Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Study on the Use and Interpretation of Annotated 3D Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Product Lifecycle Management. Green and Blue Technologies to Support Smart and Sustainable Organizations (PLM 2021)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 640))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

As a key element in the Model-Based Enterprise (MBE), the Model-Based Definition (MBD) enables the use of annotated 3D models as sole carriers of product information, a practice intended to replace (or at least minimize) the need for traditional engineering drawings. Although both academia and industry have emphasized the benefits provided by MBD, little empirical research has been conducted on the use and human interpretation of annotated 3D models. In this paper, we present a study where annotated 3D models were compared to conventional engineering drawings in terms of efficiency (defined as the accuracy and time to find information) and cognitive workload. Our results show that there are no statistically significant differences between the two presentation formats. Annotated 3D models are a valid alternative to traditional drawings to effectively communicate product information, but their primary value may not be in terms of human interpretation, but in the automation mechanisms that can be enabled by the format.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bourguignon, D., Cani, M.-P., Drettakis, G.: Drawing for illustration and annotation in 3D. Comput. Graph. Forum 20, 114–123 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8659.00504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Madsen, D.A., Madsen, D.P.: Engineering drawing and design. Nelson Education (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Quintana, V., Rivest, L., Pellerin, R., Venne, F., Kheddouci, F.: Will Model-based Definition replace engineering drawings throughout the product lifecycle? A global perspective from aerospace industry. Comput. Ind. 61, 497–508 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohammed, S.K., Arbo, M.H., Tingelstad, L.: Leveraging model based definition and STEP AP242 in task specification for robotic assembly. Procedia CIRP 97, 92–97 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.05.209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hedberg, T., Jr., Lubell, J., Fischer, L., Maggiano, L., Barnard Feeney, A.: Testing the digital thread in support of model-based manufacturing and inspection. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 16, 021001-1–21010 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4032697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME Y14–41–2019, Digital Product Definition Data Practices

    Google Scholar 

  7. International Organization for Standardization ISO 16792:2021, Technical product documentation—Digital product definition data practices

    Google Scholar 

  8. Adamski, W.: Adjustment and implementation of CAD/CAM systems being used in polish aviation industry. J. Mach. Eng. 10, 37–47 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goher, K., Shehab, E., Al-Ashaab, A.: Model-based definition and enterprise: state-of-the-art and future trends. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf., 1–12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405420971087

  10. Quintana, V., Rivest, L., Pellerin, R., Kheddouci, F.: Re-engineering the engineering change management process for a drawing-less environment. Comput. Ind. 63, 79–90 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2011.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alemanni, M., Destefanis, F., Vezzetti, E.: Model-based definition design in the product lifecycle management scenario. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52, 1–14 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2699-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lamit, L.G.: Moving from 2D to 3D CAD for Engineering Design: Challenges and Opportunities. BookSurge Publishing (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Garland, N.P., Wade, R., Glithro, R., Palmer-Smith, S.: Model based definition: finally, the engineering drawing killer? In: DS 95: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2019) , 12th–13th September 2019. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goher, K., Shehab, E., Al-Ashaab, A.: Challenges of model-based definition for high-value manufacturing. In: Jin, Y., Price, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Manufacturing Research, pp 22–27. Queen’s University, Belfast (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bijnens, J., Cheshire, D.: The current state of model based definition. Comput.-Aided Des. Appl. 16(2), 308–317 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2019.308-317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller, A.M., Hartman, N.W., Hedberg, T., Barnard Feeney, A., Zahner, J.: Towards identifying the elements of a minimum information model for use in a model-based definition. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2017 12th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, pp 1–13. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, Los Angeles (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lohmeyer, Q., Meboldt, M.: How we understand engineering drawings: an eye tracking study investigating skimming and scrutinizing sequences. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15) , pp 359–368. Politecnico Di Milano, Italy (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ruemler, S.P., Zimmerman, K.E., Hartman, N.W., Hedberg, T., Jr., Barnard Feeny, A.: promoting model-based definition to establish a complete product definition. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 139, 051008-1–51017 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Branoff, T.J., Dobelis, M.: The relationship between spatial visualization ability and students’ ability to model 3D objects from engineering assembly drawings. Eng. Des. Graph. J. 76, 37–43 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ruemler, S.P.: Analyzing the opinion of industry professionals on model-based definition datasets to determine the most efficient method. Open Access Theses (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. ARDEC. MIL-STD-31000B Standard Practice Technical Data Packages (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Miller, A.M., Alvarez, R., Hartman, N.: Towards an extended model-based definition for the digital twin. Comput.-Aided Des. Appl. 15, 880–891 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2018.1462569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Conover, J.S., Zeid, I.: Development of a prototype for transfer of drawing annotations into the ASME Y14.41 standard. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2006 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, pp 1211–1218. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Quintana, V., Rivest, L., Pellerin, R.: Measuring and improving the process of engineering change orders in a model-based definition context. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 6, 138–160 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLM.2012.052659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Camba, J.D., Contero, M., Company, P., Pérez, D.: On the integration of model-based feature information in product lifecycle management systems. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37, 611–621 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sandberg, M., Kokkula, S., Muller, G.: Transitioning from technical 2D drawings to 3D models: a case study at defense systems. In: INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 29, pp. 879–894 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2019.00641.x

  27. Camba, J., Contero, M., Johnson, M.: Management of visual clutter in annotated 3d cad models: a comparative study. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014. LNCS, vol. 8518, pp. 405–416. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07626-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Reips, U.-D.: Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Exp. Psychol. 49, 243–256 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1026/1618-3169.49.4.243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., Kuhn, M.A.: Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 1–8 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Carswell, C.M., Clarke, D., Seales, W.B.: Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 12, 80–90 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/155335060501200112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dadi, G.B., Goodrum, P.M., Taylor, T.R.B., Maloney, W.F.: Effectiveness of communication of spatial engineering information through 3D CAD and 3D printed models. Vis. Eng. 2(1), 1–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-014-0009-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dadi, G.B., Goodrum, P.M., Taylor, T.R.B., Carswell, C.M.: Cognitive workload demands using 2D and 3D spatial engineering information formats. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140, 04014001-1–4014008 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Byers, J.C., Bittner, A.C., Hill, S.G.: Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary. Adv. Ind. Ergon. Saf. 1, 481–485 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Moroney, W.F., Biers, D.W., Eggemeier, F.T.: Some measurement and methodological considerations in the application of subjective workload measurement techniques. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 5, 87–106 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0501_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moroney, W.F., Biers, D.W., Eggemeier, F.T., Mitchell, J.A.: A comparison of two scoring procedures with the NASA task load index in a simulated flight task. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1992 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), pp 734–740 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/NAECON.1992.220513

  37. Ikuma, L.H., Nussbaum, M.A., Babski-Reeves, K.L.: Reliability of physiological and subjective responses to physical and psychosocial exposures during a simulated manufacturing task. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 813–820 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sabzevar, M.F., Gheisari, M., Lo, L.J.: Improving access to design information of paper-based floor plans using augmented reality. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res., 1–21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2020.1717682

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Jiwei Zhou, Jorge D. Camba & Travis Fuerst

Authors
  1. Jiwei Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge D. Camba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Travis Fuerst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge D. Camba .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

    Osiris Canciglieri Junior

  2. University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

    Frédéric Noël

  3. École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Louis Rivest

  4. Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Abdelaziz Bouras

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zhou, J., Camba, J.D., Fuerst, T. (2022). A Comparative Study on the Use and Interpretation of Annotated 3D Models. In: Canciglieri Junior, O., Noël, F., Rivest, L., Bouras, A. (eds) Product Lifecycle Management. Green and Blue Technologies to Support Smart and Sustainable Organizations. PLM 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 640. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94399-8_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94399-8_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94398-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94399-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation