Abstract

Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing/computer-aided engineering (CAD/CAM/CAE) integration offers designers, analysts, and manufacturers the opportunity to share the data throughout the product development process. Finite element (FE) meshing applications integrated with the solid model data from CAD systems represent a major subset of CAD/CAM/CAE integration. In an earlier paper, it was demonstrated that virtual persistent identifiers (VPIs) can be used to assure or repair sustained integration with successive versions of neutral-format solid models. From that article, several follow-on issues become apparent. The geometry as per the CAE model often differs from the CAD model, so even with cross-format issues resolved, significant obstacles to sustained CAD/CAE integration remain. Along with simplification, the current article investigates additional techniques for further automating the recognition of changes between CAD models, reducing the manual interaction to just a few minutes. The article goes on to demonstrate how associativity can be sustained when using current versions of neutral formats like STEP and IGES. The overall point of the paper is to show that given a precise recognition of the differences between two solid models, a generalized means of ad-hoc integration is possible. This point is demonstrated through two case studies where simplifications of the CAD geometry are made to facilitate the meshing of the part. The integration is shown to be maintained across successive versions and to address a range of simplification processing. A summary of best practices for efficiently accommodating sustained CAD/CAE integration is also presented.

References

References
1.
Gujarathi
,
G.
, and
Ma
,
Y.-S.
,
2011
, “
Parametric CAD/CAE Integration Using a Common Data Model
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
30
(
3
), pp.
118
132
. 10.1016/j.jmsy.2011.01.002
2.
Demouzon
,
F.
, and
Chevrin
,
P. A.
,
1998
, “
Cost Reduction Through Digital Mock-Up
,”
Proceedings of Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea and Air
,
Stockholm, Sweden
.
3.
Shapiro
,
V.
,
Tsukanov
,
I.
, and
Grishin
,
A.
,
2011
, “
Geometric Issues in Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Engineering Integration
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
11
(
2
), p.
021005
. 10.1115/1.3593416
4.
Kurowski
,
P.
,
2004
, “Differences Between CAD and FEA Geometry,”
Finite Element Analysis for Design Engineers
, 2nd ed.,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
,
Warrendale, PA
, pp.
209
214
.
5.
Sheena
,
D.-P.
,
Sona
,
T.-g.
,
Myunga
,
D.-K.
,
Ryub
,
C.
, and
Hun Lee
,
S.
,
2010
, “
Transformation of a Thin-Walled Solid Model Into a Surface Model via Solid
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
42
(
8
), pp.
720
730
. 10.1016/j.cad.2010.01.003
6.
Woo
,
Y.
,
2014
, “
Abstraction of Mid-Surfaces From Solid Models of Thin-Walled Parts: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
47
, pp.
1
11
. 10.1016/j.cad.2013.08.010
7.
Boussuge
,
F.
,
Léon
,
J.-C.
,
Hahmann
,
S.
, and
Fine
,
L.
,
2014
, “
Extraction of Generative Processes From B-Rep Shapes and Application
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
46
, pp.
79
89
. 10.1016/j.cad.2013.08.020
8.
Kulkarni
,
Y. H.
,
Sahasrabudhe
,
A.
, and
Kale
,
M.
,
2017
, “
Computation of Midsurface by Feature-Based Simplification-Abstraction-Decomposition
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
17
(
1
), p.
011006
. 10.1115/1.4034130
9.
Mounir
,
H.
,
Nizar
,
A.
, and
Abdelmajid
,
B.
,
2012
, “
CAD Model Simplification Using a Removing Details and Merging Faces Technique
,”
J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
,
26
(
11
), pp.
3539
3548
. 10.1007/s12206-012-0869-6
10.
Robinson
,
T.
,
Armstrong
,
C.
, and
Fairey
,
R.
,
2011
, “
Automated Mixed Dimensional Modelling From 2D and 3D CAD Models
,”
Finite Elem. Anal. Des.
,
47
(
2
), pp.
151
165
. 10.1016/j.finel.2010.08.010
11.
Thakur
,
A.
,
Banerjee
,
A. G.
, and
Gupta
,
S. K.
,
2009
, “
A Survey of CAD Model Simplification Techniques for Physics-Based
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
41
(
2
), pp.
65
80
. 10.1016/j.cad.2008.11.009
12.
ISO 10303-1
,
1994
,
Industrial Automation Systems and Integration—Product Data Presentation and Exchange—Part 1: Overview and Fundamental Principles, Geneva
,
International Organization for Standards
, https://www.iso.org/standard/20597.html
13.
Gielingh
,
W.
,
2008
, “
An Assessment of the Current State of Product Data Technologies
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
40
(
7
), pp.
750
759
. 10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.003
14.
Kemmerer
,
S. J.
,
1999
, Chapter 6, Sharing Versus Exchanging Data,”
STEP The Grand Experience
,
NIST
,
Gaithersburg, MD
, pp.
75
83
.
15.
Kirkwood
,
R.
, and
Sherwood
,
J.
,
2018
, “
Sustained CAD/CAE Integration: Integrating With Successive Versions of Step or IGES Files
,”
Eng. Comput.
,
34
, pp.
1
13
. 10.1007/s00366-017-0516-z
16.
Kirkwood
,
R.
, and
Sherwood
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Sustained Cad Integration: A Proposed Method to Resolve Deficiencies Related to Data Export/Import
,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
,
Portland, OR
.
17.
Kirkwood
,
R.
, and
Sherwood
,
J.
,
2018
, “
Sustained Integration for Computer-Aided Manufacturing: Integrating With Successive Versions of Step or IGES
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
, 18(
4
), p.
042003
. 10.1115/1.4040024
18.
Gallaher
,
M. P.
,
O’Connor
,
A. C.
, and
Phelps
,
T.
,
2002
,
Economic Impact Assessment of the International Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) in Transportation Equipment Industries
,
NIST U.S. Department of Commerce
,
Gaithersburg, MD
.
19.
SCRA
,
2006
,
Step Application Handbook ISO 10303 Version 3
,
North Charleston, SC
, http://www.asd-ssg.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1a27ecc6-6570-40cd-b611-f02bac2c2687&groupId=11317
20.
Integration Guard
,
2015
,
Design Change Vectors
,
Integration Guard
,
Nashua
.
21.
You
,
C.-F.
,
Tsou
,
P.-J.
, and
Yey
,
S.-C.
,
2006
, “
Collaborative Design for an Assembly via the Internet
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
31
, pp.
1217
1222
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0291-7
22.
You
,
C.-F.
,
2009
, “
Propagation of Design Change Between Different CAD
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
44
(
3–4
), pp.
330
344
. 10.1007/s00170-008-1833-6
23.
Shelly
,
T.
,
2006
, “
What can go wrong when you give IT the large
,”
Manuf. Comput. Solutions.
https://www.manufacturingmanagement.co.uk/features/what-can-go-wrong-when-you-give-it-the-large
24.
Yang
,
J.
,
2004
, “
A Procedural Approach of Inspecting CAD Model Errors
,”
Eng. Comput.
,
21
(
7
), pp.
736
747
.
25.
Pratt
,
M.
, and
Kim
,
J.
,
2006
, “
Experience in the Exchange of Procedural Shape Models Using ISO 10303 (STEP)
,”
Proceedings SPM 2006—ACM Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling
,
Wales, UK
,
June
, pp.
229
238
.
26.
Rappoport
,
A.
,
Spitz
,
S.
, and
Etzion
,
M.
,
2006
, “
Two-dimensional Selections for Feature-Based Data Exchange
,”
Geometric Modeling and Processing, GMP 2006—4th International Conference, Proceedings
,
Pittsburgh, PA
, pp.
325
342
.
27.
Kripac
,
J.
,
1997
, “
A Mechanism for Persistently Naming Topological Entities in History-Based Parametric Solid Models
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
29
(
2
), pp.
113
122
. 10.1016/S0010-4485(96)00040-1
28.
Gallaher
,
M. P.
,
2002
,
Economic Impact Assessment of the International Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) in Tranportation Equipment Industries
,
Research Triangle Park
,
NC
.
You do not currently have access to this content.