concept and usage of the Asset Administration Shell

As a digital representation of an asset, the AAS provides information or functions related to a specific context through its submodels. Examples include digital nameplates, technical documents, the component or asset structure, simulation models, time series data, or sustainability-relevant information such as the carbon footprint. The information is generated along the various phases of the lifecycle, and it depends on the specific value network which asset information is of importance. Thus, submodels are initially created in certain lifecycle phases, specified and elaborated in subsequent phases, and enriched or updated with information in the further process. Thereby, the AAS refers to either a very generic (type) or a very concrete (instance) representation of an asset.

As assets change over time (as-defined, as-designed, as-ordered, as-built, as-maintained), so does the Asset Administration Shell. Thus, multiple AASs can exist for the same asset over the lifecycle. In order to utilize the information in the AAS within its value network, it needs to be accessible. Access is usually given via the Internet or via the cloud (repository-deployed AAS). In intelligent systems, the management shell can also be part of the asset itself (asset-deployed AAS).

Information can be exchanged in various ways. Either via files, so-called AASX files (AAS type 1), via a server-client interaction such as RestAPI (AAS type 2) or via peer-to-peer interaction (AAS type 3), in which the AASs communicate independently using the so-called I4.0 language and perform tasks cooperatively.

While type 1 and 2 take a passive role in the value network and are more likely to be used with repository-held AAS, type 3 describes an active participation in the value network and is more likely to be used with asset-held AAS running smart products.

Common standards connect!

No matter what type of Asset Administration Shell you choose: Important is that the recipient and the provider speak the same language. To achieve this, the exchange of concrete information must be standardized. Considering the amount of different industries, scenarios, assets, and functions, this is an immense number of submodels that need to be standardized. Organizations and associations such as the Industrial Digital Twin Association (IDTA), formed by research institutes, industrial companies, and software providers, are tackling this mammoth task. The rapidly growing number of members as well as the lively exchange at trade fairs and conferences among each other illustrate the potential for the industry. It is important not to leave SMEs behind, but to involve them in the standardization work in the best possible way.

Conclusion

The Asset Administration Shell is at the core of successful Industrie 4.0 scenarios. It enables manufacturer-independent interoperability and simplifies the integration of all types of assets into a collaborative value network. It increases efficiency within production processes by providing complete transparency of the real-time status of each asset. And it also offers a comprehensive security concept to protect the data. Within a very short time, the AAS has thus transformed from a theoretical construct to a real application in practice. Together with partners from research and industry, we are working within the ESCOM and Flex4Res research projects to make it usable on an industrial scale.



More cybersecurity using the password

Today is “change your password day” again. A well-intentioned
initiative for more IT security. Coming originally from the military context of the 1960s, the recommendation to change your password regularly can still be found in many corporate policies today. Modern guidelines such as the current BSI Basic Protection Compendium and the NIST Digital Identities Guidelines drop this requirement because there are more effective strategies to increase password security:

Password length over complexity

First of all, a strong password needs to be changed only if there is a suspicion that it has been revealed.

Today, attackers can try out billions of passwords within a very short time using automated systems. Especially if these systems are accessible via the network or have access to the password hashes and can therefore be effectively tried offline. The complexity of the password is therefore completely irrelevant if it is too short. Recommendations for length vary from 8 to at least 14 characters.  Advances in attack tools such as Hashcat, and faster, specialized password-guessing hardware, are driving these requirements ever higher.

Compliance policies today require individualized login credentials. This eliminates the risk a password is known to many people and thus the need to change it regularly. One long password for exactly one person for exactly one service. Pretty secure.

Passwords are no repeat parts

To be honest, haven’t you ever used the same or a very similar password for multiple services? You should get rid of this habit quickly because a successful attack on one service automatically leads to a successful attack on others. The use of already privately used passwords in a corporate environment is particularly critical.

Modern password policies ensure that passwords appearing in lists of captured passwords are rejected. The website haveibeenpwand, for example, indicates whether a password has been captured. Modern systems offer interfaces to check passwords in this way. In CONTACT Elements you can easily activate them:

from cdb.sig import connect
from cdb.authentication import check_pwned_password
connect(‘password_acceptable_hook’)(check_pwned_password)

Password manager instead of one-size-fits-all

Password repeating is bad, and so are short passwords. Users face the challenge of remembering a large number of long passwords in their heads. Writing it down on a piece of paper and hiding it under the keyboard or sticking it on the bulletin board is not a solution, because a camera can capture it.

It is better to use a password manager. It can create and manage long passwords and makes them easier to enter via copy and paste. Unfortunately, some companies, driven by the concern that a Trojan will intercept the passwords on the clipboard, block the copy and paste method in their applications, preventing the use of a password manager. However, in the case of a Trojan attack, this measure is usually ineffective and companies should instruct users to use a password manager to increase their IT security.

Beware of highwaymen and tricksters

Even the strongest password does not protect against attacks if it is intercepted. It’s often surprisingly easy to do. Connections without a minimum level of security like Transport Layer Security (TLS) are an open book for any attacker. Older network protocols such as Kerberos also offer numerous gateways. Ransomware exploits these to spread across the corporate network. As soon as an administrator logs on to a compromised computer, the attacker has the credentials, and shortly thereafter gold and silver tickets are created and the Windows domain is firmly in the attacker’s hands.

Here, too, security stands or falls with the password, because it is used in the calculation of the authentication tickets and, due to the symmetrical encryption, enables the attacker to calculate the password back from the ticket.

Increase security through multiple factors

One recommendation to get around the weaknesses of passwords is to include other factors. This works very well from a security perspective. A second factor significantly increases security in almost every case. In most cases, it is of secondary importance whether these are one-time passwords such as TANs via SMS, time-based codes such as Definition Time-based One-time Password (TOTP), or even simple confirmation emails with links.

The downside of second factors is the additional effort and the impact on usability. Helpdesk processes become more complicated, users need to be trained, and login processes often happen more slowly.

Single sign-on – both a curse and a blessing

Users love single sign-on (SSO), where you only have to enter a password and a second factor once to use numerous services. This minimizes the effort enormously – but also for the attacker. Particularly if access depends on a weak password only. A central login system also solves many problems for compliance when users are blocked or reports are generated. The costs for user administration are also reduced.

Single sign-on turns the “one password per service” argument above on its head. Again, only one password stands between the attacker and your system. If the attacker knows the password, he has access. And then the single sign-on system opens all doors for the attacker.

Detect phishing

Even stronger mechanisms such as TOTP or hardware key generators do not protect if the password and access code are entered on a fake website. This practice is known as phishing. The solution, on the other hand, is channel or token binding and links (binds) the desired access to the channel through which the access is requested. This means that a token is only accepted for access to device A but not to device B of the attacker. This form of multi-factor authentication is very secure and easy to use with modern hardware or cell phones. For enterprise IT, integration with common platforms is relevant here. Windows Hello, Apple and Android support the FIDO2 / WebAuthn standard specified by the FIDO Alliance to detect phishing and make single sign-on secure.

Passwords are obsolete!?

Starting from the WebAuthn standard, there is a new initiative since 2022 with passkeys – driven by Apple, Microsoft and Google – to banish passwords from applications and single sign-on. You can change your password to a passkey today if your device supports it and use 2024’s “Change your Password Day” to delete your password and never have to use it again.

More Information on Cybersecurity

Learn everything you need to know about building a reliable IT security architecture for protection against cyberattacks in our free white paper “IT Security for Enterprises”.