Abstract: A Process Architecture for Increased Parameterization in the Solid Modeling and Design of Aircraft Wing and Empennage structural assemblies and parts. Abstract Design involves human effort, often demanding the incorporation of changes. So this human effort plus the changes result in another considerable effort. But if the Design is represented by a set of parameters then the change merely means changing the values of the parameters. So the proposed method keeps the Design heritage intact and lets the Design intent alone do the talking. In the process, meanwhile, a human element (in the guise of parameters) is lent to an otherwise complex scenario: which can be further utilized in the selection, change and optimization of the system. THE METHODOLOGY The topology is divided into two spaces: Top Design (TD) & Detail Design (DD). Further, there is an identity element (ID) made common to the both. The novelty comes with the idea of a further classification inside the spaces of TD and DD. Three kinds of objects were defined: (1) Elements Xj (which are nothing but the lines and curves in the Sketcher), (2) Relations fj (which are constraints between the x,"s forced by the Designer), and (3) Analysis objects kr (typically objects with full 3-D data). The parameterization is achieved by an implementation of the relation: f(x) => k, ...fj being commutative and associative. This means, the operations on x/s are not dependent on the sequence of their creation, unlike the feature based modeling where the sequence of the features is important. In this way, new x( "s can be added or deleted at any later time, or the fj"s values be changed, without any difficulty. This in practical terms means rapid incorporation of design changes. All design decisions are represented by fj"s, whereas the kr"s are derived from x/s and f/s by the use of features such as extrude, trim, revolve, booleans, etc, without invoking any design decision on the part of the Designer. For example, in the "extrude" operation the parameters are: "start-value" and "end-value"; but here these values are not important and can be put a sufficiently large number (in the feature based modeling, however, these two parameters are usually design driven parameters). Further, the ID file contains relevant kr"s from the TD. The ID (the "node") makes these objects available to the DD files by the use of proper file-structure. In this way the TD drives top-down changes into the DD. Moreover, at the TD or DD level, the presence of all parameters in the Sketcher alone, makes it easy to identify and change the relevant parameters.
1. Title of the invention
A Process Architecture for Increased Parameterization in the Solid Modeling and Design of Aircraft Wing and Empennage structural assemblies and parts.
2. Field of invention
Design processes and approaches used to model 3-D geometry of Wing/ Empennage components.
3. Use of invention
It is a new standardized approach adopted in the software-processes used in modeling parts and assemblies of various mechanical components of Wing/ Empennage.
4. Prior art
With increased use of software in the mechanical design of components, various methods have been adopted in the industry over the years to shorten the product life-cycle, by incorporating features that enable assimilating changes quickly. The changes are imminent in any project given that it is almost impossible to get the Design, which is essentially iterative in nature, dead-right in the start of the project itself.
In Aircraft Industry, usually the part geometries are very complex and a wide array of CAD features are used to model the same. The complexity of a company hierarchy and organizational structures also get reflected in the design practices and data management. The pre-existing approaches today adopt a variety of tools to data-reuse and fast prototyping in projects. The term "parametric modeling", for example, refers to feature-based modeling where features such as booleans, extrude, trim, revolve etc are all driven by parameters in-built in the latest CAD platforms. Again, latest PLM tools are used to maintain files and data as customized according to the organization's structural needs.
5. Draw backs of prior art
The data-structure does not fully support a satisfactory parameterization of mechanical assemblies, as it focuses on role-assignment of users, and the work-flow. In modeling of 3-D structures, numerous features are usually used, which makes parameterization impossible. This is because each feature uses some parameters the values of which are design decisions; in this way the decisions get scattered over all the features in the part-modeling history. This makes the identification of parameters, let alone using them, impossible. As a working solution, standardized methods to model a particular family of geometries, say spars for example, are formulated. Even then full parameterization is not achieved. This is because the features are too distributed to lend robust identification; prescribed methods, on the other hand, are not liked by designers who need the flexibility to design new solutions or model novel geometries.
6. Comparison between prior art and present invention
This invention formulates a standardized modeling practice which supports parameterization at both Top-level and Detail-level of Design and is yet flexible enough to cater to all diverse, present and future, geometries used in Wing & Empennage assemblies of Aircrafts.
7. Aim of the invention
Aim of the invention is to shorten the product Life-cycle activities, reducing man-hours, and also to make the modeling practices more standardized and oriented towards Design-thought (through conscious use of design parameters) through successful parameterization of the process, and also thereby eliminating the draw backs of the present practices.
Claims
We claim that
1. This Process architecture for modeling activities has been configured and designed by HAL.
2. This Process architecture supports increased parameterization of Complex Components and assemblies.
3. Also the Process architecture facilitates rapid prototyping and quick change incorporation.
| Section | Controller | Decision Date |
|---|---|---|
| # | Name | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-5 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 1 | 5275-CHE-2013-Claims_Hearing Reply_30-01-2023.pdf | 2023-01-30 |
| 2 | 5275-CHE-2013-Marked Up Copy And Authorization Certificate_Hearing Reply_30-01-2023.pdf | 2023-01-30 |
| 2 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-3 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 3 | 5275-CHE-2013-US(14)-HearingNotice-(HearingDate-23-01-2023).pdf | 2023-01-02 |
| 3 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-2 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 4 | Abstract_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 4 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-1 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 5 | Amended Pages of Specification_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 5 | 5275-CHE-2013 DRAWINGS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 6 | Cancelled Document_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 6 | 5275-CHE-2013 DESCRIPTION (COMPLETE) 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 7 | Claims_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 7 | 5275-CHE-2013 CORRESPONDENCE OTHERS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 8 | Correspondence by Applicant_Reply to Examination Report_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 8 | 5275-CHE-2013 CLAIMS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 9 | Drawings_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 9 | 5275-CHE-2013 ABSTRACT 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 10 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-18 18-06-2015.pdf | 2015-06-18 |
| 10 | Form2 Title page_Complete_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 11 | 5275-CHE-2013 CORRESPONDENCE OTHERS 18-06-2015.pdf | 2015-06-18 |
| 11 | 5275-CHE-2013-FER.pdf | 2019-07-01 |
| 12 | 5275-CHE-2013 CORRESPONDENCE OTHERS 18-06-2015.pdf | 2015-06-18 |
| 12 | 5275-CHE-2013-FER.pdf | 2019-07-01 |
| 13 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-18 18-06-2015.pdf | 2015-06-18 |
| 13 | Form2 Title page_Complete_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 14 | 5275-CHE-2013 ABSTRACT 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 14 | Drawings_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 15 | 5275-CHE-2013 CLAIMS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 15 | Correspondence by Applicant_Reply to Examination Report_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 16 | 5275-CHE-2013 CORRESPONDENCE OTHERS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 16 | Claims_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 17 | 5275-CHE-2013 DESCRIPTION (COMPLETE) 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 17 | Cancelled Document_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 18 | 5275-CHE-2013 DRAWINGS 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 18 | Amended Pages of Specification_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 19 | Abstract_FER Reply_30-12-2019.pdf | 2019-12-30 |
| 19 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-1 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 20 | 5275-CHE-2013-US(14)-HearingNotice-(HearingDate-23-01-2023).pdf | 2023-01-02 |
| 20 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-2 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 21 | 5275-CHE-2013-Marked Up Copy And Authorization Certificate_Hearing Reply_30-01-2023.pdf | 2023-01-30 |
| 21 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-3 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 22 | 5275-CHE-2013-Claims_Hearing Reply_30-01-2023.pdf | 2023-01-30 |
| 22 | 5275-CHE-2013 FORM-5 18-11-2013.pdf | 2013-11-18 |
| 1 | 5275CHE2013-ss_18-06-2019.pdf |
| 1 | 5275CHE2013-ss_20-06-2019.pdf |
| 2 | 5275CHE2013-ss_18-06-2019.pdf |
| 2 | 5275CHE2013-ss_20-06-2019.pdf |