CAD revolution - PTC.pdf

8/11/2019 CAD revolution - PTC.pdf

1/41

The CAD Revolution...... and What It Means for You

Published by:


2/41

2

The CAD Revolution and What It Means to You

Subscribe or Follow

Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideasdeveloped independently, 2010 LC-Insights LLC

IntroductionCAD is a boring, staid and burned out commodity.

With stark clarity, I remember the first time that thought

ran across my mind. It was at an analyst event in themiddle of a product update briefing. The productmanager was in the middle of explaining one of about athousand new things in the latest version of thisparticular CAD tool. All of them minutely incremental.None of them groundbreaking. I wish I could say thatkind of briefing was the exception instead of the rule, butthat just wouldnt be true. Basically, CAD is the softwareapplication than innovation forgot. Well, at least for awhile.

Then a couple years ago, the revolution started. Googleoffered SketchUp for the masses. SpaceClaim startedsuggesting 3D could be used beyond traditional CADusers. Siemens PLM provided both modeling paradigmsthrough newly launched Synchronous Technology.Autodesk started experimenting with new technology insomething called Fusion. And most recently, PTC haspromised to change the world with Creo. Suddenly, CADis a hot and vigorous issue worth talking about again.

But somethings a little different this time. Its not thesame old game of leapfrog played out between software

providers. Its not just about getting the latest whiz-bangfeatures in front of CAD specialists. Its not just aboutdetailing out engineering drawings. People are talkingabout getting sketching and modeling tools in front ofentirely new roles. People are talking about processchange of all things. Its exciting to see and understandsome of the new applications for CAD. But as exciting asit might be, its a touch confusing and scary too. Whywould someone else use CAD? Whats the advantage? Willthis end up being disruptive? Questions abound.

Thats where this series of eBooks might help. Theyprovide a straightforward look at how the ongoingrevolution in CAD affects different individual roles andthe resulting implications for their organizations. So sitback and take it in. Because it may have taken a littlewhile, but CAD is finally worth our time again.

Chad Jackson is the Founder andPresident of Lifecycle Insights, aresearch and advisory firm thatstudies the issues that mattermost to engineering. Results ofstudies are published onengineering-matters.com. Chadcan be reached via emailor (512)284-8080.
http://www.engineering-matters.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


3/41

3


Subscribe or Follow


A Powerful Yet TaxingPath...Before we can understand the impact of the CADrevolution, its important to understand how thetechnology works and its resulting implications. Heresthe quick overview of the feature-history paradigm, thebasis for traditional CAD.

!

The building blocks of a 3D model are geometryfeatures that are parametrically controlled. Someexamples are sketch-based extrusions androunds.

! The features are placed into a history basedsequential order. Furthermore, successive featuresoften use geometry of prior features as references,generating a network of parent-child like

interdependencies.!

The features can be changed by modifyingparametric dimensions or variables or throughdynamically pushing and pulling geometry.

!

Modifications however are limited to the initialfeature definitions used to create the geometry.

Because of the way this technology paradigm works,there are some implications for users.

!

Parametric control and interdependency in the

feature history enables very intelligent reactions tochanges as well as powerful design automation.Models can morph in an automated way torepresent various product configurations.

!

There is an overhead cost to this power though.Specific knowledge and skills must be gained andretained to both build as well as manipulatemodels based on a feature-history network.

Feature-History Paradigm

Feature-HistoryModeling!Geometric created

through features!Feature definitions

persisted!Geometry rebuilt in

history based sequence

ExplicitModeling

!Geometric createdthrough operations

!Geometry topologypersisted

Geometry Creation

Geometr Manipulation

Parametric

!Changes made throughexplicit modification todimensions or variables

Push, Pull or Drag

!Changes made throughpush/pull/draginteraction withgeometry, handles, etc.

Feature-Based!Modifications made

through existing featuredefinitions. Changespropagate to dependentfeatures.

Selection / Inferenced!

Changes made toexplicitly selected and/orinferred sets of geometry

Direct Manipulations

!

Geometry manipulateddirectly with actions
http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


4/41

4


Subscribe or Follow


A Path a Little Less... Constrained.So whats the alternative to feature-history paradigm? Itsa combination of explicit and direct paradigms that hasactually been around for some time. Heres the rundownof how it works.

!

Geometry can be created as features or asindividual operations. Then, instead ofremembering the history based sequential order offeatures, the geometric topology definition ispreserved. As a result, there is no network ofinterdependencies between features.

!

Manipulation of geometry is a two-step process.First, users select the geometry they want tochange. This can be augmented with geometry

inference; a capability that automatically andintelligently determines what else should also bemodified. Second, the user primarily uses apush/pull/drag interaction to manipulate thegeometry. Alternatively, parametric modificationsto geometry can also be made.

Just as before, there are some implications as a result ofusing this type of modeling paradigm.

!

The knowledge and skill overhead to using thismodeling paradigm is low. There is no network ofinterdependent features to manage.

!

Without a network of interdependent features,there is no basis for design automation orintelligent reaction to change. These modelscannot be morphed in an automated way.

Direct & Explicit Paradigms

Feature-HistoryModeling

!Geometric createdthrough features

!Feature definitionspersisted

!Geometry rebuilt inhistory based sequence

ExplicitModeling

!Geometric createdthrough operations

!

Geometry topologypersisted

Geometry Creation

Geometry Manipulation

Parametric

!Changes made throughexplicit modification todimensions or variables

Push, Pull or Drag

!Changes made throughpush/pull/draginteraction withgeometry, handles, etc.

Feature-Based!

Modifications madethrough existing featuredefinitions. Changespropagate to dependentfeatures.

Selection / Inferenced!

Changes made toexplicitly selected and/orinferred sets of geometry

Direct Manipulations

!

Geometry manipulateddirectly with actions
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


5/41


Subscribe or Follow


The Status Quo of Traditional CADAs modeling technology in the industry matured, initialthoughts on the use of CAD formalized into consensus.And over time, consensus settled into a number ofassumptions. Assumptions that practically no onechallenged any longer. Heres the quick list.

!

2D CAD is for laggards.Its not the mostprofessional thing to say, but it has been theindustry drumbeat for years. The use of 2D CADhas always been painted as an intermediate stepon the way to 3D CAD. Those who stayed on 2Dhave been seen as procrastinating the inevitable.Over time, a serious stigma developed around 2D.And the stigma stuck.

!

Pick a 3D modeling paradigm and stick with it.By and large, the feature-history and directparadigms have been seen as mutually exclusive.Organizations often went down one path, neverlooking back regardless of the advantages oraccessibility of the other paradigm. But sometimesit went beyond that, with proponents on bothsides arguing with great passion and fervor. Formany, it became personal.

The New Rules of the CAD RevolutionWith a revolution in technology, CAD suddenly gainedsome mindshare in the industry again. People started toask questions. Did the old assumptions about CAD stillapply? And after revisiting some issues that hadnt beenchallenged in years, some new thinking emerged.

!

2D CAD is a legitimate design tool.Now dontget me wrong here. No one wanted to go back tomanually creating 2D drawings. However, theresbeen an admission that designing products is trulydistinct and different than documenting products.And in that case, designing in 2D is an entirelylegitimate means to capture concepts, develop andmature designs and make design decisions.

!

Use complementary 3D modeling paradigms.Many in the industry would agree that eachmodeling paradigm has strengths andweaknesses. And interestingly, ones strengthactually complements the others weakness. Thenew thinking is to leverage both paradigms,switching between the two and using the right onefor the right job. Its no longer an either-ordecision. Its both.


6/41

6


Subscribe or Follow


Whats it mean for CAD Specialists?If theres one thing we know about CAD specialists, theyare the top experts in the feature-history paradigm.Theyve learned how to build and navigate networks ofinterdependent features as well as diagnose problemswhen they occur. Theyre masters of their trade.

The Partially Fulfilled Promise of Reuse

One of the great original advantages behind the feature-history modeling paradigm is reuse. The idea has been tomorph an existing model into a new one with changes.But there are sometimes problems. In unstable models,small tweaks can start a chain reaction of failures in thenetwork of interdependent features.

Given time, CAD specialists can readily seek out andresolve those problems. In some cases however, it canactually be faster for them to do a complete or partialrebuild of the model instead. Either way, they end upspending valuable time fixing or rebuilding modelsinstead of creating new ones.

Realizing the Reuse Promise

For CAD specialists, the new vision for CAD is all aboutflexibility and power. Direct modeling can be used tomodify legacy models and reuse others models without

needing to recreate it or invest lots of time fixing it.Feature-history modeling can be used to explicitly definegeometry or programmatically automate modeling. Thebiggest advantage however is both of these modelingparadigms can be used in a complementary fashion,offering the right tools at the right time.

Final Thoughts for CAD Specialists

Theres really no doubt that CAD specialists could fix orrebuild models so they could morph into new designs.But is that really a great use of their expert skills andknowledge? Instead, leveraging complementary modelingparadigms lets them find the shortest path to the finalgoal. In turn, that lets them focus their expert knowledgeand skills more on modeling new parts and products.

Issues withTraditional CAD

The Change with theCAD Revolution

Advantage andBenefit

In feature-historyparadigm, CADSpecialists must oftenfix or recreate models,

instead of reusingthem, due to complex

interdependenciesbetween features.

Capabilities providedthrough direct andexplicit paradigms allowquick and easy edits toexisting models withoutfeature manipulations.

Time that CADSpecialists would have

spent fixing orrecreating models can

be applied to newdevelopment projects

instead.


7/41


8/41

8


Subscribe or Follow


What it means for Product EngineersBeing an engineer today is no easy task. You have to wearmany hats while rushing between your desk, the test lab,the shop floor and everywhere else. And between it all,you have to capture your ideas and concepts quickly soothers can take action.

Going Rogue with Concept Design

What is the best way to capture design concepts? It hasalways seemed like 3D CAD would be a great fit becauseof its ability to quickly explore design iterations. But thatpotential has never truly been realized. Engineers areconstantly juggling the lifecycle responsibilities of theirproducts. And as a result, theyll only ever be an

infrequent user of any application, including CAD. Inturn, they cant dedicate the time necessary to gain theknowledge and skills to effectively use the feature-history paradigm. Instead, engineers often go rogue withfaster and simpler to use 2D CAD, even with the stigma.

Productive Concept Design without the Overhead

For engineers, the CAD revolution is all about enablingthem to capture their concepts without making them CADexperts. Because the barrier to using 2D sketching or

direct modeling is relatively low, engineers dont needextensive knowledge or skills to capture their concepts.Furthermore, these modeling methods are also integratedwith the feature-history paradigm, enabling CADspecialists to use them, instead of recreating them, tobuild detailed models. In all, theres no need to go rogueanymore.

Final Thoughts for Engineers

Traditional CAD has always held great promise forengineers to capture their concepts. However, engineerssimply cant afford the time to become CAD experts. TheCAD revolution puts 2D and direct modeling tools intotheir hands, letting them productively capture conceptswithout the knowledge and skill overhead. In short, CADhas become accessible to the engineer.

Engineers canindependently capturetheir concepts in a

deliverable format thatCAD Specialists can

leverage to createdetailed models later in

the design phase.




Skill and knowledgeoverhead of feature-history paradigm too

high for engineers, whoare infrequent users.

Often use 2D draftingtools instead, creatingunusable deliverables.

Direct modeling and 2Dsketching tools enableengineers to captureconcepts and ideas

quickly without highskill and knowledge

overhead.


9/41


Subscribe or Follow


What it means for AnalystsWhen it comes to model geometry, there couldnt beanything that is both more critical and less interesting toanalysts. Its the basis of simulation models but to behonest, they dont care how its created. For them, itssimply a means to an end.

The Challenges of Defeaturing Models

While the CAD model is the basis for simulation models,analysts often remove some pieces of geometry that areirrelevant to the simulation. But unfortunately, because ofdependencies between features, removal of a feature cancause others to fail, rendering the model useless. Ofcourse, an analyst could gain the skills to use feature-

history based modeling, but with all of the otherknowledge required of a simulation analyst, thats notexactly the highest priority. As a result, analysts spendexorbitant amounts of time prepping the model,recreating the model in simulation tools or rely on time-constrained CAD specialists to do the job for them.

Direct Modeling Enables Analyst Independence

How does the CAD revolution change things? It turns outthat the direct modeling paradigm not only offers newways of modifying geometry, but also offers tools to

quickly and easily remove geometry without triggeringchaotic failures throughout the interdependent networkof features. This means the analyst can perform theiranalysis preparations on their own without fixing orrecreating the CAD model.

Final Thoughts for Analysts

Model geometry has always been critical to an analystsjob. Trouble begins when simplification or defeaturing amodel in preparation for simulation triggers featurefailures. As a result, analysts can waste tremendousamounts of time fixing or recreating the model or waitingfor a CAD specialist to help. The CAD revolution putsdirect modeling tools in the hands of analysts, enablingthem to simplify models without the threat of featurefailures.




Simplifying ordefeaturing models

created with the feature-history paradigm cancause failures, forcing

Analysts to fix orrecreate them.

The direct modelingparadigm offers quick

and easy tools to simplifyor defeature models

without risk of modelfailures.

Time that Analystsusually spend fixing orrecreating models can

now be spent setting upand running more

simulations.


10/41

10


Subscribe or Follow


What it means for ManufacturingEngineers?

Where the engineer designs the product virtually, the

manufacturing engineer must bridge the gap to reality.That not only includes planning out the productionprocess but also the design of the necessary jigs, fixturesand tooling to manufacture the product.

A Lack of Palatable Choices for Tool Design

For the manufacturing engineer, it all starts with the CADmodel that is released from engineering. While thatmodel is frequently built using the feature-historyparadigm, theres no need for the manufacturing

engineer, an infrequent user, to make tooling design anymore complicated than it already is. So, they have achoice. They can design tooling using the feature-historyparadigm, forcing them to use a more complex tool.Alternatively, they can import the design into aspecialized yet simpler-to-use application, therebybreaking the associativity between the

product model and the tooling model. Both choices wereless than ideal.

Simpler Yet Associative CAD for Tool Design

For manufacturing engineers, the CAD revolution offerssimpler and easier to use applications for tool design thatare integrated with product design. This includes 2Dsketching, capabilities from the direct modelingparadigm or even specialized tool design functionality tocreate the simpler geometry of the jigs and fixtures. As aresult, tool design isnt any more complicated thannecessary and product changes are propagatedassociatively.

Final Thoughts for Manufacturing Engineers

In the past, manufacturing engineers had to choosebetween using complex applications for simple tooldesign and simpler applications that broke associativity.The CAD revolution lets them avoid the compromise byproviding the right capabilities with associativity.


Manufacturingengineers no longerneed to choose betweenmodeling simplicity

and designassociativity. They canhave both to save time

and avoid errors.



Jig and fixturegeometry is oftensimple and doesnt

need the more complexcapabilities of thefeature-history

paradigm used tocreate design models.

Manufacturingengineers can use simplerand faster tools like direct

modeling and 2Dsketching for jig andfixture design yet

maintains associativitywith the design model.


11/41

11


Subscribe or Follow


Conclusion: What does it all mean?In the past few years, there have been some dramaticshifts in CAD technology and new thinking about how itcan be used. But that alone doesnt necessarily mean youshould change what youre doing. First, you have toanswer a critical question: what does it all mean to thebusiness? Fundamentally, the answer to that question isincreased productivity in two specific ways.

#1: Enabling CAD Independence across the Team

Under the status quo of traditional CAD, other rolesbrought their CAD difficulties to CAD Specialists to fix orrecreate their models. As a result, the organization hasbeen constrained by the bandwidth of that one role.

Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, each of theseroles possess right-sized CAD technology that enablesthem to do their tasks independently, including:

!

Engineers capturing design concepts with 2Dsketching and direct modeling.

! Analysts simplifying design models with directmodeling in preparation for simulation.

! Manufacturing Engineers associatively designingtooling with 2D sketching and direct modeling.

Ultimately, this independence results in two advantages.!

The elimination of many tasks for CAD Specialists,freeing them up to focus on new product designs.

!

The elimination of delays caused while waiting forCAD specialists to complete other peoples tasks.

#2: Elimination of Non-Value Add Activities

Under the status quo of traditional CAD, occasionalfailures in models built in the feature-history paradigminstigated a variety of activities that fundamentally do not

add value to product development projects, including:

! Fixing or recreating unstable models resultingfrom reusing or modifying existing designs.

! Creating new 3D models from scratch instead ofleveraging 2D conceptual sketches.

!

Fixing or recreating models after attempting tosimplify them in preparation for simulation.

Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, leveraging theright paradigm within a set of complementary andinteroperable modeling technologies can reduce if not

eliminate many of these activities. As a result, more ofthe organizations time can be spent on moving theproduct development project forward.

Final Thoughts... and a Question

Its been some time since CAD was reallyworth our time.After years of incremental improvements and leapfrogfeatures, the technology advances and new thinking ofthe last few years offers some real change. And its notmerely interesting. There are some real implications not

only for the traditional CAD Specialist, but also forEngineers, Analysts, Manufacturing Engineers and manyothers. So after all these years of sleeping on CAD, andrightfully so, you may just want to ask yourself:

Is it time to start paying attention to CAD again?

To follow the rest of the CAD Revolution eBook series,visitwww.ptc.comor follow to Lifecycle Insights.
http://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


12/41


13/41
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattersmailto:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748


14/41


15/41


16/41


17/41
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattershttp://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234


18/41


19/41
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattersmailto:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748


20/41


21/41


22/41


23/41
http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


24/41

Published by:

The CAD Revolution...

... and What It Means

for Product Engineers


25/41

Subscribe or Follow

The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Product Engineers

Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideasdeveloped independently, 2011 LC-Insights LLC2

IntroductionBeing an Product Engineer today isnt easy. You runbetween your desk, the conference rooms and about a

hundred other places. Every project is understaffed. Andunfortunately, that probably wont change anytime soon.

Years ago, CAD held some real promise for ProductEngineers. The idea was that you could capture conceptsand explore design iterations easily. But who really hadtime to learn the intricacies of traditional CAD? Now thattalk is starting up again. The technology seems easier touse. But should you take the time to check it out?

Ultimately, that question is why I wrote this book.In it,you'll find some perspectives on the CAD revolution and

what it means for you, the Product Engineer.NOTE: The Product Engineer role as described here isresponsible for design decisions, product ownership andis an infrequent CAD user. In some companies, this roleincludes the responsibilities of the CAD Specialist. Formore information on what the CADRevolution and that role, see the 3rdeBook in this series.

The Change in Modeling TechnologiesBefore we dive into the implications of the CADRevolution for Product Engineers, it makes sense to set abaseline about the modeling paradigms themselves.

! Feature-History (Parametric) Paradigm:Model

geometry is generated from parametric featuresplaced in a sequential order. References betweensuccessive features result in network ofinterdependencies.

!

Explicit and Direct Paradigms:Model geometryis build with operations and directly preserved.Users select geometry and then use apush/pull/drag interaction to manipulate models.

For more information on differences between these twoparadigms, read the third and fourth pages in the eBook,the CAD Revolution and What It Means for You.

Chad Jackson is the Founder and

President of Lifecycle Insights, aresearch and advisory firm thatstudies the issues that mattermost to engineering. Results ofstudies are published onengineering-matters.com. Chadcan be reached viaemailor (512)284-8080.


ExplicitModeling

Geometry Creation


Parametric Push, Pull or Drag

Feature-based Selection / InferenceDirect Manipulations
http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.engineering-matters.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=126297http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattersmailto:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748


26/41

Subscribe or Follow



Concept Design: Just Make It WorkEvery product starts out as an Product Engineers idea.But the tools that are used to capture that idea can varywidely.

The Dead End of Concept Design Deliverables

What do Product Engineers use to capture designconcepts? You name it and its probably been used:napkins, graph paper, whiteboards as well asschematics, diagrams and sketches. The problem?Unfortunately, these deliverables often arent in a formatthat can be used to create a detailed 3D model. As aresult, that work often starts from scratch.

Developing a 3D model directly would certainly address

the issues. However traditional CAD based on thefeature-history paradigm is too complex. And its notthat Product Engineers arent smart or capable enough.They just have too many other responsibilities to be anexpert with any software. Theres only 24 hours in a day.

Concept Design Without Compromise

This scenario changes in the CAD Revolution. The idea isfor Product Engineers to have a variety of interoperabletools available to capture concepts and ideas. It might be

2D sketching tools, 2D layout tools or 3D directmodeling. The point is to enable Product Engineers tocapture the concept quickly and easily without a lot ofknowledge overhead. CAD Specialists leverage thosedeliverables to create a parametrically controlled model.And ultimately that means Product Engineers can use theright tools for them and CAD Specialists dont have tobuild a model from scratch.

Final Thoughts on Concept Design

For Product Engineers, concept design with traditional

CAD simply wasnt feasible. In the CAD Revolution,Product Engineers can capture concepts in any one of avariety of tools and pass it forward to CAD Specialists.

Sketches on napkins, graphpaper or whiteboards

2D drafting or diagrammingsoftware applications

1. Low fidelity representation interms of scale and accuracy

2. Exists in hardcopy form,resulting in recreation of model

1. Concepts exist in a variety offormats that are not compatible

2. Concepts can not be reused,forces clean sheet creation ofdesign model


27/41

Subscribe or Follow



More Iterations Equals Better Designs?No design is perfect from the start. It takes lots ofexploration and analysis to find an acceptable design,much less a perfect one.

The Unfulfilled Promises of Traditional CAD

If there were one place where feature-history modelingwould shine, it would seem to be in exploring designiterations. By changing parameters, you could explorebig changes, small tweaks and any combination of thetwo. The problem of course is the high knowledgeoverhead required to fix feature failures that inevitablycrop up. Todays Product Engineers, running from firedrill to fire drill, simply dont have that time to gain and

retain that knowledge. Instead, they explore designiterations using brute force methods like graph paper.And by the time a detailed model is being built, all of thedesign decisions have already been made.

The Right Tools for Engineering Exploration

The good news is that the technology changes of theCAD Revolution changes this story. Product Engineerscan use direct modeling to explore lots of design

options without that high knowledge overhead. In fact,as designs mature and decisions are finalized, more andmore of the design model can be locked down withparametric control. Furthermore, detailed models fromsuppliers in numerous CAD formats can be edited just aseasily as native designs. And last but not least, themodel can be passed back and forth between theProduct Engineer and the CAD Specialist forcollaboration.

Final Thoughts on Design Iterations

CAD has always held great potential for ProductEngineers to explore design alternatives, but the barriersof feature-history modeling has always been a little toohigh. In the CAD Revolution, Product Engineers can usedirect modeling to realize the more iterations equalsbetter design promise.

Progression of Design Iterations

v1 InitialConcept

v1.1 TorqueArm Variant

v1.2 LinkageExperimentv1.3 Motor

Iteration

v1.1.1 TorqueArm Breakout

v1.1.2 TorqueArm Replacement


28/41

Subscribe or Follow



The Customer Validation MinefieldHow many times has it happened to you? You thoughtyou were on the same page as your customer. But in theend, you weren't. And it turns into just another fire drill.

Customer Design Interpretation

Whether its a concept, a change or a final check beforerelease, there are many advantages to validating designswith customers. But thats not to say there arentproblems. Product Engineers often use sketches,whiteboards and drawings to discuss design options andalternatives with customers throughout development.Unfortunately, these representations can be ambiguous,meaning one design detail could be interpreted in two

very different ways. The result? Catching it much later indevelopment is costly to fix. But, even worse, catching itafter it has been shipped results in a dissatisfiedcustomer. Either way, for the Product Engineer, itsanother fire drill.

Live Design Sessions with Customers

The vision behind the CAD Revolution, however,promises to make things much more clear. The conceptis for Product Engineers to use 2D and direct modeling

tools for live design sessions right in front of customers.Direct modeling changes aren't constrained to featuredefinitions, allowing Product Engineers to makesweeping changes without fear of feature failures. And a3D solid model is far less ambiguous than anythingsketched on paper or a whiteboard. For the company, itmeans fewer late stage changes and unhappy customers.For Product Engineers, it translates to fewer fire drills.

Final Thoughts on Customer Design Validation

Product Engineers have often scrambled with late stage

changes or unhappy customers due to the ambiguousdesign representations used for customer validations.Instead, the CAD Revolution puts easy to use directmodeling tools to create unambiguous 3D models in thehands of Product Engineers.

Causes of DesignValidation Ambiguity

Outcomes of CustomerValidation Issues

1. Design representations lackaccuracy or scale

2. 2D views can bemisinterpreted

3. Changes to multipleviews must be mademanually

1. Issues caught downstreamwhere they incur costs andcause delays

2. Issues caught at customer,causing dissatisfaction


29/41

Subscribe or Follow



Conclusion: What does it all mean?Being an Product Engineer today isnt easy. And, by andlarge, CAD tools havent been that helpful for ProductEngineers. But in the CAD Revolution, that story seems

to be changing.

Organizational Implications for the Team

Product Engineers get pulled in every direction for firedrills throughout the development cycle. That meansthey cant realistically be users of any complex software,including traditional CAD. As a result, Product Engineershave had to turn to scribbled notes, graph paper,whiteboards and 2D drafting tools. Unfortunately, theserepresentations cant be readily used by much of anyone

else in the organization.The CAD Revolution changes the story though. By usingnumerous tools as part of an interoperable suitealongside parametric feature-history CAD, ProductEngineers are conceptualizing, iterating and validatingdesigns in forms compatible with the rest of theorganization. And that means no one else needs torecreate those deliverables from scratch. But it alsotranslates into flexibility, speed and more iteration thatresult in better designs.

Personal Implications for the Product Engineer

Product Engineers certainly care about the team, butthere are some personal implications for them too. Allthose fire drills arent just inconvenient; they translate

into working late nights and weekends. Traditional CADhas offered promise in terms of helping ProductEngineers with this problem but the knowledge barriershave been too high.

In the vision of the CAD Revolution, Product Engineerscan use the right tools for the right job. Direct modelingtechnologies help capture concepts, explore options andvalidate designs with customers. And most critically itstechnology thats truly accessible to Product Engineers.

Final Thoughts

The changes of the CAD Revolution certainly wont makebeing an Product Engineer a breeze. But with thepotential to fulfill the original promise of CAD, it maymake being and an Product Engineer just a touch lesspainful.

http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


30/41

Published by:


... and What It Means for

Simulation Analysts

i i i


31/41

Subscribe or Follow

The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Simulation Analysts


IntroductionBecoming a Simulation Analyst isn't the easiest careertrack in the world. In school, you took advanced courses

in engineering physics and studied terribly complexcomputational methods. And you've applied it to the realworld by using it in product design. But despite all thathard work, you're spending more time tinkering withgeometry than performing simulation and analysis. Andthats not exactly the best use of your capabilities.

Recently you've heard of changes in the CAD industry.There are supposed to be new technologies andcapabilities to make CAD more accessible. Maybe there'ssomething in it for you too? Could it let you dedicatemore time to your real focus: simulation and analysis?

That's where this book might help. Here you'll find someperspective on the CAD Revolution and what it means foryou, the Simulation Analyst.

The Change in Modeling TechnologiesBefore we dive into the implications of the CADRevolution for Simulation Analysts, it makes sense to seta baseline about the modeling paradigms themselves.



!

Explicit and Direct Paradigms:Model geometryis build with operations and directly preserved.Users select geometry and then use apush/pull/drag interaction to manipulate models.


Chad Jackson is the Founder and

President of Lifecycle Insights, aresearch and advisory firm thatstudies the issues that mattermost to engineering. Results ofstudies are published onengineering-matters.com. Chadcan be reached via emailor (512)284-8080.


ExplicitModeling

Geometry Creation




i f i i
http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748http://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.engineering-matters.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattersmailto:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748


32/41

Subscribe or Follow



Preparing Models for SimulationBefore any simulation can be run, the Simulation Analystmust deal with a longstanding roadblock: preparingmodel geometry from many different CAD applications.

A Distraction from Your Focus

The plain reality of simulation is that CAD geometry isnever ready for analysis as-is. Some geometry that hasno effect on the analysis needs to be removed. Othergeometry might need to be simplified and replaced.Complicating matters is the fact that design modelsfrom any sort of a supply chain will often come fromvarious different CAD applications.

The problem in all this is that a CAD model built out of

ordered features can be finicky. You start out removingone feature and suddenly a different one fails. Fromthere, you have two choices. If you know that particularCAD application, you can fix it yourself, losing timepotentially spent on other simulations. Alternatively, youcould get in line to have a CAD Specialists, especiallywhen working with models from multiple CADapplications, assist you, delaying analysis results.Neither are palatable choices.

The Shortest Path to Simulation Preparation

As it turns out, there are some far more palatablechoices for the Simulation Analyst in the CAD Revolution.And the solution relies on multiple technologies, not just

one. To start, capabilities from visualizationtechnologies, which have long been able to read designmodels from various CAD applications, are being used toaddress today's multi-CAD reality. That is then coupledwith Direct Modeling technologies will allow users toremove geometry from models without the fear offeature failures or having to be concerned about whatmodel was created in which CAD application. The resultis an application tailored to help Simulation Analystsindependently prepare models for simulation withoutdistracting them from their core responsibilities: running

simulations.Final Thoughts on Model Preparation

For Simulation Analysts, the prospect of preparingmodels for simulation was an arduous endeavor. But inthe CAD Revolution, visualization and Direct Modelingtechnologies are combined to address their specificneeds.

Simplification

The removal of geometricdetails that will not affect

the outcome of thesimulation

Abstraction

The replacement of one set ofdetailed geometry with a

simulation equivalent set ofgeometry and simulation

artifacts

i d f i i


33/41

Subscribe or Follow



Simulations forDesign Decisions Simulations forFinal Validation

Simple Analyses to Drive DecisionsUsing simulation to drive design decisions can providesome advantages in product development. But is it reallythe best application of the Simulation Analysts

knowledge and skills?

The Distraction of Early and Simple Simulations

The concept behind simulation driven design is toperform basic analyses, get comparative results andmake design decisions. While simulation analysts haveenabled the effort, are running basic analyses the bestuse of their time? After all, thats time they cantdedicate to complex analyses for verification andvalidation. Alternatively, many efforts have been made to

allow Design Engineers to perform this type of upfrontanalysis by integrating simulation capabilities intofeature-based parametric CAD. But the resultingchallenge is the high knowledge and skill overheadrequired to manage feature interdependencies andfailures when they occur.

Enabling Independent Simulations by Others

In the CAD Revolution, the approach to enabling theDesign Engineer to perform upfront analyses is different.It's not just about integrating simulation capabilities and

feat-based parametric CAD. It's also about integratingthat with 2D and Direct Modeling capabilities. The resultis a combined set of design and simulation capabilitiesthat let the Design Engineer use the right tool for theright job. As they make design changes through featuredimensions or direct manipulations to 2D or 3Dgeometry, the simulation model updates allowing forquick and basic analyses. That in turn enables theSimulation Analyst to focus on what they do best:challenging simulations for verification and validation.

Final Thoughts on Simulation Driven DesignSimulation Analysts can enable simulation driven design,but their expertise is best used on more complex tasks.Design Engineers with the right integrated set ofmodeling and simulation capabilities can perform themindependently instead.

Results used to comparetwo discontinuous options

or alternatives and toultimately the basis for

design decisions

Results used for a finalgo or no go decision prior

to formal testing andultimately design release


34/41

h l i d h f i l i l


35/41

Subscribe or Follow



Conclusion: What does it all mean?As a Simulation Analyst, youve worked long and hard touse your knowledge and expertise for your company.With the CAD Revolution, it looks you can spend more of

your time on simulation than tinkering with geometry.


As a specialized resource with only so much time in aday, productive Simulation Analysts find ways to workefficiently. Unfortunately, geometry-based tasks likeprepping models for simulation and capturing designsuggestions are painstakingly time consuming.Furthermore, basic analyses for simulation driven designkeep you from more advanced simulations.

The CAD Revolution, however, offers some hope.Interoperable sets of parametric feature-based, directand 2D modeling tools allow Simulation Analysts to workwith geometry efficiently. Coupled with simulationcapabilities, they also provide Design Engineers with thecapabilities to perform upfront analyses independently.All together, this means Simulation Analysts have moretime to dedicate to advanced simulations as opposed totinkering with geometry and simple analyses.

Personal Implications for the Simulation Analyst

From a personal perspective, you know as a specializedresource youre always going to have a full queue ofwork lined up before you. But the question is this: what

type of work will it be?Given you focused on advanced engineering physics andcomputational methods, you probably didn't envision alarge chunk of your day-to-day job working withgeometry or running simple analyses. In that context,the CAD Revolution offers some personal advantagesand benefits too. It lets you get through that geometrywork in as little time and pain as possible. It also letsyou work on truly challenging simulations. Between thetwo, Simulation Analysts can fulfill their potential andconcentrate on more satisfying work.

Final Thoughts

The CAD Revolution is certainly more about geometrythan simulation, but that doesnt make it any lessadvantageous and beneficial for the Simulation Analyst.

http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


36/41

Published by:


... and What It Meansfor Manufacturing

Engineers

The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Manufacturing Engineers


37/41

2


Subscribe or Follow


IntroductionTheres no doubt: to drive growth in the recovery,products are important again. And while there aremany challenges developing a new design,

manufacturing engineers are the ones that have toturn them into reality. You have to make the rubbermeet the road.

For you, CAD isnt the center of the universe. Sure, youhave to design tooling. But you also have to close theloop on the products manufacturability and generatetoolpaths to drive equipment. Over time youvecobbled together your own set of software tools to getthe job done. But with all the buzz about CAD today,you wonder if there might be something in it for you.

Thats where this book comes in. In it, youll find someinsight into whats behind the CAD Revolution and howit affects you, the manufacturing engineer.

The Change in Modeling TechnologiesBefore we dive into the implications of the CADRevolution for manufacturing engineers, it makes senseto set a baseline about the modeling paradigms

themselves.



! Explicit and Direct Paradigms:Model geometry isbuild with operations and directly preserved. Usersselect geometry and then use a push/pull/draginteraction to manipulate models.



ExplicitModeling

Geometry Creation




Chad Jackson is the Founder andPresident of Lifecycle Insights, aresearch and advisory firm thatstudies the issues that mattermost to engineering. Results ofstudies are published onengineering-matters.com.Chad can be reached via emailor (512) 284-8080.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-mattershttp://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123748mailto:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/


38/41

3


Subscribe or Follow


Design for ManufacturabilityNo matter how brilliant the design, a products form, fitand function must be tempered with the reality ofmanufacturability. Ideally, a manufacturing engineer gets

the chance to provide feedback before it passes throughdesign release.

A Great Idea with Execution Challenges

The concept of a manufacturing engineer reviewingand suggesting changes is a longstanding one. Andwhile its an outstanding idea, closing that loop hasbeen painful to execute. Using parametric feature-based CAD to capture what are often simple designsuggestions is asking a lot of manufacturing

engineers: both in terms of CAD knowledge and themanagement of feature failures. Using markups tocapture suggested changes requires someinterpretation to translate it back to the originalparametric feature-based CAD model. And that, ofcourse, opens up the potential for human error.

Using the Right Tool Without the High Price

In the context of the CAD Revolution, manufacturingengineers arent forced into choosing between twoproblematic choices. Instead they can leverage a

number of tools in an interoperable suite. Withinteroperable viewing and markup tools, there is littleto no interpretation required as annotations are madedirectly to the original design model. Also, directmodeling tools let the manufacturing engineerexperiment with actual design changes, leaving noambiguity. This approach lets the manufacturingengineering get involved early without being a CADspecialist or leaving room for error.

Final Thoughts on Design for Manufacturability

Incorporating feedback from manufacturing engineershas always seemed like a good idea but was ofteninfeasible. However integrated suites of viewing, markup

and modeling tools enable organizations to addressmanufacturability early and accurately.

Effect of Incorporating Feedback

Project Timeline

Ability to incorporatefeedback

Cost to makechange



39/41

4


Subscribe or Follow


Designing Manufacturing ToolsAnother responsibility of manufacturing engineers is todesign tooling such as jigs, fixtures, molds and dies.Unfortunately, its not as simple as it seems.

The Many Challenges of Tool Design

The starting point for most tooling design is the productmodel, which is frequently designed with parametricfeatures. Because these models often come fromdifferent CAD applications, minor tweaks and fixes togeometry are typically required. Then, manufacturingengineers have been forced to choose between usingparametric features with its ability to automate tasks andembed intelligence or direct modeling with its quick,simple and easy approach to design, even if both wereapplicable to the design. And last but not least,manufacturing engineers had to either wait until theproduct design was finished, delaying the start of theirtask, or find a way to propagate design changes to thetooling design. In aggregate, these challenges haveadded up to schedule delays, wasted time and a lot offrustration.

The Right Integration of Technologies

In stark contrast to the past, the future of tooling designis all about modeling flexibility as well as associativity.Specifically, CAD visualization as well as associative

parametric feature-based and direct modeling has beenintegrated into an interoperable suite. CAD visualizationprovides the ability to read product models from a varietyof CAD applications seamlessly and cleanly. Integrationbetween parametric feature-based modeling and directmodeling let's the manufacturing engineer choose theright modeling approach for the job or even intermix thetwo if needed. And finally associativity within theintegrated suite automatically propagates changes fromthe design model to the tooling model. All in all, it meansthe manufacturing engineer can concentrate on what is

most important: finishing the tooling design.Final Thoughts on Tooling Design

In the past, designing tooling required the navigation ofsome sizeable challenges. But in the CAD Revolution, theright set of technologies have been combined andintegrated for the manufacturing engineer.

Challenges to Tooling Design

1. Product models exist in wide variety of CAD formatsrequiring clean up once imported or read.

2. Must choose between parametric features or direct modelingfor design of tooling.

3. Changes to product design must be propagated into tooldesign, even if done manually.



40/41


Subscribe or Follow


Developing Machining DeliverablesOf course, theres nothing more real than cutting metal.And ultimately much of a manufacturing engineersresponsibility is doing just that.

Serious Issues with High Risks

As it turns out, some of the challenges of generatingmachining toolpaths are very similar to the ones ofdesigning tooling. Product models coming from a varietyof different CAD packages require time to clean up.Changes to the product model should somehow need tomake their way into the machining model. Butfurthermore, the manufacturing engineer needs tightcontrol of machining toolpaths to produce in-toleranceparts with minimal tool wear while avoiding errors thatcould damage machining equipment, an expensiveinvestment of capital for the company. With traditionalCAD, manufacturing engineers have had to cobbletogether several tools to make it all work and suffer theircollective deficiencies as a result.

Integrated Machining Technologies

In the CAD Revolution, manufacturing engineers don'tneed to piece together their own solutions. Instead, theycan use integrated sets of associative applications thatwork together. Visualization technologies are used toread native CAD files necessitating practically no cleanup. Also as the product model changes, so does themachining model, removing any need to manuallypropagate changes. Furthermore, finely tuned machiningtoolpath generation controls as well as validation toolshave been included to provide confidence that expensivemachining equipment is safe.

Final Thoughts on Developing Machining Deliverables

Traditionally, manufacturing engineers have been forced

to assemble tools to generate machining toolpaths in apiecemeal fashion. But in the CAD Revolution, they areprovided an associative and finely tuned set of tools thatacts as an integrated set.

Challenges to Creating Machining Deliverables

1. Product and tooling models exist in variety of CADformats, requiring rework and clean up.

2. Changes to product design must propagate to machiningmodel, through the tooling design if necessary.

3. Finely tuned controls and validation capability needed toverify expensive machining equipment will not bedamaged using machining toolpaths.



41/41

6


Subscribe or Follow

Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideasdeveloped independently 2011 LC Insights LLC

Conclusion: What does it all mean?In this eBook, we touched on a lot of different ways theCAD Revolution is relevant to the manufacturingengineer. However, lets zoom in on exactly what it

means for the organization and for you personally.


The problems facing todays manufacturing engineers areno secret. Closing the manufacturability feedback loop ispainful. Product models exist in a lots of CAD formats.Parametric features or direct modeling can be used, butnot both. And product design changes must often bemanually pushed to tooling and machining models.

The good news is that the CAD Revolution offers a lot of

promise. Manufacturing engineers can embedmanufacturability feedback right in the design model,work with just about any CAD format, intermix modelingtechnologies to design tooling and associatively updatetooling and machining models with product changes. Inturn, for the organization, all that translates into stayingon schedule and saving budget by avoiding errorsdownstream and making the right decisions early.

Personal Implications for the ManufacturingEngineers

It's not just all about the company though. In aggregate,all of these challenges are incredibly frustrating because

of the inability to get involved early, the duplication ofwork and difficulty in dealing with product designchanges. But beyond that, they translate into longerhours and more fire drills than anyone would want. Thechanges in this eBook offer real potential for you tospend more time on less frustrating and more rewardwork in a far more reasonable work week.

Final Thoughts

If you work in a particular job long enough, you canbecome resigned to that there are no way to solve

longstanding pains and frustrations. But in this case, theCAD Revolution offers some very real advantages andbenefits to the manufacturing engineer.

http://www.ptc.com/view?im_dbkey=123234http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters

Documents

CAD revolution - PTC.pdf