Reverse Engineering, 3D Scanning & Tolerancing
As DoD’s weapon systems age, maintainers are continually challenged to obtain repair parts from a commercial supply base in a constant state of flux. Parts shortages commonly result in readiness issues and exorbitant spare parts costs. DoD maintainers are often forced to either locally manufacture or locally purchase supply parts in order to fulfil critical customer requirements. However, in many cases DoD does not possess the design and manufacturing data required to produce the parts or source them commercially. In these situations, DoD engineers and artisans must create the necessary documentation to produce equivalent parts – either organically or through commercial manufacturers. Fortunately, a host of scanning and tolerancing tools are available which quickly and accurately create 3-D geometric models of parts as input to CAD models. The end to end reverse engineering process is complex, expensive and technically challenging. This forum will examine the reverse engineering process, its challenges, and the tools and processes being employed by best-in-class maintenance activities to provide ready and safe weapon systems to their customers at optimum cost.
1300-1309: Welcome and Overview – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MPP)
1309-1310: Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1310-1340: US Army Reverse Engineering – Kim Hanke (TARDEC)
1340-1405: USAF Reverse Engineering Process & Centers – Wayne Ayers (AFSC)
1405-1430: Manufacturing for Sustainability – Dr. Tracy L Albers & Tom Santelle (RP+M)
1430-1455: NAVAIR Non-Contact In-process Inspection – Gabe Draguicevich
1455-1500: Wrap-up and JTEG Principals Comments
Reverse Engineering, 3D Scanning & Tolerancing
JTEG Forum Minutes
Event: On 25 August, 2015, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Reverse Engineering, 3D Scanning & Tolerancing”.
Purpose: The purpose of the forum was to provide information and exchange ideas on the reverse engineering process, its challenges, and the tools and processes being employed by best-in-class maintenance activities to provide ready and safe weapon systems to their customers at optimum cost.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-Maintenance), welcomed everyone to the forum. Forums are held on the last Tuesday of each month and focus on a specific technological capability.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Defense Collaboration Services (DCS) and an audio line. Over 50 participants from across DoD and industry joined in the forum. Questions were sent through DCS and answered by the presenters during the forum.
Note: Several participants had difficulty connecting to DCS receiving “Server error” messages. This may be a “Site certificate” issue. The https://conference.apps.mil site certificate used by DCS was changed on 3/27/2015 and renewed on 3/27/2017. To update your site certificates, click on the “security report” shield in the pink highlighted IE warning tab. Then select “View Certificates”. The “Certificate” window has an “Install Certificate” button. Follow the wizard prompts until the ‘success’ window appears. Unfortunately, most DoD users may not have the authority to execute so the “Install certificate” button may not appear in the “Certificate” window, and you’ll need to ask for IT support.
US Army Reverse Engineering Re-Defined Requirements: Kim Hanke (TARDEC) defined reverse engineering (RE) then shared some RE questions to consider when determining what is needed or wanted. She also described the types of RE, displayed an RE decision tree, listed some cautions, discussed validation and verification, and summed it up with a 6-step process overview.
USAF Reverse Engineering Process & Centers: Wayne Ayers (AFSC) described the AFSC RE and critical tooling mission statement, provided a detailed description of the RE process, discussed software and measurement technologies, and described some current RE efforts to include additive manufacturing (AM) examples.
Manufacturing for Sustainability: Dr. Tracy L. Albers & Tom Santelle (RP+M) discussed an USAF project involving the use of AM to create sustainability. The purpose of the USAF/AFMC two-part study was to define Additive Manufacturing Information Technology (IT) Architecture Requirements. The first part identified the data requirements to “print” parts on-demand, while part two validated the results of part 1 and explored the impacts to USAF IT architecture. The result was that the study identified data requirements to remotely 3D print parts, and identified and defined the 3D print data package. To complete the study objectives, data requirements validation and IT Architecture analysis efforts need to be performed.
NAVAIR Non-Contact In-process Inspection: Gabe Draguicevich (FRC-SW) provided a background and status on Navy 3D Modeling with 3MS / MBD. He described and illustrated proposed system examples and provided a definition of digital product definition and model-based definition (MBD). He also described model-based GD&T for inspection, the benefits of model-based measurement and inspection, model based inspection solutions, challenges, and predictions.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein asked Gabe Draguicevich if the 3MS process he briefed could be posted on the JTEG website and Gabe concurred. Greg also emphasized that the importance of establishing standards was mentioned by several of the presenters and it was a critical are where future work was required.
Presentation Slides and Questions & Answers: These meeting minutes, the Q&A, and those briefing slides approved for public release, will be posted on the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ .
Next JTEG Meeting: The next JTEG virtual forum is 29 September 2015, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is Cold Spray Repair.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, firstname.lastname@example.org , (571) 633-8019
Reverse Engineering, 3D Scanning & Tolerancing
JTEG Forum – 25 August 2015
US Army Reverse Engineering: Kim Hanke (TARDEC)
Answered Questions (7)
Q1. Is there an algorithm or process that we can use to quickly determine the cost and timing required to execute a reverse engineering job?
A1. I can do it very quickly. We can build it into an evaluation based on part count and the amount of detail required.
Q2. Does TARDEC have a reverse engineering center staffed with professionals that are experienced in this reverse engineering process? Can other Services leverage this capability?
A2. We do RE on site and we do partner with other several companies. We welcome other Services to contact us and work with us on this capability.
Q3. Who normally funds a reverse engineering initiative? Depot or PM?
A3. This one was funded by the PM. We needed the PM to integrate the new systems on the existing platform.
Q4. Does TARDEC have any new or novel technologies that you use to perform the RE process?
A4. No, just the process. We do it by first asking the right questions and then creating a match between what we are providing and what the customer needs.
Q5. What size parts do you typically manufacture?
A5. We are a prototype integrating facility and can make many parts. For example, we are doing the whole cab of a truck. We also partner with Rock Island Arsenal to manufacture parts.
Q6. Have you captured and documented the benefits of your reverse engineering activities? Do you have any examples you can share?
A6. The 5-step process as well as the flow chart I showed during my briefing. We can set something up if anyone wants an example.
US AF Reverse Engineering Process & Centers: Wayne Ayers (AFSC)
Answered Questions (5)
Q1. Is there an overarching RE process handbook or other document? If not, do you think one would be helpful?
A1. I am not aware of an AFSC document. Our RE capability maturity reflects the need.
Q2. Do you have any tools available that help you determine the cost and timing of a potential RE initiative?
A2. I am not aware of any.
Q3. Does the AFSC work with other Services on RE projects?
A3. Yes, DLA and the other Services on common components.
Q4. How does AFSC interface with the SPO engineer during an RE initiative?
A4. We interact with the cognizant engineer authority of the component. Sometimes it is delegated to supply chain engineering.
Q5. How do you obtain materials manufacturing and post processing data when it is not available from the OEM?
A5. It is a challenge for us. Fortunately, usually we have some data that we can use, and we have robust materials laboratories.
Manufacturing for Sustainability: Dr Tracy Albers & Tom Santelle (RP+M)
Answered Questions (6)
Q1. What language is the Data Model in?
A1. It depends…there are a number of elements involved. For example, for building files CMB, or combined binary files, are used.
Q2. How much original data was available for the parts RE’s and manufactured during the USAF study? Did you start from scratch?
A2. We could have started from scratch. However, the parts selected had data package drawings, but no models.
Q3. Was the process and lessons learned a deliverable to your USAF customer?
A3. Yes, to AFMC.
Q4. Are the AM machine files exportable to different AM machines?
A4. Yes, to machines in the same family. This came up a number of times during the study.
Q5. Is there a standard spec that defines the content and organization of a 3D Print Model?
A5. Part of our work is to develop that standard. We did define a standard, so yes, there is a starting point of a standard, but a lot more can be added.
Q6. Are any of the parts flying today on aircraft?
A6. Our focus was not on manufacturing a part. However, that is the idea.
NAVAIR Non-Contact In-process Inspection: Gabe Draguicevich (FRC-SW)
Answered Questions (8)
Q1. Are you familiar with any technologies that can convert 2D prints to 3D models?
A1. I have heard of a few.
Q2. Would your 3MS process be postable to the pubic JTEG website?
Q3. If the 3D Model is the authoritative data, how are you inspecting your 3D models for gaps and overlaps?
A3. The process is reviewed by the CAD operator who checks the rebuild part command by command. We always look for engineering data. It is very rare to not have any data.
Q4. How are you aligning your model processes for configuration management? Are these component/single parts?
A4. Daily and in the future we are going under a PLM system. We started with the manufacture of parts. The next level is components. This is a 5-7 year process.
Q5. Are your BDE’s trained on MBD’s? Is there a gap in training and education of our BDEs?
A5. Yes. There is definitely a gap in training and education.
Q6. Is NAVAIR working in a PLM manage and use the 3D models?
A6. We are moving in that direction. We continue to populate the library.
Q7. To what extent is the model based enterprise approach projected to improve the return on investment for equipment, efficiency of the inspection process, and critical path/flow days of the PDM for the aircraft?
A7. Depends on the part. In one example we saw a large improvement in cycle time. We try to work the part and model in parallel when possible.
Q8. Is the MBD you refer to MIL-STD-31000A compliant?
A8. We are trying to get that way. That is the goal.