FEA · CFD · NVH · THERMAL · ACOUSTIC — ENGINEERING SIMULATION
BADGERMECX GET QUOTE
SPEC SHEET S-06 · REV A · UPDATED SEP 2026

S-06 · CONCEPT & DESIGN

What should it look like? Engineering decisions made while they are still cheap.

Topology and parametric optimisation, design studies and trade-offs — run before the design is frozen, so the concept you commit to is already the right one. Every recommendation comes with the numbers behind it and a clear path to verification.

min f(x) s.t. g(x) ≤ 0Pareto frontchosen variant
Submit a Problem Statement Sample report outline ↓
[✓] NDA before data exchange[✓] Fixed scope & price[✓] Independent internal check
FIG. 1 — Converging on a design SCHEMATIC conceptrefined
S-06 · AT A GLANCESPEC
TYPICAL SCOPE
Brackets, frames, housings, lightweight parts, product concepts before design freeze
DELIVERABLE
Signed study report, compared variants, recommended concept, interpreted CAD sketch
LEAD TIME
Agreed in the written scope
METHODS
Topology · parametric studies · DoE · multi-objective trade-offs
CONFIDENTIALITY
NDA signed before any file is exchanged
QUALITY
Chosen variant checked against all constraints
Get a scoped quote →

01 / WHEN YOU NEED IT

Questions this analysis answers.

Most of a product's cost and performance is fixed by its first layout. Changing it later means new drawings, tools and tests.

We work at the stage where a change is a sketch, not a re-tool — and we tell you which variables actually matter before you spend on the ones that don't.

Q1How light can this part be and still do its job?→ Topology optimisation
Q2Which of these concepts should we develop?→ Concept comparison & trade-off
Q3Which dimensions actually drive stiffness and cost?→ Parametric study / DoE
Q4Can we switch material or process without losing performance?→ Material & process variants
Q5Where is the best balance between mass and stiffness?→ Multi-objective (Pareto) study
Q6Is the new layout feasible before we detail it?→ Early feasibility check

02 / DELIVERABLES

What you receive. In writing, before we start.

Each item is listed in the scope document you sign off. Nothing on this list is a surprise at the end.

PDF

Study report

Brief, design space, variants, results and recommendation. Signed and revision-controlled.

XLSX · PDF

Variant comparison

Every variant with mass, stress, stiffness, frequency and relative cost.

IN REPORT

Trade-off plots

Pareto fronts and sensitivity plots that show which variable matters.

STEP / SKETCH

Interpreted geometry

The chosen concept as a clean sketch or simple CAD, ready for detailing.

APPENDIX

Verification appendix

Study model checked against a detailed FE model at the baseline.

IN REPORT

Recommendation

The variant to develop, why, and what it saves — with the open risks listed.

3 H ONLINE

Workshop

A working session with your designers to agree the concept before detailing.

Iteration round

A second loop with changed targets or constraints, within the agreed scope.

03 / METHODS

The right analysis for the question — not the most expensive one.

The study is sized to the decision: a few well-chosen variants when the options are known, an optimisation when the shape itself is open.

FIG. 0 — From design space to detail (schematic)
ANALYSISUSE IT WHENKEY OUTPUTTYPICAL REFERENCE
Topology optimisationThe shape is open inside a packaging spaceLoad-path layout, interpreted geometryDensity method (SIMP)
Parametric studyThe concept is fixed; dimensions are openSensitivities, best dimensionsGradient or sampling
Design of experimentsSeveral variables, limited runsMain effects, interactions, response surfaceLatin hypercube · factorial
Multi-objective trade-offTwo or more targets pull against each otherPareto front, chosen compromiseDocumented weighting
Concept comparisonA few discrete concepts, materials or processesScored comparison with engineering numbersVDI 2225-3
Early feasibilityA new layout before detailingStress, stiffness and frequency at concept level→ S-01 / S-03 for release
Robustness checkLoads or properties are uncertainPerformance spread, safe design range± variation of inputs
FIG. 2 — Spending runs well — design of experimentsSCHEMATIC
3 × 3 full factorial Latin hypercube, 9 runs 3 levels per variable 9 levels per variable same cost · the hypercube sees more of each variable's range With the same nine runs, a Latin hypercube tests nine levels of each variable instead of three — so the study finds where the response bends, not only its corners.
FIG. 3 — Trade-offs made visible — the Pareto frontSCHEMATIC
baseline chosen: lighter and stiffer Pareto front mass → compliance (lower = stiffer) Each dot is a variant. Designs on the front cannot be made lighter without becoming more flexible; the baseline sits behind it, which is the room for improvement. (Illustrative.)

04 / PROCESS & TIMELINE

From problem statement to signed report.

Five steps, each with a clear hand-off. You always know what we need from you and what you get back.

  1. 012 day

    Brief

    FROM YOUDesign brief, packaging, targets
    FROM USNDA, list of questions and missing data
  2. 022 days

    Scope & fixed quote

    FROM YOUConstraints, load cases, options
    FROM USWritten scope, design space, study plan, price
  3. 037 days

    Study

    FROM YOUFeedback on first variants
    FROM USInterim workshop: first results and direction
  4. 042 days

    Refine & check

    FROM YOUNothing — internal step
    FROM USChosen variant checked against all constraints
  5. 052 days

    Report & handover

    FROM YOUYour comments on the draft
    FROM USSigned report, geometry, handover meeting

05 / INPUTS

What we need from you.

REQUIRED
  • [✓]The design brief — what the part must do, and what must not change
  • [✓]Packaging space, interfaces and keep-out zones
  • [✓]Load cases and operating conditions (rough is fine at this stage)
  • [✓]Material and manufacturing route options
  • [✓]Targets — mass, stiffness, cost, frequency — and which one wins
  • [✓]The decision the study feeds, and the deadline
HELPFUL IF AVAILABLE
  • [+]The current or baseline design
  • [+]Competitor or reference products
  • [+]Supplier capabilities and cost drivers
  • [+]Test data from earlier versions
  • [+]Comments from your customer or approver
INCOMPLETE DATA?Most projects start that way.We list what's missing in the scoping call. Anything we have to assume is recorded in the report's assumption register — never hidden in the model.

06 / THE REPORT

See the report before you buy it.

A signed, revision-controlled study report of 60 pages on average. Every recommendation shows the variants compared, the constraints checked and what still has to be verified before release.

  1. T1
    Brief & constraintsThe objective, variables and constraints are written down before the first run.
  2. T2
    Variant traceabilityEvery variant is listed with its inputs and results — nothing is hidden behind a 'best'.
  3. T3
    Verification of the study modelThe simplified model is checked against a detailed FE model at the baseline.
  4. T4
    Open assumptionsWhat is not yet known is listed, with the test or analysis that will close it.
  5. T5
    Plain-language conclusionOne page a manager can read: which concept, what it saves, what comes next.

07 / APPLICATIONS

Typical parts and decisions.

Brackets & mountsLightweighting · stiffness · frequency
Frames & skidsLayout · member sizing · material use
Housings & enclosuresWall thickness · ribs · process choice
Vehicle componentsMass targets · packaging · durability
Lifting & handling equipmentConcept feasibility · capacity
Lightweight structuresTopology · additive manufacturing
Structural conceptsScheme comparison · early sizing
New productsFeasibility before prototype

08 / STANDARDS

The method behind the study.

Concept work follows a documented design method, and the chosen variant is verified later against the standard that governs the product.

STANDARDWHAT WE USE IT FOR
VDI 2221-1Design of technical products and systems — model of product design
VDI 2225-3Technical-economic evaluation of design variants
VDI 2206Development of mechatronic and cyber-physical systems
EN 1990Basis of structural design — for verification of the chosen variant

09 / HOW TO ENGAGE

Three ways to work with us.

Prices are fixed per written scope. You pay for the answer to a defined question, not for open-ended hours.

E-01PROJECT

Fixed-scope project

BEST FOR
A defined part or structure with a clear question
PRICE
Fixed quote after scoping
Start with a problem statement
E-02RETAINER

Engineering retainer

BEST FOR
Design teams with recurring analysis needs
PRICE
Quoted per scope
Discuss a retainer
E-03REVIEW

Third-party review

BEST FOR
Checking an FEA or hand calculation done by someone else
PRICE
Fixed quote
Request a review

10 / FAQ

Asked before every project.

Something else? Ask it in the problem statement — the answer comes with the scope.

Which software do you use?

Tessera — the solver we build — runs the free calculators on this site today, each published with its reference cases. For project work the solver is chosen against the standard the result must satisfy, and named in the written scope. The report states the method, settings and the model used for each study.

Can we manufacture a topology-optimised shape?

Yes — the raw result is interpreted into a shape your process can make; manufacturing limits are set as constraints from the start.

Is the result ready for release?

No — a concept study decides the direction. The chosen variant is then verified in detail to the governing standard (S-01 / S-03).

How much lighter will it get?

It depends on how conservative the baseline is. We give you the number from the study, not a promise before it.

Can you work with our designers?

Yes — the study is built around workshops with your team, so the result is a concept they already agree with.

How is the price set?

Per written scope: number of variables and load cases, and whether topology, DoE or a multi-objective study is needed.

RELATED CAPABILITIESAll services →
S-01 · STRUCTURAL Structural / FEA σ_vM ≤ f_y / γ_M0 Spec sheet →
S-02 · FLUID CFD ∇·(ρuu) = −∇p + ∇·τ Spec sheet →
S-03 · DYNAMICS NVH & Dynamics [K − ω²M]{φ} = 0 Spec sheet →
S-04 · THERMAL Thermal ρc_p ∂T/∂t = ∇·(k∇T) + q Spec sheet →
S-05 · ACOUSTIC Acoustics ∇²p − (1/c²) ∂²p/∂t² = 0 Spec sheet →

11 / PROBLEM STATEMENT

Send the brief. Get a written scope back.

Tell us what the part must do, what it may not change and which target wins. We reply with questions or a fixed scope.

  • [✓] NDA before data exchange
  • [✓] Response within 2 business day(s)
  • [✓] Scope, assumptions & acceptance criteria in writing