Getting Designs off to a Better Start: Conceptual Design

By barb schmitz | Published: June 3, 2011

The very earliest stage of product development, the conceptual phase, plays a very critical role in the eventual success of a new product. Choosing the wrong concept can lead manufacturers down a path to increased design complexity, mandatory redesign, missed deadlines, and growing product cost, and at its worst, can literally bankrupt a business. Assumptions and decisions made at this stage will have a tremendous impact on the product’s design, manufacturing and life so selecting the right concept is probably the most crucial decision manufacturers will make.

During the conceptual stage, engineers and designers rapidly explore and refine ideas. Design participants will engage in free-flowing collaborative brainstorming, exploring a range of design options—in the form of sketches, 2D drawings and layouts, and 3D models—until a final concept design is chosen. Concepts can be start out as designers sketching on paper, though eventually more realistic models need to be created to mimic the function, movement, and look of the real product.

The concept phase, however, isn’t simply a group of people ogling over highly stylized rendered images of concept designs. In many industries, like industrial equipment, aerospace and defense, etc., functional requirements outweigh the importance of aesthetics and styling. In these cases, the design team must take into account the functional requirements of the design (design intent), along with customer needs, manufacturability, environmental issues, and BOM cost issues. In some industries, such as high tech or consumer goods, the functional requirements may be secondary to styling issues, such as curved, sweeping surfaces.

Design intent is the intelligence that defines the fit and function requirements of the product. The ultimate success of the final product hinges upon design intent being captured early; encapsulated in the concept model and maintained throughout the design cycle—all without stifling creativity. Pie-in-the-sky concepts won’t hold up well during the mechanical design process when limiters like physics, mathematics, manufacturability, industry standards, and customer requirements come to bear.

One common mistake is focusing in on one concept too early in the process, often due to outside pressures (marketing demos needed for trade shows, consumer retail cycles, R&D budgets, and competitors).  The result is often bad design decisions, forcing designers, now committed to a concept, to work around complications as they rear their ugly heads throughout the rest of the development process.

In order to prevent such disasters, manufacturers need to really take their time during this crucial phase. Don’t narrow in on one concept too soon and assign multiple designers to flesh out multiple concepts concurrently. Then have several concepts detailed to the point at which the design team can determine with the highest level of confidence, which designs will work. After all, if a design isn’t going to fulfill its design requirements, this is the time to find out.

Tools of the Trade

To facilitate this iterative process, engineers must have the design tools that are very flexible as design concepts at this stage are fluid, changing often. Once created, proposed design concepts—whether in the form of sketches, 2D drawings or 3D models—must be reviewed by the extended design team and perhaps customers, and refined quickly based on their input.  Iterations should be constant at this stage so the design tools must be easy and intuitive enough to be used by non-CAD specialists as well. Often these tools may be different from the MCAD tools used during the detailed design phase.

When conceptual models are handed off to the engineering team and recreated in a MCAD system, not only does this lead to inefficiency in recreating what already exists, but often designs often change dramatically.  This misinterpretation of concept models is often caused by a communication gap between conceptual or industrial designers and the mechanical engineers tasked with creating the 3D CAD model on which the final product will be built. This disconnect between the design/styling team and the rest of the product development team often leads to loss of design intent as designs progress through the design cycle.

One way to mitigate this risk is to choose a suite of design tools that span both concept and detailed design stages. By offering bi-directional interoperability, these tools can reduce the risk of this communication gap and eliminate the need for engineers to reinterpret or re-create designers’ conceptual models, safeguarding design intent and facilitating the re-use of design data so mechanical engineers are not starting from scratch once concept models are approved.

When conceptual design tools and MCAD tools have interoperability with each other, mechanical engineers can simply bring approved sketches, drawings, even 3D concept models into their CAD software and then get to work further refining the model into a true 3D digital model or virtual prototype that can be ultimately designed, tested, and built.

The Tools Used in Conceptual Design

By barb schmitz | Published: September 1, 2011 

 

When designers are provided with the right tools during the conceptual design stage of new product development, they are empowered to think broadly about a problem; visualize, explore, probe, and fully evaluate many ideas quickly; and ultimately, generate several concept designs that will lead to a better product.

These tools should be intuitive and capable of quickly creating realistic models that can be shared and evaluated by others on the design team. These tools must also be flexible, so designs—still fluid and changeable—can be iterated on and recreated quickly based on design input.

Often as a result of this laundry list of requirements—which are quite different from those of an engineer’s CAD software used for more detailed engineering design—manufacturers end up using myriad of concept design tools from multiple vendors that offer little integration with downstream applications.  As a result, these concepts models must often be recreated in engineers’ CAD program, often losing design intent in the process.

Use of Multiple Tools Multiplies Downstream Issues

In a recent study entitled, Trends in Concept Design, conducted by PTC, the majority of participants (51%) said that they capture design concepts and ideas electronically in the form of 3D data. So what software tools are being used during this exploratory phase of design? The lion’s share of participants in the PTC survey (61%) responded that they use 3D CAD modeling and surfacing tools to quickly create a multitude of potential product designs. Based on the survey results, manufacturers use many different tools during this phase of development.

The use of multiple tools from multiple vendors often complicates the process of concept design and creates problems downstream when concept models move to detailed design.  According to the PTC survey, participants who reported that they used tools from multiple software vendors during the concept phase of new product development were three to seven times more likely to have to recreate data due to incompatibility.

According to the survey respondents, companies using design tools from two vendors were three times more likely to have to recreate data later in the design cycle, compared to those using tools from a single vendor. Those using tools from five different vendors were seven times more likely to have to recreate data, than those buying tools from just one vendor.

One way to avoid these issues is to choose a suite of design tools that is capable of handling all phases of design from concept to detailed design through manufacturing. These tools offer bi-directional interoperability, reducing the risk of miscommunication and eliminating the need for engineers to reinterpret or re-create designers’ conceptual models, safeguarding design intent and facilitating the re-use of design data so mechanical engineers are not starting from scratch once concept models are approved.

Standardizing on one suite of design tools can facilitate brainstorming, manage the exploration of ideas, and aid in the development of product concepts within a single environment. By integrating all these efforts into the same software platform, product concept data is managed in a single, cross-disciplinary data repository, which enables team members to access the information in a timely, secure manner. In addition, customers—through the use of intuitive modeling tools—can collaborate and provide feedback to ensure that concepts will ultimately meet their requirements.

When conceptual design tools and MCAD tools have interoperability with each other, the fruits of designers’ labor—sketches, drawings, and 3D concept models—can be seamlessly brought into engineers’ CAD software where they can get to work further refining the model into a true 3D digital model or virtual prototype that can be ultimately designed, tested, and built.

Mechatronics Management (Part 1): Mechanical Aspects

April 21, 2011 | Categories: Lifecycle Insights Projects, Software Applications and Systems

 

For the past three years, I’ve headed out to Phoenix AZ for the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software to talk with numerous providers and users of engineering software. The discussions are always pretty forward-looking, almost bleeding edge instead of leading edge. In the analyst briefing on System Modeling and Analysis, which was led by Allan Behren (who goes by the twitter handle @AllanBehrens), one of the engineering IT leader for For, Richard Riff, made a statement that made my ears perk up (the following is a paraphrase).

The Ford Fusion has 142 processors in it. We no longer split up systems for development, hand them off to various teams and then integrate at the end. We actually work a lot more like a software company where we compile builds on a weekly basis. Everything is so integrated we just can’t wait until the end of development anymore.

Richard, please correct me for any misstatements I might have made above.

From my perspective, Ford isn’t alone in this stance. There is so much software, processors and electronic systems in new products today that manufacturers are having to rethink their development processes. Which brings us to an interesting question: how can enterprise systems, like PDM and PLM, best support mechatronics development? Today, it seems like there’s an increasing focus on how all of the product’s items and the artifacts that describe them should be managed in one place. But there can be quite a wide range of support capabilities that are offered.

Let’s take a look at each level and understand the advantages and benefits of each.

This series of four posts looks at the management of items, data and bills of material for mechatronic products. It is split into mechanical aspects, electrical aspect, software aspects and integrated aspects.

Managing Mechanical Aspects of the Product

For the most part, the capabilities of enterprise systems like PLM and PDM in managing mechanical items, data and BOMs is one of the most mature in the context of a mechatronic product.

Managing Assemblies of Mechanical Components

Many CAD applications use what I like to call a federated approach to building up an assembly. Each mechanical component is often represented by a single part file. Those separate part files are then placed together to form an assembly, which is a separate file also. As those individual parts and assembly files change, you run into a configuration management problem. You need to know which version and iteration of each was used on a particular date for testing, a ramp-up run on the shop floor or was sent to a supplier. Most PLM and PDM systems extract and understand these relationships between these artifacts.

Managing Design Deliverables

Also, individual deliverables such as engineering drawings are separate files. These files have direct relationships to the parts or assemblies that they represent. And the same configuration problem that exists between part and assembly files also exists with their deliverables. Most PLM and PDM systems understand and manage these relationships.

Extracting Information for the Enterprise

In addition to managing configuration issues, the information in these artifacts are extracted and used for broader enterprise purposes. The structure within the assembly is often used to generate an as-designed bill of material (BOM). Additionally, the solid models of the assemblies or parts can be extracted for visualization purposes.

Conclusions and Questions

Today’s products are increasingly mechatronic. This series of four posts take a look at different aspects of mechatronics management. From a mechanical perspective, it is important to manage the configuration issues for the relationships between parts and assemblies, items and their deliverables such as drawings and to be able to extract information from these artifacts like BOMs and visualization models for the rest of the enterprise.

Now it’s your turn to weigh in. What’s missing in terms of capabilities for the management of mechanical design? Sound off and let us know what you think.

Creo 1.0 and Digital Prototyping

In a recent article, I said Creo 1.0 adds value to business in many ways you might not have thought of.  But nearly everyone has thought about digital prototyping. It’s one of the most powerful reasons company’s use CAD systems. It saves money on building physical prototypes, improves communication and product quality, and encourages innovation as teams explore options throughout product design.

But digital prototyping isn’t the same everywhere. As Deelip Menezes says in his blog, “just like PLM, it means different things to different people.”  The process is simple enough:

Design > Analyze > Test > Build. 

The complexity is in the details. Who designs? What do you leverage, what do you create from scratch? Who does the analyzing? Who tests? What if problems turn up? How do you communicate problems? What tools do you use?

And we’re not just talking about mechanical components, either. A good approach to digital prototyping considers electrical  components, cables, harnesses. In this post, I’ll tell you exactly what PTC means when it says Creo supports digital prototyping—from the first models to optimizing the final product design.

Modeling

You can’t read very far in this blog without hearing about Creo’s modeling capabilities. Whether you’re sketching out new ideas or crafting a full-blown parametric model, Creo has an app for you and everyone else on your team.

But what about data you don’t create from scratch? Product development typically includes mechanical parts from vendors or parts leveraged from previous designs. Of course you also need to fit in those electrical systems–PC boards, harnesses, etc. Creo’s AnyData Adoption is designed specifically to overcome interoperability issues that arise with trying to use data from multiple sources.  You can even combine data created with a direct modeler with data created with a parametric modeler.

Analyzing and Testing

I talked at length about preparing models for digital prototyping in a CAE/FEA workflow here.  We’ve also posted some good demos showing structural analysis capabilities here. So, I’ll just tell you about a few other opportunities for analyzing and testing digital prototypes with Creo.

Creo View ECAD brings visual inspection capabilities to your review. Teams can see mechanical and electrical information from multiple sources and places in one app. Use it to see how your design will perform in a real-world environment.  Extensions and partner apps provide a number of advanced tools too.

You don’t have to be a simulation expert to perform many types of analyses either. That means designers can try out simpler analyses of their systems early on, creating a more simulation-driven design environment. These early tests save time and impact the number of physical prototypes needed later. Plus, they free up analysts for more complex jobs.

Communicating

Not everybody is an expert, and that’s a problem. An analyst can see many things clearly, but articulating solutions isn’t always so straightforward. That’s where Creo’s AnyRole Apps can help:

• Creo View MCAD and Creo View ECAD both provide comprehensive capabilities for viewing, interrogating, and marking up models. For fast, efficient design reviews, these apps ensure everybody can provide feedback, no matter their area of expertise.
• Creo Direct is the suggested tool for analysts who don’t want to or can’t spend time worrying about design intent of mechanical parts. Quickly make a change, communicate it clearly to the team, and let Creo and the CAD specialists worry about the parametrics.

Fixing/optimizing

Once your team is clear on the problems and solutions, it’s time to optimize the design. If you’ve been working with various tools, like Creo Simulate, Creo View MCAD, and Creo Schematics, that may sound messy. But underlying Creo is a common data model that ensures changes to a design in one tool carries through to the data in any tool. We like to say that with each app, you’re writing information into a chapter…but each chapter belongs to the same book.

Creo 1.0 supports a powerful and effective digital prototyping workflow. It’s just one process that gets a lot easier with the range of tools available with the Creo family of design products. I’ll tell you about several more processes in the weeks ahead.

Unifying ECAD and MCAD: Blurring the Lines Between Disciplines

By barb schmitz | Published: May 25, 2011

 

Nearly all products today—ranging from cars to industrial equipment to medical devices—contain some type of electronic device. The integration of electronic components in products complicates the design process because it requires the unification of what has traditionally been viewed as two diverse disciplines: electrical and mechanical engineering.

Electronics are being developed and produced faster than ever in order to stay ahead of the rising tide of demanding consumers who continuously push for smaller, more intelligent products. As the design of electronic devices becomes more complex, finding harmony between the process of electronic and mechanical design becomes more critical. In order to design complex electronics faster and better than ever, manufacturers must unify their design processes so the flow of design data across the electro-mechanical divide is smooth and efficient.

The challenge for product development teams is to manage and work with these increasingly interdependent processes—mechanical and electronic—while adhering to product timelines. All this increases the need for effective design collaboration between the electronic and mechanical aspects of a design, where the demand for smaller and more functional packaging requires the two disciplines to be completely in synch at all stages of design.

Board assemblies often now hold all of the external hardware (connectors, keypads, displays) while the product case assembly neatly exposes these to the user. As a result, packaging has evolved from being a simple container to a tightly integrated part of the product.  As a result, a product’s packaging must account for the physical aspects of the internal electronics, while the electronics assembly—the circuit board design—must allow for the physical style and functionality of the package design.

Integrating mechanical and electronic design is, therefore, crucial. Design tools that allow for the bi-directional flow of design data between the ECAD and MCAD environments are becoming a requirement for successful collaborative product development. In the ECAD environment, this translates to the ability to import and seamlessly integrate 3D component data from the MCAD system, then pass a full and accurate 3D representation of the board assembly back to the MCAD system.

By being able to provide comprehensive board data to the mechanical designers earlier in the product development process, design flow is enhanced and the need for a prototype board assembly during mechanical design stage is reduced. Manufacturers must assure that their ECAD system supports 3D modeling at the component level and the ability to export accurate 3D design data in order to enable the necessary interaction between the mechanical and electrical environments to enable collaborative MCAD-ECAD co-design.

Mechatronics: Integrating the silos of design

Taking that integration one step further is mechatronics design. By definition, mechatronics is multidisciplinary engineering system design that integrates the various disciplines—mechanical, electrical, computer, control, and systems design engineering. Integrating the design of a product’s mechanical, electronic, and electrical components during the earliest stages of design and throughout the design cycle is becoming crucial to manufacturers under increasing pressures to design and produce innovative products on time and within budget limits.

To streamline development using the mechatronics approach, design teams in each discipline must work in parallel and collaborate continuously on design, prototyping and deployment. Manufacturers must adapt concurrent design and systems engineering processes that enable real-time sharing of design data between electrical, mechanical and control systems engineering.

Many manufacturers are now using simulation software to detect and eliminate integration issues, enabling them to optimize full system performance virtually.  These tools simulate the interaction between mechanical and electrical subsystems throughout the design process.