lotar 101 overview current jan 2009
Post on 24-May-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONAn overview of the LOTAR project, its goals, objectives and baseline implementation model.
- 1. LOTAR 101 A Project OverviewOverview of LOng TermArchival & Retrieval (LOTAR) of digital product & technical dataAEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
2. LOTAR Project on a page The 4 areas addressed by LOTAR 3. Project HistoryWith the onset of Model Based Definition (MBD) development in January 1997, Rick Zuray, a memberfrom the team was tasked to evaluate and develop a process to address the storage, retention andretrieval of 3D Product Definition produced by MBD methodologies.September 1998 an internal process was developed and accepted by the Certificate Management andthe Aircraft Certification Offices of the FAA. The FAA requested that Rick Zuray meet with theAerospace Industries Association (AIA) and charter a project to write a standard that to address thestorage, retention and retrieval of 3D Product Definition Data that would be applicable to all civilaviation across America. The AIA Project was chartered under the Civil Aviation Council (CAC) underthe Manufacturing Maintenance & Repair Committee (MMRC) in May 2000. The AIA team was formedand held its first meeting in August 2000. The AIA Standard was completed and released as ARP-9034in Sept 2002. Polyline RPReleased Aug 2000 Dec 2002 Jun 08 AIA Team IAQG Dec 2010Jan 2009 Pilot Activity JanFormed CharterOct 07 May 08 1997 Pilot Activity w/NIST, DS, PTC, UGS StandardsPart 120V2 & Part 125V1Development SeptSept 2004Dec 2007 Coord with other Industries AIAG, Jun 2008 Sept 20021998 EN9300-Part AIA-ASD Stan AIA-EIDS, Nuclear, NIST, etc. ARP-9034 NAS/EN9300-Part 2, 002 ReleasedLOTAR MoU Released5 ,7, 100, 110, 115 Ballot 4. Project HistoryIn October 2002 at the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) meeting in Cincinnati OH, Rick was asked to work with Jean-Yves Delaunay and the European LOTAR effort that was being worked under the AECMA-Stan organization at the time and together develop a single set of harmonized standards that addressed the storage, retention and retrieval of 3D Product Definition Data across the entire Aerospace Industry. The Team was chartered in Dec 2002 and was Co-chaired by Rick Zuray , from Boeing and Jean-Yves Delaunay, from Airbus. The International team meets 5 times a year and has developed several parts to the base Standard which will be released under the name EN9300-Part-xx for Europe and NAS 9300-Part-xx for Americas. The standards will be the same context just published under AIA for the Americas and ASD-Stan for Europe for revenue purposes. The standards will be eventually adopted by ISO under a cover sheet. In 2005 AECMA-Stan was changed to ASD-Stan but the processes and documentation practices remain the same. In 2nd quarter 2008 Parts 2, 5, 7, 100, 110 and 115 was sent out for ballot and Part 120 v1 will be ready for ballot in Apr 2009.Polyline RPReleased Aug 2000 Dec 2002 Jun 08 AIA Team IAQG Sep 2009Oct 2008 Pilot Activity JanFormed CharterOct 07 May 08 1997 Pilot Activity w/NIST, DS, PTC, UGS StandardsPart 120V2 & Part 125V1Development SeptSept 2004Dec 2007 Coord with other Industries AIAG, Jun 2008 Sept 20021998 EN9300-Part AIA-ASD Stan AIA-EIDS, Nuclear, NIST, etc. ARP-9034 NAS/EN9300-Part 2, 002 ReleasedLOTAR MoU Released5 ,7, 100, 110, 115 Ballot 5. Harmonization at the regional and International levels between Aerospace Manufacturers and PLM interoperability IAQG ISO TC20ExistingPlanned (>2009)LOTAR International InternationalAerospace LOTARAIAASD StanregionalInternational LOTARLOTARassociation Website (Collaboration)RegionalPLMinteroperability PDES Inc ProSTEP iViPregionalLTDR LOTAR CAX Implem. Forumassociation PDM Implem. Forum 6. Participating Companies and Regulatory Agencies Supporting LOTAR Space DivisionKC Plant 7. Harmonization at the regional and International levels between Aerospace Manufacturers and PLM interoperabilityIAQGISO TC20 Existing Planned (>2008?)LOTAR InternationalStandards NAS9300-xxxEN9300-xxx 9300-series 9300-001 Doc Structure9300-010 Common Process9300-100 CAD LTA FundAIAASD Stan 9300-002 Bus/Proc Reqs9300-011 Data Preparation9300-110 Explicit GeomLOTAR9300-003 Fund & Concepts9300-012 Ingest9300-115 Explicit AssyLOTAR 9300-004 Description Methods9300-013 Archival Storage9300-120 Exp Geo & GDT9300-005 Authent & Verif9300-014 Retrieval 9300-125 Exp Assy & GDT9300-006 Fund Architecture9300-015 Removal 9300-130 Parametric Geo9300-016 Test Suites 9300-007 Terms & References9300-135 Parametric Assy9300-017 Audits 9300-200 PDM series 9300-300 Config Mech PS9300-400 Electrical9300-201 xx 9300-301 xx9300-401 xx PDES IncProSTEP iViPLTDRLOTARCAX Implem. ForumPDM Implem. Forum 8. LOTAR Objectives Product Definition Data (PDD) creation, storage and distribution has significantly changed in the past 50 years. PDD is the source for Type Design as defined by the FAA.Generation 2Generation 3 Generation 1 The first generationThe third generation(2D and 3D: 2D Authority)(3D Only: 3D Authority)(2D only: 2D Authority) methods for PDD method is based on 3D creation were 2Dthe use of 2D2D manual boardparametric and drawings with relational design in design engineers3D Model Base and manufacturing Data. The PDD engineers. This information is evolved into a 2D defined only in 3D CAD design method models that contain3D which allowed the associative GD&T digital creation of and annotation to 2D drawing (without effectively replace a 3D model) The 2Dthe need for a 2D Drawing is thedrawingModel Based Design authority.representation. The(MBD) 3D Model is the authority but lowThe second generation methods of PDD creation used only CAD end visualization isdesign methods which was based on use of 3D models and require to support output was both 2D models (drawings) and 3D CAD dataset to various end usagesdrive CAM/CAI. The 2D Drawing was the authority for most thus U3D. factory usage with the exception of CAM/CAI. 9. LOTAR Objectives For Digital Data, the challenge is that the data is often stored in a proprietary, native format and will most likely be un- interpretable over time. The use of a neutral archiving format safeguards the interpretability of the data for a much longer period of time, perhaps its entire retention period. Archiving data in its native form requires periodic migration to the new release (version) and this method quite often leads to data loss and the repair can be costly. A typical technological obsolescence cycle of a CAD generation roll (i.e. CATIA V4 V5) is 3 5 years. Neutral forms make it easier to migrate the data based on the way that the Application Protocols (AP)s are structured. In addition, their life expectancy (obsolescence cycle) is significantly longer in duration. 10. LOTAR Requirements Digital archives mandate that we capture and preserve information in such a way that the information can be accessed and presented at any time in the future. An obvious challenge for archives of digital information is the limited storage lifetimes due to physical media decay. Rest of the LOTAR requirements are Documented in EN/NAS 9300-Part002 11. The Simple Solution 12. Requirements However, since hardware and software technologies evolve rapidly and much faster than the media decay, the real challenge lies in the technological obsolescence of the infrastructure that is used to access and present the archived information 13. Requirements The obsolescence of storage technology (e.g. magnetic tape) is a significant risk that must be continuously addressed. Inevitably, storage systems will be replaced, and data integrity must be ensured. Define criteria and conditions for transferring data from an existing electronic data storage system when a new data storage system is implemented. 14. Requirements To achieve the goal of re-instantiating archived information on a future platform, it is not sufficient to merely copy data at the bit level from obsolete to current media but to create recoverable archival representations that are infrastructure in-dependent, i.e. open and neutral, to the largest extent possible. Inevitably, storage systems will be replaced, and data integrity must be ensured. 15. Requirements Data retention processes are managed and validated. Media Migration Data representation migration & translation Incorporating data into repository Accessing the data by users. Interpreting Engineering/Design Intent, Assembly Product Structure, and Instance Location/Orientation. Understand the effects of technology change and its impact on the data and repository systems. (i.e. Life Cycle Information Planning). 16. Life Cycle Information Planning Each responsible company needs to ask the following questions in order to optimize and standardize their data retention process. Why are we archiving the data? Business Requirement Regulatory Requirement Organizational Requirement 17. Life Cycle Information Planning Life Cycle Information Planning What information should we archive? What is the configuration of the information? What is the information context? What is the format of the information and whatform does it need to be stored in? How long do we need to keep the data? How frequently do we need to access the data? Life Cycle Information Planning asks the question, how do we retain our product knowledge throughout the life of the product? 18. Presentation - Representation The essential requirements for the presentation of 3D Geometry with associated GD&T that have to be preserved in an OPEN format must enable: Preservation of all the presentation properties ofGD&T and specified annotation Filtering with annotation plans Ensure the bi-directional associativity between 3D Geometry and GD&T with specified annotation. The LOTAR team is recommending the use of STandard the Exchange Product model data (STEP) as the OPEN and stable neutral format to store of geometric and technical data representations 19. Presentation - Re