Upload
trankien
View
221
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Collaborative Framework for CAD–FEA Interoperability
Computer Mediated Communication [CE6014] Final Project Report - 2012
Student: William Buckley
UCC ID: 112223669
Institution: University College Cork
Course: Masters in Information Technology in
Architecture, Engineering and Construction
Lecturer: Dr. Matevž Dolenc, University of Ljubljana
Date: 05/12/2012
i
Declaration Sheet
I declare that this project, in whole or in part, has not been submitted to any University as an
exercise for a qualification. I further declare that, except where reference is made in the text,
the contents are entirely my own work. The author agrees to the lending or copying of this
document upon request for study purposes, subject to the normal conditions of
acknowledgement.
Author: William Buckley
WILLIAM BUCKLEY November 2012
ii
Abstract 3D CAD software has become established in providing models for downstream CAM/CAE
applications. When those involved can work directly with the original, clean CAD model the
results are significant boosts to product quality, production costs, and time to market.
The growing power of 3D CAD modelling is leading to greater complexity in geometry and
its expression in file formats. This complexity leads to a greater number of file exchange
issues, requiring the models to be reworked by the downstream users. Studies show that FEA
users, for example, are spending as much as 70% of their time fixing CAD models.
(McKenney, 1998)
This report discusses these issues in the context of a hypothetical Irish Small-Medium
Enterprise (SME). The key issues regarding this SME’s interoperability between its CAD and
FEA departments are isolated and identified. It will show how file format testing can aid in
choosing the correct file transfer format. The SME design process methodology is also
reviewed, and a Use Case Model for interoperability is developed.
The results of this report indicate the ACIS SAT file format is the best option for file transfer
between the CAD and FEA software due to the required model topology and the ACIS
derived graphics kernels the software operates with. The Spatial Data Management
Environment (SDME) is developed for the SME design process methodology and a UML
Use Case Model is formed to highlight the issue of interoperability in the system.
1
List of Figures
Figure 1: File formats AutoCAD 2012 can open normally ....................................................... 4 Figure 2: Importable file types in AutoCAD 2012 .................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Exportable file types in AutoCAD 2012 .................................................................... 5 Figure 4: List of file types Inventor 2012 can import ................................................................ 6 Figure 5: List of file types Inventor 2012 can export ................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Model to undergo file interoperability testing; isometric view rendering .................. 9 Figure 7: Model to undergo file interoperability testing, front elevation rendering ................ 10 Figure 8: Inventor 2012 model attributes................................................................................. 10 Figure 9: Abaqus/CAE 6.11 GUI with imported Test Model undergone distortion ............... 12
Figure 10: Use Case Diagram in UML of proposed SDME process ....................................... 13
List of Tables
Table 1: Common CAD software and corresponding Geometric modelling kernels ................ 1
Table 2 : File formats Abaqus/CAE 6.11 can import per module ............................................. 3 Table 3 : File formats Abaqus/CAE 6.11 can export per module .............................................. 4
Table 4: Original Test Model data ............................................................................................. 9 Table 5: Results of importing model in Abaqus/CAE 6.11 ..................................................... 11
2
List of Abbreviations
Symbol Description
2D Two Dimensional
3D Three Dimensional
ACIS Geometric Kernel
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
CAD Computer Aided Drawing
CAE Computer Aided Engineering
CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing
CSCW Computer Supported Collaborative Work
FEA Finite Element Analysis
GUI Graphical User Interface
IAI International Alliance for Interoperability
IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specification
KBE Knowledge Based Engineering
OLE Object Linking and Embedding
PDM Product Data Management
SAT Standard ACIS Text
SDME Spatial Data Management Environment
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
STEP Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data
UML Unified Modelling Language
XML Extensible Markup Language
3
Table of Contents Declaration Sheet ............................................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 1
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
The Interoperability Issue....................................................................................................... 1
Graphics Kernels .................................................................................................................... 1
Case Study .............................................................................................................................. 2
Case Study Constraints ....................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3
File exchange Assessment ...................................................................................................... 3
FEA Software ......................................................................................................................... 3
Abaqus/CAE 6.11-PR3 ....................................................................................................... 3
CAD Software ........................................................................................................................ 4
AutoCAD 2012 ................................................................................................................... 4
Autodesk Inventor 2012 ..................................................................................................... 5
Interoperability Methods ........................................................................................................ 6
Standardised CAD/FEA software ....................................................................................... 6
Standardised CAD/FEA Graphics Kernel .......................................................................... 7
Neutral CAD File Format ................................................................................................... 7
Object Linking and Embedding .......................................................................................... 7
Model Translation............................................................................................................... 8
Modular Design .................................................................................................................. 8
Development of a Use Case Model for design process .......................................................... 8
Results & Discussion ........................................................................................................ 9
File Format Interoperability ................................................................................................... 9
Test Model .......................................................................................................................... 9
Test results and discussion ............................................................................................... 11
Use Case Model for SDME .................................................................................................. 12
Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................................. 13
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 15
1
Introduction The Interoperability Issue Interoperability is the ability for software to interface, couple, and integrate with other
software. The issue of Interoperability has long been found in Computer aided design and
engineering. However, due to a multitude of reasons, the issue has never been adequately
resolved on a global scale. The downstream use of CAD models is of critical importance to
FEA personnel. FEA personnel spend as much as 70% of their time repairing CAD models
from upstream in order to proceed with meshing and simulation. (McKenney, 1998)
According to the 2010 "Collaboration & Interoperability Report" by Longview Advisors, 41
per cent of professionals design, development, and engineering play some sort of role in CAD
interoperability or data exchange activities (Stackpole, 2011). An understanding of the
required interoperability is needed to eliminate these chokepoints in design. The first step in
eliminating this issue is realising that the main cause of interoperability problems arise from
the geometric modelling kernels.
Graphics Kernels Geometric modelling kernels are 3D solid modelling software components used in computer-
aided design packages. As shown in Table 1, most common CAD software for mid to low
end applications do not share the same Graphical modelling kernel.
Company/ Application ACIS derived Parasolid Proprietary
Autodesk/ AutoCAD
Dassault Systèmes / Catia V5
SolidWorks Corp./ SolidWorks
CADKEY Corp./ CADKEY
Unigraphics/ Solid Edge
Parametric Technology Corp./ Pro/ENGINEER
IMS/ TurboCAD
Table 1: Common CAD software and corresponding Geometric modelling kernels
Table 1 records Catia V5 as operating with a proprietary kernel. This kernel is the
Convergence Geometric Modeller (CGM) which is considered to be the most advanced
kernel in the industry and will be seen in more next gen-products. (Stackpole, 2011)
ACIS is an object oriented C++ architecture that enables robust, 3D modelling capabilities. In
late 2000, Dassault Systèmes acquired Spatial Technology, the company that created and
develops ACIS. This was perceived as a move against their main competitor, Autodesk, who
ran the ACIS kernel in the AutoCAD software package. (Suhanova, 2005) In response,
AutoCAD went on to develop its own in-house 3D geometric modelling kernel now known
as Autodesk ShapeManager. While this kernel diverged from ACIS 7.0 in 2001, it still shares
a closely related topology. (Cross, 2001)
The Parasolid kernel has until recently been one of the most widely used graphics kernels. It
is developed by Siemens who also publish the SolidEdge 3D modelling software. However,
in recent years, the Parasolid kernel has declined in use, with ACIS and ACIS derived
proprietary kernels becoming more widespread.
2
Evidently, with the proliferation of various kernels come interoperability issues. This project
aims to highlight this with its case study, highlighted below.
Case Study This project focuses on the interoperability issues between CAD and CAE for a typical SME
in the Irish Engineering sector. As a typical SME will have limited resources, certain
constraints will be applied to this project’s scope. The importation of CAD models to the
FEA software requires a high degree of interoperability. The best solution to this issue is the
focus of this report.
Case Study Constraints
The first constraint is continued usage of current CAD and CAE commercial software suite
packages currently under license to the SME. This will ensure resources are not used in re-
skilling the workforce at large to operate with new software.
For the purposes of this project AutoCAD 2012 and Inventor 2012, both produced by
Autodesk, will be the CAD packages of choice for the theoretical SME. Autodesk is globally
known to be the leading low to mid-range CAD software provider. A review of up to date
CAD software and applications was carried out in assessing the options available to the SME.
It was decided on the basis of Puodžiūnienė’s (2012) review of current trends that AutoCAD
2012 was still relevant and capable of performing into well into the near future.
The chosen CAE package is SIMULIA ABAQUS 6.11, published by Dassault Systèmes, a
world-leading French multinational in the area of CAE. (Suhanova, 2005)
Autodesk AutoCAD 2012 is used for 2D drafting, Autodesk Inventor 2012 is a 3D solid
modeller, and Simulia Abaqus 6.11 is Finite Element Analysis software. The 2D models from
AutoCAD are imported to Abaqus as ‘sketches’ while the 3D solid, shell or wire models from
Inventor are imported as ‘parts’. (Simulia 2012)
Simulia Abaqus 6.11 contains a CAD interface for drafting directly in the software. However,
this CAD module is limited in its drafting capability and it is preferable to import geometric
models previously created in dedicated CAD software, as described above.
As both Autodesk and Dassault Systèmes also produce CAE and CAD software respectively,
they are competing for the same clientele. The issue of interoperability will be most evident
between such large competitors.
3
Methodology File exchange Assessment In order to verify the effectiveness of file transfer between Autodesk Inventor 2012 and
Simulia Abaqus/CAE, and between Autodesk AutoCAD 2012 and Simulia Abaqus/CAE, a
detailed test of a complex artefact was undertaken. Some file formats are more successful
than others at translating data between CAD systems. This test will establish which file
format is best suited to transfer a topologically solid 3D artefact with attributed data.
The effectiveness of each file type for the transfer of artefact data was assessed. The transfer
focused on two movements:
AutoCAD to Abaqus
Inventor to Abaqus
The movements in reverse, i.e. Abaqus to Inventor, were not assessed as alterations to model
geometry are typically carried out in the CAD packages. As such, it is mostly a one way
interoperability issue.
FEA Software
Abaqus/CAE 6.11-PR3
Abaqus/CAE 6.11-PR3 allows the import of artefacts in several different ways. This is due to
its modular format whereby an artefact can be imported at varying stages in the simulation
timeline. The modules which allow import of geometric data are Sketch, Part, Assembly, and
Model. Table 2 indicates which file formats may be imported under each module of
Abaqus/CAE 6.11, while Table 3 highlights the exportable file formats.
Simulia Abaqus 6.11 has an ACIS CAD geometry kernel (.sat).
File Type File Extension Sketch Part Assembly Model
ACIS SAT .sat
IGES .igs, .iges
STEP .stp, .step
AutoCAD DXF .dxf
VDA .vda
Catia V4 .model, .catdata, .exp
Catia V5 .CATPart, .CATProduct
Parasolid .x_t, .x_b, .xmt
Elysium Neutral .enf
Output Database .odb
Substructure .sim
Assembly Neutral .eaf
Abaqus/CAE Database .cae
Abaqus Input File .inp, .pes
Abaqus Output Database .odb
Nastran Input File .dat, .nat, etc.
Ansys Input File .cdb
Table 2 : File formats Abaqus/CAE 6.11 can import per module
4
File Type File Extension Sketch Part Assembly Not Module Specific
ACIS SAT .sat
IGES .igs
STEP .stp
VDA .vda
Output Database .odb
Substructure .sim
OBJ .obj
VRML .wrl
Compressed VRML .wrz
3DXML .3dxml
Table 3 : File formats Abaqus/CAE 6.11 can export per module
Dassault Systems utilises a neutral file type for the transfer of CAD files safely into the
Abaqus environment. This file type is the Elysium Neutral File. Its file extension is .enf. ENF
holds not only geometry information but also 3D annotation and attribute information.
ENF is developed by Elysium Co. Ltd. Elysium is quickly becoming the leading software
company specializing in the handling of 3D geometry in all its guises.
CAD Software
AutoCAD 2012
AutoCAD 2012 greatly extended its interoperability with its market competition through
support of their file type import options. This can be seen as a concession from the
community in its repeated calls for cross platform usage. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the file
formats AutoCAD 2012 can open and import respectively. While AutoCAD converts these
imported files to the Autodesk kernel taxonomy, it does so with minimal loss of geometric
data and error.
Figure 1: File formats AutoCAD 2012 can open normally
5
Figure 2: Importable file types in AutoCAD 2012
AutoCAD 2012 can export models in the file formats shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Exportable file types in AutoCAD 2012
Autodesk Inventor 2012
Autodesk Inventor is 3D solid modelling design software for creating 3D digital prototypes
used in the design, visualization and simulation of products. Figure 4 shows the file formats
Inventor 2012 can import.
6
Figure 4: List of file types Inventor 2012 can import
As the primary 3D modelling software used by this Project’s SME, the export capability of
Inventor 2012 is of primary importance. Figure 5 shows all file types Inventor 2012 can
export 3D artefacts.
Figure 5: List of file types Inventor 2012 can export
Interoperability Methods The challenges of interoperability between CAD and CAE have been well documented
(Rowell, 1997). Several methods to facilitate the interoperability of files between CAD and
FEA have been developed. Hickey (2001), Mocko & Fenves (2003), and Rowell (1997)
elaborated on the challenge of CAD interoperability. They pay particular reference to the
various options available to successfully interoperate CAD with CAE. Though dated, these
methods have remained the most widely used options available to a typical Irish SME. The
methodologies that may be relevant to the case study SME are outlined in this section.
Indeed, a combination of all these options should be used to varying degrees in order to
ensure perfect interoperability.
In order to ensure interoperability, regardless of the chosen method, all relevant parties
should have a basic understanding of FEA. Williams (2000) wrote an informative article on
these knowledge requirements for CAD technicians and non-FEA practicing design team
members.
Standardised CAD/FEA software
This method is most suited to an SME as it is easier to control intra-company file types by
dedicating all concerned software to one supplier’s software suite; e.g. Autodesk,
SolidWorks, etc. However, problems arise when the SME is required to work with larger
companies as a sub-contractor or similar inter-company scenario as frequently arises in the
Engineering sector. This inflexibility in file interoperability would limit business
opportunities and require more resources.
7
From an economic perspective, this method is also found wanting. The widespread adoption
of a company’s software in a sector such as Engineering in Ireland would lead to a ‘cornering
of the market’, inevitably leading to increased prices and loss of innovation. A competitive
CAD/FEA software market is more beneficial to a typical SME than everyone adopting one
company’s software for ease of interoperability.
Standardised CAD/FEA Graphics Kernel
Similar to the above methodology, the standardisation of the underlying graphical modelling
kernel in CAD and FEA software would solve most interoperability problems concerning file
types. This would be due to all software using a common kernel, eliminating the requirement
of multiple file extensions. This method is more economically sound than the above
methodology as companies would continue marketing their brands and software suites while
at their core they were all fully interoperable.
While this method is seeing some adoption, it is limited to parent companies adopting their
own kernel for all CAD, CAE and CAM software they own, allowing high end CAD
software to interoperate with mid and low end CAD within the same company etc.
Neutral CAD File Format
As the most used format for CAD to FEA interoperability, the use of neutral file formats such
as the Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) and the Standard for the Exchange of
Product Model Data (STEP) are very common. STEP is generally regarded as the best neutral
file format as it is an international standard (ISO 10303). It is reliable in transferring most 3D
geometry correctly from and to any software package that supports it.
Interoperability with and neutral data formats was assessed by González et al (2007). They
used the STEP and XML formats for interoperability in in multi-body system simulation and
results were positive when used together.
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) was developed by the International Alliance for
Interoperability (IAI). Lee et al (2003) developed a framework for designing with IFC at its
centre. However, Pazlar and Turk (2008) demonstrated the inadequacies of IFC for the
exchange of CAD data for Building Information Models (BIMs). This is analogous to the
presentation of IFCs to the CAD to FEA exchange. Due to the lack implementation of IFC in
the CAD/CAE community, it is not suitable for such an SME.
Park & Kim (2012) proposed a new format for improving the exchangeability of FEA data in
a collaborative design environment. The format, named PAM, is an example of
interoperability between FEA software; an often overlooked area. Though PAM was shown
to work effectively with many established FEA programmes, it will not be used in this project
due to the scenario of a single FEA package used by the SME.
Object Linking and Embedding
The use of object linking embedding can be used to facilitate the use of multiple files to relate
to an artefact through the use of embedded links. The Windows Object Linking and
Embedding (OLE) technology is the most common example of such an approach. The open
approach of OLE has recently declined, however, with most new OLEs originating from
companies wishing to complement their various software packages.
8
Model Translation
Translation of CAD and FEA models through the use of an intermediary is possible.
However, as most companies are unwilling to release source code for their product, the
creation of such translator technology is resource heavy.
Modern CAD and FEA software have developed sophisticated geometric healing methods for
imprecise imported models. Products such as Elysium's CADdoctor which is built into
Abaqus/CAE go a long way in patching up loose geometry. (Stackpole, 2011) Third party
intermediary products such as Elysium will always exist to solve the more difficult
interoperability issues when they arise. (Stackpole, 2011)
There exists a common misconception that translational software can fundamentally alter a
model, losing a designers intent. Machine Design (2008) highlights the fact that FEA is at
best only 5-10% accurate in any practical engineering model. As such, the cleaning of CAD
models by Third party products such as Elysium has a negligible effect on results. Anything
beyond clearly visible inconsistencies with the original model can also be safely ignored as
the tolerance for FEA in this field is orders of magnitude greater than the 0.01mm required of
a mid-range CAD package. (Machine Design, 2008)
Modular Design
The notion of combining CAD and FEA as a modular software package has seen some
success (Dearth, 2006). Aifaoui et al (2006) introduced a new method improving the
interoperability of the parallel processes of design and analysis. The method they described
was to streamline design and analysis by actively combining them through interoperability
based on the concept standard analysis features and a semantically rich product model. The
idea of modular analyses is used to cut down on design/analysis iteration by applying these
modules to frequently required analysis tasks; thus eliminating the requirements for a formal
analysis and design revision. This would require a sophisticated database to be developed and
ordered modularly.
Development of a Use Case Model for design process Katranuschkov & Schere (1997) developed a modular framework for interoperability
between operational, modelling and functional aspects of the design environment from the
research of the previous 20 years. While it is now dated, the main theory behind the issue of
interoperability is essentially the same and forms the basis for many use case models of
interoperability in use today.
Gujarathi1 & Ma (2011) presented a parametric data model repository to act as the supply
source of input for CAD and CAE models and thus maintain the associative dependences.
This database would act as a catchall for files concerning a model and would allow design
iterations without the need for email and memos as updates would be visible, similar to
Google Docs and DropBox.
For the purposes of this project, a use case diagram developed in UML to illustrate the main
functionality of the proposed design process was created. The basis of this Use Case Model
came from the work of Charles et al. (2006).
9
Results & Discussion
File Format Interoperability
Test Model
The chosen model was of typical front door with panelling acquired from the GrabCAD.com
library (GrabCAD, 2012). This model had a reasonably high level of detail including
irregular curved and angled geometry while remaining a manageable file size at 982kB in its
native Inventor Part File (.ipt) file format.
Shown in Table 4 is the data concerning the model in its original format, as shown in Figure
8.
File Type Size (kB) Face
Count
Density
(g/mm^3)
Volume
(mm^3)
Mass (g)
Test Model Inventor Part
File (.ipt)
982 417 0.001 94541226 94541.226
Table 4: Original Test Model data
Figure 6: Model to undergo file interoperability testing; isometric view rendering
10
Figure 7: Model to undergo file interoperability testing, front elevation rendering
Figure 8: Inventor 2012 model attributes
11
Test results and discussion
As the model was originally designed in Inventor 2012, this was the original starting point for
this interoperability test. From here, the file was exported as different compatible file types to
Abaqus/CAE 6.11. The part module of Abaqus was the point of entry for the import. The
results of importing in Abaqus recorded in Table 5 for all file formats assessed:
Test
Model
File
Type
Size
(kB)
Topology Face
Count
Edge
Count
Vertex
Count
Abaqus
File Size
(kB)
Comment
Original
Inventor
Part File
(.ipt) 982 Solid 417 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Parasolid
Text
(.x_t) 636 Shell 422 1016 600 876 Large
distortion
Parasolid
Binary
(.x_b) 393 Shell 422 1016 600 872 Large
distortion
IGES (.iges) 1503 Solid 422 1152 740 912 Some
distortion
on door
handle
curvature
STEP (.stp) 1044 Solid 422 1051 639 1192 Some
distortion
on door
handle
curvature
ACIS
SAT
(sat) 1589 Solid 417 1130 728 908 None
Table 5: Results of importing model in Abaqus/CAE 6.11
The results of the test indicate there was no way of transferring additional information to the
FEA software with the geometric data.
The imported topology is of vital importance to the overall simulation. As this model was to
replicate a typical solid object, e.g., a timber door, the solid topology was the preferred
option. The requirement of a solid topology was a primary factor on assessing a preferred
transfer file for the SME as most of its work comprised of solid three dimensional models.
The ACIS SAT file was found to be the most stable format in transferring topological and
geometric data. This was expected as both software share a common ancestry in the ACIS
kernel originally developed by Spatial Technology. However, the loss of all attribute data still
occurred as with all other file formats tested. The modular interface of Abaqus/CAE prevents
properties of imported artefacts from being conserved from Autodesk Inventor 2012. Further
study is required to assess the level of data file format stores on attributes. Shown in Figure 9
is the imported test model in the Abaqus/CAE environment undergone geometric distortion.
(Note the difference in the glass panelling with respect to Figure 6 and Figure 7)
12
Figure 9: Abaqus/CAE 6.11 GUI with imported Test Model undergone distortion
In order to assess the export capabilities of AutoCAD 2012, the same model described above
was utilised. As it is a 3D model in the Autodesk Inventor Part File format, a conversion to
.dwg was required to allow opening in AutoCAD 2012. Though the .new .dwg file was larger
at 1569kB than the original Inventor file, the test was not concerned with the interoperability
between AutoCAD and Inventor. Consequently, this AutoCAD Drawing file was deemed a
standalone from the Inventor Part File for the sake of assessing the interoperability between
AutoCAD 2012 and Abaqus/CAE 6.11.
On assessing the interoperability between AutoCAD 2012 and Abaqus/CAE 6.11, it was
found that only 2D geometric data can be transferred. This is due to AutoCAD 2012 lacking
the ability to model in 3D, as discussed previously.
It is the Author’s opinion that AutoCAD 2012 should only be used for importing 2D
‘sketches’ into the Abaqus environment where further three dimensional operations can be
carried out. The import of 2D geometry is far less complex than 3D geometry and as such a
full test was not required.
Autodesk Inventor and AutoCAD run Autodesk Shape Manager, which is derived from ACIS
and is fully compatible with ACIS 7.0 and prior versions. As Abaqus FEA runs on standard
ACIS, it stands to reason that the file type native to ACIS should be used. This file type is
ACIS SAT and has a .sat file extension. SAT files are simply ASCII text files which are
readable with any text editor.
Use Case Model for SDME
Figure 10 shows the proposed Spatial Data Management Environment (SDME) process
developed for this project and originally outlined in Charles et al (2006). While this project
13
focused on the relationship (highlighted in red in Figure 10) between the CAD Actor and the
‘Manage and Structure CAD and FEA data’ use case, it was deemed prudent to frame this
issue in context. The SME would also benefit greatly by noting precisely where the
interoperability issue arose with respect to the rest of the design process.
Figure 10: Use Case Diagram in UML of proposed SDME process
Conclusions & Recommendations
The working relationship between a designer and simulator will always require a direct
method of communication due to requirements of design loops and revision. The iterative
nature of this design process has been shown to be undermined by failures in the transfer of
artefacts between CAD and CAE software.
ACIS SAT has been shown to be the best transfer file type between Autodesk Inventor and
Simulia Abaqus due to the common ACIS kernel ancestry. Its use as a transfer file between
CAD and FEA leads to minimal loss or distortion of geometric data attributed to a regular
SME engineering artefact with a solid topology.
A Use Case Diagram was developed around a Spatial Data Management Environment
(SDME). This is proposed to the SME as a method of highlighting the areas of
interoperability within the company’s structure. It is recommended the SME adopts the
SDME process in its company structure.
The work of Li et al (2005) reviewed the major methodologies and technologies of
collaborative CAD systems to support design teams geographically dispersed. Their comment
on the availability of 3D visualisation capabilities across the internet can be seen as
advantageous for an SME where cost and distance is concerned. Such new, cheap technology
14
should be utilised by the SME in order to remain competitive. Further study is required in this
area.
15
Bibliography
1. Aifaoui, N, Deneux, D, and Soenen, R 2006, ‘Feature-based interoperability between
design and analysis processes’, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17, pp. 13-27.
2. Charles, S, Ducellier, G & Eynard, B 2006, ‘CAD and FEA integration in a
simulation data management environment based on a knowledge based system’,
Proceedings of TMCE 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
3. Cross R 2001, ‘Autodesk Announces Plan to Develop A New 3D Solid-Modeling
Kernel Named "Shape Manager" Based on ACIS 7.0 Kernel Licenced From Spatial
Corp’, retrieved from Geocities October, 2009[online], available:
http://www.oocities.org/wpsmoke/inventormdt/inventorkernel.html, accessed 12
November 2012.
4. Dearth, D.R 2006, ‘FEA inside CAD simplifies complex analysis’, Machine Design,
78, 22, pp. 84-87, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 November
2012.
5. González, M, González, F, Luaces, A & Cuadrado, J 2007, ‘Interoperability and
neutral data formats in multibody system simulation.’, Multibody System Dynamics,
18, 1, pp. 59-72.
6. GrabCAD, [online], available: http://grabcad.com/library/door-with-sides, accessed
12 November 2012.
7. Gujarathi1, G.P, & Ma, S 2011, ‘Parametric CAD/CAE integration using a common
data model’, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 30, 3, pp. 118-132.
8. Hickey, T 2001, ‘Interoperability: The Key to Collaboration’, Computer Graphics
World, 24, 9, p. 20, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 November
2012.
9. Katranuschkov, P, & Scherer, R.J 1997, ‘Framework for interoperability of building
product models in collaborative work environments.’ Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
Computing in Civil and Building Engineering.
16
10. Lee, K, Chin, S, & Kim, J 2003, ‘A Core System for Design Information Management
Using Industry Foundation Classes’, Computer-Aided Civil & Infrastructure
Engineering, 18, 4, pp. 286-298, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30
November 2012.
11. Li, W, Lu, W, Fuh, J, & Wong, Y 2005, ‘Collaborative computer-aided design—
research and development status’, Computer-Aided Design, 37, 9, pp. 931-940,
Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 November 2012.
12. McKenney, D 1998, ‘Model Quality: The Key to CAD/CAM/CAE Interoperability’,
International TechneGroup Incorporated.
13. Mocko, G.M, & Fenves, S.J 2003, ‘A Survey of Design-Analysis Integration Issues’
US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
14. Park, B, & Kim, J 2012, ‘A sharable format for multidisciplinary finite element
analysis data’, Computer-Aided Design, 44, 7, pp. 626-636, Academic Search
Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 November 2012.
15. Pazlar, T, Turk, Z 2008, ‘Interoperability in practice: geometric data exchange using
the IFC standard’, ITcon, 13, Special Issue Case studies of BIM use, pp. 362-380,
available: http://www.itcon.org/2008/24, accessed 12 November 2012.
16. Puodžiūnienė, N 2012, ‘Review of Contemporary CAD Systems in Industry and
Education', Mechanika, 18, 2, pp. 246-250, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost,
viewed 15 November 2012.
17. Rowell, A 1997, ‘The challenge of CAD interoperability’, Computer Graphics World,
20, 6, p. 57, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 November 2012.
18. SIMULIA (2012) Abaqus Online Documentation [online], available:
https://www.sharcnet.ca/Software/Abaqus/6.11.2/books/hhp/default.htm, accessed 12
November 2012.
19. Stackpole, B 2011, ‘Putting a New Face on CAD Interoperability’, Design News, 66,
7, pp. 42-44, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 5 November 2012.
17
20. Suhanova, A 2005, ‘The Stand of Autodesk: Good to Great’, CAD/CAM/CAE
Observer, 6, 24, pp. 7-12.
21. ‘Translation tools make CAD models FEA-ready’ 2008, Machine Design, 80, 17, pp.
102-105, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 November 2012
22. Williams, B 2000, ‘6 things all engineers should know before using FEA’ Design
News, 55, 24, pp. 85-87.