Proceedings of an international workshop on the value of computer-based engineering tools, held in Cambridge in April 1997

There is increasing adoption of computer-based tools to support the product development process. Tolls include computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacture, systems engineering and product data management systems. The fact that companies choose to invest in tools might be regarded as evidence that tools, in aggregate, are perceived to possess business value through their application to engineering activities. Yet the ways in which value accrues from tool technology are poorly understood.

This report records the proceedings of an international workshop during which some novel approaches to improving our understanding of this problem of tool valuation were presented and debated. The value of methods and processes were also discussed. The workshop brought together British, Dutch, German and Italian researchers. The presenters included speakers from industry and academia (the University of Cambridge, the University of Magdeburg and the Politechnico de Torino)

The work presented showed great variety. Research methods include case studies, questionnaires, statistical analysis, semi-structured interviews, deduction, inductive reasoning, the recording of anecdotes and analogies. The presentations drew on financial investment theory, the industrial experience of workshop participants, discussions with students developing tools, modern economic theories and speculation on the effects of company capabilities.

Make or buy decision in the context of manufacturing strategy

This paper describes an approach to structuring the make or buy decision process, basing it firmly in the context of an overall manufacturing strategy. The work has been carried out jointly by the University of Cambridge Manufacturing Engineering Group and Lucas Industries. A review of the current state of ideas surrounding the linked issues of vertical integration and make or buy decisions is presented. Important features of the approach include identification of core manufacturing capabilities, assessment of the role of technology in manufacturing, the development of a cost model to support make or buy decisions and a review of the strategic implications of varying degrees of vertical integration.

Uplift resistance of buried pipelines at low cover-diameter ratios

Reliable estimates for the maximum available uplift resistance from the backfill soil are essential to prevent upheaval buckling of buried pipelines. The current design code DNV RP F110 does not offer guidance on how to predict the uplift resistance when the cover:pipe diameter (H/D) ratio is less than 2. Hence the current industry practice is to discount the shear contribution from uplift resitance for design scenarios with H/D ratios less than 1. The necessity of this extra conservatism is assessed through a series of full-scale and centrifuge tests, 21 in total, at the Schofield Centre, University of Cambridge. Backfill types include saturated loose sand, saturated dense sand and dry gravel. Data revealed that the Vertical Slip Surface Model remains applicable for design scenarios in loose sand, dense sand and gravel with H/D ratios less than 1, and that there is no evidence that the contribution from shear should be ignored at these low H/D ratios. For uplift events in gravel, the shear component seems reliable if the cover is more than 1-2 times the average particle size (D50), and more research effort is currenty being carried out to verify this conclusion. Strain analysis from the Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) technique proves that the Vertical Slip Surface Model is a good representation of the true uplift deformation mechanism in loose sand at H/D ratios between 0.5 and 3.5. At very low H/D ratios (H/D < 0.5), the deformation mechanism is more wedge-like, but the increased contribution from soil weight is likely to be compensated by the reduced shear contributions. Hence the design equation based on the Vertical Slip Surface Model still produces good estimates for the maximum available uplift resistance. The evolution of shear strain field from PIV analysis provides useful insight into how uplift resistance is mobilized as the uplift event progresses. Copyright 2010, Offshore Technology Conference.