Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CONTENT:-
1. INTRODUCTION
10. REFERRENCE
Software technologies
Originally software for Computer-Aided Design systems was developed with computer
languages such as FORTRAN, but with the advancement of object-oriented programming
methods this has radically changed. Typical modern parametric feature based modeller and
freeform surface systems are built around a number of key C (programming language)
modules with their own APIs. A CAD system can be seen as built up from the interaction of a
graphical user interface (GUI) with NURBS geometry and/or boundary representation (B-
rep) data via a geometric modelling kernel. A geometry constraint engine may also be
employed to manage the associative relationships between geometry, such as wireframe
geometry in a sketch or components in an assembly.
Right now, no special hardware is required for most CAD software. However, some CAD
systems can do graphically and computationally expensive tasks, so good graphics card, high
speed (and possibly multiple) CPUs and large amounts of RAM are recommended.
In 2D systems, a lot of free and open source programme which is include by producers.
These provide an approach to the drawing process without all the fuss over scale and
placement on the drawing sheet that accompanied hand drafting, since these can be adjusted
as required during the creation of the final draft.
3D CAD system is extension of 2D CAD system. Each line inserted manually in drawing.
Holes are not directly added to drawing because it has no mass properties associated with. To
make the final product in engineering drawing views many CAD system using the wireframe
model.
3D dumb solids are created i such a way that these are exist in the real world. Basic three –
dimensional geometry forms (prisms, cylinders, spheres, and so on) have solid volumes
added or subtracted from them, as if assembling or cutting real-world objects. Two-
dimensional projected views can easily be generated from the models. Basic 3D solids don't
usually include tools to easily allow motion of components, set limits to their motion, or
identify interference between components.
3D parametric solid modelling requires the designer to use what is referred to as “design
intent”. The objects and features created are adjustable. Any future modifications will be
simple, difficult, or nearly impossible, depending on how the original part was created. One
must think of this as being a "perfect world" representation of the component. If a feature was
intended to be located from the centre of the part, the operator needs to locate it from the
centre of the model, not, perhaps, from a more convenient edge or an arbitrary point, as he
could when using "dumb" solids. Parametric solids require the operator to consider the
consequences of his actions carefully.
Some software packages provide the ability to edit parametric and non-parametric geometry
without the need to understand or undo the design intent history of the geometry by use of
direct modelling functionality. This ability may also include the additional ability to infer the
correct relationships between selected geometry (e.g., tangency, concentricity) which makes
the editing process less time and labour intensive while still freeing the engineer from the
burden of understanding the model’s design intent history. These kind of non history based
systems are called Explicit Modellers. The first Explicit Modelling system was introduced to
the world at the end of 80's by Hewlett-Packard under the name Solid Designer. This CAD
solution, which released many later versions, is now sold by PTC as "CoCreate Modeling"
Draft views are able to be generated easily from the models. Assemblies usually incorporate
tools to represent the motions of components, set their limits, and identify interference. The
tool kits available for these systems are ever increasing; including 3D piping and injection
mold designing packages.
1. Switching CAD system:-The only reason to switch CAD system is to save money.
Switching saving from installing a new system come in many forms. Replacing an old
system can result in less maintenance. Another reason to switch is to convert to 3D
some manufacturing fixed that 3D is more productive than 2D and stable enough to
use consistently across the organization.
3. 2D/3D CAD SYSTEM: - 3D/2D CAD system primarily intended for mechanical
engineering design. In addition to powerful tools for 3D modelling and 2D drafting
and dimensioning, the CAD system provides libraries of standard mechanical parts
(ANSI, DIN), calculations of standard mechanical components, and tools for working
with bills of materials (BOM) and blocks. The comprehensive CAD software enables
designers to quickly create, evaluate, and modify their models. VariCAD's high
performance, powerful features, and simple and quick user interface make VariCAD
the best value in the CAD market. The software is sold as one "fully loaded" package,
with all features and functions, for one very affordable price. VariCAD delivers an
excellent performance-to-price ratio, making it one of the smartest choices on the
market today.
Another consequence had been that since the latest advances were often quite expensive,
small and even mid-size firms often could not compete against large firms who could use
their computational edge for competitive purposes. Today, however, hardware and software
costs have come down. Even high-end packages work on less expensive platforms and some
even support multiple platforms. The costs associated with CAD implementation now are
more heavily weighted to the costs of training in the use of these high level tools, the cost of
integrating a CAD/CAM/CAE PLM using enterprise across multi-CAD and multi-platform
environments and the costs of modifying design work flows to exploit the full advantage of
CAD tools.
1. Accuracy:- CAD helps to achieves very high degree of accuracy that is impossible to
achieve manually. For example, a line 22.532mm long or an angle of 53.270 can be
precisely drawn in CAD software.
2. Speed:- With sufficient practice, a user can create drawing speedily. Similar objects
can be copied or mirrored or arrayed which saves time required for duplication.
Automatic hatching, texting and dimensioning save time.
3. Easy editing:- Drawing once constructed can be easily editing or modified as and
when needed. Component drawing from one drawing sheets drawn file can be
inserted in another drawing file.
4. Space Effectiveness:-A computer can store several thousand drawing files over a long
period of time. Equal number of drawing manually will need a big go down to store !
• The difference between them is also matter the PDM system, depending on who you
talk to, smart team vs. wind-chill system.
• Both are targeted at different clientele. Catia exceeds pro/E in several specifics such
as surfacing, 2D, interfacing with other software.
• In suck view creation pro/E is not much better than catia, in somewhere like that in
functionality in drawing mode, show erase for 2D,z clipping .
• The same according to par modelling – catia has nicer, more eye candy interface. But
pro/E has not this.
• In surfacing pro/E is not much better than Catia. In this catia shows their strength.
PRO/E: - Trouble with Pro/E is that it wants/needs/expects zero degrees of freedom, no more
no less, in all sections of the software. And when it is not so it stops or freezes or expects you
to do so. Furthermore Pro/E is designed by mathematicians/programmers that do not fully
grasp the day-to-day reality of designing. Pro/E is not a girl but an old aunt with her own will
and you have to be very careful to lead her where you want her to go. You have to understand
her crooked way of thinking and talk to her the way she (dis)functions. Once you understand
all that there is way to get things done.
Catia:-Catia is more forgiving. You can under constrain or over constrain without trouble.
There are definitely some real humans active in the interface design. And the software seems
to go a fair way in solving by itself the problems you put it in. But in Catia you are never sure
whether you have a part, an assembly or something in between. Guess that's coming through
history of the past. Understanding how an assembly fits together is a visual mess, and the
available relations are somewhat poor. Sheetmetal is poor; you can hardly pattern or mirror
anything in this workbench, and most of the time you have to explicitly build the bends. But
then on the other hand: does Pro/E excel in sheetmetal? Making things visible or invisible in
Catia can even be worse than in Pro/E since you can have individual part bodies or even
surfaces becoming invisible, depending on how deep the activation goes.
On a general level I think Catia is easier to handle and smoother when design changes occur.
They're probably a close match in modelling capability, though I only scratch the surface of
"deep modelling" in either software. In 2D Catia is clearly better but that part is not a main
issue since many times I model without making a drawing and rarely make a drawing on
itself.
Product lifecycle
Computer-Aided Design is one part of the whole Digital Product Development (DPD)
activity within the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) process, and as such is used
together with other tools, which are either integrated modules or stand-alone products, such
as:
REFERENCE-
1. www.computer.org
2. www.varicad.com
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design
4.engineering drawing by Dhananjay A jolhe
5. Farin, G.: A History of Curves and Surfaces in CAGD, Handbook of Computer Aided Geometric
Design