Effective Design Checking Techniques for Mechanical Engineers

  • Thread starter Thread starter scar3850
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Design
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around effective design checking techniques for mechanical engineers, particularly focusing on methodologies for reviewing designs, ensuring proper fit and function of assemblies, and avoiding common mistakes in the design process. The scope includes practical strategies, CAD modeling practices, and the importance of thorough reviews in mechanical design.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant emphasizes the importance of detailed CAD models and accurate vendor parts to avoid design issues, questioning whether assembly models and motion profiles are currently utilized.
  • Another participant suggests that a second set of eyes is crucial for reviewing drawings, recommending hard copy prints for better comparison of mating dimensions rather than relying solely on computer screens.
  • A checklist for release is proposed by one participant, highlighting specific items to verify, such as gear tolerances and screw lengths, to mitigate oversight in the design process.
  • Concerns are raised about the challenges faced by a sole engineer, suggesting that additional training in design for assembly and interface analysis may be beneficial.
  • Participants discuss the need for a rubric or criteria to systematically address common mistakes and ensure thorough checks are performed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on effective design checking techniques, with no consensus on a single methodology. Multiple strategies are proposed, and the discussion remains open to various approaches and improvements.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the potential for missing assumptions in design processes, the dependence on specific CAD tools, and the subjective nature of what constitutes a thorough review. The discussion does not resolve these aspects.

Who May Find This Useful

Mechanical engineers, design engineers, and professionals involved in product development may find this discussion relevant, particularly those seeking to improve their design review processes and methodologies.

scar3850
Hello,

I Have been working as a mechanical engineer for 3 years at an OEM shop and I graduated in 2013.
I am the sole engineer responsible for both coming up with designs as well as coming up with assemblies and drawings for the machines and fixtures we create. A pitfall I come across is making dumb mistakes when designing whole assemblies (collisions, poor fit of parts). This is especially true when we have a lot of hot jobs and I have to juggle a bunch of assemblies. My question is whether anyone as a good methodology or rubric for reviewing designs and making sure everything fits and works as intended.

TLDR: Anyone have a good methodology or rubric for reviewing designs and making sure everything fits and works as intended.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
One method I use often is to be extra detailed in your CAD model design work, especially the assembly design work and mating conditions. I find that accurate CAD models (especially vendor parts) can help you avoid potential issues; more importantly, inaccurate CAD models (especially vendor parts) will bite you in the end.

Do you create assembly models right now, and if so, do you create motion profiles and make the parts move as intended in the CAD design?
 
You are in a really difficult situation because there is no substitute for a second set of eyes reviewing your drawings before release. My normal answer with regard to the assembly fits would be to make a spreadsheet worst fit analysis; but, that can be very time consuming as well.

Assuming you are using CAD, because everyone does these days, I recommend not try to check your drawings on your computer screen. It is essentially impossible to do a good job of checking while looking a such a compressed view of a drawing; and, gives you no opportunity for mating drawing comparisons.

Before your final checking and sign off, make a hard copy print of all of the assembly parts drawings so that you can place the drawings of adjoining parts next to the one another and compare their mating dimensions for fit. That way you are basically checking two drawings at a time while comparing your mating dimensions; and, you have the option of red lining your full assembly set of parts drawings before going back and correcting your CAD versions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G and Bandit127
If you find you consistently forget to do certain things, consider making a release checklist. Some of those items on the checklist might be...

1. check intersecting gear tolerances
2. double check screw lengths

etc. going through the checklist will remind you to double check certain critical points.
 
donpacino said:
2. double check screw lengths.

Always double check screw lengths! I've been bitten by this more than a couple times...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: donpacino
Well first of all. How do you work? What is your current procedure?

If you are the sole engineer and you realize that you are running into challenges, it would highlight that training is needed. Design for assembly, interface analysis etc.
 
Last edited:
Mech_Engineer said:
One method I use often is to be extra detailed in your CAD model design work, especially the assembly design work and mating conditions. I find that accurate CAD models (especially vendor parts) can help you avoid potential issues; more importantly, inaccurate CAD models (especially vendor parts) will bite you in the end.

Do you create assembly models right now, and if so, do you create motion profiles and make the parts move as intended in the CAD design?

Thanks for your reply. Yes this is definitely something I've noticed. I do try to add in all the vendor components i can get models for. I do implement accurate mates but I have not created motion profiles. What I would really like to do is develop a criteria or rubric which I can use to make sure I am paying attention to the right things.
 
JBA said:
You are in a really difficult situation because there is no substitute for a second set of eyes reviewing your drawings before release. My normal answer with regard to the assembly fits would be to make a spreadsheet worst fit analysis; but, that can be very time consuming as well.

Assuming you are using CAD, because everyone does these days, I recommend not try to check your drawings on your computer screen. It is essentially impossible to do a good job of checking while looking a such a compressed view of a drawing; and, gives you no opportunity for mating drawing comparisons.

Before your final checking and sign off, make a hard copy print of all of the assembly parts drawings so that you can place the drawings of adjoining parts next to the one another and compare their mating dimensions for fit. That way you are basically checking two drawings at a time while comparing your mating dimensions; and, you have the option of red lining your full assembly set of parts drawings before going back and correcting your CAD versions.

Thanks for the advice this is definitely something that helps as
 
donpacino said:
If you find you consistently forget to do certain things, consider making a release checklist. Some of those items on the checklist might be...

1. check intersecting gear tolerances
2. double check screw lengths

etc. going through the checklist will remind you to double check certain critical points.

Yes that is exactly what I'm trying to do. You bring up a good point as far as looking at the types of mistakes I make in order to develop my criteria.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K