Effective + Efficient

Design and verification - Engineering simulations.

It works in practice.
It’s fast to get it done “first try” (often 16x faster)
Eurocodes - satisfied. Certification - passed. No problems with insurance / grants.

Just get the job done… without the “costumes” and “ceremonies”…

tomassab@gmail.com, +45 50105868

2 week job... 3 months worth? Sells like crazy I have heard...

Test produced 21mm deformation... 22mm was predicted by FEA.

30% lighter, 300% stronger, 1/8 time taken to design - compared to the failed competing consultant attempt. Consulting is super competitive... but that works in my (and my clients) benefit :)

2 days of work. Weld fatigue in multi stage nonlinear analysis... shows it will hold more than 500 ULS cycles.

Winch was tested. 20t - holds.. all the angles, slider positions, attachment points, internal load distribution... verified. And corrected by Tomas Sabaliauskas (me).

62h. The solution requires to observe interaction between 6 components... and the full pallet of FEM simulations. The drawings were provided "manufacturing ready", so had to be back-processed, modified and re-built...

3h. This arm could hold 3x larger loads but... we're not weight optimizing. 100kg of steel costs 1h of design time... so.... $/h $/kg ....

I can tell when it's worth the effort ;) — 3h. This arm could hold 3x larger loads but... we're not weight optimizing. 100kg of steel costs 1h of design time... so.... $/h > $/kg .... I can tell when it's worth the effort ;)

8h. Yoke for 20t pull. Residual stresses and weld stresses verified. Strict warning given that the yoke is not fatigue safe... but will not fail "instantly". The joint is complex in behavior, surface contacts and complex welds... can be done safely, though.

2h. Foundation frame interacting with the floor. The interface creates a problematic nonlinear distribution of forces.

2h. If beams are anchored in corners, 10% of metal consumption can be reduced.

12h. 30t pull, creating 1MNm of overturn... this beam is fully fatigue safe. And the "sliding hooking point" makes operation extra convenient.

8h - 60t pull, 2MNm overturn foundation beam. With a slider stabilized with horizontal forces against the walls of the trench supporting it.

16h - reinforced concrete is a nightmare... but... it can be atempted.

30h - this beam explodes in the simulation, but would probably hold in real life practice (according to Eurocodes). I always recommend to steer away from concrete as much as plausible. It is extremely tricky both to simulate and to manufacture properly.

16h - "cage" reinforced concrete. This will hold, guaranteed. Many would argue it's overkill, but... if it breaks, you can't fix it. Even with exaggerated crack sensitivity this one is holding. Therefor, I'd approve it. Otherwise - I do have contacts for conventional reinforced concrete designers...

1 day. Bolted joint. Fatigue safe test... it will hold min 500 ULS cycles... EN3 compatible. The bolts make it plausible to transport the structure, avoiding on the field manufacturing.

6 weeks - 2tonnes heavy, 5m tall CNC machine. Design time... safe down to last bolt, wire, beam and linear actuator. Industrial offers asked 10x more expensive components and 10x more money... very annoying.

Push down force - 250kN, torque capacity — 6 weeks - 2tonnes heavy, 5m tall CNC machine. Design time... safe down to last bolt, wire, beam and linear actuator. Industrial offers asked 10x more expensive components and 10x more money... very annoying. Push down force - 250kN, torque capacity 50kN, unique anchors to concrete and unique water supply system on the bottom of the sand box. 3 years in operation - no problems so far. Not even once.

36h - A mechanical hammer for field testing. With precision controlled release mechanism, and double safety features (patented). Pull force - 5kg max. Load - 500kg. Drop height adjustable. 2 years in operation - no problems.

In 6h, helical the stairs were drawn, and validated. These could be welded from S355 and remain:
1. Fatigue safe
2. Feel stable (not "shaky").
3. Certifiable for CE mark. — In 6h, helical the stairs were drawn, and validated. These could be welded from S355 and remain: 1. Fatigue safe 2. Feel stable (not "shaky"). 3. Certifiable for CE mark.

Natural frequency depends on how the stairs are attached. The way stairs are anchored has a big impact on their ergonomic performance. And safety... wrong connection will conflict with EN requirements (any mode below 10Hz is not good, and added mass during operation must be considered).

Stress in ULS case of overloading... within fatigue limits.

Obviously manufacturing / production drawings are easy to generate... it is rather obvious, but at times needs to be mentioned.

Frame dynamic response is important when attaching sources of vibration - like engines, and moving parts. In this case a client wants to replace a 1.5t mixes with a 5t mixer.

The frequency response analysis shows high risk of resonance and the frame has to be modified.

Tuned mass dampers are Calibrated, and attached.

The resulting response shows the solution is adequate. Total work time - 24h...
The tuned mass dampers can be designed in numerous ways. Best to use industrial components... but, I can make preliminary design of pneumatic and hydraulic components too — The resulting response shows the solution is adequate. Total work time - 24h... The tuned mass dampers can be designed in numerous ways. Best to use industrial components... but, I can make preliminary design of pneumatic and hydraulic components too.

Thermal analysis

PED (Pressure equipment directive) often asks for numbers.

Even in low risk cases - it is often plausible to remove 70% of manufacturing operations, and increase manufacturing speed by 4x, while reducing weight of a structure….

The project is confidential, so I attach a demo version here of what it looks like to investigate a hot pressure pipe made from SS316L in a heat exchanger…

Managing the tasks - is best done by the person who “does the tasks”. Experience, intuition - provide realistic time estimates. Within 10% precision. With precise detection of problematic points, “decision making” points.

Less hours - allowing the person who “does the job” to “pick the tools” - which they know very well and can use max efficient.
Less people - a person with “fundamental knowledge” of material properties and manufacturing processes is able to calibrate simulations and do the numbers for LARGE VARIETY of materials. Standards… which means you DO NOT NEED 2X and 4X people, different “specialists” for “different tasks”. Physics is all the same. And material models - differ only in parameters for 95% of all problems…

Combining the two - fundamentals, with work experience - allows to reduce number of people in the project by a factor of 8, and the time it takes to get the job done - by 2x… this consistently produces 16x lower cost. Reliable products. And budget - that is not exceeded.