Preform Geometry Design via Minimum-Volume Bounding Boxes

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The current process of designing preforms is time-intensive and inefficient, as engineers manually divide parts into blocks for manufacturing, often encountering feasibility issues with joining technologies like linear friction welding due to surface area limitations, requiring extensive calculations and revisions.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method using a graphical user interface (GUI) to display 3D models, receive cutting plane data, and determine minimum-volume bounding boxes to generate preform geometries, which includes calculating maximum welding surface areas and displaying visual representations for rapid design, analysis, and revision of preform geometries.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Shape

If engineers manually design preforms by dividing parts into blocks, then the preform geometry can be customized for complex shapes, but the design process becomes time-intensive and inefficient

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepreform geometryVSAvoiddesign process time

Core Design Contradiction:

ShapeVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces the manual mechanical process of dividing parts into blocks with an automated computer-implemented system. The system automatically generates preform geometries by receiving 3D model data, determining cutting planes, and calculating minimum-volume bounding boxes, thereby eliminating time-intensive manual design while maintaining the ability to handle complex shapes

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary automated calculations of cutting planes and bounding boxes before manufacturing begins. By pre-computing the optimal preform geometry and evaluating fabrication feasibility in advance, the system eliminates iterative manual revisions and accelerates the overall design-to-manufacturing process

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If engineers evaluate feasibility by calculating welding surface areas, then fabrication feasibility can be determined, but the analysis becomes complex and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefabrication feasibilityVSAvoidanalysis complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-service automated feasibility evaluation by automatically calculating welding surface areas and comparing them against thresholds. The computer-implemented system handles all complex calculations, threshold comparisons, and feasibility determinations without requiring manual intervention, thereby maintaining high reliability while eliminating analysis complexity for the user

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides automated feedback on fabrication feasibility by evaluating welding surface areas and block configurations against predefined thresholds. This feedback mechanism allows the system to automatically identify infeasible designs and suggest revisions, streamlining the feasibility evaluation process while maintaining rigorous engineering standards

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Ease of manufacture

If multiple revisions of preform design are made to reduce raw material or improve assembly, then the preform quality improves, but the entire design-analyze-revise cycle takes hours

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepreform assembly easeVSAvoiddesign revision speed

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of manufactureVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces the iterative manual design-revision process with an automated computer-implemented system that rapidly evaluates multiple preform configurations. The system automatically calculates bounding boxes, evaluates welding feasibility, and optimizes block configurations, enabling engineers to explore and compare multiple design options in minutes rather than hours, thereby dramatically improving design revision speed while maintaining or enhancing preform quality

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS10192366B2Interactive graphical user interface (GUI) for designing preform geometries

Publication Date: 2019.01.29 THE BOEING CO

AI summary

An example method is described that includes providing, for display, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a part. The method also includes receiving, via a graphical user interface, data defining a cutting plane. The cutting plane intersects the 3D model of the part and divides the 3D model into a first portion and a second portion. The method further includes determining a first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the first portion of the 3D model, and determining a second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes that is tangent to the cutting plane and encloses the second portion of the 3D model. The method also includes providing a preform geometry for the part. The preform geometry includes the first set of minimum-volume bounding boxes and the second set of minimum-volume bounding boxes.