DOCSLIB.ORG

19 Siemens PLM Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
19 Siemens PLM Software Chapter 19 Siemens PLM Software (Unigraphics)1 Author’s note: As discussed below, this organization has had a multitude of different names over the years. Many still refer to it simply as UGS and, although that name is no longer formally used, I have used it throughout this chapter. McDonnell Douglas Automation In order to understand how today’s Siemens PLM Software organization and the Unigraphics software evolved one has to go back to an organization in Saint Louis, Missouri called McAuto (McDonnell Automation Company), a subsidiary of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. The aircraft industry was one of the first users of computer systems for engineering design and analysis and McDonnell was very proactive in this endeavor starting in the late 1950s. Its first NC production part was manufactured in 1958 and computers were used to help layout aircraft the following year. In 1960 McDonnell decided to utilize this experience and enter the computer services business. Its McAuto subsidiary was established that year with 258 employees and $7 million in computer hardware. Fifteen years later, McAuto had become one of the largest computer services organizations in the world with over 3,500 employees and a computer infrastructure worth over $170 million. It continued to grow for the next decade, reaching over $1 billion in revenue and 14,000 employees by 1985. Its largest single customer during of this period was the military aircraft design group of its own parent company. A significant project during the 1960s and 1970s was the development of an in- house CAD/CAM system to support McDonnell engineering. Known as CADD (Computer Aided Design and Drafting), it was first implemented on an IBM 360/40 computer equipped with an IBM 2250 display terminal starting around 1966. In 1967, McDonnell Aircraft and Douglas Aircraft merged to form McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC)2. By 1976, the software had gone through 15 revisions and was running on IBM 370/168 mainframes using IBM 3250 displays. Tektronix 4014 and the company’s own DGS (Distributed Graphics System) terminals were also utilized. The DGS consisted of either a Digital PDP 11/34 or PDP 11/70 computer interfaced to Evans & Sutherland Picture System II displays. Graphic manipulations such as pan and zoom were handled locally by the DGS while geometric construction was performed on the mainframe host computer. Remote DGS systems communicated with the host at a relatively slow 9600 bps. McDonnell Douglas at one time was using 80 DGS systems, 100 3250s and hundreds of 4014s. Over the years, there were some limited attempts to market CADD to the general public. MDC’s operating divisions were adamant that the software should not be sold to 1 UGS is one of the few companies in this industry that has an extensive history readily available. This data has been maintained on a web site, http://www.plmworld.org/museum, by John Baker, a long term employee of the company. Much of the early part of this chapter is based upon this material. 2 McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1996. 19-1 © 2008 David E. Weisberg any company that it perceived to be a direct competitor and as a consequence CADD, unlike Lockheed’s CADAM, never really got off the ground as a commercial product. Among the few commercial customers were Timex and Cessna Aircraft. The latter was sold the software since its aircraft did not compete with anything produced by MDC. One competitor that did use the software was Northrup, but only because it was a partner with MDC on the F-18 program. The fact that the company wanted $250,000 for CADD software probably didn’t help.3 Figure 19.1 Evans & Sutherland graphics System Running CADD A major portion of McAuto’s business consisted of providing commercial timesharing services, especially to engineering and manufacturing concerns. Typical of this activity was providing Finite Element Analysis (FEA) on a remote batch basis. McAuto was one of the first company’s to offer the use of remote graphics terminals to prepare FEA models for analysis and to view the results graphically. The typical terminal used for this type of service was the Tektronix 4014 and the software was an internally developed package called FASTDRAW. Clients could use FASTDRAW to build a model, submit it for analysis using programs such as ANSYS or MSC NASTRAN and then view the results. Eventually, this program was ported to Digital VAX computers and sold as an adjunct to Unigraphics. The president of McAuto in the early 1980s was Joe Quakenbush and John Clancy was the vice president in charge of the Unigraphics activity. In February 1983, Robert Fischer, the former president of National CSS, becomes president of McAuto replacing Quackenbush who retired due to health reasons. Clancy became vice president for Industry/Product Management. Unigraphics started with a company called United Computing United Computing was founded in 1963 by John Wright and several associates. Their first two-room office was above a hairdresser in Torrance, California. Within a few years the company moved a few miles away to Carson. The new facility had previously been a post office and occasionally people would come looking to buy stamps or mail a package. 3 Lavick, Jerry J., Siggraph ’76 Proceedings, Pg. 279 19-2 © 2008 David E. Weisberg United Computing’s first product, introduced in 1969, was UNIAPT, a minicomputer based version of APT (Automatic Programmed Tool) as described in Chapter 3. APT was a part programming language used to compute tool paths that were subsequently post processed and punched onto a paper tape. The paper tape was then read into an NC machine tools where the program controlled the movement of the machine cutter, producing the part that was described using the APT language. Figure 19.2 John Wright, Founder of United Computing UNIAPT was one of the first NC programming systems sold directly to end users. Previously, most companies created their NC programs using time-sharing services provided by large providers such as McAuto and UCC (University Computing Corporation). The UNIAPT software followed basic APT principals fairly closely. APT commands were entered via a keyboard and there was no graphic feedback as we know it today. The system did have the ability to plot results, however. Moderately complex surfaces could be machined using an optional module called USURF. Figure 19.3 DEC PDP-8 based UNIAPT System United Computing was one of the first companies to license the ADAM software from Pat Hanratty’s Manufacturing and Consulting Services (See Chapter 15). Supposedly this was a worldwide exclusive license except for Japan. Since Hanratty had 19-3 © 2008 David E. Weisberg his own way of defining “exclusive” it is not clear what restrictions the contract had on either party. Although the initial version of ADAM had been developed by MCS to run on the REDCOR RC-70 minicomputer with a Computek terminal, the code was intended to be machine independent. United Computing fairly quickly ported the software to a General Automation SPC-16 minicomputer and a Tektronix display. They also added a menu-driven user interface. The software, UNI-GRAPHICS, was introduced in October 1973 at the Society of Manufacturing Engineers CAD/CAM II show at the Hilton Hotel in Detroit. These shows were the forerunners of what eventually became AUTOFACT. The software provided basic two-dimensional modeling and drafting capabilities. The company promoted this new software as a graphical front-end to UNIAPT. United had just six programmers working on the development of UNI-GRAPHICS at the time. The typical configuration in addition to the SPC-16 minicomputer included either a Tektronix 4010 or 4014 terminal, an alphanumeric display for commands and messages, a 32-button program function keyboard, a tablet and stylus and a Tektronix 4631 hardcopy unit. Cursor control on the Tektronix terminal was typically with a pair of thumbwheel switches or joystick if the tablet was not used. A multi-user version of the software was introduced in August 1974 on the General Automation SPC-16/65 and the package was renamed Unigraphics without the hyphen. United sold its first Unigraphics system to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in September 1974 but the system’s installation was delayed until early 1975 while the company added support for Vector General graphics terminals and Xynetics flat-bed plotters. The first industrial installation was at an Alcoa facility in Lafayette, Indiana followed soon thereafter by another system at the U.S. Army depot in Corpus Christi, Texas. In February 1975, the Unigraphics hardware was upgraded to the General Automation 1830 system and the graphic workstation was given the “Model 319” nomenclature. A typical configuration is shown in Figure 19.4. Figure 19.4 Unigraphics Model 319 Terminal In September 1975, United Computing introduced its first integrated NC product, Graphic Machining. Although MCS’ ADAM system had NC modules, they were 19-4 © 2008 David E. Weisberg problem plagued and United decided to develop its own software rather than try to fix the ADAM code. Eventually, this NC experience would become one of the company’s technological backbones. McDonnell Douglas acquired United Computing in April 1976. The company stayed in Carson and was operated as a McAuto subsidiary. Unigraphics Under McAuto Starting in 1976, McDonnell Douglas and the subsequent owners of Unigraphics continued to enhance this core software product and the vast suite of applications built on top of it. One of the first major enhancements was the addition of a user programming language, GRIP (GRaphics Interactive Programming language). Although the basic code for this capability was included in the ADAM software United licensed from MCS, it required considerable software effort to make it work effectively.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CAD/CAM Selection for Small Manufacturing Companies
    CAD/CAM SELECTION FOR SMALL MANUFACTURING COMPANIES By Tim Mercer A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Management Technology Approved for Completion of 3 Semester Credits INMGT 735 Research Advisor The Graduate College University of Wisconsin May 2000 The Graduate School University of Wisconsin - Stout Menomonie, WI 54751 Abstract Mercer Timothy B. CAD/CAM Selection for Small Manufacturing Companies Master of Science in Management Technology Linards Stradins 2/2000 71 pages Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association In today's fast paced world, CAD/CAM systems have become an essential element in manufacturing companies throughout the world. Technology and communication are changing rapidly, driving business methods for organizations and requiring capitalization in order to maintain competitiveness. Knowledge prior to investing into a system is crucial in order to maximize the benefits received from changing CAD/CAM systems. The purpose of this study is to create a methodology to aid small manufacturing companies in selecting a CAD/CAM system. The objectives are to collect data on CAD/CAM systems that are available in the market today, identify important criteria in system selection, and identify company evaluation parameters. Acknowledgements Thanks to Dr. Rich Rothaupt for introducing me to CAM, survey help, and providing guidance with CAD/CAM applications. Thanks to Dr. Martha Wilson for early revisions, survey help and overall guidance. Thanks to my good friend and soon to be Dr. Linards Stradins for his patience, leadership, and wisdom. His invaluable knowledge and dedication as my advisor has helped me both personally and academically.
    [Show full text]
  • Sun Ultratm 5 Workstation Just the Facts
    Sun UltraTM 5 Workstation Just the Facts Copyrights 1999 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Sun, Sun Microsystems, the Sun logo, Ultra, PGX, PGX24, Solaris, Sun Enterprise, SunClient, UltraComputing, Catalyst, SunPCi, OpenWindows, PGX32, VIS, Java, JDK, XGL, XIL, Java 3D, SunVTS, ShowMe, ShowMe TV, SunForum, Java WorkShop, Java Studio, AnswerBook, AnswerBook2, Sun Enterprise SyMON, Solstice, Solstice AutoClient, ShowMe How, SunCD, SunCD 2Plus, Sun StorEdge, SunButtons, SunDials, SunMicrophone, SunFDDI, SunLink, SunHSI, SunATM, SLC, ELC, IPC, IPX, SunSpectrum, JavaStation, SunSpectrum Platinum, SunSpectrum Gold, SunSpectrum Silver, SunSpectrum Bronze, SunVIP, SunSolve, and SunSolve EarlyNotifier are trademarks, registered trademarks, or service marks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All SPARC trademarks are used under license and are trademarks or registered trademarks of SPARC International, Inc. in the United States and other countries. Products bearing SPARC trademarks are based upon an architecture developed by Sun Microsystems, Inc. UNIX is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries, exclusively licensed through X/Open Company, Ltd. OpenGL is a registered trademark of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Display PostScript and PostScript are trademarks of Adobe Systems, Incorporated, which may be registered in certain jurisdictions. Netscape is a trademark of Netscape Communications Corporation. DLT is claimed as a trademark of Quantum Corporation in the United States and other countries. Just the Facts May 1999 Positioning The Sun UltraTM 5 Workstation Figure 1. The Ultra 5 workstation The Sun UltraTM 5 workstation is an entry-level workstation based upon the 333- and 360-MHz UltraSPARCTM-IIi processors. The Ultra 5 is Sun’s lowest-priced workstation, designed to meet the needs of price-sensitive and volume-purchase customers in the personal workstation market without sacrificing performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Manual Ii
    GiD The universal, adaptative and user friendly pre and postprocessing system for computer analysis in science and engineering Reference Manual ii Table of Contents Chapters Pag. 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 What's GiD 1 1.2 GiD Manuals 1 2 GENERAL ASPECTS 3 2.1 GiD Basics 3 2.2 Invoking GiD 4 2.2.1 First start 4 2.2.2 Command line flags 5 2.2.3 Settings 6 2.3 User Interface 7 2.3.1 Top menu 8 2.3.2 Toolbars 8 2.3.3 Command line 11 2.3.4 Status and Information 12 2.3.5 Right buttons 12 2.3.6 Mouse operations 12 2.3.7 Classic GiD theme 13 2.4 User Basics 15 2.4.1 Point definition 15 2.4.1.1 Picking in the graphical window 16 2.4.1.2 Entering points by coordinates 16 2.4.1.2.1 Local-global coordinates 16 2.4.1.2.2 Cylindrical coordinates 17 2.4.1.2.3 Spherical coordinates 17 2.4.1.3 Base 17 2.4.1.4 Selecting an existing point 17 2.4.1.5 Point in line 18 2.4.1.6 Point in surface 18 2.4.1.7 Tangent in line 18 2.4.1.8 Normal in surface 18 2.4.1.9 Arc center 18 2.4.1.10 Grid 18 2.4.2 Entity selection 18 2.4.3 Escape 20 2.5 Files Menu 20 2.5.1 New 21 2.5.2 Open 21 2.5.3 Open multiple..
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Computer Aided Manufacturing
    //? VCr ~ / Ct & AFML-TR-77-145 )R^ yc ' )f f.3 Standards for Computer Aided Manufacturing Office of Developmental Automation and Control Technology Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234 January 1977 Final Technical Report, March— December 1977 Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only; Test and Evaluation Data; Statement applied November 1976. Other requests for this document must be referred to AFML/LTC, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 Manufacturing Technology Division Air Force Materials Laboratory Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433 . NOTICES When Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely related Government procurement opera- tion, the United States Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawing, specification, or other data, is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or any person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto Copies of this report should not be returned unless return is required by security considerations, contractual obligations, or notice on a specified document This final report was submitted by the National Bureau of Standards under military interdepartmental procurement request FY1457-76 -00369 , "Manufacturing Methods Project on Standards for Computer Aided Manufacturing." This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication. FOR THE COMMANDER: DtiWJNlb L.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Era for Mechanical CAD Time to Move Forward from Decades-Old Design JESSIE FRAZELLE
    TEXT COMMIT TO 1 OF 12 memory ONLY A New Era for Mechanical CAD Time to move forward from decades-old design JESSIE FRAZELLE omputer-aided design (CAD) has been around since the 1950s. The first graphical CAD program, called Sketchpad, came out of MIT [designworldonline. com]. Since then, CAD has become essential to designing and manufacturing hardware Cproducts. Today, there are multiple types of CAD. This column focuses on mechanical CAD, used for mechanical engineering. Digging into the history of computer graphics reveals some interesting connections between the most ambitious and notorious engineers. Ivan Sutherland, who won the Turing Award for Sketchpad in 1988, had Edwin Catmull as a student. Catmull and Pat Hanrahan won the Turing award for their contributions to computer graphics in 2019. This included their work at Pixar building RenderMan [pixar. com], which was licensed to other filmmakers. This led to innovations in hardware, software, and GPUs. Without these innovators, there would be no mechanical CAD, nor would animated films be as sophisticated as they are today. There wouldn’t even be GPUs. Modeling geometries has evolved greatly over time. Solids were first modeled as wireframes by representing the object by its edges, line curves, and vertices. This evolved into surface representation using faces, surfaces, edges, and vertices. Surface representation is valuable in robot path planning as well. Wireframe and surface acmqueue |march-april 2021 5 COMMIT TO 2 OF 12 memory I representation contains only geometrical data. Today, modeling includes topological information to describe how the object is bounded and connected, and to describe its neighborhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Werner Langer
    Industrial machinery and heavy equipment Werner Langer From ideas to plastic parts – quickly and accurately Product NX Business challenges Meet customers’ continuously rising quality standards Stay at peak of technology curve with both machinery and tool design methods Keys to success Adopt I-deas CAD/CAM software to eliminate IGES- related file transfer errors Expand access to design data through Team Data Manager Migrate to NX and NX CAM Results CAD data is directly available to toolmakers; tool With seamlessly integrated CAD/ quality plastic parts. The firm is a development time has CAM, Werner Langer meets supplier to the automobile, construction, electronics, household goods, furniture, dropped 40 percent customers’ demanding quality sanitary and sports and recreation Decreased costs and tool requirements industries. Langer is also Europe’s largest development time benefit supplier to the living-space lighting indus- the bottom line Werner Langer’s high-profile clients try. Clients such as these expect the Accurate parts and timely expect only the best, which requires this highest level of technological expertise, delivery ensure customer plastic part manufacturer to maintain not only of the firm’s production machin- satisfaction state-of-the-art machinery and ery (more than 40 injection molding tool-design processes. machines), but also of its design and tool-making processes. Customers expect the best Werner Langer GmbH & Co. KG, with 120 CAD/CAM solutions are not new to Langer. employees, develops and produces high- The firm has been using them since 1990. www.siemens.com/nx “Our CAD/CAM investments In 1995 the company decided to adopt 3D different design engineers to work on the have been economically design to help meet the continually rising same project simultaneously and to profitable.
    [Show full text]
  • PTC Creo® Parametric
    Data Sheet PTC Creo® Parametric THE ESSENTIAL 3D PARAMETRIC CAD SOLUTION PTC Creo Parametric gives you exactly what you need: the most robust, scalable 3D product design toolset with more power, flexibility and speed to help you accelerate your entire product development process. Where breakthrough products begin • Increase productivity with more efficient and flexible 3D detailed design capabilities Engineering departments face countless challenges • Increase model quality, promote native and as they strive to create breakthrough products. They multi-CAD part reuse, and reduce model errors must manage exacting technical processes, as well as the rapid flow of information across diverse • Handle complex surfacing requirements with ease development teams. In the past, companies seeking • Instantly connect to information and resources on CAD benefits could opt for tools that focused on the Internet – for a highly efficient product ease-of-use, yet lacked depth and process breadth. Or, development process they could choose broader solutions that fell short on usability. With PTC Creo Parametric, companies get The superior choice for speed-to-value both a simple and powerful solution, to create great products without compromise. Through its flexible workflow and sleek user interface, PTC Creo Parametric drives personal engineering PTC Creo Parametric, helps you quickly deliver the productivity like no other 3D CAD software. The highest quality, most accurate digital models. With industry-leading user experience enables direct its seamless Web connectivity, it provides product modeling, provides feature handles and intelligent teams with access to the resources, information snapping, and uses geometry previews, so users can and capabilities they need – from conceptual design see the effects of changes before committing to them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Openbim® in Better Data Exchange for AEC Project Teams the ROLE of OPENBIM® in BETTER DATA EXCHANGE for AEC PROJECT TEAMS 2
    The role of openBIM® in better data exchange for AEC project teams THE ROLE OF OPENBIM® IN BETTER DATA EXCHANGE FOR AEC PROJECT TEAMS 2 Introduction Project Data File type Architectural Model RVT, RFA, SKP, 3ds The success of complex, multi-stakeholder Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) projects relies on smooth Structural Model IFC, CIS/2, RVT collaboration and information sharing throughout the project lifecycle, often across different disciplines and software. The costs 3D Printing STL, OBJ of inadequate interoperability to project teams, according to one analysis of capital facilities projects in the United States, approaches CAD Data DXF, DWG, ACIS SAT 17 billion annually, affecting all project stakeholders.¹ A more recent GIS Data SHP, KMZ, WFS, GML study by FMI and Autodesk’s portfolio company Plangrid found that 52% of rework could be prevented by better data and communication, and that Civil Engineering LandXML, DWG, DGN, CityGML in an average week, construction employees spend 14 hours (around 35% of their time) looking for project data, dealing with rework and/or handling Cost Estimating XLSX, ODBC conflict resolution.² Visualisation Models FBX, SKP, NWD, RVT In the AEC industry, many hands and many tools bring building and infrastructure projects to realisation. Across architects, engineers, contractors, fabricators and Handover to Facilities Management COBie, IFC, XLSX facility managers: inadequate interoperability leads to delays and rework, with ramifications that can reverberate throughout the entirety of the project lifecycle. Scheduling Data P3, MPP Over the last two decades, a strong point of alignment in the AEC industry has been in the development and adoption of the openBIM® collaborative process Energy Analysis IFC, gbXML to improve interoperability and collaboration for building and infrastructure projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation and Evaluation of Kinematic Mechanism Modeling Based on ISO 10303 STEP
    Implementation and evaluation of kinematic mechanism modeling based on ISO 10303 STEP Yujiang Li Master Thesis Royal Institute of Technology School of Industrial Engineering and Management Department of Production Engineering Stockholm, Sweden 2011 © Yujiang Li, March 2011 Department of Production Engineering Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm Stockholm 2011 Abstract The kinematic mechanism model is an important part of the representation of e.g. machine tools, robots and fixtures. The basics of kinematic mechanism modeling in classic CAD are about to define motion constraints for components relative other components. This technique for kinematic modeling is common for the majority of CAD applications, but the exchange of kinematic mechanism between different CAD applications have been very limited. The ISO 10303 STEP (STandard for the Exchange of Product data) addresses this problem with the application protocol ISO 10303-214 (AP214) which provides an information model for integration of the kinematics with 3D geometry. Several research projects have tried to, as subtasks, implement the kinematic functionality of AP214. But until recently no one have been able to create a valid dataset to prove the standard’s applicability. In this research, a framework for integration of the STEP-based kinematic mechanism modeling with existing commercial CAx systems is presented. To evaluate how well the framework is able to be applied for industrial practices, two applications are developed to demonstrate the major outputs of this research. A pilot standalone application, KIBOS (kinematic modeling based on STEP), is developed to prove the feasibility for Java-based STEP implementation on kinematics and to provide comprehensive operation logic to manipulate the kinematic features in STEP models based on ISO/TS 10303-27 Java binding to the standard data access interface (SDAI).
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpack for SOLIDWORKS® What’S New in Additive Blog of the Month More CAD Formats & Model Repair from the SOLIDWORKS Toolbar Manufacturing?
    Issue 01 | July 2018 CAD ™ Abra3D News from TransMagic and Aroundabra the Industry PowerPack for SOLIDWORKS® What’s New in Additive Blog of the Month More CAD formats & model repair from the SOLIDWORKS toolbar Manufacturing? TransMagic’s PowerPack for SOLIDWORKS is an add-on for Jabil Using 3D Printers SOLIDWORKS that has the following benefits: Does an 80% reduction in delivery time, and 30-40% reduction in cost sound good? 1. Adds new Read and Write capabilities to SOLIDWORKS. Those are the kinds of returns Jabil, a Additional format capabilities can broaden the number of cus- leading manufacturing company, has seen tomers you can work with, as well as provide additional translators when one since adopting the Ultimaker 3D printer for translator fails to perform well. For example, if you run into trouble reading a tooling, jigs and fixtures. Read more about If you’ve ever needed to know complex CATIA V5 surfaced model, you will be in a world of hurt, where the it HERE. the X,Y&Z extents of a CAD only viable option is to repair the model or ask for another format from your model, bounding box is your customer; but, if you have the PowerPack for SOLIDWORKS, you have access 3D Printers Under $4000 Compared for answer; select the part, click the to an entirely different CATIA V5 Read and Write translator which just could Industrial Usage button and you’re done! get the job done. It’s always good to have options, and PowerPack for SOLID- WORKS gives you exactly that. Additional formats include: A semi-transparent bounding box will envelope your part and Read Formats display overall dimensional ACIS, CATIA V4, CATIA V5, values.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Shipbuilding Cadicam Systems (Phase I)
    Final Report EVALUATION OF SHIPBUILDING CADICAM SYSTEMS (PHASE I) Submitted to: U.S. Navy by: National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. San Diego, CA 92186 Project Director: John Horvath Principal Investigator: Richard C. Moore October 1996 Technical Report Documentaition Page- 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Waiog No. I I 4. Title and Subtitle I 5. Repon Date October 14. 1996 Evaluation of Shipbuilding CADICAM Systems 6. Performing Organization C e (Phase I) '32%'2.7 8. Performing Organization Report Ilo. 7. Author(s) Richard C. Moore UMTRI-96-35 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 11. Contracl or Grant No. 290 1 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, .Michigan 48 109-2150 PQ# MU7.56606-D - 13. Typ of Report and Period Coverud 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. 28th St. & Harbor ~r. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code San Diego, CA 92 1 13 US. Navy 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report is the Phase I final report of the National Shipbuilding Research F'rogram (NSRP) project (Project Number 4-94-1) to evaluate world-class shipbuilders' existing CADICAMICIM system implementations. Five U.S. shipyards participated in this study along with personnel from University of Michigan, Proteus Engineering, and Cybo Robots. Project participants have backgrounds in design, computer-aided design (CAD), n~anufacturingprocesses, computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), production planning, and computer-integrated manufacturing/management (CIM). The results of this evaluation provided the basis for the CADICAMICIM Workshop presented in conjunction with the 1996 Ship Production Symposium, and will be used as background in Phase I1 of the project to develop requirements for future shipbuilding CADICAMICIM systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Miscellaneous Companies
    Chapter 21 Miscellaneous Companies Space restrictions simply do not permit me to go into the depth of detail I would like on every company that participated in the early days of the CAD industry nor cover numerous in-house systems developed at major automobile and aerospace companies. Readers will have to be satisfied with the brief descriptions included in this chapter and even then, I have only been able to cover what I consider to be the companies that had the biggest impact. There are hundreds if not thousands of companies that at one time marketed engineering design software. Some of the companies described in this chapter offered just software while other provided both hardware and software. While many have changed names, I have decided to list them alphabetically based upon the name they are best been known by along with earlier and subsequent name changes. Adra Systems (Matrix One) Adra Systems was founded in Lowell, Massachusetts in July 1983 by William Mason, who had been at Applicon from 1973 to 1983, most recently as vice president of operations, James Stenzel, who had been vice president of engineering at Hastech, Inc., and Peter Stoupas, who had earlier been a regional sales manager at Adage and had also worked for Applicon. Mason became the president and CEO, Stenzel the vice president of product development and Stoupas the vice president of marketing. Between 1983 and 1986, the company raised $11.6 million of venture funding from a number of firms including American Research & Development, the company that also provided the initial funding for Digital Equipment Corporation.
    [Show full text]