You are on page 1of 35

SURFACE QUALITY AUDIT PROCESS

COMMON STANDARDS FOR CLASS A MATH DATA RELEASE


Brian Davis, Design Center, SPE Mark Easlick, Design Center, SPE Kevin Striker, Design Center, SPE Mark Griffin Design, Quality & Verification

Revised April 11, 2003

-1-

Common Standards for 'CLASS A' Math Data Release


Definition of Class-A Surface
Aesthetically approved math data from Design Center that honors all known Engineering, Manufacturing Assembly and Human Factors Criteria and also meets all Die Engineering or Tool Source Requirements.

Contents of this Document


This document attempts to quantify the tolerance and accuracy needed to ensure all math data releases meet the required standards. It also provides recommended practices on how to meet the goals of the DESIGN QUALITY AUDIT prior to release from Design Center. A Class 'A' release is the culmination of many essential components being factored into the Math Data. A component that satisfies all surface quality guidelines yet violates key Manufacturing or Human Factors needs, will not satisfy the Math Audit. The released data should meet the requirements of all the following topics.

Math Data Tolerances & Design Center Deliverables Internal Surface Quality Surface Continuity & Quality Fillet Flow Paths Surface/Part Harmony and Part Interface Considerations Engineering /Manufacturing Criteria Compliance Engineering /Manufacturing Die Pull Compliance Design, Quality and Verification Audit

-2-

Tolerances and Math Data Release Standards


Modeling Tolerances Using a modeling distance tolerance of 0.01 mm and an angular tolerance of 0.5 degree will help meet the release requirements for adjacent surfaces. In some case using tighter tolerances may be necessary to meet the release standards below. Release Standards for Math Data (IDR and VDR) All math releases will be provided as UG part files (File Translations to UG are permissibleexample, Alias to UG) Math data can be provided as a solid or surface model Symmetrical Surfaces with Balanced Curvature should be G3 curvature continuous. To Attain High Surface Quality: The Majority of Adjacent Surfaces should be within 0.1 degree angularity. This is especially true for slab and transitional surfaces with larger radii. (example: Adjacent Body Side Slab Surfaces) Adjacent Surface Requirements: Adjacent surface edge gaps must measure no larger than 0.01mm. Angularity (tangency) between adjacent edges must measure 0.5 degrees or less. (See exceptions NOTE below) Fillets Larger than 3.0mm radius (lead-in usually required) Fillets 3.0 mm radius or less (no lead-in necessary) NOTE: Some Fillets 3 mm or less - may be tangent up to 1 degree to adjacent surfaces. This is an exception and not a general rule.

Meeting or Exceeding the above release standards is the goal for all math releases.
Reference NOA #033 for additional guidelines on release data for IDR and VDR Reference NOA #052 for Examine Geometry guidelines for surface and solid verification.

Requirements for Solid Ready Surface Data


All files released from Design Center at IDR and VDR will be Unigraphics part files. The Vehicle Engineering Centers will use our data for the development of solid models; -3-

therefore, it is essential that we provide them with math surfaces that facilitate efficient development of a solid model.

Surface Development for Solid Modeling

Primary Surfaces

Primary Surfaces should be built to or beyond the region of theoretical intersection. The resultant intersection line should be evaluated to confirm the quality and compatibility of the primary surfaces.

The shape of the intersection line directly influences the fillet shape. Care should be taken to prove out this critical line prior to fillet development. Intersection curve with curvature combs Note: Framing and overbuilding permits greater flexibility with future fillet changes.

Perimeter Trim Fillet Surface

The Fillet (yellow) should be curvature or tangent continuous to the primary surfaces, and be built beyond the part perimeter similar to the Primary surfaces.

To help in the Development of the Final Part, the following things must occur:
Primary Surfaces should be built to or beyond the region of theoretical intersection. This permits greater flexibility for change and highlight control for fillets Surfaces should produce predictable extensions without any unusual results (e.g.: monkey tails or spirals)

-4-

This allows downstream modelers to create extensions for the development of solid models, tool addendums, jigs, and fixture needs. Surfaces should be trimmed to internal boundaries and be sewable/stitchable. This provides the desired data used for trimming solids Surfaces should be capable of being offset by a nominal material thickness. Small Fillets or Radii will be the exception if the Fillet Radii are smaller than the nominal material thickness. The capability to Offset surfaces allows for the development of inner panels and backside material thickness. Surfaces should be built beyond the part perimeter This minimizes the possibility of having to rebuild surface because of changes to an opening line, joint line, or edge of part.

Example of Surface Data Released for VEC

Trim Sheets

Rear Door Panel surfaces shown in Wire Frame Display Red curves represent part perimeter trim sheets.

Before Trims

After Trims

Shaded door panel, before and after trims are applied using trim body.

Part with Perimeter Trims 3 Trim Body Features are applied on the Sewn Sheet. Thicken the sewn sheet to create a solid body. Next run Examine Geometry on the solid for verification. Ref. NOA #052

-5-

Development of a Hollowed Solid Model from Class-A Surfaces


Class-A sewn sheet

Part Perimeter

Step 1 Have Class-A Surfaces Trimmed to Adjacent Boundaries, Sewn and Built beyond the Part Perimeter. It is a good practice to run Examine Geometry on the sewn sheet to detect any possible problems with the Class-A surfaces.

Extrusion Curves

Step 2 Use the Sewn Class-A sheets (Blue) to trim a Solid Body (Yellow). This solid is created by extruding a set of profile curves. The solid body should be created beyond the perimeter trim sheets.

Trimmed Solid

Step 3 - Hollow the solid body (yellow) to the desired material thickness. All radii should be larger than the material thickness.

Step 4 Use perimeter and opening trims to define the final part.
Hollowed Solid

Trimming sheets

Step 5 Run Examine Geometry to help validate the math of the Part. The solid should pass all checks denoted in the NOA #033 for Design Center deliverables.
Final Part

Internal Surface Quality


-6-

Surface Tessellation For Visualization and Audit


To perform many of the visualization functions in EVALVIEWER, UG, SURFSEG etc., the math surfaces need to be tessellated (defined as a network of polygons that closely represent the math, a triangular mesh. After performing this conversion, interactive display speeds are faster and a variety of evaluation functions are enabled. The tessellation should be finer for surfaces that have more shape and change of curvature. An example of this is shown on a quarter panel below.

Medium Mesh - Tessellation

Fine Mesh - Tessellation

The misinterpretation of surface quality can sometimes be a result of improper tessellation. If a surface or boundary condition between surfaces is in question, an extra fine tessellation may be necessary in order to make a valid judgement of the surface quality. Guidelines for Tessellation in Surfseg and Evalviewer Desired Analysis Tessellation Value Exterior and High Gloss Finishes(interiors) Interior Trim and GrainTextured Parts Die Pull/Draft Angle Check or Interference/Clearance Check 0.02 mm 0.05 mm 0.15 mm

-7-

Surface Analysis Tools


Every surface should be evaluated during and/or after it is created. There are many diagnostic tools available to interrogate the internal and adjacent surface quality, but no one particular analysis can be relied upon to show every flaw. Therefore, it is recommended that a combination of these tools be used to conduct a thorough surface review. The following are some suggested tools to use: Fixed or moving light sources tracking highlights Face or Surface Color Curvature Maps Gaussian Max & Min Curvature Mean or average Curvature Sectional U&V direction Slope/Draft Reflection Lines , Photo Horizon, or Texture Maps Section Analysis with Curvature Combs Pole Network or Isoparms Minimum Radius Measurement and Offset Surface

Surface Analysis Steps


Some basic steps can be taken to evaluate the internal quality of a surface. Shade the surface and look for any unusual bumps, ripples, twists or inconsistent highlights. By moving the light source or by rotating the part, many initial imperfections can be identified. Create or Run a dynamic section with curvature combs through the surface in the U and V direction of the surface and look for any differing comb displays, multiple peaks, or unwanted inflections. Other section creation methods, such as, radials or perpendicular to a curve, can be helpful in identifying problem areas around openings. Look at the Pole Network or Isoparms of the surface to determine if the surface structure is consistent and proportional. Use the U and V Direction surface analysis tool to identify or support any problems that the U and V section cutting tools found. Use surface analysis tools such as Gaussian, Minimum and Maximum Radius, and Mean/Average to further investigate or help confirm any problems that were found. Use minimum radius check to identify any small radii that may cause possible surface offset problems. Use Slope or Draft check to analyze surface for die lock conditions.

Internal Surface Analysis A-Pillar- Exterior


-8-

The following images illustrate several different types of surface analysis methods which all support the findings of an internal surface quality issue. The adjacent surfaces leading into this area are of acceptable quality. The issue at hand is the inconsistent flow or transition of the highlight from the lower portion of the A-Pillar to the area above the top of the mirror patch. Analyzing the highlight on the shaded model doesnt show the surface problem as well as the other analysis displays. Surface Issue Area

Highlight Transition

Wavy Reflection Line display

Wavy Color Reflection Line display

Wavy Simulated Horizon display

Inconsistent Radius of Curvature Color Maps support Reflection Line displays above

Maximum Radius display

Gaussian Radius display

Addressing Surface Corrections


When problems are identified within a surface, a determination needs to be made as to the scope of the surface rework in terms of max / min limits.

-9-

Also, considerations need to be made pertaining to the amount of time needed to make the correction and whether the correction will be value added. Localized changes can generally be resolved easily, but there are cases where a subtle change can propagate through an entire panel and a majority of its surfaces. Generally when a primary surface change is made, it will drive several surface changes. The location of a surface imperfection should also be considered. If the problem is in a low visibility area, the surface correction may not be made, or more attention may be spent on correcting surfaces located in higher visibility areas.

- 10 -

Spline Curves for Surface Development


The basis for quality surface development starts with good curve development. Here are some general rules for Spline curves: 1) Splines used as build curves for surfaces should be developed as single segment curves to help reduce surface complexity. Using a combination of different degree curves with different segmentation will generally result in a higher amount of complexity in a surface. As a result, any curve projected onto that surface will result in a curve with more complexity (more segmentation). There will be cases where curve segmentation cannot be minimized and a system derived curve must be used. 2) Splines created as 3 to 5 degree curves will generally be flexible enough to capture most shapes for surface development. 3) It is a good practice to develop surface curves as a family of lines having the same characteristics and proportions (see below). For example, all U-direction curves would be 3 degree single segment curves and all V-direction curves would be 5 degree single segment curves. Also, the curvature combs should have the same shape or at least transition from one shape to another along the U or V-direction of the surface. Door Surface

V-direction U-direction

Family of Lines Similar Progressive Curvature Combs

- 11 -

Curve Continuity
The following images show curvature combs, which help detect the curve relationships between two curves. The most desirable condition is a curvature continuous relationship. In some cases, tangency will only be attainable and is also acceptable. Continuity Conditions between Curve Endpoints

Non-Positional

Positional (C0)

Tangent (C1)

Desirable Curvature (C2)

Most Desirable Curvature

Continuity Conditions Bridging between Two Curves

Positional (C0)

Tangent (C1)

Desirable Curvature (C2)

More Desirable Curvature

- 12 -

Adjacent Surface Continuity


There are four levels of continuity between patches of surface 1) Curvature (G2 and G3) Most desirable 2) Tangent (G1) Acceptable in some cases (low visibility areas) 3) Positional (G0) Acceptable for quick surface or early design intent. 4) Non-Positional - Undesirable Examples of Tangent and Curvature continuity are show below. Using reflection lines and sections with curvature combs can be helpful in identifying continuity conditions. Surface boundaries can also be checked using angle and distance deviation checking tools. Curvature (G2) S-shaped

Tangent (G1) Z-shaped

The continuity constraints applied to the mating surfaces depend on the design intent, but generally curvature continuity is most desirable. However, imposing surface boundary constraints to obtain tangency or curvature continuity at the expense of internal surface quality is ill advised. Surface Boundary Noise caused by Constraints from adjacent surfaces

- 13 -

Surface Patches
Excessive numbers of surface patches must be avoided. If not, it invites increased problems with curvature continuity, adjacent surface checks, gaps, highlight separation and possible oscillations between surface patches and within their interior.

Shaded Model showing surface patch break-up

Gaussian Analysis showing radius of curvature changes within the panel

Multiple surfaces

Simulated Horizon showing reflection breaks between surface patches

Colored Reflection Lines showing inconsistent flow between surfaces

Cutting a clay model is a valuable design verification tool to help identify possible surface imperfections, but it may not expose subtle surface quality problems that become major problems at the DIE MODEL cutting stage.

Secondary Fillet Surface Quality and Continuity


- 14 -

Secondary surfaces should be curvature continuous, but where it makes sense, tangent continuous fillets are acceptable. The following math data conditions lend themselves to creating tangent continuous fillets instead of curvature continuous fillets: 1) The Size or Width of the Fillet from Tangent line to Tangent line Generally very small fillets only need to be tangent continuous 2) The Direction of the Primary Surfaces Primary surfaces that curve the same direction as the fillet being created can alleviate the need for a curvature continuous fillet. 3) The Lead-in of the Fillet Having a longer lead-in on a tangent fillet helps soften the surface transition and the highlight. 4) The Area of Visibility If the fillet surface is going to be in a low visibility area it wouldnt be necessary to spend additional time and effort to make it curvature continuous.

Section Curves with curvature combs show the continuity between the Primary and Fillet surfaces. (G2 continuity)

Colored Refection Lines

Colored Reflection Lines are used to observe any subtle or major surface breaks along adjacent surface boundaries.

A Gaussian Color map is displayed to observe the interior surface shape and also the surface flow across the fillet tangent Gaussian Analysis

- 15 -

Boundary Curves for Tangency and Curvature

Red Curves for Curvature Continuity

Yellow Curves for Tangent Continuity

When building a fillet with curvature continuity, expanding or offsetting the tangent curves usually is necessary to attain curvature continuity and to hold the fillet shape.

Tangency

Reflection lines showing the results of using the yellow boundary curves for building the fillet surface.

Curvature

Reflection lines showing the results of using the red curves for building a curvature continuous fillet surface and matching the tangent fillet shape.

- 16 -

High Visibility Areas


Curvature Continuity must be obtained in High Visibility Areas. To attain curvature continuity, expanding the Tangent lines (or Curvature lines) may be required in order to allow for more lead-in to produce the desired transition characteristics. Areas of Low Visibility (i.e. inside fascia openings, lower knee bolsters or underside surfaces) need only be tangent continuous. In the illustration below, the section curve shows the expanded tangent lines and the fillet shape used to obtain curvature continuity.

Curvature Fillet

Inflection Pt.

Section A-A A

Inflection Pt.

The following images show Curvature Continuity over the Wheel Opening

Shaded Image of a Quarter Panel in a High Visibility Area

Reflection lines showing the smooth transition of the Curvature Continuous Fillet Surface. S-shaped reflection lines are generally more desirable in these areas.

Fillet Flow Path Highlights

- 17 -

The practice of framing surfaces to create intersection lines is an essential step in controlling fillet highlights and flow paths in primary slabs and major fillet surfaces. However, in many instances, it does create unexpected problems with fillet misalignments and waviness because of the changing included angles in pockets or flanged parts. This is especially true when smaller fillets are applied that do not undergo the chordal flow line or highlight refinements of larger primary fillet surfaces. These very predictable conditions have always existed but were obviously corrected at the hard model or die model stage if they were objectionable. Though usually confined to small detail type fillets, they often reside in high visibility areas and in a full math process, the following sample situations must be anticipated and incorporated into the design. Typical Fender, Hood, and Headlamp Condition Incorrect Flanging Correct Flanging

Common Intersection

Differing angles cause fillet misalignment

Typical sections and fillets must be applied to openings before surfacing is completed

Common Control Surface for Highlight Control

Misalignment

Correct Alignment

Typical Roof To Door Glass Condition - 18 -

Incorrect

Correct
Theoretical Slab Surface Creates Constant Fillet Highlight

Fillet Highlight Will Vary

Variable intersection

A Constant Intersection and Fillet will produce an erratic Fillet Highlight due to the changing angle.

The Fillet Highlight should be controlled by a Theoretical Slab Surface constant to the door glass.

Typical Door or Fascia Rub Strip Condition Using a Common Intersection Line will create an inconsistent fillet to fillet highlight condition The intersection must vary in order to maintain a constant fillet

Incorrect

Correct

- 19 -

A BRIDGING SURFACE can be created across the fillet high point that will not only provide a torsion free or twist free surface, but will become the foundation surface for all adjacent details or constant offset controls. The quality of the surface inside the void or data free area can be allowed to wander as long as it produces good results in the adjacent detail regions. A simple offset of a surface and an opening line will now ensure consistent detail relationships. Example of Bridging/Control Surfaces I/P Trim Plate

A Put in 2 images A

Overbuilt Control Surface Areas in Red

Plan View Section A-A

Contact Area

Bridge Surface

Contact Area

Exploded View Example of Offset Bridge Surface I/P Trim Plate - 20 -

Offset Control Surface Areas in Yellow

Plan View Section A-A

Contact Area

Offset Bridge Surface

Contact Area

Exploded View

Controlling peaked fillets where no normal surface is available to provide intersection control needs special attention. An example of this is the eyebrow of an Instrument Panel Cluster Hood. The critical control line would be the high point of the fillet as it wraps around the cluster opening, but no normal surface exists to provide the control needed. A ribbon or fence surface that just 'kisses' the highlight is an option, but there is a strong likelihood that the ribbon surface will twist and will offer little benefit if used for adjacent part detail, (i.e. constant offsets and groove control).

- 21 -

Surface/Part Harmony & Part Interface Considerations


Surface/Part Audit Prior to release of production data at VDR, (see Fast VDP Process Chart for timing sequence), a team audit will be conducted by DQ&V personnel on the soon to be released Math Data. The following section describes the evaluation procedure and surface quality analysis standards applied to the math data with respect to harmony, tangency and curvature continuity.

These are the Evaluation Procedures: The First Evaluation Panel and Feature Continuity Check The Second Evaluation Continuity between and within Adjacent Surfaces The Third Evaluation Overall Harmony

- 22 -

The First Evaluation Panel and Feature Continuity Check


The first evaluation performed is to investigate the harmony of surfaces and continuity between features within the panel. An example of this is the beginning and end of key surface features within the panel and also features that blend into, or across other features or panels. Part and Part-to-Part Harmony

Part-to-Part Interface

Feature Endings

Fillet Transitions

Part to Part Highlights

Groove Conditions

The team also evaluates the released panel for rat holes and discontinuity between adjacent panels. If the team identifies an area of concern or an unusual surface characteristic during the aesthetics / harmony evaluation, they will request that the Design Supervisor or Design Release Engineer compare the findings against the clay or math to seek studio confirmation of the surface characteristics in question.

- 23 -

The Second Evaluation Continuity between and within Adjacent Surfaces


The second evaluation is performed to check tangency between adjacent surfaces and find unwanted inflections within the surfaces. The evaluator should be looking for flat spots, dips and bumps within and across surface boundaries. Such conditions are evident when using the variety of color curvature mapping tools within SurfSeg, Alias, EvalViewer and UG.
A suggested procedure for additional scrutiny is to lay a series of radial flow lines on the surface and then 'gunsight' or look at a foreshortened view of the lines to find any irregularities.

It is sometimes difficult for the evaluator to determine whether the surface curvature should be accelerating / decelerating (peaks & valleys) or changing direction (ogees). What may appear to be a surface undulation, may have been a product of the design intent. In most cases, the evaluator needs to review the Clay or Math Model with the appropriate Studio personnel before judging the curvature characteristics of a panel.

Visibility Issues
Close analysis is necessary to identify surface imperfections and in most cases the CAD surface modeling tools are available to make corrections. What needs to be considered is whether the correction is cost effective and /or value added. Generally the location of the imperfection will determine the need for the correction. LOW VISIBILITY AREAS Less Stringent tolerance checks Interiors I/P Endcaps Lower Knee Bolster Center Console Areas Between Seats Exteriors Moldings, Claddings and End treatments tucked in Pockets Obscured View Areas on Fascia Openings or Underside Surfaces Lower Rocker Panel HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS - More Stringent tolerance checks Interiors High Gloss / Zero Grain injection molded plastic parts Upper and Front Surfaces on I/P Exteriors All major panels especially Hoods, Fenders, Quarters, Doors and Deck Lids

- 24 -

The Third Evaluation Overall Harmony


The third evaluation is more an analysis of overall harmony than surface quality. This evaluation has more relevance to Interiors due to the high number of individual components in an Instrument Panel or Door Trim Panel, but is valid for Exterior body panels as well. Individual components can be flawless and pass all the prescribed quality evaluations, but if the relationship of adjacent parts is inconsistent in terms of gaps, offsets, part-to-part harmony or 'rat holes' exist, then the eventual fit and finish appearance will suffer. In some situations, component mismatches or tapering conditions are imposed purely for aesthetic reasons. If no design element drives the condition being evaluated, then the following questions need to be asked about the evaluation of features to features within a component, or components to other components. Do the opposing 'side to side' treatments of a part look the same, or do they at least complement one another? Does the part demonstrate the appearance of balance: Within itself? About a neighboring part or a prominent design feature? About centerline of car? About centerline of driver or steering column? Does part outline, cut lines or openings lines, relate well to adjacent components or prominent design features? Are adjoining components sufficiently harmonized or softened to compensate for assembly misalignments or GD&T adjustment variations? Are the same detail features (gaps, grooves, offsets and harmony treatments) reflected throughout the design? Fillet flow path and resulting tangent lines are a major influence on the highlighting of any panel. Do the tangent lines follow the characteristics of the chord (or peak) profile of the fillet? Are fillets the same relative size or blend index, and do they reflect matching appearances in similar areas, right side to left side, or front to rear?

- 25 -

Harmony Evaluation of an Instrument Panel


1
Inconsistent groove

2
Inconsistent fillet relationship

3 Non-Uniform Cluster Walls

Issue Number

- Inconsistent Groove Construction and Beads


Additional Flat on this side

Groove should reflect the same section from side-to side

4 Speared Beads

3 Speared Beads

- 26 -

Issue Number

2 Inconsistent Fillet Relationship & Poor Highlights It is very important to establish consistent relationships between both internal design features and adjacent parts alike. Poor part to part relationships can seldom be corrected or compensated at the vehicle assembly stage. The fillet on the I/P pad yields three different appearances as it tracks around the Trim Plate. The inconsistent fillet highlight is clearly caused by a lack of intersection control and a varying fillet shape.

Radial sections showing inconsistent Pad to Trim Plate conditions (red circled area). Sections are rotated to show similar orientations.

Fillet leads into trim plate nicely. Section A

Fillet looks similar to Section A, but thicker Section C

Fillet of I/P pad hooks rapidly into trim plate

Section B

Example of Proper Framing for Consistent Fillets


Uncontrolled leading edge of fillet Dashed Frame surfaces not utilized Controlled Offset Relationship

Fillet controlled by frame surfaces

WRONG Without Framing Surface

RIGHT With Framing Surface

- 27 -

In the case below, the dominant fillet tracking around the periphery of the cluster trim plate shows severe waviness due to the absence of a proven intersection line controlling its flow. Wavy Highlight Area

The wavy highlight on the fillet surface is a result of the primary control surfaces. If the theoretical intersection had been proven out this condition could have been avoided.

- 28 -

Issue Number
Left Side Cluster Wall Narrower

- Non-Uniform Cluster Walls


Right Side Cluster Wall Wider

The Inner Walls of the Cluster are not consistent from side to side. The imbalance is visibly noticeable and was detected in an Audit. Whether such an issue undergoes correction would be determined by the amount of time needed to do the fix, the visibility level of the region, or whether other areas deserve more attention, such as Issue #1, the highly visible groove inconsistency.

Gaussian Analysis - Shows Change of Surface Direction

Vertical Section

The Vertical section shows a change in surface direction, which helps identify the bump in the side wall surface. By eliminating this bump in the surface, the two inner walls will reflect a more consistent look to one another.

- 29 -

Engineering/Manufacturing Criteria Compliance


Incorporating all known criteria into the production design release is essential if high quality math data releases are to be achieved and duplication of effort avoided. The level of detail required to ensure part manufacturability and assembly is a major timing factor. Though only 10% - 20% of the surface are at the detail work can consume 80% - 90% of the design and engineering effort. Time spent designing to unrealistic typical section conditions is time wasted and must be eliminated if future product release schedules are to be met. The following examples show the level of detail necessary along with an illustration of what can happen to a design if all the required conditions are not met. Typical Gap, Offset, and Draft Requirements

2.0 mm gap

1.5 mm gap 2.0 mm offset

7.0 degree draft 5.0 degree draft

Typical Gap, Offset, and Draft Requirements

2.0 mm gap

5.0 degree draft 7.0 degree draft 2.0 mm gap 2.0 mm offset

5.0 degree draft 3.0 degree draft

Application of Proper Manufacturing Reqt Wrong


Design Condition without Manufacturing Concerns

2.0 mm gap

Right

5.0 degree draft 7.0 degree draft

Section after manufacturing concerns are considered. Changed Details of the design will affect the part highlights and design time.

- 30 -

The illustrations below show the partial scope of eventual design criteria that is factored into a production release. If requirements are not met, many related surfaces will have to be redone following a Design Center release. TIME SPENT DEVELOPING NON-CONFORMING DETAIL SURFACES WILL BE TIME WASTED. Insert Previous document sections

The pictorial & sections illustrate the Production Engineering requirements per Platform Engineering Center. Deck Lid adjusted to be under-flush with Quarter to hide side view opening lines. Tail Lamp has been constructed under-flush with Quarter to prevent building proud of surface at assembly. License Pocket Applique is designed to be under-flush with Deck Lid surface. All gaps between adjacent parts constructed to Engineering approved typical sections. Overslam requirements factored into the contour of Deck Lid surface. All pockets and flange conditions satisfy required Die Pull and Draft Angles - 31 -

Tapering blend conditions applied between Tail Lamp and Deck Lid to comprehend varying offset dimensions.

Insert previous document sections

- 32 -

Eng./Man. Die Pull Compliance


Satisfying Die Pull, Draft Angle and Parting Line requirements is an essential part of the component design process and with preliminary surface and packaging information, Engineering or Manufacturing can determine the die pull and draft angles required for sheet metal, plastic or grain textured parts. Based on this input, considerations for part removal from the tool or die can be made to create a design that will not be compromised by die lock change later in the process. In complex shaped components such as Fascias or Instrument Panels, trying to design around a draft angled surface may not be convenient or possible, especially if a compound angled die pull is required and the design comprises of pocket and flange features of unknown depth or length. In this case, ongoing Die Lock checks should be made as the design evolves. The following illustrations demonstrate steps needed for Die Lock analysis of a simple Instrument Panel Cluster Bezel. Each CAD system will have their own specific methods for achieving similar results. NOTE: Creation of a 5 degree constant angle draft surface of the cluster lens opening line in the die pull vector should have been the design starting point for surface takeoff. Die Lock Analysis of Cluster Bezel
Die Lock Area 5 Deg. Draft

2 Die Pull 15 deg


This Area Passes check 5 Deg. Draft

Draft Angle Analysis Die Lock Area 5 Degree Draft (Blue Area in Violation)

- 33 -

Corrected Cluster Surface Passes 5 Degree Draft Check


5 Deg Draft

Passes 5 degree Draft Check

Back Curve Lowered to Correct Die Lock Condition

View along Die Pull Vector

Not all component designs permit part withdrawal from tool simply with the application of a draft angle. If the surface reverses on itself in the direction of draw, then a parting line is necessary to allow for two-part mold separation. This line becomes as important as any design feature line on the surface because it will be noticeable on the actual part itself. Therefore, care must be taken to generate a precise parting line to be used as the foundation for draft angle takeoff.

Simple component parting lines such as armrests, handles or knobs and buttons present little challenge, but more complex shaped parts such as Pillar Garnish Moldings, Outside Rear View Mirrors or Steering Wheel Spokes deserve special consideration to ensure there is no surface rebuilding required at the Manufacturing or Supplier stage. Many times a parting line can be represented as an intentional design feature line, thus simplifying the parting process. If this is not possible, then the high point or silhouette line becomes the mold separation point and this line must be a pleasing line that is factored into the eventual surface build. See Steering Wheel illustration that follows. NOTE: Confirm the grain texture of part before design begins. The draft angle used is dependent on grain texture and any change in grain selection will surely impact the eventual design.

- 34 -

Steering Wheel Example


Rim Section Plane

Parting Lines (green)

Die Pull Vector


Spoke Section Plane

Rim and Spoke Sections

5 deg. draft 5 deg. draft

Parting Line

Rim Section

Spoke Section

- 35 -

You might also like