Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Solidworks - Design Intent 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
kroth

kroth

Mechanical
Aug 23, 2003
45
"Design Intent" seems to be a key concept to SW.

Searching for design intent, specific to Solidworks really doesn't give a clear idea exactly what it means/implies ---- apparently design intent can be anything, including "pleasing the boss".

In a general engineering sense, design intent would be a variant on design objectives, goals --. Does it mean something similar in SW, or is design intent defined by its context of use?

What exactly is design intent in the context of better SW designs? Or is there a better way to ask this question!
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
My feeling on Design intent is Taking a model and modeling it the very best and easiest way possible and making it easy for someone to look at without losing the idea of the model. Don't get caught up in thinking in one mode. There is most likely and easier way to build your model.

As in thread559-108137 My poast in there on how to make 3 sweeps into 1 sweep. That is design intent. That is making the model easier to understand and control later in the files life.

You can design part, anybody can. But if the part is cumbersome to make changes to and fails when some changes are made, then the file does not have Design intent built into the part and the person that made it didn't think his project out before starting it.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP [pc2]
3DVision Technologies

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Design intent is just a hackneyed newspeak phrase for knowing what you are trying to do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Design intent is a general term in all fields of design and engineering. SBaugh and TheTick are correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I see design intent in a different way. I see it as applying knowledge to a model(using relations, dimensions, equations, design tables, etc.) so certain areas of the design behave correctly. As an example you may have a boss that always needs a certain clearance around it no matter the overall size of the face it's on. You can use dimensions or relations to control the "clearance zone" around the boss so when the overall face changes sizes the required "clearance zone" remains intact. This is a small example but this is what design intent is to me.

I agree design intent tends to make models simpler because practicing good design intent really refines the modeling process. Also design intent is easier to comtrol when modeling is done more efficently. Efficent models are a by product of design intent. Just because your model is efficent does not mean it has any design intent.

My .02
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rockguy,

I don't think you see it any different then us. You understand making the model simple and easy to control by yourself and others is importatn DI. Also making in the least amount of features is DI as well.

I think your on the same page as the reat of us, you just go about a little differently because you add more intelligence to your models vs. just making features.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP [pc2]
3DVision Technologies

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It seems like you should already know what design parameters need to be tweaked before you make a model. The problem is that you are designing! You dont necessarily know what the final product will end up being like. This is the big issue with design intent IMHO. The boss comes in and asks you to change a parameter that you have not accounted for, and then you are done for.
This is why I appreciate tools like the Deform command that can free you somewhat from design intent.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kroth,

I have my own take on "design intent". It is something distinct from the fabrication instructions that go on your manufacturing drawings.

My design intent on a plate might be to deploy shock mounts (4 holes in a 1-15/16" square) equally spaced around a pitch circle 400mm diameter. I might decide later to shift one shock mount by ten degrees so that the system can only be assembled one way. If I change to the next size of shock mount, the squares go from 1-15/16" to 2-5/8".

When I prepare fabrication drawings, I format the drawing and dimensions for use by the fabricator and inspector. In general, I have to use consistent units and datums, and I have to assume that the person reading the drawing is not aware of the other drawings and parts in the design.

Fabricators and inspectors are better off with rectangular coordinates all from the same edges. SolidWorks delivers this easily on the drawings, and it updates when I change my ten degree shift to a twelve degree shift.

JHG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think everyone will have his or her own definition and variations on what Design Intent actually is. So far, everyone is giving good examples. I’ll add to the list.

I think Design Intent deals with how a part is modeled, in order to make it:

1) Easy to modify by someone else
2) Obvious to see what to modify
3) Behave correctly when it is modified

A good example might be a simple strap with several holes. Depending on the design of the strap, and it’s function (Design Intent), there are several ways to model it.

A) The cross-section of the strap could be the driving sketch, then extruded to a length, either one direction or mid-plane.
B) The plan view of the strap could be the driving sketch with the Origin in one corner, then extruded to a thickness, either one direction of mid-plane.
C) The plan view of the strap could be the driving sketch with the Origin at the midpoint of the sketch, then extruded to a thickness, either one direction of mid-plane.

All three methods above would yield a similar strap model, but each one would have to be modified differently. Method A might be used if you are unsure of what material thickness is required, or if the material thickness is very critical.

Method B might be used if one end of the strap needs to be adjacent to other parts, and it is the controlling element in the design. One end is basically constrained, allowing the part to only grow in one direction if needed.

Method C might be used if the strap is placed in a symmetrical position in the assembly, where you might have several different lengths of straps.

[green]"But what... is it good for?"[/green]
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks to all the above - here is my summary --

Consider this scenario: The developer/engineer/designer is employed by a bicycle manufacturer, and is given the instruction to create a new bicycle with certain characteristics (a final structure that will be mass produced identical to the sample/prototype).

A. If d/e/d simply goes to the model shop, and with saw, hammer, torch and scavenged parts creates this new bike (according to a clear image/design in his mind), the new bike simply comes into existence, and can be changed just as easily with saw, hammer and torch, if for the boss says: put the wheels 1 foot further apart (in the style of "American Chopper").

B. If d/e/d. with pencil and paper creates a full set of drawings, the model shop can make the identical new bike, and if the same 1 foot change were required, anyone could readily create new details, and new or marked up assembly drawings, and the model shop would easily make this modified new bike.

C. If the d/e/d uses SW or any other design automation tool to create a set of plans for the model shop, the model shop could again easily create the new bike, however, the 1 foot change request would/might create havoc - precipitate a nightmare.


Process C is impractical or impossible without a good/wise "image/data management strategy ". This strategy has been labelled "design intent", and has nothing to do with the intention of crating a good design, the goal, the end result of all this effort.. it is simply a coping mechanism, a means of working with/surviving flawed software/programs.


Someday, SW might be smart enough to be free of this requirement - for now, you had better listen to the wise --- and be aware of/use good "design intent" in creating SW designs - otherwise be prepard to suffer dire consequences when the boss asks you to put the wheels 1 foot further apart.


Which makes me wonder, which needs the least "design intent" (or is the most robust) -- Autocad, Inventor, Solidworks, ProEngineer, Solidedge ---- etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They're probably all about the same. The top-down principles transcend CAD packages. (This has been an advantage when I needed to switch.)

Pro/E tends to be much more "bureaucratic" in its structure, and thus forces much more preplanning. SW can be more forgiving in that sense. It's easier to change or add top-down links. I can't say anything about WildFire.

I design a lot of hinges. Not large assemblies, but each is a mechanism requiring top-down control. SW does a good job with this. If you would like to see a sample, I could post one.

[bat]"An object at rest can not be stopped."[bat]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Design intent as "nothing" to do with CAD.

Design intent exists long ago, since engineers and designers needed to design and manufacture flawless products. It's required to design components that need to work together, performing well (without design intent, successfuly assemble a shaft in a bearing is just luck).

The thing is that CAD can be a very useful tool to help us in the design intent. With a correct design intent you can easely revise your design, everything updating accordingly (without a proper design intent, your design revision can be a nightmare) and this can be done by another person.

With Autocad your design intent is no different from the strategies 30 yers ago, with blue prints. But you still need design intent with Autocad (even with no direct help from this package).

The actual 3D CAD like SW help us to manage the design intent in an easy and more productive way, with lots of automation.

I agree with TheTick. Pro/E was a much more rigid tool(which, in a sense is good) than SW.

Regards
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually, we are here dealing with two independent understandings of "design intent", equally valid in context - this is what I wanted to clarify in my original question - as beginning SW learner, not really appreciating its use at various times in various contexts.

Design Intent A:
End result focus -- the bicycle is a good bicycle (even though the documentation may be non-existing or bad).
(for this definition there are several posts in this thread)

Design Intent B:
Documentation focused -- the documentation of the bicycle is good documentation (even though the bicycle resulting from it may be bad).
(for this definition, there are a number of great posts in this thread - particularly MadMango, 5 postings earlier).

My original question was to get a clear sense of version B, which seemed to be critical, yet rather nebulous -

Unfortunately (or fortunately) CAD packages need Design Intent B - manual drawing didn't need this - parts were basically amorphous shapes - they did not contain internal instructions as to how they were drawn, (and therefore how they needed to be handled in any change).

MadMango's strap above is a good example -

A pencil designer would simply draw a strap, with all necessary features. Two years later, another pencil designer could re-do this strap any way at all, no big deal.

A SW designer needs to think a long way ahead - not only should the strap be a good strap, its logic structure needs to be good as well.

Both definitions seem critical to long term success - and are not interchangeable concepts - SW might be advised to coin a new term - say Documentation Design (Doc Design) - and make it absolutely basic to any coursework.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kroth

IMO, an SW (or Pro/E and other equivalent 3D tools) design should blend the two types A and B (this is not possible with Acad). And it can do it in a natural way.

Being a feature based CAD, you just need to simulate the production process as you build your model. The operation sequences, the dimensions and tolerances,.., should be in accordance. This way you'll have a good bicycle and a good documentation.

You must note that, if you have a poor/non existing documentation, it's certain that you will build a good bicycle only once.

But, as you say, an SW designer should think ahead. But he also as to know well the available production methods and capabilities of the company/suppliers (now I'm crossing a frontier to knowlege based software). This is what makes a good designer. An SW guru from a is not necessarely good designer (the basic problem of a VAR). Neither a good designer is of great interest if he's not productive with a 3D CAD.

Regrads


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's a good thing that SW forces users to think ahead. It's about time! IMO, too many designs have not been thought out and problems often occur. You can't talk 3D to a 2D mind. Sorry, short answer, but have to go.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've seen so many parts and especially assemblies that indicate a poor logical thought train from the SW user. Things like illogical origin placement or features that are made and then negated by other features clearly indicate a lack of intent behind the design during creation. It's almost as if SolidWorks was used to "sketch" an idea in 3D and I cringe when I see such parts/assemblies and wonder what sorts of errors to expect.

Normally I'll redo the models or assemblies myself to eliminate the possibility of error when moving to production. No amount of money can buy back the time a mistake causes, and in some cases, time trumps money.

One example I'll mention regarding design intent being "built into" a part file is manufacturing cues. I design a lot of plastic parts. I normally have no need to call out parting lines/planes because the draft and other features clearly spell it out. When we move to production, there is little to discuss with the observant production manager--the parts speak for themselves to a large degree--and they should.

Good discussion.

Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kroth has some good points. Before SW, I used Cadkey's solid modeler. You don't have to worry about part relations and edits causing unexpected changes. While on the SW learning curve, I missed that simplicity a lot, in fact I still miss it sometimes.

But now I can see it's far easier to make changes in a well-structured cad model than with cadkey. And both are much easier than changing a pencil design, at least for complex designs.

Anyway, it's always better to think about the design before modeling it (duh). Most designers visualize pieces of the design in their heads or sketch it on paper first. This improves both types of 'design intent': cad file robustness and the design itself.

ko (
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The concept "design intent" is used loosely to mean many things. I feel it is far too broad in its use. It reaches back to the origins of engineering (decades/centuries ago?), decades before CAD appeared.

The CAD community (of whatever persuasion) would benefit greatly by coining a term that specifically means: a strategy, discipline, technique to produce "Good Documentation" specific to the CAD package used.

Leave "design intent" to good engineering practice (which has nothing to do with the tools of documentation - freehand sketches, pencil drafting, Cadkey, SW ---etc.).

Mixing both needs in a single term, one or the other is likely to get lost, overlooked, ---.


For example, - how about using "documentation intent", or "doc intent" as a separate and independent discipline: to mean specifically, as for example MadMAngo suggests above: ""how a part is modeled, in order to make it:

1) Easy to modify by someone else
2) Obvious to see what to modify
3) Behave correctly when it is modified

Designers would be well advised to focus clearly on "design intent" in the engineering sense (come up with a good bicycle), and as separate, equally critical practice, to focus clearly on "doc intent" (come up a good documentation package for this good bicycle). A good design has both to the maximum possible.

This dual, clear cut focus, where each is stressed in its own context as an absolute need, probably would prevent a lot of sloppy thinking and poor work - see Theophilus -- two posts above.

Google shows innumerable references - here are some interesting instances:










 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CAD2015
  • Question
SolidWorks vs 3DEXPERIENCE SolidWorks 1
Replies
4
Views
2K
CAD2015
CAD2015
CAD2015
  • Question
SolidWorks Cloud apps vs Students and SolidWorks Student Edition Desktop................... 1
Replies
2
Views
1K
CAD2015
CAD2015
CAD2015
  • Question
Electrical Harness Design.............. 1
Replies
2
Views
265
CAD2015
CAD2015
drawoh
  • Locked
  • Question
SolidWorks Flexible Parts
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
SBaugh
SBaugh
CAD2015
  • Question
SOLIDWORKS: Cloud 3D CAD browser-based vs locally 3D CAD installed 5
Replies
8
Views
4K
drawoh
drawoh

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom