Patent Abstract:
Electronic data processing (EDP) system for automatic or semi-automatic design, including of at least one storage unit, at least one computer unit, a user interface, and at least one interface to other EDP systems, characterized in that:
   a) the computer unit leads the user through an iteration sequence of synthesis and analysis of a future useful technical object in that it   b) offers to the user via a menu structure selection possibilities originating from the storage unit of kinematic, kinetic, material, geometric and form-related data,   c) invites the user to complete these data corresponding to the task,   d) processes, stores and compares these data with known data contained in the storage unit,   e) sets out the processed data and the results of the comparison on the user interface, informs the user of admissible and/or inadmissible deviations and invites the user to carry out further decisions and data inputs,   f) for so long until all the deviations lie within admissible ranges,
 
and by reference to the form-related instructions stored in the storage unit formulates technical documentation with the manufacturing and operating instructions for the future useful technical object, stores it and makes it available to the user on the user interface for further processing.

Full Description:
RELATED ART 
     Design is an activity which is still carried out by humans at the present time, wherein the manufacturing or formulation and operating instructions are created for a future useful technical object. This activity consists of both the synthesis and the analysis of an object which are realised in an iterative sequence by the designer, whereby there are on the one hand the desired target properties of the object to be created and on the other hand the physical, chemical and economic restrictions to which the object is subject. The result of the designing process is technical documentation which is also called the design. The designer, with his experience but also with his subjectivity, is thereby the one who selects in the synthesis those elements which are to be put together and formulates the restrictions in the analysis. For this reason there are various opinions concerning whether design can be taught, whether design is a science or whether design is an art. The fact is that both the subjectivity and also the degree of experience of each individual designer, which influence to a large extent the design process and thereby also the object designed, lead to two designers never delivering the same design or the objects designed by two designers under identical target formulations having different forms and properties. This situation leads to long and controversial discussions, also at teaching establishments. 
     Not so long ago the designer had merely a few drawing aids, a slide rule or pocket calculator available to him and, besides the actual design, also had to have drawing skills in order to provide a document in the form of a technical drawing which is subject to certain standards. At the present time the designer does not need to have drawing skills because so-called CAD programs as well as analysis and simulation programs are available to him on more or less powerful computers, but the design is still left to him. A few useful tools are thereby provided to the designer which principally facilitate his work in the analysis and representation of the design objects, but whereby the degree of subjectivity of the designer is retained as previously. What is more, the models and drawings formulated on the computer which sometimes in fact appear nearly natural and of high optical quality are deceiving in relation to the defects contained in the design and this can sometimes have fatal consequences. 
     This situation is known and various trials have already been carried out in order to reduce the degree of subjectivity in the design activities, predominantly with the support of electronic data processing (EDP) systems. 
     In the textbooks currently in circulation a multitude of suggestions are offered having regard to scientific aspects and which offer a prospect of computer-aided design. As this literature is very extensive and is in fact highly scientific merely the representatives of two important teaching establishments will be mentioned below. 
     In “Konstruieren mit Konstruktionskatalogen” [“Design with Design Catalogues”] by K. Roth (Springer-Verlag, 2000) so-called function structures are described, with the aid of which one arrives via structure function elements (SFE) at a form element, but whereby this leads to a very large number of solution possibilities and in the end the designer must indeed make a subjective decision. As the matter relates here to purely scientific considerations the suggestions are only of informative significance for a designer—who is actually always under time pressure. 
     In “Konstruktionslehre” [“Design Studies”] by Pahl/Beitz (Springer-Verlag, 2007) several possible approaches are set out. Work steps are suggested for the design, drafting and formulation of a utility object, whereby these work steps do indeed produce a meaningful and correct sequence of the design process but only from the viewpoint of a theoretician. This makes their use in reality not impossible, but their theoretical nature makes them hard to realise for practising designers. The reason for this is as follows: When a designer is trained he learns, besides mathematics, material studies, strength of materials studies and other subjects, also the machine elements which were indeed themselves once an object of design processes. Whether these are standardised or non-standardised machine elements, they have all been designed at some time by a designer or by a team of designers. Through the deliberate, sometimes also unintentional, perception of these machine elements, the design intention of the designer becomes clear for the trainee and as a later designer he will always ask himself the question: “Where have I already seen something like that before?” and he will make use of this knowledge in order to solve his design problem. He will base his approach less upon theoretical methods. In this work it is then finally also ascertained that also in future the degree of creativity of the designer will be decisive in the implementation of the design. 
     Similar examples to those just described are found in the guidelines of the  Verein Deutscher Ingenieure  (VDI) (Association of German Engineers), for example in VDI guidelines 2221 and 2225. The disadvantages are the same. 
     In DE 103 56 399 B4 a data processing system is described—although arising from the field of computer science—with the aid of which on the basis of a query output values are generated and in this connection the rules concerning the formulation of the output values are indicated. Although this is from a different branch there are still analogies with the design process for a material technical form. Various output values can be generated here by means of the production of rules. However, fixed rules with a scientific basis are applied in the design process on the one hand which cannot be averted and cannot be modified. On the other hand, as is the case here, the combination rules of the machine elements used can in principle be modified, whereby in each case another technical form can arise. 
     In the application laid open for public inspection DE 10 2008 047 958 A1 a method for load-dependent design of a component is set out. This method describes how the data of an analysis are ascertained on an already designed and manufactured part and flow in a further iteration sequence to the design. However, the production/manufacture of a new part is thereby necessary each time, which points to the method of trial and error. 
     In the application laid open for public inspection DE 10 2007 013 499 A1 a method for designing a technical object is described. The method described here describes the use of standardised components in the design of a new object, but explicitly leaves the design to the designer and thus to his experience and subjectivity. 
     The application laid open for public inspection DE 10 2005 006 071 A1 does indeed describe an “intelligent, semi-automatic, 2D-3D design for CAD” but the teaching disclosed here has been standard since the 1980s and is described in the next paragraph. 
     At the present time there are professional CAD systems such as for example Pro/E, Catia, SolidWorks and many more, wherein there is officially no longer drawing but instead modelling and then a semi-automatic formulation of the technical drawing of the modelled object is offered. However, for the modelling the user must have a command of the most important rules of drawing, i.e., of geometry in any case, because the program only does as specified by the user. CAD systems have brought about, in comparison with work on the drawing board, an enormous simplification in the illustration of objects. In some CAD systems there is already an associativity between the different illustration modes, whereby this also brings with it a reduction in the number of error sources. Views, sections, cut-outs, etc., can be produced relatively easily and they all correspond to applicable drawing standards with a few exceptions. However, the most important activity, namely the design itself, is left to the designer as previously. Further, the designer must also now deal with the syntax and semantics of the respective CAD system. The command structure contains a number of possible commands which have different effects in different contexts and mean that the designer is more or less hindered in his actual task. This can be best seen in relation to CAD drawings: they contain many views because they are easy to generate but on the other hand they very often lack dimensions, tolerances, form and position tolerances, etc., because the CAD system cannot take over this for the designer. He must thus inform the system which view, on which scale is desired and which dimensions must be illustrated where. This means that the user is, as previously, still responsible for how much information and of which quality is contained in the technical drawing, i.e., in the technical documentation. This means that even in case of the CAD systems the same object is represented differently by different designers, although the same drawing should still actually always be produced for the same part. The simulation and calculation systems also constitute—when correctly used—an extensive tool. However, after a calculation or simulation has been carried out only the physical states precisely in the examined form are set out. The decision concerning whether and which geometric or physical data are to be modified in order to achieve an optimisation of the object examined is taken, as previously, by the user of these programs or it can in principle also not be revealed whether there is a possibility of an improvement in the constructive sense or not. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The inventive EDP system is intended to: provide assistance to eliminate these defects; reduce the costs for a high quality design; reduce the duration of the design process; reduce the necessary volume of discussion to a minimum; and in particular to eliminate error sources. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  shows an EDP system in accordance with an embodiment. 
         FIG. 2  depicts a portion of the inventive method in which kinematics, loads, and boundary conditions are defined. 
         FIG. 3  depicts a portion of the inventive method in which materials, blanks, geometries, and safety coefficients are fixed. 
         FIG. 4  depicts a portion of the inventive method in which fixing elements, force application elements, and standard parts are fixed. 
         FIG. 5  depicts a portion of the inventive method in which the technical documentation is formulated. 
         FIG. 6  shows an illustrative selection possibility of a kinematic model. 
         FIG. 7  shows an illustrative input of the forces and the representation of the input. 
         FIG. 8  shows an illustrative representation of the forces and moments on the selected kinematic model. 
         FIG. 9  shows illustrative selection possibilities for materials and safety coefficients. 
         FIG. 10  shows illustrative calculated cross-section data and the cross-section alternatives offered. 
         FIG. 11  shows illustrative stresses prevailing in the selected cross-sections and the comparison between the achieved and required safety coefficients. 
         FIG. 12  shows illustrative selection possibilities for fixing elements and force application elements. 
         FIG. 13  shows an illustrative whole model generated by the method. 
         FIG. 14  shows an illustrative technical drawing formulated by the method. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     As shown in  FIG. 1 , the invention relates to an electronic data processing (EDP) system  1  which provides the user or the designer  6  with all or at least the majority of the currently known design means, in particular for mechanical design, in order to bring the design of a future useful object as close as possible to the target specifications. The EDP system  1  gives different designers the possibility of achieving under the same preconditions a virtually identical or at least a similar result, provides the possibility for discussions and decisions at an early stage, eliminates errors originating from the designer, takes trivial activities away from the designer, and provides the designer with the possibility of profiting from the findings of the technical sciences without having to assimilate a particularly in-depth knowledge himself. The technical sciences include, for example, mathematics, mechanics (with hydrostatics and dynamics), strength of materials, thermodynamics, materials, theory of machine elements, production technology, gearings, design, etc., in order to name just the most important ones. 
     In order to be able to better describe the inventive EDP system  1 , the design process, the design activity, or merely the design will now be defined. This is also necessary because on the one hand the word “design” describes the product, the process from which it results, and the location where the process takes place, and on the other hand the attempted definitions from the relevant literature are incomplete. 
     Definition of Design: A design is the sum of all activities which, triggered by an objective task, are carried out using findings from the technical sciences during the synthesis-analysis-iteration sequence and the formulation of a technical document with the production and operating instructions of a future useful form. 
     Design is not a heuristic activity but it has an inventive character because it is based on the one hand upon sound knowledge but on the other hand requires from the designer in any case a certain anticipatory ability to combine what is already known. 
     In contrast, the development of a future useful object also constitutes a sequence of iterations, but in a greater multitude of activities which can also have a heuristic character and there can be a design process in the course of each given iteration step. Design is a constituent part of a development. The development of a future useful object can contain in its sequence one or more design sequences which are dependent or independent in relation to each other. 
     A technical document generally consists of assembly drawings, item lists, individual part and production drawings, descriptions, instructions, models, and programs. 
     The inventive EDP system  1  implements the design process using the inventive method. 
     The inventive EDP system  1  shown in  FIG. 1  includes at least one storage unit  2 , at least one computer unit  3 , a user interface  4 , and at least one interface  5  to other EDP systems. The user  6 , generally the designer, uses the EDP system  1  via the user interface  4 . 
     The inventive EDP system  1  ensures the sequence of the inventive method  67 , and conducts a dialogue between the computer unit  3  and the user  6 . The EDP system  1  thereby makes suggestions  8  to the user from the data  7  stored in the storage unit  2 . The user  6  selects one of the suggestions  8  and adds data  9 , following which the system checks these data for consistency  10  and carries out more extensive calculations  11 , if necessary, requesting a new input  12  or going to the next step of the sequence  13 . The suggestions made by the computer unit  3  come from libraries which are stored in the storage unit  2  and which are provided by experts or scientists with the necessary current data. That is to say that the EDP system  1  carries out via the method its own design and the user  6  merely controls the sequence in order to arrive at the design of the future object desired by him. What is more, the EDP system  1  forces the user  6  to correctly select and dimension the design elements. 
     At the start of the method,  FIG. 2 , the user is provided from a library  14  with a table with kinematic models of mechanisms  15 , from which the user can select a mechanism, whereby the selected mechanism describes most closely from a kinematic viewpoint the future object to be designed. The user does not thereby need to be an expert in mechanisms, but must merely have a basic knowledge in this field, which is a precondition for a designer. If the user does not find a satisfactory mechanism form in the selection table suggested by the system  16  the EDP system offers the user the possibility of generating a mechanism via a synthesis program  17  for mechanisms by inputting the desired function  18 , whereby the user stores the mechanism in the library for mechanisms  19 , observes it on the user interface  20 , and uses it from there for further processing. Here, the user has the possibility of conducting discussions  21  with other colleagues involved in the design process relating to the properties of the selected kinematic models and possible external decision-making aids. 
     With the selection of the kinematic model all the data necessary for this model are now available to the user and the user is asked to fix the dimensions, boundary conditions, and loads requested by the system  15  and indeed in the form that the kinematic model is represented on the user interface  4 ,  20  in such a way that the user inputs the data required by the method into correspondingly represented windows so that the consistency of the inputs is easy to obtain. The system forces the user to input all required data. Only when there is a complete data set does the system assume the complete kinematic calculation of the model  22  by reference to the analytical formalisms and publishes all data on the user interface  4 ,  23 . All cutting forces, moments, all force paths, all movements in the form of path, speed and acceleration are now visible for the user  23 . These data are consistent and credible and can thus serve as a basis for further factual discussions. If the discussions lead to an unsatisfactory result  24  there is the possibility either of changing the incorporated data or selecting another kinematic model  25  and carrying out a further iteration. 
     If the kinematic model is now fixed or known with all its data  26  the EDP system provides the user with a further selection possibility on the user interface,  FIG. 3 , and indeed all data concerning materials, geometric forms, blanks and safety coefficients are asked here  27 . The user can select here which materials  28  come into consideration for the project and the blanks (sheets, profiles, etc.) available on the market in the selected material  29 . After completion of all indications, with safety coefficients  30  and instructions for thermal and surface treatments  31 , the system calculates  35  all necessary geometry parameters and provides on the user interface geometries  36  originating from the libraries  32  which have been generated on the basis of the force conditions and the force paths. The user can now select a geometry  37 , or  38  the user can generate geometries himself  33  which can also be stored  34  after checking of the measurement consistency and then be offered by the system for selection. The system also forces the user to activate all required indications here. The system now calculates  39 , likewise via the analytical formalisms which are stored for the selected mechanism and the participating elements in the libraries, all arising stresses which are set out on the user interface. At the same time the corresponding safety coefficients are also evaluated by the system and set out  4 ,  40 . The points are highlighted where the safety coefficients have fallen short or are exceeded. In both cases the user must go back a step in the iteration sequence  41 ,  42  and correspondingly change the input data and have a further calculation carried out by the system. Only when all data correspond to the specifications can the user go to the next method point  41 ,  53 . At this time there is again the possibility of the user subjecting the results achieved to an objective discussion because the data are also clearly consistent and credible. At this point one can either go back a step in the method and decide on other materials or other geometries or even decide on other safety coefficients and trigger a repetition of this method step  42 , or go to the next step in the method  43 . 
     Next,  FIG. 4 , the system offers to the user a selection possibility  44  for fixing elements  45  and force application elements  46  and the associated standard parts  47  with the corresponding safety coefficients. These are adapted to the existing structure using the computer unit  48  and set out on the user interface  49 , following which the user can check his selection or carry out changes  50 . If necessary, the user can now exchange possibly different fixing elements or force application elements and also standard parts or change them in their size and number. The user can change safety coefficients or can, if desired or necessary, go back a step in the method or go back two steps and provide new inputs. If, however, the results are in order and the safety coefficients lie within the predefined framework there is now again the possibility of discussion. There is also here the possibility  52  of feeding the thus formed design object to an external program  53 , in which operating states can be simulated, or where for example there can be a quite precise calculation with the FEM stresses and this can be set out on the user interface  51  in order to be able to reach decisions concerning further changes which are then worked into one of the preceding steps of the method. 
     If the results of the strength calculations are satisfactory  54 ,  56  the user can select the next step in the method,  FIG. 5 , and represent the design object in a technical drawing  57 . For this, the system offers different drawing and item list formats  58 , additional drawing elements  59  and additional drawing texts  60 , from which the user makes a selection. The system decides  61  on the basis of the drawing category, assembly drawing or detailed drawing and also on the basis of the topology of the design object which is the most important and thus the main view, which are the least necessary views, sections and cut-outs to be represented and determines within the scope of the applicable drawing standards where, with which dimensions, and with which tolerances the representation will be made. Then the drawings are displayed to the user for viewing on the user interface  62 . The user now has the possibility of inserting less relevant notes into the drawing  63  and looking at everything again  64 . He does not have the possibility of changing any dimensions or tolerances without re-calculating the design object  65 . 
     The whole sequence of the method is recorded and stored  66  by the EDP system and it can be precisely reproduced which inputs originate from the user and which data from the system or its libraries. 
     The libraries with the kinematic models are dealt with by gearing specialists or scientists who have the scientific background to produce and input qualified models with the necessary formalisms, whereby this allows the user of the inventive EDP system to resort to great knowledge without having to procure it for himself. 
     The same applies to the libraries which provide materials and their properties. These data are formulated for example by metallurgists and do not require any in-depth knowledge of metallurgy on the part of the user of the inventive EDP system. This means that the designer does not initially have to procure extensive knowledge in order to then dismiss it anyway because it is not necessary for the present case but instead it is simply available to him. 
     The libraries for standard parts are also subject to the specialist knowledge of the experts responsible for this and also of market strategists who research the availability of standard parts and also input this into the libraries. 
     EXAMPLE 
     The functioning of the inventive EDP system will now be described using a real design example: 
     Task: A truss is to be designed which sustains a vertical static load of 2000 N, with a distance of 250 mm from the vertical screw area, via a pin guided in a bore of the truss with D=20 h 9 mm. The bending of the truss upon incorporation of the pin may not thereby exceed a value of 0.050 mm. 
     Firstly, as shown in  FIG. 6 , according to  15 , a kinematic model is selected from the library  14 . The kinematic model of a truss is found here which corresponds to our requirements with the number of the degrees of freedom f=0 and the number of supporting points LP=1. The required indications are input as in  FIG. 7 , following which they are set out via the user interface  4 ,  20 . The inputs are checked  21  and subsequently the calculation of the cutting forces and moments is carried out by the computer unit according to analytical formalisms  22 . Then the results are set out  23  as in  FIG. 8 . Checking follows and then  27  the selection of the material,  FIG. 9 , from  28  and the safety coefficients from  30 . A selection of a blank can take place later. The necessary geometry parameters are now determined  35  by the computer unit and suggestions for geometries  36  are set out on the user interface ( FIG. 10 ). We select  37  the suggestion “B120-DIN 1543”. The calculation of the stresses and the deformations is now carried out  39  by the computer unit and set out together with the achieved safety coefficients  40  on the user interface, following which the verification of said safety coefficients is carried out  41 . In  FIG. 11  this representation is shown and a warning is output for the safety coefficient of the stresses—it is too high. For our case, however, the deformation of 0.050 mm is a design specification, of which the safety coefficient lies with 1.66 to 0.030 mm in the admissible range. We take the higher weight and the correspondingly very low stresses into account—for reasons of production costs—and go to the next step  43 . Now,  44 , as shown in  FIG. 12 , the fixing elements are selected from  45  and the force application elements from  46  as well as the standard parts from  47 . These are then adapted by the computer unit to our truss  48  and set out  49  on the user interface,  FIG. 13 . As we do not wish to carry out any further optimisations  50 ,  54  and  56  the next step follows. Here,  57 , we select a DIN A3 format from  58  with the corresponding item list which is also to be indicated in the assembly drawing. The computer unit assumes the arrangement of the views, the scale and the dimensions  61  and the drawing is represented  62  on the user interface,  FIG. 14 . As we are not carrying out any additional processing  65  the thus formulated technical drawing is stored  66  and is available for the further production process. 
     The foregoing description of various aspects of the invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed, and obviously, many modifications and variations are possible. Such modifications and variations that may be apparent to an individual in the art are included within the scope of the invention as defined by the accompanying claims. 
     LIST OF REFERENCE NUMERALS 
     
         
           1 —Inventive EDP system 
           2 —Storage unit 
           3 —Computer unit 
           4 —User interface 
           5 —interface 
           6 —Designer (user) 
           7 —Stored data 
           8 —Suggestions 
           9 —Data to be added 
           10 —Consistency check 
           11 —Calculations 
           12 —Invitation to input 
           13 —Transition to the next method step 
           14 —Library with kinematic models 
           15 —Selection possibility of kinematic models 
           16 —Decision point ( 1 ) for kinematic models 
           17 —Gear synthesis 
           18 —Library with functions for kinematic models 
           19 —Library for new kinematic models 
           20 —Representation of the forces and boundary conditions 
           21 —Decision point ( 2 ) for kinematic model 
           22 —Calculation of the cutting forces and moments 
           23 —Representation of the force and moment patterns 
           24 —Decision point ( 3 ) 
           25 —Return to start again 
           26 —Acceptance of the status quo 
           27 —Selection of the material 
           28 —Library with materials 
           29 —Library with dimension sheets of profiles and blanks 
           30 —Library with safety coefficients and instructions 
           31 —Library with instructions for manufacture, thermal and surface treatments 
           32 —Libraries with simple geometries 
           33 —Generation of geometries 
           34 —Libraries with compiled geometries 
           35 —Calculation of the required geometry parameters 
           36 —Representation of the geometry suggestions 
           37 —Selection of the geometry 
           38 —Decision point ( 4 ) concerning the suitability of the geometry 
           39 —Calculations of the stresses and displacements using analytical formalisms 
           40 —Representation of the achieved safety coefficients, loads and critical points 
           41 —Decision point ( 5 ) relating to critical points 
           42 —Possibility of going back 
           43 —Acceptance of the status quo 
           44 —Selection of the fixing elements and force application elements 
           45 —Library with fixing elements 
           46 —Library with force application elements 
           47 —Library with standard parts 
           48 —Calculation of the loads of all parts using analytical formalisms 
           49 —Representation of the model with the selection elements 
           50 —Decision point ( 6 ) 
           51 —Representation of the loads and the safety coefficients on all parts (also for the case of external calculation) 
           52 —Decision point ( 7 ) for the use of a non-analytical process 
           53 —Non-analytical calculations 
           54 —Acceptance of the status quo 
           55 —Decision point ( 8 ) for the evaluation of the loads and safety coefficients 
           56 —Acceptance of the status quo 
           57 —Selection of the drawing formats 
           58 —Libraries with drawing formats, item list forms and other forms 
           59 —Library with additional drawing elements 
           60 —Library with comments and texts 
           61 —Adaptation of the views and calculation of the dimensioning representation 
           62 —Representation of the drawings 
           63 —Manual processing of the drawings 
           64 —Representation of the complete documentation 
           65 —Decision point ( 9 ) 
           66 —Storage of the design 
           67 —Method for automatic design

Technology Classification (CPC): 6