Workpiece Repair Using Simulation-Guided 3D Shape Correction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for repairing workpieces in manufacturing processes require significant manual effort and are not integrated efficiently into automated manufacturing sequences, lacking the ability to assess and adjust physical properties beyond geometric tolerances.

Innovation Solution

A method and arrangement that integrates automated quality control and repair by simulating the physical behavior of workpieces using a numerical simulation model, allowing for flexible integration into existing manufacturing processes, and utilizing 3D printing and subtractive processing to achieve desired shapes and properties.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If manual expert decision-making is used for repair decisions, then repair quality can be maintained through human judgment, but significant manual effort is required and automation is limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation of repair decision-makingVSAvoidmanual effort required
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables self-service automation by using sensor data and simulation models to automatically assess workpiece quality and determine repair necessity without human intervention. The digital twin autonomously evaluates whether geometric deviations affect functional requirements, eliminating the need for manual expert assessment while maintaining decision quality.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical assessment with a digital-based system combining sensors, numerical simulation models, and automated evaluation algorithms. The physical expert judgment process is substituted by computational analysis of sensor data against simulated functional requirements, enabling full automation of the decision-making process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Manufacturing precision

If traditional quality control methods are used, then geometric tolerances can be checked, but the ability to assess physical behavior and functional requirements is limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvegeometric tolerance checkingVSAvoidassessment of physical behavior
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system creates a composite assessment approach by integrating multiple data sources (sensor measurements, simulation models, functional requirements) into a unified evaluation framework. This composite method combines geometric tolerance checking with physical behavior assessment, allowing simultaneous evaluation of both form and function to determine repair necessity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

The digital twin serves as an intermediary between physical workpiece measurements and functional requirement assessment. It translates sensor data into simulated physical behavior predictions, enabling indirect assessment of functional impacts without direct physical testing, thus bridging the gap between geometric measurements and functional performance evaluation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Ease of manufacture

If workpieces are transferred to separate repair processes, then repair can be performed, but integration into automated manufacturing sequences is poor and manual effort increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improverepair process integrationVSAvoidmanufacturing sequence efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges quality control, repair decision-making, and repair execution into a single integrated system. The digital twin platform unifies assessment and repair functions, allowing the system to transition seamlessly from inspection to repair within the same automated sequence, eliminating the need for separate repair processes and improving manufacturing flow efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements multi-functionality by designing a platform that can perform both quality assessment and repair operations through the same digital twin infrastructure. The simulation model serves multiple purposes: evaluating geometric deviations, predicting physical behavior, determining repair necessity, and guiding repair execution, thereby eliminating the need for separate specialized systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Difficulty of detecting and measuring

If only geometric properties are checked, then inspection is simple, but the functional impact of deviations on physical behavior cannot be assessed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinspection complexityVSAvoidfunctional impact information
Core Design Contradiction:
Difficulty of detecting and measuringVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary simulation of physical behavior based on measured geometric deviations before actual functional testing or repair. By pre-calculating the impact of deviations on stress distribution, natural frequencies, or other physical properties using the numerical simulation model, the system anticipates functional issues early, preserving information about potential problems before they manifest in actual use.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12491590B2Method for repairing workpiece involves using requirement information to check whether simulated physical behavior fulfills requirement
Publication Date: 2025.12.09 SIEMENS AG
  • US12491590B2 patent drawing
  • US12491590B2 patent drawing

AI summary

In order to repair a workpiece, a requirement specification about a requirement to be met by the workpiece and a numerical simulation model for simulating a physical behavior of the workpiece are imported. Furthermore, a current shape of the workpiece is detected by means of a sensor. Where a deviation of the current shape from a target shape S of the workpiece is identified, a respective physical behavior of the workpiece in its current shape and in a shape added to by means of a 3D printer are simulated using the simulation model. Furthermore, a check is performed on the basis of the requirement specification to ascertain whether the simulated physical behavior meets the requirement. Depending on the outcome of the check, the workpiece is then either left in its current shape, added to by the 3D printer or discarded.