Automated Engineering Supply Chain Integration NASA-ESA Workshop on Aerospace Product Data Exchange ESA/ESTEC , Noordwij

1. Automated Engineering Supply Chain Integration NASA-ESA Workshop on Aerospace Product Data Exchange ESA/ESTEC , Noordwijk, The Netherlands April 9-12, 2002 Andrew Chinn +44 1223 237 111 arc@transcendata.com

2. Product Development Engineering Supply Chain Integration • All collaborative engineeringprocesses and technologiesrequire effective supply chain integration with practical and efficientCAD/CAM/CAE interoperability • This presentation aims to: • Explore the requirements • Identify potential problems • Discuss possible solutions • Provide real case studies

3. Rapid Prototyping Graphics Suppliers Analysis Mfg. Doc. Manual Parts CAM CMM DMU/Vis. Robotics “Model-centric” Organisations • Engineering organisations depend on 3D part data • Multiple applications require immediate access to data Image courtesy of BAE Systems

4. Typical CAD Model Data Work Flow • Translation to/from main suppliers • Translation between internal systems • Different “best in class” applications Aerospace OEM • Receiving files from different OEM systems • Often working with customer systems • Translation between multiple internal systems • Translation to/from OEM and suppliers Tier 1 Engine Design and Manufacture • Receive 1000’s of files from different systems • Need to send quality models back to customers • Different applications for the data • Unable to invest in systems of customers • Often single CAD systems only • Maybe also translation between suppliers Analysis Tooling Casting Machining Prototyping

5. Shared Product Data Engineering Supply Chain Integration Lifecycle (Right Time) OEM Suppliers Quality (Right Form) Distribution (Right Person) Customers Partners Management (Right Data) Key to effective supply chain integration is to automate, track and manage the process of sharing product data between OEMsand their suppliers, partners and customers

6. Upstream CAD Application Interoperability Data Exchange Downstream CAx CAD/CAM/CAE Systems Integration • Central to overall Supply Chain integration is CAD/CAM/CAE Systems Integration (C3SI) • Data interoperability for the many and varied end user systems and applications • Different systems have different requirements • Different applications have different requirements Require effective exchange and sharing of CAx modeldata between different systems and applications

7. Typical Integration Challenges • Getting the right electronic data to your collaborators • 2D drawings or 3D solid, surface, or wire frame models? • Detailed modifiable models or simple external representations? • Are exchange requirements up to date? • Providing data in an immediately usable form • Seamless flow of data between applications? • Correct CAD system and format? • Do quality or structure issues require manual rework? • Transmitting data quickly, inexpensively, and reliably • Are iterations necessary to get it right? • Costly overnight shipments? • Securing sensitive information • Can competitors get my proprietary data?

8. Common Data Integration Obstacles • Quality of the Native CAD Data • Effective Data Exchange and Model Re-use • The Data Exchange Process • Understanding Customer / Supplier Requirements • Delivery of Data from the Producer to the Consumer • Data Management Lets look at each of these obstacles to integration… Source: TranscenData client assessments

9. Obstacle: Quality of Native CAD Data • Native CAD data may appear good but actually have inherent problems which limit exchangeability and usability in the consumer application • Poor exchange results in massive rework and / or mode re-creation! Internal Void Crack Crack under fillet Pinched Face

10. Obstacle: Effective Data Exchange • Translated data is often incomplete and unusable • Translator errors, deficiencies • Incorrect usage • Too much, too little, or wrong data • Incompatibilities betweenCAD systems • Mathematical tolerances • Different mathematical representations • Translation, automation and standards • Poor exchange results in massive rework and / or re-creation requiring extensive personnel time and allowing potential errors to be introduced

11. Obstacle: Ineffective Data Exchange! Same file in different CAD systems!

12. Obstacle: The Data Exchange Process • Usually no single, consistent, reliable process across the supply chain! • Each group has a defacto expert • Each with their own process • Each addresses some issues but usually not all • Manual process with multiple steps • Error prone • Inconsistent results • Time consuming • Personnel time is more valuable and can be better utilized to positively impact your products through value added activities!

13. Obstacle: Customer/Supplier Requirements • Customer / supplier requirements are frequently not: • Understood • Accurate • Up-to-date • Incomplete, or unusable data supplied • You may send data several times • Recipient may re-work or re-create data • Suppliers reluctant to tell you they can’t use your data • Potential for introducing errors • Time and cost • Supplier costs are passed back to you! • Very significant factor in reducing your time to market!

14. Obstacle: Delivery of Data From Producer • Myriad of Issues • Method: paper drawings, media, bulletin boards, intra/internet, private mailboxes, email… • Security: protecting corporate assets • Speed: electronic access limitations • Incompatibilities: bad media, unusable files • Reliability: physical and electronic • File sizes: limits, speed • Each recipient has different requirements • Difficult to maintain all manually and remain effective • Multiple re-transmissions are common • More project delays! • More non-value added personnel time!

15. Obstacle: Product Data Management • Data exchange is often informal and outside of a controlled process and can result in suppliers providing bad parts or tooling • Suppliers may manufacture wrong parts! • Mismatches are costly to resolve!

16. The Cost of Poor Supply Chain Integration • Financial cost of Non Value-added Personnel time • Manual translations • Repeated translations when poor quality • Model cleanup and repair time • Customer data indicates 20-25% of files typically have data exchange problems that result in 4+ hours of clean-up, re-creation, or other repeated efforts • Product quality - design variants emerge with rework • Customer and supplier relationships suffer • Project delays - all of the above contribute to project delays and a later time to market

17. CAD System Downstream Applications Finite Element Modelling Rework Rapid Prototyping Product Design Rework NC Programming Rework =20-70% x 4 Rework Data Exchange Rework Costs: Downstream Rework Explosion

18. Costs: Independent USA Survey Results • The National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States reveals that CAD model quality and poor data interoperability costs the U.S. Automotive Industry in excess of $1Billion annually • Similar independent studies have found that the problem crosses all applications, industries and geographical boundaries

19. Solving Data Integration Obstacles • Address CAD/CAM/CAE Systems Integration Issues • Communication, Procedures and Training • Quality of the Native CAD Data • Effective Data Exchange and Model Re-use • Address Supply Chain Integration - Data Distribution and Management Issues • The Data Exchange Process • Understanding Customer / Supplier Requirements • Delivery of Data from the Producer to the Consumer • Data Management

20. Communication, Procedures and Training • Communication and awareness • Make CAD designers aware of downstream applications Designers meet with downstream users of their data • Observe and understand downstream problems and issues “Hey, could you release your CAD model to me for analysis before you fillet it?” • Modelling procedures to avoid problems • Determine how bad features are created and avoid them • Adopt proactive model quality initiatives • Use tools to automate the management of the data exchange • Training • Simply understanding export options of a system is beneficial • Understand system limitations and supported entities

21. Direct OEM CAD System A Supplier CAD System B IGES STEP Model Quality (Interoperability) Testing Implement CAD Model Quality Solutions • Maintain high-quality CAD models by validation and testing throughout design, modification and exchange processes • Adopt upstream CAD model quality testing tools • CAD model quality standards • Test model quality to eliminate future application problems • Standalone or CAD system embedded proprietary tools • Be Proactive rather than Reactive

22. Intelligent Translation and Repair Tools • Automatic translators and tools may work fine the majority of the time but not all of the time • There is a percentage of potentially expensive failures and when automation fails there is “NOWHERE TO GO” • Intelligent translation and repair tools provide those options and give the user “SOMEWHERE TO GO” • Repair, Defeature and Flavour topology and geometry Automatic Data Exchange + Downstream Application Automatic Intelligent Repair CAD + Interactive Exchange Tools

23. Implement Solutions for Interoperability • Implement CAD/CAM/CAE interoperability solutions to achieve system and application data integration CAD System Downstream Applications DesignRelease Finite Element Modelling X Rework Rapid Prototyping Quality Testing Product Design X Data Exchange and Repair Tools Rework NC Programming X Rework Rework Data Exchange Rework = 10% X Rework

24. Address Distribution and Management • Essential to consider the overall process of data management and distribution internally and externally • Considerable human effort and iterations are involved which are prone to error, for example you need to know: • The recipients CAD system and required format • The preferred translation paths and options • The delivery and notification mechanisms • All of these tasks are small “5 minute” processes but all are prone to errors and the cumulative effort is significant • There are often a number of people simply managing the data transmission process

25. Establish Supply Chain Integration Factors • A myriad of factors prevent good CAD data translation • Each factor must be considered for consistent high quality • Each recipient has unique requirements • Need to consider all of these factors and utilize “best practices” to create a successful translation path for each exchange Source CAD Translator Options Source CAD System CAD Data Type Best Source CAD Translator CAD Model Quality Best Practices Neutral Format Compatibility Structure Requirements Target CAD Translators Options File Name / Size Restrictions Healing Requirements Best Target CAD Translator Target CAD System

26. Data Exchange Center - Data Management User Profiles KnowledgeBase Translation Engine(Data Exchange) DataManager • Customer/Supplier Info • Requirements • Standards • Documents • Expertise • Best Practices • Requirements • IGES • STEP • Native • Parasolid • ACIS ... • Store • Retrieve • Access • RevisionControl InternetFTPOther Customer Network Users Suppliers Automated Exchange Process Technology

27. Case Study - Aircraft Engine OEM (UK) • Application • CAD to FEA and manufacturing applications • Integration Problems • CAD models transfer but bad geometry causes meshing problems • Often months meshing models - small features, bad geometry • Require translation to analysis and mesh first time • Solution Implemented • Initiated model quality project • Multiple network licences of CAD repair tool and user training • Results • Repair tool to prepare models for analysis and identify problems • Days reduced to hours and months to days for lead times • Translating and meshing models previously not feasible

28. Case Study - Aircraft Engine Tier One (USA) • Application • CATIA to ANSYS for FEA • Integration Problems • 20%-25% success rate for CAD to FEA • Analyze CATIA parts &assemblies in ANSYS • Minimize re-work of geometry • Solution Implemented • CAD data repair and healing operations on import to FEA • Results • 90%-95% success rate • 50%-60% using automatic data repair processing • 20%-25% using manual interactive repair tools • 10%-15% required changes back in CATIA

29. Typical Geometry Issues Encountered Overly defined NURB surface converted to cylinder within analysis tolerance Edge-Surface deviations Twisted, folded and self intersecting surfaces Discontinuous surfaces

30. Problem for Defeaturing for Analysis • Often experience translation of a perfect solid but … • Model defeaturing remains a major re-use problem • Removal of unrealistic/unmeshable parts • Removal of meshing constraints • Typical operations • Detection / Removal of short edges • Collapse of small sliver faces • Joining chains of short edges • Joining of regions of small faces • This frequently contributes to signifcant analysis lead times and can be a major roadblock in supply chain integration Original and defeatured part with holes removed and faces joined

31. Typical Problem of Unwanted Data • Need to filter out unwanted data • Need to decide what is needed • Example - Cosmetic Threads • Open disconnected cylinders • Imagine this on a full engine block! • System dependant • Pro/Engineer • Format independent • STEP shown

32. Case Study - Exchange Process Automation • Application • Customer/supplier connectivity • Data translation, exchange and transmission • Different sites, different systems, partners and suppliers • Interoperability Issues • Inefficient data exchange process across whole organisation • Several people engaged in managing and performing data exchanges • Solution Implemented • Automatic data exchange management and distribution tool • CAD model quality and data translation tools incorporated into system • Results • Worldwide usage by company • Over 1500 transactions per month and suppliers • Estimated £1.3 million annual saving in data transmission • Estimated £5-7 million in time to market savings alone

33. Full Service Suppliers Multi-CADEnvironment Pro/E Suppliers AutoCAD Suppliers UG Suppliers CATIA Suppliers • Automated Data Exchange Mechanism • Command Control Center for Supplier Collaboration • Supplier Knowledge Base • Customer/Supplier Data Exchange Methodology • Full Service Supplier Design Sharing Requirements • Focused Personnel and Computing Resources Full Service Supplier Support for Design Design Teams Design Sharing DEX SERVER * SupplierProfiles Web Server Translation Engine Data Vault Transmission Link * Internal or external to Xerox

34. Xerox Quote “Yearly resource savings of $1.8 Million alone are the direct result of our transition to DEXcenter’s more effective and automated electronic data exchange process. DEXcenter tightly integrates our supply chain resulting in more efficiency and faster time to market.” Bud Krayer - CAD/CAM Project Manager Xerox Research & Technology Corporate Engineering Center

35. Solving Supply Chain Integration Issues • Quality of native CAD data • Incorporate CAD model quality tools into the design process • Safety net quality check at design release • Effective data exchange • Best Practices exchange • Translators, methods, translator options, repair, flavoring • Product Data Distribution • Employ an automated, consistent, reliable, easy-to-use process • Customer/supplier requirements • Customer profiles used automatically; easy to maintain • Delivery of Data • Secure, reliable, internet transmission with encryption • Data Management • Secure access, track and control of data

36. AutoCAD Model Quality Data Repair Customer and Supplier Requirements 2D Legacy Migration TranscenData and Industry “Best Practices” https Internet http Process and Data Management email ftp Other Applications TranscenData Supply Chain Integrations

37. Contact Information TranscenData Europe Limited Email: euinfo@transcendata.com Telephone: +44 (0) 1223 237 111 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 234 192