Undergraduate Thesis 15 credits

WORK METHOD FOR 3D MODELING

IN PRO/ENGINEER AT
ATLAS COPCO ROCK DRILLS AB
Stefan Kandelid
Bachelor degree in Mechanical Engineering 180 credits
rebro May 2012

Examinator: Johan Kjellander

ARBETSMETOD FR 3D MODELLERING I PRO/ENGINEER

rebro universitet
Institutionen fr naturvetenskap och teknik
701 82 rebro

rebro University
School of Science and Technology
SE-701 82 rebro, Sweden

ABSTRACT
This is a 15 credits thesis in mechanical engineering performed at the PLM Solutions
group at the Rocktec division within Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB, rebro, during spring
2012.
When designers working with 3D CAD modeling uses different work methods in
Pro/ENGINEER (Pro/E) it sometimes results in problems. It is also a problem when
designers do not follow the specific work methods defined by Atlas Copco.
The purpose of this thesis was to identify the most common problems with 3D models at
Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB (RDE) rebro related to work methods, for example why
models crash, why they cannot be checked in to Pro/Intralink or why there are unstable
references.
The objective was to present a work method to avoid one or two of the most severe
problems identified at RDE rebro.
To achieve the objective I started with going through the CAD support call data base, to
find out in what areas the organization needed help from the CAD support. The result
shows that the engineers request most support in how to use both the modeling and the
drawing modules in Pro/E.
I also came up with a suggestion for redesign of the CAD support call data base system,
that could reduce the time needed for this kind of analysis from days to minutes.
Thereafter a number of engineers, all with high skills in Pro/E, were selected for personal
interviews. The topic was to identify any lack in defined work methods in Pro/E causing
problems that are taking long time to correct. The result shows that the biggest issue for the
users is references.
I also performed a benchmarking with two other companies within the Atlas Copco Group
looking at their CAD guidelines regarding the issues found during the interviews.
Thirdly, one assembly each from six different departments were selected and sent to PTC
for an in depth analysis with their software tool Expert Model Analysis. The goal was to
find any systematic issues regarding work methods in Pro/E.
The analysis confirmed what the engineers earlier had brought up as the main issues,
namely, references, mass/weight handling and structure in the model tree.

Key words: 3D CAD, Pro/ENGINEER, Work Method, XMA, Expert Model Analysis

SAMMANFATTNING
Detta r en 15 hp examensarbete i maskinteknik som utfrs p PLM Solutions Group p
Rocktec divisionen inom Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB i rebro, under vren 2012.
Nr konstruktrerna arbetar med 3D CAD modellering anvnder de olika arbetsmetoder i
Pro/ENGINEER (Pro/E) vilket ibland leder till problem. Det r ocks ett problem nr
konstruktrerna inte fljer de arbetsmetoder som definierats av Atlas Copco.
Syftet med detta examensarbete var att identifiera de vanligaste problemen med 3Dmodeller p Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB (RDE) i rebro relaterat till arbetsmetoder, till
exempel varfr modellerna kraschar, varfr de inte kan checkas in i Pro/Intralink eller
varfr det finns instabila referenser.
Mlet var att presentera en arbetsmetod fr att undvika ett eller tv av de mest allvarliga
problemen identifierade vid RDE rebro.
Fr att uppn mlet brjade jag med att g igenom CAD-supportens samtalsdatabas, fr att
ta reda p inom vilka omrden anvndarna behvde hjlp frn CAD-support. Resultatet
visar att konstruktrerna behver mest hjlp med hur man anvnder bde modelleringsoch ritningsmodulerna i Pro/E.
Jag tog ocks fram ett frslag till hur CAD-supportens samtalsdatabas kan gras om, som
skulle kunna minska tiden som behvs fr denna typ av analys frn dagar till minuter.
Drefter valdes ett antal ingenjrer ut, alla med hg kompetens inom Pro/E, fr personliga
intervjuer. Syftet var att identifiera eventuella brist i befintliga arbetsmetoder i Pro/E, vilka
orsakar problem som tar lng tid att rtta till. Resultatet visar att det strsta problemet fr
anvndarna r referenser.
Jag utfrde ocks en benchmarking med tv andra bolag inom Atlas Copco-gruppen
genom att jmfra deras CAD rekommendationer kring de problem som kom fram under
de tidigare intervjuerna.
Som tredje del i examensarbetet valdes en CAD-modell frn vardera sex olika avdelningar
och skickades till PTC fr en frdjupad analys med deras program Expert Model Analysis
(XMA). Mlet var att hitta systematiska problem gllande arbetsmetoder i Pro/E.
XMA-analysen bekrftade vad ingenjrerna tidigare hade frt fram som de viktigaste
frgorna, nmligen referenser, massa/vikt hantering och struktur i modellen trdet.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my supervisor at Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB; Maria berg, PLM
Solutions team leader, and Mona-Lisa Refsbck, CAD support engineer.
I want to thank You both for all support and guidance that You have given me.
Thank you Kim Hedstrand from Atlas Copco Tools AB and Magnus Persson from
Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB for sharing information about your company Pro/E
work methods.
Also, I want to thank Sren Hilmerby, title in mechanical engineering, my supervisor at
rebro University, for guidance and support.
I would like to thank all the engineers that have participated in interviews and answered
my follow up questions. You have all been very helpful by sharing Your valuable
knowledge.

Thank You.

______________________________
Stefan Kandelid

rebro May 2012

Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 1
1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2
1.1

Background ...................................................................................................... 2

1.2

Purpose ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3

Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3

1.4

Delimitations .................................................................................................... 3

1.5

Thesis divided into three parts ......................................................................... 3

1.6

ModelCHECK .................................................................................................. 3

CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS ............................................................................... 4

2.1

Method ............................................................................................................. 4

2.2

Categories ......................................................................................................... 4

2.3

Result ................................................................................................................ 5

2.4

Summary and improvements ............................................................................ 6

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING...................................................... 8

3.1

Method ............................................................................................................. 8

3.2

Interview result ................................................................................................. 8

3.3

3.4
4

3.2.1

References ............................................................................................ 9

3.2.2

Training and information .................................................................... 11

3.2.3

Skeletons............................................................................................. 12

3.2.4

Mass / weight ...................................................................................... 12

3.2.5

Structure in the model tree ................................................................. 13

3.2.6

BOM-lists ........................................................................................... 13

3.2.7

Layer management ............................................................................. 13

3.2.8

Naming of layers, features and simp.reps .......................................... 14

3.2.9

Coordinate system .............................................................................. 14

Benchmarking ................................................................................................ 15
3.3.1

References .......................................................................................... 15

3.3.2

Others ................................................................................................. 16

3.3.3

Guideline user interface ...................................................................... 16

Summary and improvements .......................................................................... 19

EXPERT MODEL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 20

4.1

Method ........................................................................................................... 20

4.2

Result .............................................................................................................. 23

4.3

Summary ........................................................................................................ 26

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 28

APPENDIX 1 INTERVIEW SUMMARY .................................................................... 29

APPENDIX 2 XMA - ATLAS COPCO COMPARISON............................................. 30

ABBREVIATIONS
RDE:

Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB

CMT:

Construction and Mining Technique business area

RTE:

Rocktec division

SDE:

Surface Drilling Equipment division

URE:

Underground Rock Excavation division

LHD:

Loaders Haulers and Dumpers department, part of URE

RBM:

Raise Boring Machines department, part of URE

TME:

Tunneling and Mining Equipment department, part of URE

SES:

Specialist Engineering Services

CAD:

Computer Aided Design

3D CAD:

Three dimensional CAD

CSYS:

Coordinate system

PDM:

Product Data Management (DEMO, Intralink, Drawing Archive)

PLM:

Product Lifecycle Management (Teamcenter)

PTC:

The company PTC - Parametric Technology Corporation.

Pro/E:

3D CAD program Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 4 from PTC

DEMO:

Atlas Copco developed software for handling structures and Bill-ofMaterial lists

Mapkey:

A short command (macro) in Pro/E

Intralink:

Product Data Management (PDM) system from PTC

BOM:

Bill-of-material

INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Atlas Copco Rock Dills AB (RDE) in rebro is part of the Atlas Copco Group
Construction and Mining Technique (CMT) business area. RDE is divided in three
divisions: Rocktec (RTE)
(RTE), Surface Drilling Equipment (SDE) and Underground Rock
Excavation (URE).. The products are used in tunnel and mining industries all over the
world.
Rocktec is the development center for CMT. Rocktec has three departments:
Rock Drills, Automation and Specialist Engineering Services (SES). SES provides
consultancy to all of CMT, and is divided in
into the specialist groups Applied
mechanics, Measurements Technique
Technique,, Industrial design, Materials & rock drills
laboratory, Patents and PLM Solutions.
The thesis work is done within the PLM Solutions group, see figure 1.

Figure 1: Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB; Organization

Today there are problems where the different departments and even individual
engineers have different work methods in Pro/E. This leads to problems, both with
stability in modelss and assemblies
assemblies, costing RDE many man-hours.
There are already several work methods issued by the PLM Solutions group,
group but they
are only recommendations and are not always followed by the engineers.
The PLM Solutions group provides training, development, maintenance and support
for the Computer Aided Design ((CAD) and Product Dataa Management (PDM)
(
software at RDE.
During 2012 and 2013 RDE will replace the PDM systems for a unified Product
Lifecycle Management ((PLM) solution. In that context the PLM Solutions group will
go through an extensive reorgani
reorganization that also gives them a different role at RDE.
Instead of being a support organization,, PLM Solutions group will be the application
owner of both the new P
PLM System and the CAD software.
2

INTRODUCTION

This gives PLM Solutions group new possibilities to set up mandatory work methods
instead of recommended best practices. With that background PLM Solutions group
want to investigate what the main problems with 3D modeling in Pro/E are, to see in
what areas it is needed to create work methods that will avoid those problems.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to identify the most common problems with 3D models at
RDE rebro related to work methods, for example why models crash, why they
cannot be checked in to Pro/Intralink or why there are unstable references.
It also includes a comparison of work methods at RDE rebro respectively at other
companies within the Atlas Copco Group, to identify any differences.

1.3 Objectives
The objective for this thesis is to present a work method to avoid one or two of the
most severe problems identified at RDE rebro.

1.4 Delimitations
This thesis will be limited to the models and work methods at RDE rebro and the
work performed in Pro/E only.
The number of work methods that will be addressed will be decided after the current
state analysis.

1.5 Thesis divided into three parts

The thesis have been divided into the following three parts,
-

CAD support call statistics, to give a better picture of what support the
different division in the company need, and to get an input to the following
work method interviews.

Work methods in 3D CAD modeling, to identify the most common problems

with 3D modeling related to work methods at RDE rebro.
There will also be a benchmarking performed with two other companies within
the Atlas Copco Group looking at their CAD guidelines.

Expert Model Analysis.

A software analysis tool for 3D models in Pro/E, regarding Geometry Quality,
Design Intent Strength and Model Complexity [1].

1.6 ModelCHECK
ModelCHECK is mentioned in various parts of the thesis. This is an integrated
application in Pro/E that can be run manually or automatically to control the models.
It can be customized to control a variety of parameters and settings in the models and
drawings as configured by the user, to meet the company standards.
3

CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS

2 CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS

2.1 Method
To get a better understanding of what problems there are with the CAD models and
work methods I went through the CAD support call data base with all the support
cases concerning Pro/E from 2011-04-01 to 2012-04-01.
In the data base overview, each support case is represented by one line of subject
description, which then can be opened for further information.

2.2 Categories
When registering a support case, the support engineer can categorize the call with a
number of different options. Of all the options available only Functionality and
Training are related to the work in Pro/E. It is unclear what the difference between
Functionality and Training is, different support engineers log the cases differently. If
none of those are applicable to the case, N/A can be selected. This is followed by a
short explanation, up to 5-6 words, of the case in free text under Subject.

Picture 1. A section of the CAD support system, choosing category.

By scanning the registered support cases and based on Mona-Lisa Refsbcks, CAD
support engineer, experience, all the support cases in the categories mentioned above
were divided into the following new categories:
-

Archive/PiPlot,
BOM/balloons,
Drawing,
Import/export,
Mapkeys,
Mass/weight,
Modeling,
References,
Shrinkwraps,
System,

mainly issues with printing/plotting drawings.

how to use the BOM/balloon function.
how to use the drawing module.
importing/exporting using different file formats.
issues regarding the mapkey function.
how to set mass/weight properties.
how to use the modeling module.
reference issues causing check-in problems to pro/Intralink.
issues with the shrinkwrap function.
installation, slow system, license lost.

CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS

2.3 Result
When the case files were opened, there was a large span of how well the
t problem was
described.. Some problems were easy to categori
categorize,
e, but the ones without any further
description were of course more difficult. Then I had only the Subject information to
use for categorizing. This work took a bit of time since most of the case
ase files had to be
opened.
The result after compiling the information is shown in table 1 and graph 1.
This shows that the top 5 issue types, Modeling, Drawing, System, Import/export and
Archive/PiPlot, represents 80% of the registered cases. The top 3 issue
ssue types,
represents 61%.
LHD (Loaders Haulers and Dumpers) and TME (Tunnel and Mining Equipment) are
departments within the URE division.

Graph 1. CAD support cases regarding Pro/E.

Issue type
Modeling
Drawing
System
Import/export
Archive/PiPlot
Reference
Symbols
Mass/weight
Mapkeys
Shrinkwraps
BOM/balloons
Total

LHD
66
49
34
10
26
16
9
12
4
2
0
228

TME
29%
21%
15%
4%
11%
7%
4%
5%
2%
1%
0%

26
18
23
7
13
9
6
1
7
1
3
114

RTE
23%
16%
20%
6%
11%
8%
5%
1%
6%
1%
3%

10
5
15
9
0
2
4
0
2
0
1
48

SDE
21%
10%
31%
19%
0%
4%
8%
0%
4%
0%
2%

11
14
9
18
3
4
3
2
1
5
0
70

Tot
16%
20%
13%
26%
4%
6%
4%
3%
1%
7%
0%

113
86
81
44
42
31
22
15
14
8
4
460

25%
19%
18%
10%
9%
7%
5%
3%
3%
2%
1%

Table 1. CAD support cases regarding Pro/E per department.

5

CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS

The top 2 issue types, Modeling and Drawing, are both a question of how to use the
different functions in Pro/E.
The System issue type consists of Software installations, License lost (too few
software licenses) and System not responding.
The Import/export issue type is mainly about how to import and export models with
dxf and step file formats to/from Pro/E.

Graph 2. CAD support cases regarding Pro/E, divided per department

epartment.

2.4 Summary and iimprovements

The top three issues found in this analysis repres
represent
ent 61 % of the registered calls to the
CAD support help desk. The issues are:
-

Modeling 25 %, how to use the modeling module.

Drawing 19 %, how to use the drawing module.
System 18 %,
software installation, slow system, license lost.

The type of information

nformation found in this analysis could be very useful if PLM Solutions
would like to give directed information or training within a specific area to the
engineers in a specific department
department.
It is also good for each department to see in what area they have the biggest need for
support or training.
To make this analysis easier and faster in the future, I would recommend that the CAD
support call data base system is slightly modified.
I recommend the use of multiple
multiple-choice
choice boxes in at least two levels for the support
engineer to fill in when registering the cases.
First you choose category at level 1, followed by the choice of category for level 2.
6

CAD SUPPORT STATISTICS

In table 2, below, I have as an example listed suggestions for dividing the categories in
two levels. The categories are based on what I found in my analysis.
For each support case, this should be followed by a Subject description and a free text
area, the same way as it is done today.
Level 1
Modeling

Drawing

System

Import/export

Archive/PiPlot

References

Level 2
Save/check-in
CSYS
Piping
Simp reps / master reps
Layers
Welds, Mapkeys
Others
Hidden layers
Datum plane
BOM table
Mapkeys
Views
Preliminary text
Others
Installation
License lost
Not responding
Drawing templates lost
Others
dxf
step
Add mass
Set colors
Others
Archive problems
PiPlot
Others
Circular references
External references
Others

Table 2. Suggestion for problem categories in two levels.

For each support case, this should be followed by a Subject description and a free text
area, the same way as it is done today.

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3 WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.1 Method
To learn what problems the users are experiencing due to the lack of defined work
methods in Pro/E, a number of skilled engineers were interviewed.
The interviewees were selected together with Mona-Lisa Refsbck and Maria berg
based on the engineers amount of time spent with Pro/E per month, general Pro/E
skills and knowledge of Atlas Copco work methods.
From the result of the interviews, the top issue shall be compared with the work
methods used at the Atlas Copco companies Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB and
Atlas Copco Tools AB. Both these companies are using Pro/E today. The idea is to get
new input on how to avoid the problems.

3.2 Interview result

15 engineers from different departments were selected for the interviews.
LHD:
TME:
RBM:
RTE:
SDE:

5
4
2
2
2

LHD, TME and RBM (Raise Boring Machines) are departments within the URE
division.
Most of the issues that were brought up can be summarized in one headline:
Pro/E the Atlas Copco way.
This is all about what work methods that are used at Atlas Copco RDE, and how to
spread this information to the end users.
A complete list with all problems brought up during the interviews can be found in
appendix 1. To the right on the list, shows the number of engineers commenting each
issue.
Below I have listed the most common problems (all commented by more than one
engineer) that were brought up during the interviews.
For most of them, there is also a recommendation on what can be done to solve the
issue.
Together with my supervisor it was decided that the focus of my work for the rest of
this section and the following benchmark, should be on the top issue; References.

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.2.1 References
The top issue was about references, circular-, external- and missing references.

Models with circular references cannot be checked-in to Intralink today, but

there are still some old models in the system that have these problems.

External references are created when a feature of one component in an

assembly reference to a feature of another component.
(This shall not be mixed up with constraints within one assembly, which is OK
to use.)
Why are external references dangerous?
If a model has an external reference, it becomes dependent on another model.
This means that if you modify a dimension in a model to which another one is
dependent, the next time you retrieve the dependent model, it may have
changed unexpectedly. [2]
Recommendation:
External references must be used with great caution. To avoid problems with
external- and broken references it is generally recommended to use datum
features such as planes and axis as much as possible. Do not use edges [4].
If you use the outline or a sketch from one part to model another part, make
sure to remove all references back to the first part before saving. [2]
This control is implemented in modelCHECK today and set as a warning. I
recommend that it is set as an error, which has to be corrected to be able to
check-in the file.

References in assemblies.
The use of constraints when building assemblies is one of the underlying root
causes to the problems with broken references.
When another engineer later on is making changes to a part in an assembly, it
might happen that a feature that is used as reference to another part is
modified. Then the reference is easily broken.
I found that the usage of constraints and references when building assemblies
vary between the different departments and different engineers.
Some engineers make use of the strength of Pro/E's built in feasibility to use
constraints when mating a part in the assembly.
Others, on the other hand, have experienced so many problems with broken
references when opening large assemblies in Pro/E, that they prefer to remove
all constraints and set the part as fix before saving. This way the assemblies are
more stable.

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

Recommendation:
When choosing references for the constraints, make sure to choose stable
references as planes, axis, surfaces or skeletons.
Do not use edges as reference. This can cause unexpected behavior, and is
generally not regarded as good modeling practice.
To avoid the continuous problems with broken references it is necessary that
all engineers put more effort in finding possible problems when redesigning a
model. This can advantageously be done before the redesign starts.
Questions to be asked could be:
- What are the features used for, what references might have been used on this
model?
- What other components can be affected when I do this redesign?
When the redesign is finished, go a few levels up in the model structure to find
out if any issues have occurred.
I recommend that the whole RDE together define how to work with this issue.
How many levels in the model structure shall the engineers have to control for
possible effects before implementing a change? How much time has to be
spent in trying to find these issues? Define the work method, and make
everybody working accordingly.
Before releasing a model, an assembly or a drawing it is recommended to
verify that it is OK. This is done by refreshing the system. Create a
completely new workspace, check-out and open the model/drawing once again
and control that no problems occur with references or other issues. Otherwise
there might be information left in your workspace making the model work fine,
but when another user creates a new workspace, checks-out and opens the
model there will be problems.
The Hydraulics is always set as fix.
See the Piping Guideline at PLM Solutions home page for further information.

Who shall repair false assemblies?

Many of the assemblies that have these problems today are rather old, and it is
impossible to tell who is originally responsible for causing them. It was
therefore suggested by the interviewees that a special central team was
appointed to repair all false assemblies. There are probably so many false
models in the system that such a team would be busy for a rather long time.
10

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

This is a big interference in the work for many of the engineers on a daily
basis.
Recommendation:
If there is no agreement between the divisions to sponsor such a central team,
my suggestion is that each division as soon as possible starts repairing the
models they are responsible for.

ModelCHECK
When I opened models during my work with this thesis I often got warnings
that already must have been alerted in modelCHECK when the files were
saved by the design engineers. This indicates that the engineers are not taking
care of the warnings that show up in modelCHECK, resolving the problem.
During the interviews I got the same indications, that some engineers dont
care about these warnings, they just ignore them and save the file.
PLM Solutions are considering making it impossible to save a file that still has
warnings in modelCHECK, but for the time being, that is only set as a
warning/recommendation.
Recommendation:
To get more stable models and drawings, all engineers have to take the
warnings in modelCHECK more seriously and resolve the problems causing
them.

3.2.2 Training and information

Next on the list was how to get in particular new users to work according to Pro/E the
Atlas Copco way. To some extent, this also applies to users already working in Pro/E
today.
There was also a question of how to spread new information in the best manner from
the PLM Solutions group to the Pro/E users.
The introduction to Pro/E and recommended work methods are generally rather short
for new users. They are shown by a colleague how the systems work and where to find
the guidelines for Pro/E work methods, thereafter they start working on their own.
The interviewees were not sure what information and guidelines that actually is
available at PLM Solutions home page. If PLM Solutions could update their home
page more often and include other important information and news, the interviewees
thought that they would read it more frequently.

11

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

Recommendation:
My suggestion is that all new employees and consultants get at least a 2 to 3 days
training course in Pro/E the Atlas Copco way. PLM Solutions already have a number
of training courses covering most of the areas discussed in this thesis, all available for
the employees and consultants to participate in.

3.2.3 Skeletons
The interviewees are lacking work method rules whether to use skeletons when
modeling or not. Sometimes it could be very useful, making the models more stable.
The use of skeleton can minimize the parent/child relationships between parts in an
assembly. It can also allow drastic changes to the assembly without requiring a lot of
redefinition. If an assembly is built using a skeleton as reference and one part, with
other sub-parts assembled to it, is replaced, the assembly will still regenerate fine [3].
Recommendation:
PLM Solutions defines and documents a work method on how to create and use stable
skeletons. Each division should define their work method, considering using skeletons.

3.2.4 Mass / weight

Some of the problems with mass/weight that were brought up are:
-

Locked mass.
Will give the wrong value if the model is changed or copied.

Wrong mass unit.

Pounds instead of kg.

Wrong density.
For example set to 1.

Wrong model density unit.

Pounds/mm3, pounds/inch3.

When mass/weight is not correct it will result in the wrong total mass for the whole
model or assembly.
Recommendation:
This control is implemented in modelCHECK today and set as a warning. I
recommend that it is set as an error, which has to be corrected to be able to check-in
the file.

12

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.2.5 Structure in the model tree

The interviewees were lacking a clear recommendation for how to structure the model
tree.
-

Structure in the model tree?

Shall screws and other small part be placed at the end of the model tree? Shall
they be in a special group?
Shall groups be used for parts or features?

Recommendation:
It is generally considered good modeling practice to place features as rounds and
chamfers late in the model tree, it will make the model more stable [4].
This should be included in PLM Solutions guidelines.

3.2.6 BOM-lists
Shall the Bill-Of-Material (BOM) list be presented on the drawing or not?
Today this is handled differently in the different divisions.
The governing document is always the BOM-list in DEMO, which over everything
else.
Recommendation:
To avoid the risk of making mistakes, with the same information in two different
places, PLM Solutions recommend to not having the BOM-lists on the drawings, only
in DEMO.
The best would be if RDE could have a united approach to this question, but at least
each division should define their own approach.

3.2.7 Layer management

The interviewees were unsure of how to handle layers, what is allowed to do etc.
There is a Layer Routine guideline available on PLM Solutions home page.
Recommendation:
The guideline could be updated with more information regarding Layer Management,
clear instruction of what is OK to do etc.

13

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.2.8 Naming of layers, features and simp.reps

There is a wide variety of how to name for example layers, features, simp. reps and
more. Sometimes it is rather easy to understand what the layers or features contain,
sometimes the name is very cryptic and doesn't give a clue.
Since there often are someone else than the original design engineer that is making
changes or updates of the models, the work would be done faster if it was more clear
what for example different features are used for.
Recommendation:
Use functional naming to make the use of layers, features and simp.reps more clear.
This should be included in PLM Solutions best practice document.

3.2.9 Coordinate system

The interviewees thought that the work methods for Coordinate system (CSYS) are
not defined. There is no defined work method for how the parts are oriented to the
CSYS. It would be easier, and the work would be done faster, when an engineer is
assigned to modify a part if they were all oriented the same way.
They would like to have instructions like:
- Orient the part this way, X - Y - Z.
- Name the planes right - top - front.
- Always put the front to the left (or to the right).
- Model the part as it will be assembled. (Today some parts are modeled upside
down.)
There was also one comment that it would be good if the different divisions could
orient their rigs/machines the same way.
Recommendation:
It would be good if all divisions at RDE could agree on a common work method
regarding CSYS. At least each division should define their own work method to speed
up the design work.

14

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.3 Benchmarking
To get ideas on how to solve the issues brought up in the previous section, a
benchmarking was conducted.
Atlas Copco Tools AB (TOOLS) and Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB
(DYNAPAC) were contacted, both companies are within the Atlas Copco Group.
They were kind enough to let me take part of their guidelines regarding Pro/E.
Focus was on how to handle the issues with References.

3.3.1 References
TOOLS
There is a clear note about the risk to brake assembly references when making a
redesign.
"If you make major changes to a part there is a big risk that the assembly references
will be broken, if that happens there will be problems with not fully placed
components in the assembly." [5]
"When assembling screws, pins e.g. use constraint align to axis, do not use insert. The
reason for this is that you will get a stronger relation and decrease the risk to get
unplaced components." [5]
DYNAPAC
There are clear information about external references and to use stable references.
"Forbidden to have external references. Exceptional case is cables, lists and hoses. To
check external references use ModelCHECK or Global ref viewer." [6]
"The references for a sketch shall be surfaces, axis and planes (not edges). Avoid
having rounds and chamfers as references".[6]
Recommendation:
Include the comments from both TOOLS and DYNAPAC in the future Best practice
document, "forbidden to have external references" and clearly explain the risk for
broken references when making redesigns of a model.

15

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

3.3.2 Others
Here I have listed topics from TOOLS and DYNAPACs guidelines that correspond to
the issues that were brought up during the interviews at RDE.
They should be taken into account when PLM Solutions create their best practice
document.
TOOLS
-

Divide up your design into clear structure.

Which feature is the base feature? Start always with a simple base feature, this
feature will probably not be changed during the parts lifecycle.
Which dimensions may vary? Think FUNCTION!
The 3D model is the information carrier. Do not create "drawing" dimensions
on the drawing.
Build up the sketch with dimensions that you wish to show on the drawing.
Orientation; instruction for how to orient the model in the CSYS.
Assembly features must be used with great care.
Set logical names on base features and self-defined datum-planes/curves etc.
[5]

DYNAPAC
-

Naming standard for layers and features.

Only internal sketches allowed for features (brake all external references).
No buried features are allowed.
Suppressed features are not allowed.
Avoid small entities in sketches.
Do not sketch holes, rounds and chamfers.
Place rounds and chamfers at the end of the model tree.
Use pattern when its more than one of a feature.
Use function Parent-Child, or Global references viewer, to check references
before modifying, redefining or deleting features. [6]

3.3.3 Guideline user interface

When looking through the CAD guidelines from TOOLS and DYNAPAC I noticed
that they both have a very user friendly web interface. It's easy to get a good overview
and the most important information is well presented. For more information on a topic,
there are links to more detailed instructions.
TOOLS are using a pdf-file presented in a web interface. There is a short explanation
of recommended work method in each area on separate pages, followed by a
clickable link to a complete document on the current topic. See pictures below.

16

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

Picture 2. Atlas Copco Tools AB, CAD guidelines, Overview.

Picture 3. Atlas Copco Tools AB, CAD guidelines, General modeling ideas.
17

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

DYNAPAC are using a web interface which is very easy to overview and use.
On the left hand side there is a list with all main topics. When you click one of them,
the information of that topic is shown. The list with topics are always visible to the
left, this makes it easy and fast to navigate in the guidelines. See picture below.

Picture 4. Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB, CAD guidelines.

RDE rebro are also using a web interface with good overview and a topics list to the
left hand side. When clicking one of the topics, the list disappears and a complete
instruction is opened describing how to use the function.

Picture 5. RDE, PLM Solutions Pro/E page.

18

WORK METHODS IN 3D CAD MODELING

Recommendation:
The RDE guidelines are very thorough and covers many important topics.
To get a better overview of the information and faster navigation, I recommend to
redesign the Pro/E page at PLM Solutions to look more like DYNAPAC guideline
page. When clicking on a topic in the list to the left, only show the most important
information at first. If more information is wanted, use a clickable link to open the
complete user instruction. The topic list shall always be visible.

3.4 Summary and improvements

The result of the interviews shows that the biggest issue, due to the lack of defined
work methods in Pro/E, is References.
Problems with external references and broken references are most common. When
large assemblies are opened, there are relatively often parts with missing references,
which the engineers commonly set as frozen or fix, instead of repairing the model.
The recommendation is for PLM Solutions to focus on spreading the knowledge and
best practice on how to use stable constraints and references. There is also the
possibility to use skeletons more than today, to achieve more stable assemblies.
There is also the question on how to handle all the models in the system today that
have these problems. This is a problem that many of the engineers are struggling with
every day, costing a lot of time and money.
To save time spent on this issue in the long run, and money, I recommend that each
department within RDE takes this problem seriously and in a structured way starts
repairing their false models.
With basis from the benchmarking with TOOLS and DYNAPAC I would recommend
PLM Solutions to put together a list with best practice in Pro/E to show on their home
page. The best practice should include how to handle external references, how to get
stable constraints and the risk for broken references when making a redesign.

19

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

4 EXPERT MODEL ANALYSIS

PTC, the supplier of the Pro/E CAD software, has developed an analysis software
called Expert Model Analysis (XMA).
This software allows companies to run an in-depth analysis on their model data to spot
opportunities for skills or best practice improvement. Using over 50 measures and
objectives, XMA helps uncover potential issues in the 3D designs. This is a great
opportunity for the companies as it allows them to detect sub-optimal areas and take
corrective action [1].

4.1 Method
3200 parts, assemblies and drawings were selected and sent to PTC for analysis.
The analysis was performed by Jorge Moreno at PTC in Gothenburg.
The models chosen for the analysis were from completely different products and from
different departments, which are shown in the pictures below.

Picture 6, LHD Hydraulic

20

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

Picture 7, LHD Power Pack

Picture 8, LHD Frame

21

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

Picture 9, RBM

Picture 10, SDE Feeder arm

Picture 11, TME Cabin

22

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

4.2 Result
One report for each department was returned from PTC, each on approximately 80
pages. Please contact Maria berg at PLM Solutions for further information.
From the reports I have chosen 26 measures and objectives for comparison between
the different departments. For each measure and department there is one column for
XMA Score and one column with % of the models with the issue in question. All
numbers and issues presented are from the assessment done by the XMA software.
A comparison between the departments and these objectives can be found in
appendix 2.
Below I have chosen to discuss 10 of these objective more in detail below. These
objectives I consider more important or there is a significant difference between the
departments.
Use absolute accuracy when appropriate
75-84 % of all models use relative accuracy.
The PTC comment to this is:
Using relative accuracy allows regeneration calculations to execute quickly and use
minimal memory. While relative accuracy helps performance, it makes assumptions
about the size of the geometry in your model that is sometimes invalid. If the
assumptions are invalid, your models will have geom. checks and/or regeneration
issues that should be fixed by switching to absolute accuracy.
XMA considers relative accuracy a risk because of the strong correlation between
relative accuracy and both geometry and regeneration issues. If you do not have either
geometry or regeneration issues, then using relative accuracy may be acceptable [4].
The comment from Jorge Moreno was;
There is a variation between the models from 1 to 5 decimals accuracy.
To make the system work better, his recommendation is that PLM Solutions define
what decimal accuracy to be used within RDE and that the models are fixed to this.
Tune accuracy for small geometry.
This objective gives a warning when there are relative small geometries compared to
the overall size of the model.
If the accuracy is not set appropriately, geom. checks could make the geometry
unreliable in downstream work, as well as cause regeneration issues [4].
What stand out is that RBM and TME have about 22% of their models getting this
warning, when LHD Frame only have 2% of their models with the warning.
The reason for this difference needs to be further analyzed.

23

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

Recalculate mass properties after change (mass properties out of date).

This warning, mass properties out of date, varies from 14 % of the models for LHD
Frame to 29 % for LHD Hydraulics.
The mass should be updated automatically if the settings in Pro/E are correct and all
models have the same weight units. This indicates that something is wrong and need to
be further investigated.
Avoid edge reference
Use planes, axis or surfaces as reference.
Do not use edges as reference. This can cause unexpected behavior, and is generally
not regarded as good modeling practice [4].
SDE and RBM got the best result with 7 respectively 8 % of their models with this
warning, which is still considered to be too much, while TME was worst with 23 %
models with this warning.
Of course the goal must be 0 % edge reference warnings.
The best practice, of not using edge references, must be spread among the users.
Improve feature order.
For the 4 best departments, 3 to 5 % of their models are considered by XMA to have
rounds and chamfers too high up in the model tree. One department stands out by
getting the score 13 %.
Rounds, chamfers, and drafts should be placed late in the model tree to discourage
creating child features of them.
For example, since the internal structure and nature of the round's geometry can vary
significantly with small changes, referencing the round's geometry is unreliable if
changes are anticipated. Chamfers and drafts are similarly complex features whose
resulting geometry can vary significantly with small changes [4].
Use suppressed components appropriately
The use of compressed components is not that common. Two of the departments had 6
% of their models with this issue.
If the suppressed components or features are no longer needed, then they should be
removed before you release the model. The presence of suppressed features adds
confusion to your models, as well as runs the risk of having the features
unintentionally resumed (or unsuppressed) sometime in the future [4].
Set model density when appropriate
5 of the departments are handling this object well with only 0 to 2 % of their models
with wrong density or length units. But one department, LHD Power Pack had 34 % of
their models with some density/length issue.
24

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

LHD Power Pack has models with inch instead of mm as length unit, and density
presented in gram, pounds and tonne per mm3.
I recommend that this control in modelCHECK is set as an error, which has to be
corrected to be able to check-in the file.
Model-centric compared to drawing-centric definition
In model-centric design, the model is the master for capturing the design's geometry
and other key design information. The drawing may still be a record of authority, but it
is always associative to its models and will not override any of the design captured in
the model. The purpose of the drawing is to describe the design in the model and add
detail as necessary [4].
In drawing-centric design, the drawing is the master deliverable and record of
authority when describing the design.
Drawing-centric design risks having inaccurate and out-of-date information in the
model. While drawings are an important record of the design, it usually not possible
for downstream work to be based solely on the drawing. Most manufacturing
processes, for example, need to reference a 3D model. Subtle but important changes
that are made in the drawing but neglected in the model can go unnoticed, causing
downstream work to be invalid [4].
There is a range from 0 % drawing-centric models for SDE to 18 % for RBM, but
LHD Frame stands out by having 60 % drawing-centric models.
There is a big need to look through this issue, getting the engineers to understand the
importance of the correct work method.
Keep drawing views organized
According to XMA, the following drawing properties are usually unintended:
-

Out-of-bounds entities (entities that are outside the drawing's sheet/paper)

Overlapping views
Draft geom not related to a view
Drawing views without a scale
Unused sheets

All drawings in this analysis were considered having this issue.

(Note, no drawings from LHD Hydraulic were analyzed.)
This issue has to be addressed further, to learn if it is a real problem or not.
Model Complexity
The Model complexity XMA Score varied between 25 to 34 %.
According to Jorge Moreno at PTC this is good and indicates that there are small
models, put together into larger assemblies.
25

EXPERT MODELING ANALYSIS

A high, medium, or low complexity score is not in of itself a good or bad thing. A
highly complex set of models may be the nature of the product design with which you
are involved. Review the findings from XMA to find opportunities to simplify and/or
expand your modeling approaches as the case may be [4].

Miscellaneous
When discussing the analysis result with Jorge Moreno at PTC he also gave the
following comments.

Simplified representations (simp reps).

It seems like the engineers have some lack in knowledge about what Simp reps
are and how to use them.
He recommended that all engineers are brought up to the same level of
knowledge and usage of Simp reps.

Layer management.
The analysis indicates that there are no real standard that the engineers follow.
He recommended that all engineers are brought up to the same level of
knowledge and usage of Layers.

4.3 Summary
I think this was a really good analysis of models from different departments at RDE,
and it gave an indication on some areas that can be improved to make the work in
Pro/E to run more smooth and stable.
Some areas that confirmed the issues found earlier in this thesis are; how to handle
references, especially edge references, the importance of having control of the density
and mass units. Also the question of how to structure the work, with for example
Skeletons, has been discussed earlier.
This was a good opportunity to evaluate the XMA tool. Now PLM Solutions know
what information XMA can give, if they in the future might consider to run XMA on a
larger number of files.
PTCs recommendation is to implement best practice regarding:
- Use robust references, surfaces rather than edges
- Remove circular references (Note; no circular references found in the analysis)
- Investigate Geom Checks
- Assign material to models, or at least specify a density
- Check that the relations are calculating correctly
PTC offers further XMA scans on separate projects or on a larger amount of files.
There are also possibilities for help to write best practice documents or customized
workshops according to Atlas Copcos requests.

26

CONCLUSION

5 CONCLUSION
In the first part of the thesis, Cad Support Statistics, the analysis showed that the most
frequent topics when contacting the CAD support are how to use both the modeling
and the drawing modules in Pro/E.
This kind of information is useful for PLM Solutions to know in which areas the users
in different departments need information and training.
Since the compilation of data from the data base took rather long time, I had to open
up most of the cases to be able to categorize them, I came up with a suggestion on how
to improve the CAD support call data base system. This would reduce the time needed
for this kind of analysis from days to minutes.
Regarding work methods in 3D CAD modeling, the interviews with skilled design
engineers in all three divisions, URE, SDE and RTE, showed that the biggest issue for
the users is with references. If the problems with external references and broken
references were improved, a lot of time, money and frustration would be saved.
PLM Solutions together with each division, should focus on improving the best
practice among the users, especially handling of references. It is also recommended to
give a 2 to 3 days training course in Pro/E the Atlas Copco way for all new users.
I would also suggest a compressed training/information on the same topic to all
current users.
The benchmark with Atlas Copco Tools AB and Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB
regarding CAD guidelines showed that they are more distinct in what is best practice
and what is not OK to do, also when it comes to references.
After the interview part of the thesis it were interesting to make an objective
comparison, now with the software tool Expert Model Analysis from PTC.
This analysis confirmed what the engineers brought up as the main issues, namely,
references, mass/weight handling and structure in the model tree.

27

REFERENCES

6 REFERENCES
[1]

PTC University 2012, XMA Sales material.

[2]

Pro/Engineer Wildfire 4.0 ModelCHECK Help Topic Collection.

[3]

www.ptc.com

[4]

PTC Expert Modeling Analysis report for Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB. 2012.

[5]

CAD guidelines from Atlas Copco Tools AB. 2012.

[6]

CAD guidelines from Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB. 2012.

28

APPENDIX 1 INTERVIEW SUMMARY

Interview summary.
Issue
References (external / circular / missing)
Responsibility for what YOU create
Use real references/constraints instead of Fix
Fix coordinates makes the exchange of parts smoother
Update all assemblies the part is included in
Update all shrinkwraps that the part is included in
Appoint someone to clean up faulty models
Create training course about references
Pro/E the Atlas Copco way, rules/best practice
Real training courses for new engineers, not only guidelines
Better spreading of information / rules
Work with skeletons?
Mass/weight. Wrong density. Locked mass creates problems.
The standard part has no real material set, no densit!
Structure when modeling, Structure in the model tree,
Group (parts/features)
Show or hide BOM-table on the drawings?
Layer management. (Show/hide BOM-table. Options.)
Unstructured naming of parts/layers/holes/features/etc)
CSYS not structured. Model like this: X-Y-Z, front-back-left-right,
model as the part is mounted
CSYS not located/rotated the same on different frames/rigs
CSYS on the std-part is not PTC standard
Shrinkwraps. How to create good skwps, dependent/associated
Pattern makes the work faster
Reengineer the right way. Dont cheat.
Use Sheetmetal application when possible.
Make imported models lighter, make only 1 or 2 solids.
Use "form" for easier handling of BOM-tables and balloons
Mate to an axel created in sketch
Use a checklist to ensure nothing is missed
Cleaning up the WS often makes the system work better
Imorted models crash more often
The hydraulics are often more instable
Master reps / simp reps Management

Comment
See report
See report
See report
See report
See report
See report
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
A few days Atlas Copco cource is recommended for all users.
Update the home page more often.
To be defined by each department
Can modelCHECK control density within reasonable limits? Inch?
Pounds? Tonne?
The start part do have density set!

Sum
11/15
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
11/15
5
4
4

3
To be defined by each department
PLM Solutions recommend not spresenting the BOM-list on the
drawing, same info on two places.
To be defined by each department
Functional naming is recommended, guideline needed.
To be defined by each department
To be defined by each department
-Shall be included in the Large Assemblies trainig course
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way

4
3
3
2

Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way

Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way
--Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way

1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Contact CAD support if update needed

2
1

Large assemblies, how to make them "lighter"?

Welding symbols not updated (too much/missing text)
Family tables, parts not correct in outer dimensions (hydraulic
couplings)
Special macros between Pro/E<>DEMO
Structular differences between Pro/E<>DEMO
How to make the hydraulics visible in shrinkwraps?
Tubes modeled in Cabling are not visible in shrinkwraps.
Assembly cuts. It would be better to have final processing at partlevel instead, then the model can be used in further analysis.
Create model and drawing at the same time, otherwise dims on the
drawing might be "dead".
Update the CAD-support info more often, more people would read
it
More clear whats included in the different Pro/E licenses
Give the sub-suppliers access to Intralink

PLM Solutions will see how to improve

There is a guideline at PLM Solutions home page
Not approved due to IT security

1
1

Intralink is slow
Old version of Pro/E
License lost
No autimatic sync between the drawing <> workspace
Restructure can only be made one part at a time

Old IT-equipment. Hopefully faster with Teamcenter

Update possible with Teamcenter, not with Intralink
Too few licenses. More licenses recently installd.
---

5
4
2
1
1

Contact CAD support if update needed

Not approved due to IT security
--To be defined by each department
Shall be included in basic training Pro/E the Atlas Copco way

1
1
1
2
1
1
1

APPENDIX 2 XMA - ATLAS COPCO COMPARISON

86%
30%
74%
100%
89%

85%

OK

33%

17%
6%
5%
2%
3%
0%
-

2%
0%
1%
5%
29%
4%

2%
84%
11%

% of the
models

LHD Hydraulic

Geometry Quality
Eliminate Geom Checks
Use absolute accuracy when appropriate
Tune accuracy for small geometry
Fix surfaces with unintended gaps

87%
77%
100%
98%
79%
50%
81%

XMA
Score

Design Intent Strength

Resolve retrieval and regeneretion issues
Missing references
Circular references
Freezing components
Design intent unclear
Recalculate mass properties after change
Only assign parametars once

67%
86%
87%
96%
92%
100%
-

76%

Model for robustness

Avoid edge references
Remove questionable features
Improve feature order
Keep sketches simple
Use suppressed components appropriately
Set model density when appropriate
Sharpen drawing clarity
Prefer model-centric to drawing-centric definition
Keep drawing views organized
Remove unused models from drawings
Model complexity
Units inch/mm

9%
100%
9%

14%
8%
5%
4%
6%
34%

4%
0%
0%
1%
21%
2%

3%
78%
15%

% of the
models

30%

67%
95%
73%
98%
90%
100%
51%
42%
30%
100%

83%

95%
100%
100%
100%
87%
67%
73%

84%

79%
30%
94%
100%

78%

XMA
Score

60%
100%
0%

16%
2%
13%
1%
4%

3%
14%
8%

2%
83%
2%

% of the
models

LHD PowerPack LHD Frame

XMA
Score

72%
82%
31%
63%
100%
82%
88%
72%
100%
100%
97%
60%
89%
78%
47%
82%
87%
89%
85%
63%
69%
81%
30%
71%
27%

Inch/Gram/Pounds/TonneOK

RBM
XMA
Score

68%
83%
30%
47%
100%
84%
89%
84%
100%
93%
74%
59%
87%
88%
8%
85%
92%
93%
97%
97%
67%
68%
30%
100%
34%
OK

% of the
models

4%
84%
23%

1%

3%
8%
21%
3%

8%
7%
3%
3%
1%
2%

18%
100%
0%

0%
100%
0%

7%
6%
3%
0%
5%
0%

4%
20%
0%

2%

1%
75%
13%

% of the
models

OK

26%

57%
94%
79%
89%
85%
100%
75%
81%
30%
100%

81%

91%
91%
100%
100%
72%
60%
77%

86%

70%
30%
47%
100%

61%

XMA
Score

9%
100%
0%

23%
2%
9%
5%
6%

10%
19%
6%

1%

6%
81%
22%

% of the
models

SDE Feeder arm TME Cabin

XMA
Score

80%

97%
31%
68%
100%

88%

89%
78%
100%
100%
82%
61%
98%

89%

83%
86%
91%
99%
88%
99%
86%
100%
30%
100%

25%

OK