Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Design Automation

Status
Not open for further replies.

mloew

Automotive
Apr 3, 2002
1,073
Revelation19 posted in thread730-31327 on 7 Jan 2003:
Another way companies are no longer great places to work is the trend toward automation in design. We are losing the creative aspect of the design function and being turned into computer program users.

I do not agree with this assessment. I think there is considerable creativity necessary to successfully implement a robust and useful design automation strategy. Also, with some of the more repetitive design and analysis task automated, there is opportunity for more detailed and creative engineering activities to take place.

I would like to know what others think about this.
Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

MLeow:

I saw that thread too. I would agree with you that there is more creativity, but it's coming from mostly non-engineers that are using our tools. First industry did away with PE's to use cheaper non PE engineers. Now industry is doing away with the cheaper non PE engineers and just putting operators infront of machines that use our tools. If it were only engineers using the automated equipment, I would think better for us, but its being used to our disadvantage which I think can onle serve to hurt engineers in the long run. Maybe it will force us to change the face of engineering. It's a progound thing no matter what and I think we will see a big change in our lifetime.

BobPE
 
Well in the non-dinosaur industries I think the CAD/CAE revolution has been overstated, but it is good to see design engineers drawing parts and analysing them, instead of handing the tasks respectively to a draughtie and then an analyst.

To give an example of the way I like to work (and have in the past).

The mech eng gathers together all the requirements for the system. He then sits down with the solid modelling program and noodles around with how it all fits together until he has an assembly that looks reasonable, and passes the requirements (including strength etc using FEA). Then I bunged the whole lot over to my draughtie, who exploded the assembly into parts, redesigned where appropriate (and handed stuff back to me for another go), toleranced it out, and prepared the manufacturing drawings, BoM, etc. Then I got the lot back and put together the process instructions.

Great. I'm doing what I'm good at, and the draughtie isn't having to put his point of view across in a three cornered meeting.

On the other side of the coin is that anyone running a tube can press the 'mesh' button on a solid modeller, and then press the FEA button.

Anyone who signs off on work like that needs to have a good hard look in the mirror of self-doubt. Cheers

Greg Locock
 
Bob,

At the SAE International Truck & Bus Meeting & Exhibition, 18-20 Nov 2002, I attended several papers that dealt with this topic. Of particular interest were a General Motors paper regarding the development of full vehicle FE modeling and an ArvinMeritor presentation regarding the standardization of component analyses strategies. Additionally, it was interesting to learn of the successes that International Truck and Engine has had in implementing systems engineering.

These approaches represent examples of “best practices” that should be further investigated for inclusion into an engineering system. A common thread to some of the papers was that there are certain social aspects to implementing systems engineering approaches and standardizing engineering activities to stimulate greater creativity. But, the intent with these approaches were that these tools were still being used by engineers.

The papers I am referencing are as follows:

2002-01-3072 Integrated Modular Methodology - Philosophy & Strategy To Build Full Vehicle Finite Element Model
Subrato Dhar; William E. Hohnstadt, Jeffrey D. Green, General Motors Corp.

2002-01-3124 Effective FEA for Product Development Support
Scott Kuan, Shan Shih, Rajesh J. Somnay, ArvinMeritor Inc.

2002-01-3084 The Shift from a Component-Based to a Systems Engineering Approach for Electrical and Electronic Product Engineering at International Truck and Engine Corporation
O J Aboyade, International Truck and Engine Corporation Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Greg,

Thanks for your post. You snuck your reply in while I was making my reply to BobPE. I agree with you and I am glad you enjoy your success. I have been developing a Design Intent Architecture Methodology for doing what you describe. I have been concentrating on developing this for managing the engineering activities when the solid model geometry may be created externally, but the methods are the same when the modeling will be done by a designer internally. Here is my abstract that I prepared for the 2003 PTC/USER conference:

Using Design Intent Architecture for Interface Models

Presentation will demonstrate the benefits in using design intent models to communicate and confirm component and system requirements when the solid model geometry itself may be created externally. These interface models can be necessary when a company or division is responsible for the systems integration and specification development but will not be creating the actual part/assembly solid models. This situation arises routinely in many industries, especially in the horizontally integrated automotive industry where each OEM and suppliers may use different systems as their "core" MCAD program. For companies that are using Pro/ENGINEER as their core package, this methodology can be used to maintain and protect corporate intelligence while being able to communicate design intent with customers and suppliers.

The primary goals of this presentation will be to demonstrate how to use design intent models to control the systems design without necessarily having access to the solid modeling geometry. This methodology will allow for the protected use of internally developed calculations such as Pro/Program, BMX and other optimization & calculation routines. It will also be shown how to automate and control creation of drawings within Pro/E and can enable the creation of linked specifications and other external dependencies with this method. Presentation will include examples with simple components such as "O"-rings and suspension bushings as well as complex proprietary assemblies with integrated usage of mechanisms design.

Quality is enhanced due to standardization of the embedded calculations used in this system. Standards and specifications are also controlled from the design intent level also enhancing quality and standardization efforts. The use of this methodology enhances the flow of data between customers and vendors so that the important geometric features can be confirmed and communicated before any solid geometry is generated. Time (and aggravation) is saved in with process because there is never any waiting for models and drawings during the development stage.

I welcome any comments. Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor