Engineering drawing
Return to Home Page
The Importance of Drawing
in the Mechanical Design Process
Computer & Graphics Vol.14, No. 2, pp. 263-274, 1990
Pergamon Press plc.
David G. Ullman E-mailUllman
Stephen Wood
David Craig
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
ABSTRACT
This paper is a study on the importance of drawing (both formal drafting and informal sketching) during the process of mechanical design. Five hypotheses, focused on the types of drawings, their necessity in mechanical problem solving, and their relation to the external representation medium, are presented and supported. Support is through referenced studies in other domains and the results of protocol studies performed on five mechanical designers. Videotapes of all the marks-on-paper made by designers in representative sections of the design process were studied in detail for their type and purpose. The resulting data is supportive of the hypotheses. These results also give requirements for future computer aided design tools and graphics education, and goals for further studies.
I. INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to study the importance of drawing (both formal drafting and informal sketching) in the process of mechanical design. This goal can be extended to state that we intend to show the necessity of drawing during all the developmental stages of a mechanical design. Through the information presented here, the requirements for future computer aided design tools, graphics education, and further studies will be developed.
All mechanical engineers are taught drafting. Thus, most engineers are skilled at making and interpreting these formal mechanical drawings. These drawings are representations of a final design (the end product of the design process) and they are intended to archive the completed design and communicate it to other designers and manufacturing personnel. Additionally, engineers are notorious for not
The Importance of Drawing
in the Mechanical Design Process
Computer & Graphics Vol.14, No. 2, pp. 263-274, 1990
Pergamon Press plc.
David G. Ullman E-mailUllman
Stephen Wood
David Craig
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
ABSTRACT
This paper is a study on the importance of drawing (both formal drafting and informal sketching) during the process of mechanical design. Five hypotheses, focused on the types of drawings, their necessity in mechanical problem solving, and their relation to the external representation medium, are presented and supported. Support is through referenced studies in other domains and the results of protocol studies performed on five mechanical designers. Videotapes of all the marks-on-paper made by designers in representative sections of the design process were studied in detail for their type and purpose. The resulting data is supportive of the hypotheses. These results also give requirements for future computer aided design tools and graphics education, and goals for further studies.
I. INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to study the importance of drawing (both formal drafting and informal sketching) in the process of mechanical design. This goal can be extended to state that we intend to show the necessity of drawing during all the developmental stages of a mechanical design. Through the information presented here, the requirements for future computer aided design tools, graphics education, and further studies will be developed.
All mechanical engineers are taught drafting. Thus, most engineers are skilled at making and interpreting these formal mechanical drawings. These drawings are representations of a final design (the end product of the design process) and they are intended to archive the completed design and communicate it to other designers and manufacturing personnel. Additionally, engineers are notorious for not
References: 1. T.E. French and C.J. Vierck, Graphic Science. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1958). 2. W. J. Luzadder, Fundamentals of Engineering Drawing for Design Product Development, and Numerical Control, Seventh edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1977). 3. G.G.S. Voland, Modern Engineering Graphics & Design. West Publishing Co., St. Paul (1987). 4. R. C. Fang, 2D free hand recognition system. Master 's Report, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR (April, 1988). 5. D. G. Ullman and T.G. Dietterich, Toward expert CAD. Computers in Mechanical Engineering 6(3):56-70 (1987). 6. J. Larkin and H, Simon, Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth a Thousand Words, Cognitive Science 11:65-99 (1987). 7. D. Herbert, Study Drawings in Architectural Design: Applications for CAD Systems, Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop of the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), (1987) 8 9. A. Newell and H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs N.J. (1972). 10. S.M. Kosslyn, Ghosts in the Minds Machine, W.W. Norton Co, (1983). 11. S.M. Kosslyn, J. Brunn, K.R. Cave, and R.W. Wallach, Individual differences in mental imagery ability: A computational analysis, Chapter 5 in Visual Cognition edited by S. Pinker, Bradford Book, MIT Press, pp 195-243 (1985). 12. S.M. Kosslyn, Image and Mind, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, (1980). 13. J.R. Anderson, The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard University Press, (1983). 14. R.N. Shepard, The mental image, American Psychologist, pp. 125-137 (Feb 1978). 15. W.G. Chase and H.A. Simon, The mind 's eye in chess, in Visual Information Processing edited by W. Chase, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, pp. 215-281 (1972). 16. O. Akin, Psychology of Architectural Design, Pion Ltd, London (1986). 17. S.K. Card, T.P. Moran and A. Newell, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Hillsdale, N.J. (1983). 18. M.B. Waldron and K.J. Waldron, Conceptual CAD Tools for Mechanical Designers, Proceedings of Computers in Engineering Conference, Vol, II, pp. 203-209 (1988). 19. K.A. Ericsson and H.A. Simon, Protocol Analysis; Verbal Reports as Data, MIT Press, Cambridge Ma, (1984). 20. L.A. Stauffer, An Empirical Study on the Process of Mechanical Design, Oregon State University Thesis, Corvallis Oregon, (Sept 1987). 21. J. Tikerpuu and D.G. Ullman, Data Representations for Mechanical Design Based on Empirical Data, Proceeding of the 1988 International Computers in Engineering Conference, San Francisco, pp. 245-254 (Aug 1988). 22. B.D.McGinnis and D.G. Ullman, The Evolution of Commitments in the Design of a Component, submitted to the 1989 Harrogate ICED Conference, (Nov 1988). 23. Warrier, U., A SOAR-based Computational Model of Mechanical Design, Master 's Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR (1988). 24. P. Jolicoeur and S.M. Kosslyn, " Coordinate Systems in the Long-Term Memory Representation of Three-Dimensional Shapes" Cognitive Psychology, #15, Academic Press, pp. 301-345, (1983). 25. R.E. Mayer, Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, (1983).