For some engineers, specifying a screw thread is no more than determining diameter and length and then searching through a parts catalog. For others, a custom thread is the difference between a successful surgical outcome with enhanced quality of life or a disappointing result that may require a revision surgery. A bone screw, whether used in a reconstructive, spinal, or other application, can be such an example.

A bone screw typically begins with a conical tip. The major diameter of the screw quickly increases to provide purchase in order to draw the screw into the bone. However, the minor diameter increases more gradually to reduce insertion force until the final portion is engaged into the bone. At this point the increasingly large tapered minor diameter provides a press fit into the outer (cortical) layer of the bone. This thread geometry is illustrated in Figure 1. The overall thread geometry is critical to providing stability to the affected area to allow bone growth and ultimately healing.

EAC’s Engineering and Design Services team recently worked on a project that clearly showed the advantage of using Creo versus SolidWorks to create this critical thread geometry. Several years ago the Engineering and Design Services team worked with an orthopedic company to create a series of bone screws varying in diameter and length for reconstructive surgeries. They used PTC Creo to create CAD models and drawings. The company was recently acquired by a global orthopedic corporation that used Solidworks 2016. The larger company insisted that the CAD models and drawings be recreated in SolidWorks 2016 for compatibility with internal corporate standards.

While working on the task, the Engineering and Design Services team found difficulty in reproducing the identical thread geometry using SolidWorks. Creo uses a single thread feature containing two individual sketches; one for thread profile and another for thread trajectory. This feature easily creates the varying thread tapers for the screw. Figure 2 shows the completed part and associated features in the model tree on the left hand side of the picture.

Recreating the same geometry in Solidworks requires 11 separate features and 8 sketches as shown in the model tree in Figure 3. Separate threaded features were required for the straight thread and the tapered thread at the tip of the screw. In addition, two helical curves were needed for each of the threaded features. One curve was required to provide the thread trajectory while the second helical curve was needed to fix the thread profile normal to the longitudinal axis of the screw.

The additional time to generate the needed features in Solidworks was significant for each part when compared to Creo and combined to substantial time savings for the entire project. This example illustrates why Creo is a superior application to SolidWorks.

The pressure to develop more and better products in less time is increasing. Your 3D CAD solution should enable you to provide your best work to produce your innovative ideas quickly and add advanced capabilities when you need them. The best tool for this is PTC Creo. PTC delivers the most scalable range or 3D CAD product development packages on the market today. Read more about why you should design using PTC Creo here.

For over 20 years I worked in the manufacturing industry as a designer, CAD or IT manager. One issue I have seen and experienced many times is the difficulty of getting upper management to understand the need and benefit of getting the latest CAD, PLM systems, or any other IT systems. In each role there was always the need for new software to keep my teams and systems as productive as possible. In this blog I will, at a very high-level, outline how I was able to get upper management to buy in on projects I felt were needed.

Very early in my career I was a CAD administrator. At the time we needed new CAD software. I was able to talk to upper management very often. I would try to explain and tell them the need. I would verbally walk through the benefits and even give them demos of the software. But… they would not want to pull the trigger on buying the latest software. I could theorize with them until I was blue in the face. It just didn’t matter.

Then, a mentor of mine recommended I put everything to numbers, such as creating a ROI and roadmap of what was required to implement the new software. So, I did. First, I did time studies against what we were doing today. I did this by getting input from various different users. This was basically recording how long it took them to do the most common tasks. I would always take multiple samples and then take the average. Then, using a trial install of the new version of software I was able to get comparisons for each use case tested against current software. I put the time savings to cost savings based on hourly rate averages. I also related it to increased engineering department output capabilities. For instance, our department could produce four projects a year. With the time improvements we can now produce five.

The next time I spoke with my manager, I simply put a one page short summary of total potential time and cost savings in front of him. Which in this case, immediately got his attention. He of course wanted to know how I came up with those numbers. I had to be ready to back my numbers up. I did this by giving him a more detailed page and walked him through my findings at a high-level. I also had a page outlining the general implementation roadmap with a timeline summary. Only three total pages, not a short novel. He could no longer just dismiss or put off the need. I received approval to proceed with my plan in less than a month after presenting my numbers to my manager. In this case my manager was one of the company owners, but having hard numbers and a tentative plan got the ball rolling.

One thing to note from the above example, by doing what I outlined above, it elevated my standing at my company. They were impressed at my willingness to push for, justify, and plan for something I believed in. Not just asking them to take on the burden of something I felt was a good idea.

This scenario was repeated throughout my career. I could bring in vendors to demo their product, put quote after quote in front of management. Meeting after meeting with vendors and upper management, I could not get management to agree until I took the time to document the true benefits in time and money (roadmap and ROI).

If you have product or process improvements you feel will benefit your company, you need to show your management that you truly believe in it. You need to do the needed research and documentation to show the benefit and how you recommend proceeding. You cannot just go and tell management there are problems. You must present a solution for the problem you are identifying. If you do this extra work, it will not only help get your request approved, but will also help how you are viewed by your management.

Look, I know what I am outlining is no small task. It can be time consuming, very time consuming in some cases. That’s why many times this never gets done and needed improvement projects never happen. There is just not enough time for internal staff to do the needed research, and get their day-to-day tasks done as well. That is why you need to partner with a company dedicated to help with product development improvements at your company, such as EAC. We don’t want to just sell you software, we want to help you and your company improve the way you design, manufacture, connect to, and service your products. We do this with our proven people, products and processes. If you and your company improve and succeed, we improve and succeed. We will do as much of the work as we can to help you get the needed numbers and roadmaps put together. There is always going to be some time needed from internal people. However, we try to keep this as minimal as possible.

In summary, if you can see areas where your processes or systems could be improved you need to put it to numbers. You need an ROI and a roadmap to take to upper management. It may seem frustrating at times, but you need to understand where management is coming from. They also have people they answer to. They can’t go to a board, or an owner, or their manager with just a demo and a quote. Not only is that not the information they are concerned with, but you typically don’t get that type of time with them. They need quick and real information to justify the need. You must be willing and ready to get this for them. Just remember, EAC is here to help you do this. Please reach out to us.

Some people say that selecting a CAD tool doesn’t matter. I’ve heard the analogy that CAD is like a hammer…it doesn’t matter what hammer you use, it’ll probably drive a nail and get the job done. I don’t agree. I think selecting the right tool can change, improve, and even revolutionize the way you work, design, and innovate.

Case and point – Augustine Die & Mold Inc. A while back Augustine Die & Mold Inc. came to us with a goal. They needed to improve collaboration on customer’s part designs and plastic injection mold designs. There was also an initiative to adopt a single platform for all their CAD, CAM, and CAE needs.

We worked with the Augustine team and mapped out that PTC Creo Parametric and a few advanced options and extensions would give them the functionality they needed in one consolidated package. We recommended PTC Creo Parametric as the core CAD technology and suggested the addition of the PTC Creo Parametric Tool Design Option (TDO), the PTC Creo Parametric Flexible Modeling Extension (FMX), and the PTC Creo Parametric Expert Moldbase Extension (EMX).

Augustine evaluated our recommendation and decided to implement the new CAD/CAM/CAE toolset. What was the outcome you may ask? They saw a 50% reduction in design cycle times. 50%! Having every designer, engineer, and technician using the same PTC Creo suite made the tool design process faster and easier with unprecedented levels of interoperability.

It matters what tools you use. Sometimes you can’t look at it like a hammer vs a hammer. Sometimes it’s a hammer vs. a nail gun. Don’t take my word for it. A senior engineer at Augustine Die & Mold Inc. used to use Solidworks and had this to say. “I started my career using SolidWorks, then I switched to Pro/ENGINEER which is now Creo. Creo Parametric, in my opinion, is the best CAD software available. I have noticed recently that files created in Solidworks tend to have solid modeling issues and make it difficult to design to the solid models needed. The reputation and performance that Creo has definitely surpasses any other software on the market.”

You can’t argue with that. Next time you’re considering how to complete more projects in less time..consider giving us a call. PTC Creo Parametric might be exactly the tool you’re looking for.

I have the great privilege of talking with many of our customers about their experiences with technology and our service options. During many of those conversations I hear customers talk about how challenging adopting technology has been for them. In fact, I hear the same few phrases over and over again. “It takes so much time to get spooled up.” “We don’t have time to learn new technology.” “It’s such a hassle to send everyone through training with new releases.” And, I’d bet that many of you have also said something along those lines.

Many organizations hesitate to update or change technology, especially CAD technology, because it can dramatically impact time to market and project capacity. It simply isn’t realistic to stop or slow production to allow for your CAD users to become familiar with a new tool.

I’m not surprised that this is a common thread among organizations. Many of our customers have told me stories about weeks of downtime and months of a brutal tug of war between man, computer, and the worst enemy of all — change.

But don’t worry; I’ve got some good news. Our customers who have upgraded from versions of Pro/ENGINEER to the new and improved Creo Parametric are seeing a major difference when it comes to adoption. Simply put, it’s easy and fast. I’m not talking about just a few customers who have experienced this — it’s all of them.

Dan Gage, Mechanical Engineer at JR Automation, said, “The transition to Creo Parametric 2.0 was much easier than moving from Wildfire 3.0 to 5.0. The interface is incredibly user friendly, the modeling portion is a lot more intuitive, and the ribbon interface makes it simple to navigate. Everything is right at your fingertips.” JR Automation was able to ramp up and get moving 50% faster than any other CAD release before it.

Imagine what that could mean for your business. It certainly makes the idea of adopting a new technology much, much brighter. So, if you haven’t done so already, try out Creo to see what our customers have been bragging about.

Back in my first blog, I reminisced about my days as a draftsman. For this topic I am going to do the same. Back then we used lead pencils on paper or vellum. When we needed to share drawings with the shop, we made blueprints of them using a very large ammonia based blue print machine that looked like it would as soon eat you as make a copy of your drawings.

I remember being mentored by the senior engineers. One of the things they use to tell me was I needed to always consider how something I was designing would to be made. To make sure I did this, they would have me spend time in the shop. While I would help where appropriate, my main goal was to observe how things were being manufactured. I would watch everything from machining to assembly. This was invaluable experience, as from that point on I would do my best to always ask myself on new designs or design change, “Can this really be made?” And for the most part, I could answer that question. If I couldn’t I would be sure to get with the appropriate people in manufacturing to find out before calling my design complete.

In my current position I now get the opportunity to see various engineering departments. In many places I see a big disconnect between engineering and manufacturing. There seems to be this big virtual “Wall” between the two departments. The engineering group develops a new design. They usually run through a very formal design process. And with new CAD tools like PTC offers in Creo 2.0, they can run through various analyses, simulations and interference checking all from their desk. This new capability as proven to help reduce the number of pilot runs and rework required due to design flaws. Unfortunately, with all this new automated checking, I think sometimes the engineer loses sight of how their design will actually be manufactured. In many cases I have noted that the designer really has no idea how manufacturing actually gets their designs built.

Too often a design goes through a rigorous design process, only to be “thrown over the wall” to manufacturing. Once there, the manufacturing engineer often would require changes. Best case, if they had a good PLM system like Windchill, they would start a formal change process, asking engineering to make the required changes and send the design back to manufacturing. This still costs time and money, but all CAD models will stay in sync with how the product actually gets built. However, in many companies, I see manufacturing modifying the CAD models or assembly to reflect their needs. Usually they then save their version of the objects on a local drive or network drive. These files are then completely uncontrolled files outside the companies PLM system. However, without them the product could not be manufactured. Just as important these manufacturing files do not match the designed version of the CAD files. I am not talking the “as designed” to “as manufactured” bill of materials. These often are different, and they should be. I am talking the CAD models themselves being different. This potentially is throwing all the analysis and testing done in design out the window.

I am sure for most of you I do not have to explain the risk of having uncontrolled manufacturing version of CAD files. Why don’t more engineering departments and individual designers today take manufacturing more into consideration when designing? I have a couple of opinions on this. One possibility could be the shorter and shorter design timelines engineering has to work with. They just don’t have the time anymore to research their companies manufacturing practices. Once again I challenge management to truly consider the time they supposedly save in engineering, to the risk with how things truly get manufactured. Another very good possibility is more times than not manufacturing does not happen anywhere close to the Engineering group, many times in completely different countries. What I used to be able to do when I started out, is no longer an option for many engineering departments.

I can’t say I have a complete answer to this growing problem in our industry today. However, one thing I have seen work well is a true design review meeting that includes representatives from manufacturing. Before releasing any design, it must go through one of these reviews. Any concerns with how the design will be manufactured can be brought up during this meeting, and addressed prior to design release. Another option I have seen is creating an “As Manufactured” or “As built” version of the CAD files in a PLM system. Sometime the manufacturing engineer makes the changes, sometimes they are sent back to the design group to be made.

Let’s tear down that wall! If you’re in engineering, consult the manufacturing group about your designs. If you’re in manufacturing, let engineering know you need to modify files just to get them built correctly. Talk though it, bring attention to it. If you don’t, no one else will. You may not think it affects you leaving things function as they are. But, if you are not helping you company become the best it can be, in the end it will be the employees that inevitably suffer.

How does your company deal with changes required to a design so it can be manufactured? Does your engineering group consider manufacturing during the creation of their designs? How do you train new engineers/designer’s manufacturing methods? Specifically, if your manufacturing facilities are offsite. Does anyone else feel this is a growing problem in engineering/manufacturing companies today? While I get to see many companies, I obviously do not have visibility into every company in the country. So, please, respond with your thoughts, opinions, and how things are done where you work.