Accurate depiction of design concepts with the help of computers and computer programs has been one of the most noticeable features of the Information Age. Aerospace designers too, have used drawing tools to leverage their capabilities in drawing complex shapes and novel concepts. As a result, one finds a large number of geometry definition tools, ranging from simple sketching to industry standard CAD tools as well as a number of other approaches, to meet geometry requirements. The geometry definition tools, other than CAD, have been built based on perceptions as to what is missing in CAD. This paper aims at reviewing various approaches of geometry definition for aerospace design to assess what path may be taken to achieve an end-to-end solution, which currently does not exist. Paper first presents the scope of design activity and need for geometry definition in aircraft design, followed by review of a host of proprietary as well as open source geometry definition tools. Programming Interfaces and use of OpenCASCADE, in an attempt to extend functionality of handling of geometry information, are covered next. Parametric modeling capabilities of modern CAD tools such as CATIA are then illustrated. Finally, the extension of parametric modeling of geometry to parametric analysis is presented. Based on all the major approaches taken by various researchers, it is concluded that no end-to-end solution, capable of complete design activity from concept to manufacturing, exists till date. The vast majority of proprietary and open-source sketching tools lack the capability of much needed CAD definition in design as well as manufacturing. While the frustration with CAD tools, that underlines developing such tools seems justified to an extent, it is felt that the amount of effort spent on developing geometry definition tools could have been better utilized in enhancing the use of CAD in design. If the amount of effort used in developing new tools was used in exploring parametric modeling capabilities of CAD and developing user defined functions and components' libraries, this would have accelerated the much needed paradigm shift that CAD is no more a bottleneck and laborious as widely believed. At the same time, it is asserted that the main responsibility lies with the CAD software companies to provide fully integrated design, analysis and optimization tool to be used in doing design instead of spending 80 percent of users' time on logistics of various tools.
展开▼
