Time to update your engineering

There are three very good reasons for considering investment in advanced CAD and PLM (product lifecycle management) software. The first is that what software vendors are now able to offer, and the promises for what's just around the corner, are radically different to what was on offer just a couple of years ago. Latest versions offer much better visualisations, improved speed and ease of use, as well as better management and communication tools that can slash development times and resource usage. The second is you can bet your competitors are either using these technologies, or themselves looking to invest now to manage the engineering side of their businesses better, especially the design data generated by suppliers and customers. So you can't afford not to. And provided your implementation is done properly and is appropriate to your tasks, you can be pretty confident everything will run more smoothly, with fewer errors – and time to selling products for hard cash will be significantly shorter. The third is that without using IT to keep track of design and component data automatically, it is almost impossible to meet the requirements of regulations such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) or End of Life Vehicle (ELV) directives. The paperwork will beat you. So it is well worth looking at what is now available before you cast your spending plans in concrete. That said, it is still the case that very little worth having comes easy and there is always a cost attached. The cost of the new software and hardware required may not be that significant, compared to your previous experience. But the time spent getting links to work, loading all the data and, most important, figuring out the implications for how engineering should now work with the rest of the business – and with partners – is likely to be significant. Even once this has been achieved, there will be ongoing costs, not least because upgrades to server software and associated CAD client, document management software and so forth will require upgrades and tweaks from time to time. But there is one cost everyone can avoid. If you have some bright fellows able and willing to write some bespoke solution to meet an apparent business needs, we strongly advise turning them down. There is unlikely to be much change from a million pounds, and if the only programmer who understands all the interfaces and gateways leaves for greener pastures, you're left with a very large white elephant. Compliance on tap There is, in any case, now a commercially available software module to handle almost every need imaginable. For example, those wanting to meet the requirements of new European Union regulations might wish to make use of modules such as Materials Compliance Central from PLM software developer MatrixOne. This allows users to analyse bill of material (BoM), or product content information from any source, and then cross reference it against the multiple substance lists and regulation requirements. Relevant regulations are the WEEE, ELV and Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directives and a host of specific product recycling directives (see page 36). But having decided the time is right to reconsider your engineering IT and to fund investment, who should you turn to? There are lots of vendors out there with silver tongued salesmen who are quite prepared to claim that their systems will even stand on their heads when required, if that is what the customer wants. The only solution we can offer is to ask to be referred to existing customers. If the software is good, there should be somebody, somewhere who has made good use of it and is willing to be used as a reference. Mostly that's fine, but with the UK recycling requirements still in the process of impacting, there are as yet not many companies able to verify their compliance software experience. We found one: blood glucose monitors manufacturer Lifescan Scotland, based in Inverness. It reckons that MatrixOne Program Central helped it meet the established medical regulations. Managing director Michael Crowe says: "As a regulated industry, Lifescan Scotland must ensure compliance throughout the entire design and manufacturing process. By enabling a single view of the product lifecycle process, the solution ensures that we can keep our engineering, manufacturing, quality and materials departments synchronised on new or changing product information, resulting in improved consistency, quality and volume – and quick compliance with regulatory requirements." Meanwhile, here are some interesting pointers on the more conventional engineering development side. Mick Hyde, of Radical Sports Cars, says 3D CAD and CAD/CAM have been absolutely key to his company's success. He chose SolidWorks and NT Cadcam mainly because some of the company's suppliers, notably SPD (Steve Prentice Design), designer of the Radical V8 engine, uses that software. Advanced CAD success The engine, Powertec RPA Macroblock V8, is remarkable – being fairly typical of F1 units, with oil scavenged by a separate pump for each pair of cylinders, but producing almost 400bhp from 2.6 litres. Both Prentice and Hyde agree that it's development would simply not have been possible in the time scale without advanced 3D CAD – and right first time. The achievement is particularly noteworthy because it included a major redesign half way through when the engine was changed from transverse to longitudinal. Hyde cites in particular the CAD system's ability to produce a rapid prototype derived direct from the feasibility study to show at an exhibition, plus its 3D model files for casting shop pattern makers, as powerful business and speed benefits. Indeed, he now only specifies, "modern, forward thinking foundries", who take data from CAD model files, and can deliver castings in shorter times. Then again, George Ord at not for profit special purpose production machinery designer North East Innovation Centre cites a catalogue of benefits from moving to SolidWorks 3D modelling from 2D design. One of the main differences was visualisation. "The need for the engineer to visualise a design has gone: the software now does it for us," he says. "When we are presenting a concept, we can show a rendered 3D model. Our customer can see it at once. We no longer spend a lot of time getting our proposals across." And he adds: "We also communicate our designs using eDrawings. This reduces meetings. Before we used to spend a lot of time in meetings conveying our proposals. Furthermore, now that we have a 3D capability, we have been able to resurrect our former business of undertaking industrial design of consumer durables. 3D visualisation of proposed designs is essential to success in this market." Ord also raises the usefulness of clash detection facilities in both SolidWorks and the PLM add-on PDMWorks, which the company uses for its product management – checking models in and out and thus streamlining the design process. Returning to directives, Leeds-based industrial door maker Union Industries went to local finite element analysis (FEA) specialist Chalice Engineering Simulation because the FEA software it had was inadequate to model its new "Bulldoor". Union wanted to establish the ability of its door to resist wind loading in order to satisfy the requirements of the Construction Products Directive. Mark Chillery of Chalice explains that although the geometry of the door is simple, the sort of FEA package that comes embedded with SolidWorks or Inventor still can't cope with either the complexity of the door material or the large deformations that might be expected. The door is made of fabric reinforced PVC with horizontal steel bracing between two vertical guide rails. The material properties are non-linear and, due to the fabric weave, different in each direction. In addition, the door deflects more than a conventional stiff engineering structure. Since the deformation is unknown at the start, analysis has to be iterative. Directive-driven work like this is becoming more common, but Chillery says: "Nearly all the work we do to demonstrate compliance of various sorts, qualifies for grant funding of around 50% through the Manufacturing Advisory Service, run by the DTI. This usually makes simulation a viable alternative to physical testing, providing our software can accurately represent the physical phenomena involved."