PROBLEMS WITH 3D DATA EXCHANGE BETWEED CAD

SYSTEM EXPLAINATION WITH THE HELP OF A

CASE STUDY

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In CAD/CAM interoperability, 3D geometry of a product represents the critical
data that needs to be transferred between CAD systems. Product Manufacturing
Information (PMI) is attached in every 3D model is being used to convey
information about the design intent of a product component and also to
communicate manufacturing details such as surface finish and material
specification etc. Without getting geometry information in usable format it is
difficult to carried out manufacturing process. Current trend is to attach PMI to
the 3D model. But this leads to other level of complexity. An important factor
which is necessary to consider while translating data is model accuracy of various
3D applications. Accuracy settings are useful when model is created and exported
to external file format. Some systems use relative model accuracy while others
use absolute accuracy. Here data transfer is examined using the latest CAD tools.
In particular, the complex mechanical (cycle) assembly has been targeted for the
case study. The actual product is a CAD model of Exercise cycle assembly was
developed by using CATIA V5R16 and once again repeating the same task using
PRO E Wildfire.
In most occasions after translation there are some elements were removed or
duplicated may create model integrity failure. These elements can be represented
by gaps, zero-length edges, zero-area faces, reversed face direction, silver
surfaces, duplicate vertices or duplicate edges. There are several reasons that gaps
may exist in translated models such as surface domains that cannot be extended
and surface boundaries that are coincident with trimming curve after model
translation. Gaps in solid model like physical cracks in manufacturing materials
cause interoperability problems. They are nearly invisible spaces between
features of a model. Finding silver face and closing a gap are important issues
while translating a model.
METHODOLOGY
The opportunity has been taken to examine data transfer using the latest CAD
tools. In particular, the complex mechanical (cycle) assembly has been targeted
for the case study. The actual product is a CAD model of Exercise cycle assembly
was developed by using CATIA V5R16 and once again repeating the same task
using PRO E Wildfire.
CASE 1: Problems when transferring cycle assembly from CATIA to Pro E
Wildfire 4.0: Solid modeling aspects are the only points to be discussed within
the scope of this paper. Figure 1 illustrates an exploded view of cycle assembly.
In this particular stage, the following investigative experiments were undertaken.
1. Investigation into the capabilities of CATIA V5 R16 to generate IGES and para
solid data files, and reconstructing the model back using these files.
2. Investigation into the capabilities of PRO E Wildfire R16 to generate IGES
and para solid data files, and reconstructing the model back using these files.
3. Investigations into the capabilities of CATIA V5 R16 and PRO E Wildfire R16
to reconstruct models generated by other CAD system and imported via DXF and
IGES.
The components of exercise cycle are modeled and it was assembled by using
CATIA. The following observations are made, when the exercise cycle assembly
imported in ProE Wildfire 4.0. It is shown in figure 2.
IGES file of the same CATIA generated model failed to materialize as a
3D wireframe on Pro E , the result of the translation process was a set of
frames.
All the movable parts either in the axis of X, Y or Z are fully constrained
due to improper data conversion from CATIA to Pro E Wildfire.
Nature of the Surfaces and Solid Part visibility are poor in appearance.
Some minute features on the Sprockets of the cycles where improperly
constrained. Also the colors applied on the Components in CATIA are
nullified in Pro E.
CASE 2: Problems when transferring from PRO E wildfire 4.0 to CATIA V5
R16:
Exercise cycles Chain which are modeled by Pro E Wildfire 4.0 and have been
imported in CATIA, while importing to CATIA the following observations is
made:
Bidirectional translation of model data was successful using the same
version of CATIA.
Unwanted lines formed in between the model and confusion of line
developed between the parts.
Change of datum Plane and nature of the surfaces and solid part visibility
are poor in appearance.
Some minute features on the sprockets of the cycles where improperly
constrained.
 The figure 3 shows the differences between Pro E Wildfire and CATIA at the
time of Translation.
CASE 3: Problems when transferring a model from SOLID WORKS to ALGOR
NASTRON Fixture design of rectilinear component is shown in figure 4. Work
piece and the clamping elements are created in part modeling and assembled in
Solid works. It was exported to AlgorNastron to analyze the deformation of work
piece under various loading condition.
An IGES file was created, exported and reimported. As would be expected,
data integrity was preserved, and solid model was successfully exported.
Difference in color and Loss of material specification from parent model
and change of datum plane.
Most of the model was reconstructed, but a partial loss of details has
occurred. Results of this process were encouraging, but not entirely
satisfying.
Evaluating the seriousness of this data loss needs manual analysis of both
IGES and DXF files. But it is a tedious and demanding task. This is only
justifiable if there is an intension
CONCLUSION
The case studies illustrated the incompatibilities and failures of IGES, but
emphasized that they can still be used to perform specific data exchange task until
STEP replaces all existing standards is used by every major CAD systems. The
interoperability methodology to use is based upon the situation i.e. only for the
simple application. IGES and DXF are being considered for ideal data exchange
formats. STEP based data model of the product, is a long term project that could
not be reported in the scope of this paper. Perfect CAD interoperability would
allow a model file to be shared between systems without translation and without
a loss of feature parameters. When this situation occurs, translation through a
neutral CAD format, normally STEP, is often the best approach.