351

ISSN 1392−1207. MECHANIKA. 2021 Volume 27(4): 351−354

Standards for Transition from 2D Drawing to Model Based Definition

in Mechanical Engineering
Nomeda PUODZIUNIENE*, Evaldas NARVYDAS**
* Kaunas University of Technology, Studentu st. 56, LT-51424 Kaunas, Lithuania, E-mail: [email protected]
** Kaunas University of Technology, Studentu st. 56, LT-51424 Kaunas, Lithuania, E-mail: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j02.mech.25777

1. Introduction tool performance. The continued success of MBE requires

deployment of open standards for representing and exchang-
For years, mechanical engineers have followed rig- ing product and process data.
orous standards of engineering drawings. International The improvement efforts of MBD have continued.
standards (primarily ISO) have been gradually adopted in Camba et al. [5, 6] emphasized a significance of annotation
many countries allowing different people who speak differ- management in MBD and proposed an extended annotation
ent languages to read the same engineering drawing and in- manager answering questions related to CAD model design
terpret and understand it equally. Discussions on differences intent and reusability. Ruemler et al. (2017) [7] conducted a
between two major standards for drawings: ISO and survey to investigate the common information model and to
ANSI/ASME were widely presented in engineering com- understand how the models are used within the companies.
munity and reflected in textbooks for qualified draftsperson The result showed that the drawings are still very important
[1]. However, the contemporary Computer-Aided Design source of information for a majority of the respondents. For
(CAD) tools together with means of Computer-Aided Man- the usability of 3D CAD models, the majority responded
ufacturing (CAM) achieved capabilities that started ques- that information they receive and would like to receive is in
tioning the necessity of 2D drawings. CAD tools now create native 3D CAD models; the STEP models were on the sec-
the 3D solid model at first and then 2D drawing, if needed. ond place.
Solid models define a geometry of the object. Therefore, the ASME Model-Based Enterprise Standards Com-
idea to develop a 3D model that would contain all infor- mittee Recommendation Report (2018) [8] states that today,
mation needed for the manufacturing and more have grown most organizations still use engineering drawings as their
to Model-based Definition (MDB) concept. Answering the authoritative source for product definition and to drive
needs of industry the discussion on the employment of 3D downstream operations. Currently, there is very little offi-
model have evolved to concept of Smart Manufacturing cial documentation or standardization on MBE within in-
System [2] enabled by Model-based Enterprise and Model- dustry. MBD and MBE represent a paradigm shift occurring
based Engineering (MBE) supported by ISO STEP (STandard in the way industry communicates and uses technical infor-
for the Exchange of Product model data) AP 242 and PMI mation today. Digital product definition (DPD) dataset is of-
(Product Manufacturing Information) standards. ten focused upon the transition from using 2D drawings to
In response to the need to utilize 3D CAD data as using 3D CAD models as input to modern manufacturing. It
manufacturing and/or inspection sources, the American So- includes the shape definition, but must also include the be-
ciety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) issued the first ver- havioral and contextual definitions as well.
sion of ASME Y14.41 standard in 2003. However, in the It is very important for CAD systems to follow new
research article of Quintana et al. (2010) [3], the conclusion modifications of released standards to ensure proper MBD.
based on observations within the two Canadian aerospace As an example, the modification of ISO 1101:2017 Geomet-
companies was drawn that from a cost, time and effort per- rical product specifications (GPS) - Geometrical tolerancing
spective, companies are not yet totally convinced to move - Tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out was
to a drawing-less environment throughout the product reviewed [9] with the call for actions implementing the
lifecycle replacing engineering drawings with MBD da- standard into CAD, CMS (Coordinate Measuring Systems)
tasets. data exchange, packaging and education.
In 2013, National Institute of Standards and Tech- MBE concept including development, manufactur-
nology (NIST) of the U.S. Department of Commerce issued ing and quality control phases was implemented during a
a Model-Based Enterprise Summit Report [4]. The purpose new turboprop compressor development project [10]. It
of the Summit was to identify challenges in manufacturing, gave a significant time saving, reduction of needed docu-
quality assurance, and system acquisition where a digital mentation and other benefits, although it was mentioned that
three-dimensional (3D) model serves as the authoritative in- creating of definition for MDB took longer comparing to
formation source for all activities in the product lifecycle. It traditional 2D drawing. General issues and challenges in
concluded that the model-based methods and tools are in- MBD development and its full implementation in MBE, in
creasing manufacturing productivity, but challenges remain different contexts, were identified and categorized in [11]
introducing advanced materials such as composite struc- with focus on high-value manufacturing. The overviewed of
tures, and advanced processes such as additive manufactur- critical points on practical implementation of MBD in con-
ing. In addition, a new research and development are needed temporary industry [12] show that some benefits of MBD
to address challenges such as intellectual property protec- may be overestimated and issues still exist.
tion and adapting to changes in tooling, setup, or machine
 352

2. Purpose of technical drawing standards principles of presentation — Part 44: Sections on mechani-
cal engineering drawings;
Engineering technical drawings specify require- ISO 128-50:2001 Technical drawings - General
ments of a part or assembly unit. Standards define rules for principles of presentation — Part 50: Basic conventions for
their interpretation and presentation of technical documen- representing areas on cuts and sections;
tation. Mostly engineering drawings have information not ISO 406:1987 Technical drawings - Tolerancing of
only about the shape (geometry) of part but also about di- linear and angular dimensions;
mensions (the size of the part is fixed in accepted units) and ISO 16792:2015 Technical product documentation
tolerances. The orthographic projection that shows the part – Digital product definition data practices;
as it looks from the front, right, left, top, bottom, or back ISO 129-1:2018 Technical product documentation
and is typically positioned relative to each other according (TPD) – Presentation of dimensions and tolerances – Part1:
to the rules of either first-angle (ISO standard and is primar- General principles;
ily used in Europe) or third-angle projection (ANSI/ASME ASME drawing standards:
standard and is primarily used in the United States and Can- ASME Y14.1- Imperial drawing sheet size and for-
ada). mat;
Working with CAD systems is very important se- ASME Y14.1M- Metric drawing sheet size and
lection of the right technical norms under which users will format;
create the product and not forget the principles of technical ASME Y14.100- Engineering drawing and prac-
drawings [1]. tices;
Engineering drawing has the formal and precise in- ASME Y14.2- Line conventions and lettering;
formation about the shape, size, and precision of product. ASME Y14.3- Multi-view and sectional view
Drawing is the universal language of engineering and draw- drawings;
ing standards are used to control the wide aspects of draw- ASME Y14.5- Dimensioning and Tolerancing;
ings: ASME Y14.24- Types and applications of Engi-
• scales, units and quantities; neering drawings;
• lines, arrows and lettering; ASME Y14.34- Associated lists;
• projections, views and sections; ASME Y14.35- Drawing revisions;
• dimensioning and tolerance; ASME Y14.38- Abbreviations;
• symbols and abbreviations; ASME Y14.41- Digital product definition data
• surface texture indication; practices.
• types of documentation;
• terms and definitions; 3. Digital product definition data practices
• representation of features and components;
• graphical representation and annotation for 3-D The standard ASME Y14.41-2012 (Digital Product
modeling output; Definition Data Practices) defines many 3D model based
Because we have different standards (ISO, ANSI, product definition aspects for users [13]. The ISO
...), users must not mix them up, so drawings must be cre- 16792:2015 standard [14] standardizes MBD within the ISO
ated according to single family standards. Some ISO stand- standards, sharing many similarities with the ASME stand-
ards for technical drawing: ard. The standard ISO 16792:2015 (Technical product doc-
ISO 128-20:1996 Technical drawings — General umentation – Digital product definition data practices) spec-
principles of presentation — Part 20: Basic conventions for ifies requirement for the preparation, revision and presenta-
lines; tion of digital product definition data sets. Some companies
ISO 128-21:1997 Technical drawings — General are using it to completely define the product only with a
principles of presentation — Part 21: Preparation of lines by CAD model, some might use a combination of CAD model
CAD systems; and 2D drawing [14] Fig. 1. The information on the drawing
ISO 128-22:1999 Technical drawings — General and in the model must match. In case of using CAD model
principles of presentation — Part 22: Basic conventions and and 2D drawing, the standard for drawing provides the re-
applications for leader lines and reference lines; quirements.
ISO 128-23:1999 Technical drawings — General The standard establishes rules for both model and
principles of presentation — Part 23: Lines on construction drawing how to display information, including the full set
drawings; of geometric dimensioning and tolerancing symbols. The
ISO 128-24:1999 Technical drawings - General ISO 128 series standards on general principles of presenta-
principles of presentation — Part 24: Lines on mechanical tion of technical drawings and ISO 1101:2017 – Geomet-
engineering drawings; rical Product Specifications (GPS) – Geometrical toleranc-
ISO 128-30:2001 Technical drawings - General ing – Tolerances of form orientation, location and run-out
principles of presentation — Part 30: Basic conventions for and other ISO standards dealing with surface texture, weld-
views; ing symbols and other technical product documentation
ISO 128-34:2001 Technical drawings - General specifications must be applied.
principles of presentation — Part 34: Views on mechanical Product Definition Data set Fig. 2 completely de-
engineering drawings; fines a product by this aspect: geometry, annotation, attrib-
ISO 128-40:2001 Technical drawings - General ute data, reference to standards, specification. The model it-
principles of presentation — Part 40: Basic conventions for self includes geometric elements in product definition data
cuts and sections; representing the designed product. Annotations include di-
ISO 128-44:2001 Technical drawings - General mensions, tolerances, notes, text, or symbols.
 353

a b
Fig. 1 Design model and drawing [14]: a – annotated model, b – drawing

a b
Fig. 2 Model with different annotation [14]: a) model with all annotation, b) model with one type annotation

Attributes are such elements as a dimension, toler-

ance, note, text, or symbol required to complete the product
definition [14].
A model coordinate system shall be included in
each axonometric view to indicate orientation of the view,
and section views can be created also from axonometric
views Fig. 3. A representation of a cutting plane shall be
used to indicate the location and viewing direction of a sec-
tion. The cutting plane and the cuts and sections shall be in-
dicated according to ISO 128-40 and ISO 128-44 standards.

Fig 4 Section curves shown in an axonometric view [14]

According standard ISO 16792:2015 the users

have possibility to indicate dimensions and annotations on
the 3D model that allows thinking in three dimensions. This
standard covers the historical practices of using engineering
drawings to define a product and the practices, require-
ments, and interpretation of the CAD data when there is no
engineering drawing.
Fig. 3 Axonometric view views [14] 4. Conclusions
The result of the section cut may be shown either CAD systems enable designers to view objects un-
by removing material from the part Fig. 3 or by display of der a wide variety of representations. However, as in the
the curves overlaid on the view that result from intersecting manual drafting of technical and engineering drawings, the
the cutting plane with the part Fig. 4 [14].
 354

output of CAD must have information, such as product ge- 8. ASME, Model-Based Enterprise Steering Group. 2018.
ometry, process, dimensions and tolerances, according to Model-Based Enterprise Standards, Committee Recom-
basic valid standards in order to avoid elementary mistakes mendation Report. 43 p.
of technical drawings. 9. Morse, E. P; Shakarji, C. M.; Srinivasan V. A brief
According standard ISO 16792:2015 the users analysis of recent ISO tolerancing standards and their
have possibility to indicate dimensions and annotations on potential impact on digitization of manufacturing, 15th
the 3D model that allows thinking in three dimensions. This CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing –
standard cover the historical practices of using engineering CIRP CAT 2018, Procedia CIRP 75: 11-18.
drawings to define a product and the practices, require- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.080.
ments, and interpretation of the CAD data when there is no 10. Paruszewski, P.; Lis, P.; Lipiński, Ł. 2019. Model
engineering drawing. based enterprise (MBE) in prototype compressor project
The MBD practice is still under the development. for new turboprop engine, AIP Conference, Proceedings
Large effort is applied from standardization institutions, re- 2078: 020042-1–020042-6.
searchers and engineers to over the issues and challenges the https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5092045.
MBD is facing. This will results in significant savings and a 11. Goher, K.; Shehab, E.; Al-Ashaab A. 2019. Chal-
new level of product lifecycle management. lenges of model-based definition for high-value manu-
facturing, In: Jin Y., Price M. (Eds.) Advances in Man-
References ufacturing Technology XXXIII– Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Manufacturing Re-
1. Simmons, C.H.; Maguire, D. E. Phelps, N. 2012. The search, incorporating the 34th National Conference on
Manual of Engineering Drawing: Technical Product Manufacturing Research, 10-12 September 2019,
Specification and Documentation to British and Interna- Queen's University, Belfast: IOS Press: 22-27.
tional Standards. 4th Edition. - Oxford: Elsevier/Butter- https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE190006,
worth Heineman 384 p. 12. Bijnens, J; Cheshire, D. 2019. The Current state of
2. Feeney, A. B.; Frechette, S. P.; Srinivasan, V. 2015. model based definition, Computer-Aided Design and
A Portrait of an ISO STEP tolerancing standard as an Applications16(2): 308-317,
enabler of smart manufacturing systems, Journal of https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2019.308-317.
Computing and Information Science in Engineering 13. ASME, Digital Product Definition Data Practices
15(2): 1-5. (ASME Y14.41-2012). 2012. The American Society of
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029050. Mechanical Engineers.
3. Quintana, V.; Rivest, L.,; Pellerin, R. ; Venne, F. ; 14. ISO. 2015. Technical product documentation – Digital
Kheddouci, F. 2010. Will model-based definition re- product definition data practices (ISO 16792: 2015). In-
place engineering drawings throughout the product ternational Organization for Standards.
lifecycle? A global perspective from aerospace industry,
Computers in Industry 61: 497–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.01.005. N. Puodziuniene, E. Narvydas
4. Lubell, J.; Frechette, S.bP.; Lipman, R.bR.; Proctor,
F.bM.; Horst, J.bA.; Carlisle, M.; Huang, P.bJ. 2013. STANDARDS FOR TRANSITION FROM 2D
Model-Based Enterprise Summit Report, NIST Tech- DRAWING TO MODEL BASED DEFINITION IN
nical Note 1820, U.S. Department of Commerce. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1820.
5. Camba, J.; Contero, M.; Johnson, M.; Company, P. Summary
2014. Extended 3D annotations as a new mechanism to
explicitly communicate geometric design intent and in- The main tools of CAD: the simple 2D Draw-
crease CAD model reusability, Computer-Aided Design ing/Drafting or 3D Parametric Feature Based Solid/Surface
57: 61-73. Modelling are used for product development. CAD systems
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.07.001. increase the quality of drawings and reduce the time for its
6. Camba, J. D.; Contero, M. 2015. Assessing the Impact preparation. In this process, it is very important to use the
of Geometric Design Intent Annotations on Parametric valid standards in the drawings and technical documenta-
Model Alteration Activities, Computers in Industry 71: tion. Standardization documents describing the rules, regu-
35–45. lations and requirements of production methods, concepts,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.03.006. symbols, constructor’s drawings and documents are very
7. Ruemler, S. P.; Zimmerman, K. E; Hartman, N. W.; important in all areas of industry.
Hedberg, T. Jr.; Feeny, A. B. 2017. Promoting model-
based definition to establish a complete product defini- Keywords: automated design systems, CAD/CADD, model
tion, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineer- based product definition, standardization of technical docu-
ing-Transactions of the ASME 139 (5): 1-7. mentation.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034625.
Received April 13, 2020
Accepted August 07, 2021

This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).