CAD Tolerance Proofing for Manufacturability

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Computer-aided design (CAD) objects often fail to ensure manufacturability due to improper dimensioning, tolerances, and missing information, leading to non-manufacturable apparatuses despite proper geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) applications.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for proofing CAD objects using a computer system with a processor and memory, which includes a tolerance proofing tool that extracts items of interest, compares them with rules based on material or process criteria, and tags items for manufacturability, ensuring compliance with defined dimensions and standards.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If GD&T is applied to CAD drawing, then dimensioning precision is improved, but manufacturability is worsened due to improper tolerance values

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedimensioning precisionVSAvoidmanufacturability

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary verification of tolerance values against material and process-specific rules before manufacturing. By checking whether entered tolerances meet defined rules for the selected material and process type, the system identifies manufacturability issues in advance, allowing designers to correct improper tolerance values before production begins.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides feedback by tagging extracted items with verification results and generating reports that indicate whether tolerances and dimensions are manufacturable. This feedback loop allows designers to review and adjust their CAD objects based on automated verification against established manufacturing rules.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Manufacturing precision

If tolerance values are reduced for higher precision, then manufacturing precision is improved, but ease of manufacture is worsened

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetolerance precisionVSAvoidease of manufacture

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes the parameters being verified by allowing users to select different material types and process types, which automatically applies the appropriate tolerance rules for each combination. This enables the system to evaluate whether reduced tolerance values are appropriate for the specific material and process being used, rather than applying universal tolerance standards.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If comprehensive verification rules are applied to all CAD items, then manufacturability verification is improved, but device complexity is worsened

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemanufacturability verificationVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the verification process by dividing CAD objects into extractable items that can be individually evaluated against specific rules. By breaking down the complex task of verifying entire CAD drawings into discrete, rule-based checks of individual items, the system manages complexity while maintaining comprehensive verification coverage.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an intermediary layer of rule-based verification between the CAD design and manufacturing processes. This intermediary automatically evaluates CAD items against pre-defined material and process rules, serving as a mediator that translates design intent into manufacturability assessment without requiring direct complex interaction between designers and manufacturing constraints.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Measurement precision

If manual verification of CAD objects is performed, then attention to detail is improved, but productivity is worsened

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveverification accuracyVSAvoidproofing efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables self-service verification by automatically extracting items from CAD objects and evaluating them against pre-defined rules without requiring manual inspection. The automated extraction and verification process maintains high accuracy while significantly improving productivity compared to manual review methods.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces the mechanical process of manual verification with an automated computer-based system. By substituting human reviewers with automated extraction and rule-based evaluation, the system maintains verification accuracy while eliminating the time-consuming nature of manual proofing processes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS8095341B2Systems, methods, and tools for proofing a computer-aided design object

Publication Date: 2012.01.10 ROBERT BOSCH CORP

AI summary

Systems, methods, and tools for proofing computer-aided design (CAD) objects (e.g., CAD drawings or models). The objects are implemented with CAD software and represent an apparatus. An exemplary method includes receiving a CAD object representing the apparatus, determining criteria for proofing the CAD object, determining rules, extracting items of interest from the CAD object, comparing the extracted items with the rules, and tagging the extracted items based on the comparisons. An exemplary criterion for proofing the CAD object is the type of material (e.g., a type of plastic material) for the apparatus to be manufactured in.