Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1478618
46 DESIGN007 MAGAZINE I SEPTEMBER 2022 step but requires synchronization of all tool releases in the chain. Some companies have created tools that merge domains but lack suf- ficient depth, so these are limited to generalist use on simpler designs. Today, most tools support multiple formats, yet adoption of the most advanced approaches is limited. Some of this is due to organizational inertia—it's difficult to change processes, par- ticularly when custom code may have been created to peanut-butter over inefficiencies. It's even harder to change if multiple domains are involved, with their siloed teams and unique tool chains. Yet the promise of optimized co-design across multiple domains enabled by a digital thread is significant. Studies show that best- practice processes can reduce physical proto- types and respins through consistent, iterative communication to avoid rework late in the design process. Engineering efficiency can be significantly increased, reducing development cost and time. First-pass success is much more likely. More robust designs can be created through extensive collaboration and verifica- tion. Let's review the benefits of optimized cross- domain co-design: Increased productivity • Enables "what if " scenarios to avoid time-consuming design iterations • Allows ECAD and MCAD designers to co-design in their own environments without learning new tools • Provides more time for new projects due to fewer design iterations Improved design robustness • Facilitates the optimization of today's complex compact form factors • Ensures higher quality, reliability, and performance with early verification of the digital twin • Inherently less error prone and therefore reduces risk electrical and electronics design share common challenges when integrating with mechanical design. Historically, cross-domain collaboration was inhibited by a number of issues. e different domains had completely different tool chains, user specialties, languages/terms for commu- nication, and databases. is made it difficult to communicate changes while both domains proceeded in parallel. e best that could be expected was email, drawings on post-it notes, or "voice-driven mouse" (assuming they're in the same facility). Design complexity has also driven use of multi-discipline simulations of the digital twin (e.g., signal/power integrity, electromagnetics, thermal, structural, and acoustics) to minimize iterations and opti- mize products, but data transition into those tools is inhibited by the same problems. e net result was infrequent communication, with limited or no digital verification. It wasn't unheard of to wait until system integration to realize things didn't fit. Aberdeen studies have shown that 59% of complex products will require at least two additional design itera- tions to address electro-mechanical problems. Sixty-eight percent of companies cite electro- mechanical data synchronization as a signifi- cant challenge. e industry has evolved, providing a digi- tal thread in the form of industry standard formats. Decades ago, DXFs became a com- mon way to pass graphical data, but the information was very limited (oen 2D, no intelligence about objects), thus requiring interpretation, so it was typically used only in a one-way path from MCAD to ECAD. STEP enabled more 3D intelligence, includ- ing enclosures. IDF was constructed for bi- directional collaboration, but it transferred the entire database without any tracking to identify changes. IDX gave us the ability to send incremental changes and traceability. To optimize collaboration even further, some tool pairs provide data integration beyond even these standard formats. is is a positive