Form In Which Design Data Is Received

Traditional design definition information has been provided to manufacturing in the form of hard copy engineering drawings or on a hard copy sketch. In the more recent past, the dominant means has become an electronic transfer of surfaces. However, electronic transfer of solids and direct access to a database is becoming more common. The use of a physical prototype model, such as that created by a rapid prototyping machine, has gained some acceptance, but remains relatively uncommon.

To further define this issue, CIMdata asked mold makers in what form their design is currently being received, and in what form do they expect it to be received in two years. The results for North American, European, and mold makers worldwide are shown in the following table. The percentage form that is currently being received by mold makers worldwide sorts the information.

It can be seen from the data that:

• Electronic transfer of surfaces is the most common method by which mold makers currently receive design data. Over half of the data is now transferred by this means. In two years, this percentage is forecasted to fall below 50%, but essentially half of design data will still be transferred by this means.
• Electronic transfer of solids is now the second most common method of data transfer at about 23% of total transfers. mold makers expect that this technique will significantly increase to approximately 35% in two years.
• mold makers still receive over 15% of their designs on paper or other hard copy. However, this is forecasted to decline dramatically during the next two years to become less than half the current level.
• Direct access to a database is currently only used in about 5% of the transfers. It will increase slightly in two years. Since a direct access is primarily employed to obtain solid models, when this percentage is combined with electronic transfer of solids, the total transfer of solids will be approximately 40% in two years.
• Use of prototypes or other means to transfer information is only about 4% of the total. It is expected to decline somewhat during the next two years.

When comparing the research results for North American mold making shops to those in Europe it can be observed that:

• N. American mold makers receive surfaces more frequently than do European mold makers. The percentage of the total transfers is currently about 60% in N. America to 50% in Europe. The percentage for N. American firms is expect to decline to about 55% in two years, but European companies forecast that their percentage will remain at the 50% level. In Japan, the survey shows that electronic transfer of surfaces accounts for approximately 35% of the models. This is expected to decline in two years to a level of 25%. As such, there is a dramatic difference in the use of surface models between Japan and the rest of the world.
• European mold makers more commonly receive transfers as solid models than do N. American mold makers. Currently, European mold makers receive approximately 25% of their models by a transfer of solids, while N. American mold makers only receive about 20% of their models by this means. In both geographies, the percentage is expected to increase by approximately 10% in two years to reach levels of 35% and 30%, respectively. In Japan, only 20% of models are now received as solids. However, this is projected to increase dramatically over the next two years to reach a level of 45% of total transfers.
• European firms currently receive approximately 18% of their models on paper, as compared to N. American companies that receive about 13% of their model in this form. In both geographies, it is expected that this percentage will decline significantly over the next two years. At that time, mold makers in both areas project that they will receive definitions on paper about 7% of the time.
• Japanese mold makers now receive nearly 25% of their models on paper. They are clearly behind the rest of the world in implementing electronic transfer of models. However, they expect this percentage to decline significantly to the 15% level in two years.
• N. American mold makers more frequently access a database to receive product definition than do European mold makers. Currently, the percentages are about 6% to 1%, respectively. This differential is expected to be somewhat less in two years. The Japanese surveyed are at the approximate level of European users.
• European mold makers utilize prototypes much more frequently than do American shops. The percentage of the total designs is about 5% in Europe and less than 1% in N. America. This is not expected to change during the next two years. The Japanese mold makers surveyed state that about 15% of their models are currently received as physical models. They expect this to decline only slightly in two years.
• To reiterate from the above, the response from the Japanese users to this question is dramatically different from their counterparts. The Japanese currently use hard copy and prototypes much more frequently and utilize electronic transfer of surfaces much less frequently. They also expect to move to solid transfers more rapidly.

Trends in Use of 2D and 3D Geometry

Traditionally, manufacturing modeling and NC programming was accomplished using 2D geometry, as the early CAD/CAM systems were constrained to the use of that mode. As most, if not all software moved to support 3D geometry, many users followed suit. Currently, mold makers continue to be in a period of transition from the use of 2D to employing 3D geometry in both modeling and NC programming. CIMdata asked mold makers what percentage of their modeling and NC programming is currently done in 2D versus 3D. They were also asked what percentage they expected it to be in two years. The results are shown in the following table:

It can be seen that on a worldwide basis, 3D is the predominant form of geometry for mold makers worldwide.

• Approximately two-thirds of modeling is now done in 3D geometry, as compared to 2D. This is expected to increase to over 80% in two years.
• Approximately 75% of NC programming is currently performed using 31) geometry. This is forecasted to increase to over 80% in two years.

When contrasting the research results for North American mold making shops to those in Europe it can be observed that:

• N. American mold makers model in 31) considerably more than do their European counterparts. Currently, approximately three-fourths of models are created in 3D in N. American shops, but only three-fifths of models are created in 31) in European shops. There is a dramatic difference in Japan where only 40% of models are created in 3D, as approximately 60% of models are still created in 2D.
• The movement to 3D modeling will be strong in all geographies. In two years, nearly 85% of models created in N. American shops will be in 313, and nearly 75% of models generated by European mold makers will be in 3D. In Japan, the percentage of models created in 3D will increase from the 40% level to 75% in two years. This is a dramatic change if it in fact occurs. At that point, the Japanese will be virtually equal to European firms in the use of 3D geometry for modeling.
• 3D geometry is more commonly used in NC programming than it is in modeling. Approximately 80% of programs are currently generated from 3D models in N. America. In Europe, the comparable figure is essentially 70%. In Japan, the use of 3D is greater in NC than in modeling. Currently, about 65% of the NC programs are done using 3D geometry.
• In two years, N. American users expect to model in 3D nearly 85% of the time. European firms expect to increase their use of 3D models to the 75% level. Japanese mold makers also expect to be at the 75% level in two years. This will be a dramatic increase for Japanese firms, and it would equal 3D usage in Europe. If this comes to pass, users in all three geographies will be at essentially the same point in the use of 3D models.
• In NC programming, 3D models are projected to be used in generating 80% to 85% of the programs produced by both N. American and European mold makers. In Japan, approximately 80% of programs will be from 3D models. Again, at this point one should expect relative consistency in the use of 3D for NC programming throughout the world.

Knowledge-Based Machining

The appropriate degree of automation is a significant issue in developing knowledge-base machining software. A previous study by CIMdata found that users oppose total automation. Instead, they prefer to have software provide guidance to a user. They indicated at that time that it is critical that a user remains in control. This issue was again explored with mold makers. They were provided with four options and asked to select the appropriate degree of automation. The percentage of mold makers that select each option is shown in the following table for North American, European and mold makers worldwide. The options are listed in order of highest percentage of acceptance by mold makers worldwide.

The survey shows that mold makers worldwide:

• Are essentially evenly split on the degree of automation desired between providing guidance to a user, but without full automation, and providing full automation. Somewhat less than 40% of users want to retain control of the process and somewhat over 35% are looking for as much automation as possible. This reveals that mold makers have become more receptive to full automation than they were in the former CIMdata survey. Presumably, users are becoming more confident in software automation.
• However, another way to look at the data is that approximately 35% of users want full automation and 65% do not. Hence, the majority of users still do not want full automation. They want to retain some level of user control. The degree of automation desired is a variable.
• Approximately 15% of users state that they want to automate standard functions. As such, one could observe that approximately 90% of users are looking for some level of automation, but only 35% desire full automation.
• Only 10% of users want to retain maximum flexibility, with only limited automation. These are typically the power users in a company. They believe that they can produce a better mold by having full control of the programming process, as compared to the use of software automation.
• At this point in tune vendors should add automation to their software. However, it is important that users remain in control and that they have the option of overriding the system decisions. CIMdata believes that with time, as users become comfortable with software automation, that an increasing level of automation will be acceptable.

The responses from European and N. America mold makers are very similar. The support for maximum automation is essentially identical at 37%. The only difference between the two sets of users is that somewhat more N. American users prefer providing guidance to a user, while a slightly higher percentage of European mold makers prefers retaining maximum flexibility.

In response to a follow-up question, approximately 65% of worldwide mold makers state that the current state of knowledge-based machining software met their needs, while only about 35% state that it did not. European users are more satisfied than N. American users, as nearly 75% of Europeans are satisfied with current vendor software, while somewhat less than 65% of N. American users express satisfaction with the current state of knowledge-based machining software.

mold makers were asked to rank the importance of six potential benefits that could be derived from knowledge-based machining. As before, ratings are based on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most important. The average ratings are shown in the following table for North American, European and worldwide mold makers. The expected benefits are listed in order of highest importance by mold makers worldwide.

On a worldwide basis, mold makers appear to expect significant benefits from knowledge-based machining, since half of the six types of potential benefits received an average importance rating of 4.0 or more. Further comments are:

• The primary benefit that is expected from this type of technology is increased programming productivity. This is given an average importance rating of 4.3. This results from greater automation of the programming process.
• Increase programming consistency received an average rating of 4.1, which is the second most important benefit that is expected. This is due to either following pre-defined rules or establishing standard templates to perform an operation or process.
• An improved quality of product produced received an average importance rating of 4.0. This is directly related to establishing greater consistency in the programming process.
• Greater ease of use and overall cost reduction each received an average improvement rating of 3.8.
• A reduction in the training requirements received the lowest average rating of 3.5. Although knowledge-based machining will automate the process to a degree, some users must have felt that this benefit is of less importance.

There is relative consistency between N. American and European mold makers. Both ranked increased programming productivity as the most important benefit to be obtained from knowledge-based machining. The average importance ratings are 4.4 and 4.2 respectively. Similarly, in both geographies users ranked a reduction in training requirements as the lowest benefit in importance. These average importance ratings are 3.7 and 3.2.

N. American users ranked improved quality of product produced higher in importance than their European counterparts. The average values are 4.3 and 3.5, respectively. However, European users placed a higher value on greater ease of use than did those in N. America. The average importance ratings were 4.0 for European users and 3.6 for users in N. America.

Japanese users consider greater ease of use as the most important benefit, as they gave it an average rating of 4.7. This was followed by increased programming productivity with a 4.2 rating. A reduction in training was ranked as the least important benefit by Japanese firms surveyed. It received a 3.0 average rating.

Off-line Or Online Programming

Traditionally, professional programmers performed NC programming in an off-line mode, usually in a design or CAM office. More recently, programming is being done on the shop floor. Machinists are now more frequently doing NC programming at the machine tool. As software becomes easier to learn and use, it facilitates machinists or other casual users doing the programming. Some vendors have developed specific software for online programming. In some cases a product is packaged for a factory environment.

mold makers were asked if they. preferred off-line CAM room programming or programming on the shop floor. They were also given an option of selecting a combination of the two approaches. In the following table, the results of this survey question are shown for North American, European, and worldwide mold makers.

This research reveals that:

• The results are relatively evenly split among the three choices. However, a plurality of mold makers worldwide prefers a combination of offline and online programming. Approximately 40% of firms prefer this solution.
• Somewhat over 35% of users worldwide like to fully utilize traditional off-line CAM programming.
• The remaining 20% plus opt for full use of online shop floor programming. Hence, when this group is combined with the 40% that prefer a combination approach, over 60% of companies now favor some level of online programming. This is a trend that has been previously noted by CIMdata. It appears to be re-enforced by this research.
• In this response as well as in responses to prior questions, such as generative or adaptive NC, users tend to prefer a combination of methods or technologies, as opposed to opting for a single solution.
• European mold makers still favor the use of traditional off-line programming. Half of the respondents made this their choice. In N. America only 30% of firms took this position.
• In N. America, nearly half of companies prefer the combination of the two approaches, while in Europe only one-third of mold makers opt for the combination.
• N. America is leading the movement to online NC programming. Nearly twice as many shops in N. America prefer this approach, then do firms in Europe. The comparable percentages are 26% and 14%. When online NC programming is added to the combination methodology, over 70% of N. America mold makers accept some form of online programming. In Europe, this percentage is approximately 50%.

The above preference data can also be compared to data previously shown that presents the average number of off-line and online programmers currently in mold maker shops. That data showed that in a typical mold shop, there are on average 5.4 online programmers on the shop floor and 2.9 off-line programmers in a design office. As previously noted this indicates that most mold makers have opted for use of programmers on the shop floor. - MMS

Editors note: All of the information below is excerpted from a 70-page research report titled "The Worldwide Mold Making Environment And How To Compete." The report was prepared by CIMdata, Inc. For information on obtaining the complete report, visit www.cimdata.com