Agent-Powered Engineering: From Design to ISO Compliance in 5 minutes

Introduction

What if you could automate the most tedious parts of the engineering design cycle? For many, taking a finished 3D model and setting up the dozens of load cases required for standards compliance is a manual, time-consuming bottleneck. It involves poring over dense PDF documents and meticulously configuring each simulation one by one. This is where AI agents, such as Nexus, can come in.

Agents can act as expert assistants, capable of reading a standard and translating it into a complete simulation setup automatically. The result? Hours or even days of work are compressed into mere minutes.

In this case study, we'll demonstrate this incredible time-saving potential. We're starting with a simple STEP file for a city and trekking bike frame and our agent, Nexus. Our goal is to make it fully compliant with the ISO 4210-6 bicycle safety standard, and we'll show you how it’s done in under five minutes, when before it could take hours.

Initial Prompt

Our scenario begins with an engineer—perhaps a junior team member—tasked with validating a new bicycle frame design. They have the 3D model, but they don't have deep, specialized knowledge of the specific international testing standards required. In a traditional workflow, this would kick off a time-consuming research phase.

For our demonstration, the only starting asset required is the geometry file.

• Input File: A standard bike_frame.step file, a universal format exported from any CAD software.

The process starts by simply uploading this file into the Nexus platform. The agent immediately recognizes the geometry and is ready for instructions.

With the model now loaded, the engineer doesn't need to search through menus or write a complex script. They can interact with the agent using natural language, just as they would ask a senior colleague for guidance. They type the following prompt directly into the chat interface:

Engineer's Prompt: "This part is a bike frame that I have imported in Ansys. I want to analyze for compliance with the bike standards used in most of the world. Can you research and find out what bike frame standard I should use and how to set up such analyses one by one? I am not interested in fatigue but more of static structural load cases."

This is where the power of an engineering agent becomes clear. It doesn't just provide a link to a document; it understands the context (a bike frame) and the intent (compliance analysis) and prepares to take direct action.

The Agent's Response: From Research to Action Plan

In seconds, Nexus processes the request. It cross-references its knowledge base of engineering standards with the context of the uploaded model and provides a response that is both informative and immediately actionable.

The agent’s recommendation is spot-on. The engineer confirms the choice and has the TBIS 4210-6.pdf standard ready. In a traditional workflow, they would now spend hours reading this document, interpreting tables of forces and constraints, and manually building each simulation.

Instead, they simply attach the PDF directly into the chat with Nexus. This single action provides the agent with the final piece of the puzzle: the specific "rulebook" to follow for the uploaded bike frame.

With both the 3D model and the standards document in the agent's context, the engineer can issue a powerful, high-level command. They ask Nexus not just to find information, but to perform the entire setup task:

Engineer's Prompt: "Great. Please read the attached standard and set up all the applicable load cases for this frame. I need to know how many tests are required, and I'd like you to build them directly in Ansys Mechanical for me."

Now for the execution. The engineer asks Nexus to prepare the first two tests, providing the material and mesh requirements in a single command.

Engineer's Prompt:

This is intended to be a city and trekking type bike. Could you assign 6061 T6 Aluminum to this frame and create a coarse mesh? Then, set up the three analyses from the standard.

Instantly, Nexus performs the operations in the background. It applies the material, meshes the geometry, and configures the three load cases. It first asks the engineer to name certain parts of the bike frame so it can use them correctly. However, the engineer needs help with that.

Engineer's Prompt: I dont know how to create named selections. can you help with this?

Agent provided clear instructions and waited for the engineer to finish.

Engineer's Prompt: I have all the named selections in place.

Immediately Nexus followed up with its original train of thought and started action on the plan.

Just like that, the simulation is updated with the complete first test case and ready to set up the others. The test cases in Ansys looked professional, too.

This rapid, conversational loop for building and refining analyses eliminates the friction of traditional setup processes, allowing the engineer to iterate at the speed of thought.

The user is always kept in the middle of the action and Nexus asks the user key questions when it detects it needs help. The engineer is usually capable of providing these bits, and, if not, as above, the agent helps the engineer along.

The agent is soon done setting up all three load cases from the standard. Usually this would have taken hours for the engineer to research the standard and configure the three.

The user can also modify the setup if desired after they review everything, in natural language as if talking to a colleague.

Engineer’s Prompt: Before we solve, on a second thought, the mesh looks a bit too coarse. Can you refine it, mainly in the named faces regions?

After a few steps, the engineer had Nexus change the mesh to his preference and solve the three load cases. Then the engineer also asked Nexus to prepare a report by adding necessary solutions to the analyses.

Upon reviewing the initial results, the engineer spots an anomaly. The deformation plot shows movement where there shouldn't be any. They take a screenshot, highlight the problem area, and ask the agent for help.

Engineer's Prompt: Why is there displacement in X direction at the dropouts when the Remote Displacement joint only allows free rotation around X and nothing else.

This is a classic debugging scenario that could take a junior engineer hours of searching through forums and documentation. Nexus, however, has the context of both the prompt and the simulation setup file.

It analyzes the discrepancy and identifies a subtle setting issue. The Remote Displacement joint, while allowing free rotation, wasn't behaving as a perfectly rigid axle.

The agent didn't just find the problem; it explained it, fixed it, and re-ran the analysis, teaching the engineer a more robust technique for future use.

With the corrected results, the engineer can now properly evaluate the frame's performance. The overall deformation shape looks plausible but complex, prompting a deeper question about the underlying physics.

Engineer's Prompt: "This looks much better. Does the chainstay displacement look correct to you? What makes them bow outwards while the seat stays seem to cave inwards?"

This is no longer a setup or debugging question, but one of engineering fundamentals. Nexus provides a concise, correct explanation.

Nexus's Response: "Yes, this deformation is expected. The downward force on the seat tube creates a bending moment that tries to 'flatten' the rear triangle. This puts the lower members (the chainstays) under compression, causing them to bow outwards. Conversely, the upper members (the seat stays) are put under tension, causing them to pull slightly inwards. This behavior is characteristic of this load case."

With the simulation running correctly, the engineer can now confidently analyze the results. They examine the deformation plot, observing a complex pattern: the chainstays are bowing outwards, while the seat stays appear to be caving inwards. To ensure this isn't an error, they ask the agent for an expert opinion, seeking to understand the physics behind the result.

Engineer's Prompt: "Does this chainstay displacement look okay to you? What makes them bow out while the seat stays cave in?"

This is where the agent's role evolves from a simulator to an instructor. It interprets the engineering principles at play and provides a clear, concise explanation, much like a senior engineer would.

Nexus's Explanation: "Yes, this deformation pattern is expected and indicates the load is being distributed correctly through the frame. Here's the breakdown:

• Chainstay Compression: The downward force on the seat tube creates a bending moment that puts the lower members—the chainstays—into compression. A long, slender tube under compression will naturally bow outwards to relieve the stress.

• Seat Stay Tension: That same moment places the upper members—the seat stays—into tension. They are essentially being pulled taut between the seat tube and the rear axle, causing them to straighten and appear to 'cave inwards.'

This opposing behavior is a classic structural response for this load case and confirms the validity of the result."

In this simple exchange, the agent didn't just confirm the result was "correct." It built confidence by explaining why it was correct, turning a moment of uncertainty into a valuable learning opportunity.

Once the simulations are complete, the engineer moves on to the most important phase: interpreting the results. They ask a complex, multi-faceted question that goes beyond simple pass/fail criteria, seeking to understand the result in the context of both the standard and the competitive landscape.

Engineer's Prompt: "Can you interpret these results for me? First, does the frame's stiffness meet the value required by the standard? Second, how does this stiffness value compare to typical values for similar bike frames on the market?"

Nexus recognizes this is not a single question, but a request for a detailed report. It breaks down the query into a logical plan of action, showing its reasoning to the engineer.

Nexus's Prompt: "To calculate the stiffness correctly, I need to add a deformation probe to the exact faces where the 150 N load was applied. Could you please re-select those faces in the viewer to confirm the location for me?"

Nexus begins the calculation. It determines that to measure stiffness accurately, it needs to place a specific Deformation Probe at the point of load application. However, to ensure perfect accuracy, it needs the engineer's help to pinpoint the exact location.

The engineer clicks the faces on the model, providing the final piece of information the agent needs. This seamless back-and-forth, where the agent encounters a challenge and enlists the user's help, is what makes the workflow so powerful and reliable.

Finally, the agent provided this answer for stiffness

Conclusion:

This case study did more than just validate a bike frame against an ISO standard; it demonstrated a fundamental shift in the engineering workflow. What traditionally requires hours of manual research, meticulous setup, and careful validation was compressed into a single, interactive session guided by an AI engineering partner.

Throughout the process, the agent, Nexus, wore many hats:

• The Researcher, instantly identifying the correct ISO 4210-6 standard and eliminating hours of upfront work.

• The Technician, automating the tedious tasks of material assignment, meshing, and the meticulous setup of complex load cases.

• The Debugger, collaboratively troubleshooting issues like the incorrect joint behavior and providing on-the-spot corrections.

• The Expert Analyst, explaining the complex physics behind deformation results and contextualizing stiffness values against market benchmarks.

The human-in-the-loop workflow proved essential. The agent's ability to accept corrections, like the force magnitude error, and ask for clarification, like confirming faces for a probe, highlights a partnership. This synergy doesn't just produce results faster; it leads to more reliable outcomes and empowers engineers, especially junior members, to perform at a level that once required years of experience. Ultimately, this isn't just about saving time—it's about reallocating an engineer's focus from manual labor to what truly matters: understanding the results, making informed decisions, and driving innovation.