Hubbry Logo
Model-based definitionModel-based definitionMain
Open search
Model-based definition
Community hub
Model-based definition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Model-based definition
Model-based definition
Model-based definition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Model-based definition (MBD), sometimes called digital product definition (DPD), is the practice of using 3D models (such as solid models, 3D PMI and associated metadata) within 3D CAD software to define (provide specifications for) individual components and product assemblies. The types of information included are geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), component level materials, assembly level bills of materials, engineering configurations, design intent, etc. By contrast, other methodologies have historically required accompanying use of 2D engineering drawings to provide such details.[1]

Use of the 3D digital data set

[edit]

Modern 3D CAD applications allow for the insertion of engineering information such as dimensions, GD&T, notes and other product details within the 3D digital data set for components and assemblies. MBD uses such capabilities to establish the 3D digital data set as the source of these specifications and design authority for the product. The 3D digital data set may contain enough information to manufacture and inspect product without the need for engineering drawings. Engineering drawings have traditionally contained such information.[2]

In many instances, use of some information from 3D digital data set (e.g., the solid model) allows for rapid prototyping of product via various processes, such as 3D printing. A manufacturer may be able to feed 3D digital data directly to manufacturing devices such as CNC machines to manufacture the final product.[citation needed]

Limited Dimension Drawing

[edit]

Limited Dimension Drawing (LDD), sometimes Reduced Dimension Drawing, are 2D drawings that only contain critical information, noting that all missing information is to be taken from an associated 3D model.[3] For companies in transition to MBD from traditional 2D documentation a Limited Dimension Drawing allows for referencing 3D geometry while retaining a 2D drawing that can be used in existing corporate procedures. Only limited information is placed on the 2D drawing and then a note is placed to notify manufactures they must build off the 3D model for any dimensions not found on the 2D drawing.[citation needed]

Standardization

[edit]

In 2003, ASME published the ASME Y14.41 Digital Product Definition Data Practices, which was revised in 2012 and again in 2019. The standard provides for the use of many MBD aspects, such as GD&T display and other annotation behaviors within 3D modelling environment. ISO 16792[4] standardizes MBD within the ISO standards, sharing many similarities with the ASME standard. Other standards, such as ISO 1101 and of AS9100 also make use of MBD.

In 2013, the United States Department of Defense released MIL-STD-31000 Revision A to codify the use of MBD as a requirement for technical data packages (TDP).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Model-based definition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Model-based definition (MBD) is a digital engineering practice that uses 3D models as the primary and authoritative source of product information, embedding geometric dimensions and tolerances (GD&T), product manufacturing information (PMI), and other specifications directly into the model to define a product completely without relying on separate 2D drawings. This approach, also referred to as digital product definition (DPD), establishes the 3D CAD model as the single source of truth for the entire product lifecycle, from design through manufacturing and inspection. In contrast to traditional drawing-centric workflows, where 2D technical drawings serve as the main communication tool and often lead to interpretation errors or data inconsistencies, MBD integrates all necessary details—such as annotations, metadata, and assembly instructions—directly into the 3D environment, streamlining processes and minimizing redundancy. This methodology emerged with the advancement of 3D CAD technologies in the late and gained formal structure through industry standards, enabling more efficient data exchange across , , and teams. Key standards supporting MBD include ASME Y14.41 (first published 2003), which outlines practices for organizing and presenting digital product definition data in 3D models, including methods for annotated models and associated data elements, and its companion ASME Y14.47 (first published 2019) for model organization practices. Internationally, ISO 16792 (first published 2006) provides guidelines for technical product documentation using 3D CAD models, ensuring interoperability and consistency in MBD implementations. These standards have been pivotal in promoting widespread adoption, particularly in , automotive, and defense industries where precision and traceability are critical. MBD forms the foundation of the broader model-based enterprise (MBE) framework, where digital models drive enterprise-wide processes, reducing time-to-market, costs, and errors by facilitating automated data flow to downstream applications like CNC programming and quality inspection. Benefits include improved product quality through unambiguous information, enhanced collaboration via standardized 3D data, and support for advanced manufacturing technologies such as additive manufacturing. As of the mid-2020s, major CAD providers like , , and PTC have integrated robust MBD tools, accelerating its transition from niche to standard practice in product development.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concept

Model-based definition (MBD) is the practice of embedding all product-defining data—including geometry, dimensions, tolerances, materials, and assembly instructions—directly into a 3D CAD model, establishing it as the authoritative source for product specification without reliance on separate 2D drawings. This methodology leverages 3D models to serve as a comprehensive digital representation that supports downstream processes in design, manufacturing, and inspection. Product Manufacturing Information (PMI), such as annotations for geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, is integrated as embedded data within these models to convey essential manufacturing requirements. Unlike broader frameworks, MBD specifically targets geometric product definition within , focusing on the 3D model as the primary artifact for mechanical design and production details. In contrast, (MBSE) addresses system-level modeling across interdisciplinary domains, incorporating requirements, architecture, and behavior at a higher level rather than confining itself to CAD-centric product . At its foundation, MBD adheres to core principles of establishing a —where the 3D model serves as the unified, unambiguous reference for all stakeholders—and promoting digital continuity to maintain and from initial through and beyond. This ensures reduced errors, enhanced collaboration, and efficient reuse of product information across the enterprise.

Key Components

Product Manufacturing Information (PMI) forms the foundational metadata layer in model-based definition (MBD), embedding essential manufacturing details directly into the 3D model to serve as the authoritative source for product realization. This includes , which specifies controls for form, orientation, location, profile, and runout to ensure parts meet functional requirements, as defined in ASME Y14.5. specifications denote required texture characteristics, such as roughness average () values, waviness, and lay direction, using standardized symbols to guide processes, per ASME Y14.36. Material specifications detail composition, , and properties like strength or conductivity, while the bill of materials (BOM) enumerates components, quantities, and hierarchical assembly structures. These elements are prepared and presented according to ASME Y14.41 for digital product definition data practices and ISO 16792 for technical product documentation, ensuring interoperability and completeness in 3D datasets. 3D model formats critical to MBD must retain both geometric shapes and associated PMI without loss during exchange. Native formats from CAD systems, such as those compliant with ASME and ISO standards, preserve full PMI fidelity, including editable annotations and metadata. The neutral STEP AP242 format (ISO 10303-242), tailored for managed model-based 3D engineering, supports semantic preservation of PMI elements like GD&T tolerances and their geometric associations, enabling downstream applications in and . Lightweight formats, such as 3D PDF viewers, facilitate visualization and basic PMI display but typically do not support full PMI editing or preservation, limiting their use to review rather than authoritative definition. Annotation types in MBD integrate instructional data seamlessly into the 3D environment, enhancing clarity without relying on separate documents. Direct model annotations attach dimensions, tolerances, and to specific faces, edges, or vertices, providing context-specific guidance. Exploded views disassemble assemblies to highlight mating interfaces and locations, while section views reveal cross-sectional details and internal annotations, all governed by presentation rules in ISO 16792 to maintain and accuracy in digital formats. Data validation mechanisms ensure the reliability of MBD models by verifying completeness and consistency of embedded data. Completeness checks confirm the presence of all required PMI, such as fully defined GD&T callouts and material assignments linked to . Consistency assessments identify discrepancies, including tolerance stack-up violations or orphaned annotations. The NIST Model-Based Enterprise (MBE) PMI Validation and project offers standardized test cases, including combined and fully-toleranced models, to evaluate adherence to ASME Y14.41 and Y14.5 through round-robin CAD comparisons and validation of derivative files like STEP AP242.

Historical Development

Origins in CAD

The origins of model-based definition trace back to the emergence of (CAD) systems in the and , which fundamentally shifted from manual drafting to digital representations. In 1963, Ivan Sutherland's introduced interactive , enabling users to construct and manipulate wireframe drawings on a display using a interfaced with the TX-2 computer, thereby pioneering the concept of digital geometric modeling over traditional pen-and-paper methods. Throughout the , CAD evolved with the proliferation of wireframe modeling techniques, where engineers represented complex three-dimensional objects as interconnected lines and curves, facilitating early computational analysis and visualization that reduced reliance on physical prototypes. The 1980s marked a pivotal era of CAD maturation, with innovations in parametric and solid modeling establishing 3D data as a viable primary artifact for design. Autodesk's AutoCAD, released in 1982, democratized CAD by providing affordable 2D drafting on personal computers, and by the late decade, it incorporated scripting via AutoLISP that enabled automation and enhanced flexibility for iterative engineering. Concurrently, Dassault Systèmes advanced solid modeling via CATIA software, initially developed in the late 1970s but refined in the 1980s for precise volumetric representations, allowing engineers to define complete 3D geometries with internal and external boundaries, which laid the groundwork for comprehensive digital product definitions. A landmark in this progression came in the , as industries embraced fully digital 3D CAD workflows, exemplified by Boeing's design of the 777 aircraft using , which debuted in 1995 as the first commercial airliner created without physical mockups or traditional drawings, relying solely on integrated 3D models for all specifications and simulations. This adoption was propelled by demands in aerospace, automotive, and defense sectors for managing intricate geometries—such as curved fuselages and engine components—that 2D drawings struggled to convey accurately, thereby minimizing translation errors from orthographic projections to physical builds and streamlining collaboration across global teams.

Evolution to Modern Practices

The shift toward model-based definition (MBD) in the 2000s marked a pivotal integration with Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems, facilitating the use of 3D models across manufacturing processes rather than isolated design phases. This evolution allowed for seamless data flow from design to production, reducing errors and enhancing traceability. A foundational development was the 2003 publication of ASME Y14.41, which outlined practices for digital product definition data in 3D models, including annotated models and associated data elements. For instance, enhancements in software like Siemens NX around 2010 introduced capabilities for embedding product manufacturing information (PMI) directly into models, supporting PLM interoperability and enabling manufacturers to leverage 3D data for downstream applications such as assembly and quality control. In the , MBD advanced through the adoption of neutral formats for standardized PMI exchange, exemplified by the 2014 update to STEP AP242, which consolidated functionalities from prior standards like AP203 and AP214 to support comprehensive 3D model sharing across systems. This development was particularly prominent in the automotive sector, where the (AIAG) promoted MBD via white papers and guidelines, encouraging 3D model implementation to streamline supply chain communication and reduce reliance on 2D drawings. The 2020s have seen MBD incorporate AI-driven validation tools to automate PMI checks and ensure model accuracy, alongside cloud-based platforms that enable real-time sharing of data. For example, Onshape's features announced in 2025 allow teams to embed and distribute PMI in cloud-native environments, fostering instant feedback loops without traditional file transfers. Additionally, MBD has linked with digital twins for advanced simulation, where 3D models serve as the foundation for real-time performance predictions in smart assembly processes. A key catalyst was the U.S. Department of Defense's 2018 Digital Engineering Strategy, which promoted model-based practices including MBD for defense systems, accelerating enterprise-wide adoption through 2025 by prioritizing digital artifacts over documents.

Implementation in Engineering

Use of 3D Digital Data Sets

In model-based definition (MBD), workflows begin with the creation of 3D digital data sets in (CAD) software, where geometric models serve as the primary repository for product information, integrating both shape data and associated metadata to eliminate reliance on separate 2D drawings. These data sets are maintained through processes, with revision control achieved via versioned file management systems that track changes to geometry and annotations, ensuring traceability and collaboration across teams. This approach aligns with standards like ASME Y14.41, which specifies practices for digital product data to support unambiguous definition and exchange. The structure of these 3D digital data sets typically follows a hierarchical organization, comprising individual part models that define component geometry, assembly models that integrate multiple parts into complete products, and linked product manufacturing information (PMI) attached directly to relevant features. This hierarchy enables efficient navigation and reference, with PMI enriching the models by associating tolerances, dimensions, and notes to specific elements without altering the core geometry. For interoperability across different software platforms and stakeholders, data sets are exported to neutral formats such as STEP (), which preserves the hierarchical structure, geometry, and PMI for downstream applications. Throughout the , 3D digital data sets function as the authoritative source, facilitating design reviews through interactive 3D viewers that allow stakeholders to visualize and interrogate the model collaboratively. In , these sets support direct CNC programming by providing machinists with precise geometric and tolerance data, reducing interpretation errors compared to traditional drawings. For quality inspection, coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) access PMI embedded in the model to automate verification against specifications, streamlining validation processes. Software tools like MBD exemplify these capabilities by enabling users to define, organize, and publish 3D data sets—including dimensions, tolerances, bills of materials, and views—directly within the CAD environment, bypassing the need for 2D drawings while generating outputs like 3D PDFs for distribution. This integrated functionality supports revision management and hierarchical assembly handling, promoting efficient data set maintenance in engineering workflows.

Embedding Product Manufacturing Information

Embedding Product Manufacturing Information (PMI) into 3D models is a core aspect of model-based definition (MBD), where geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) symbols, textual notes, and datum identifiers are integrated directly as 3D annotations linked to specific model features, such as surfaces or edges, to provide precise manufacturing instructions without relying on separate 2D drawings. These annotations attach semantically to the geometry, ensuring that changes to the model automatically update associated tolerances and references, thereby maintaining data integrity throughout the design process. A key advancement in embedding techniques involves the use of semantic PMI, which structures annotations in a machine-readable format that includes explicit associations between GD&T elements—like feature control frames and datum targets—and the underlying 3D geometry, enabling automated downstream processes such as and . Unlike graphical PMI, which serves primarily visual purposes, semantic representations use standardized schemas to encode relationships, allowing software tools to interpret and extract data without manual reinterpretation. Automation methods enhance the efficiency of PMI embedding by employing rule-based systems to place tolerances automatically based on predefined rules, such as applying standard fits or surface finishes to specific feature types during model creation. For instance, (BOM) generation can be automated directly from model assemblies by parsing embedded PMI to compile hierarchical parts lists, including attributes like material specifications and quantities derived from the 3D structure. Validation tools further support this by systematically checking PMI completeness, identifying gaps in annotations such as missing datums or inconsistent tolerances, and generating reports to ensure compliance before model release. Interoperability challenges arise when translating PMI between CAD systems, as differences in native formats can lead to loss of semantic associations, resulting in annotations that appear visually but lack machine-readable links to geometry. Neutral formats like JT address this by preserving both geometric and PMI data during export and import, supporting the retention of GD&T semantics across diverse platforms, though full fidelity requires adherence to ISO 14306 standards for JT visualization. Despite these capabilities, incomplete translations can still occur if source systems use proprietary extensions not supported in JT, necessitating pre- and post-translation validation to verify PMI integrity. Best practices for embedding PMI emphasize layering annotations to tailor visibility for different stakeholders, such as restricting manufacturing-specific notes to production teams while exposing only design-relevant data to engineers, thereby reducing cognitive overload in complex models. Color-coding further aids clarity by assigning distinct hues to annotation types—e.g., for dimensions, for critical tolerances—facilitating quick identification and review during collaborative workflows. These techniques, when combined with dynamic views that hide or reveal layers based on user roles, promote efficient model navigation and minimize errors in interpretation.

Comparison to Traditional Approaches

Conventional 2D Drawings

Conventional 2D drawings represent the traditional method of documenting designs through two-dimensional technical illustrations that convey the , dimensions, and requirements of parts and assemblies. These drawings primarily utilize orthographic projections, which project the object's features onto perpendicular planes to create multiple views—typically front, top, and side—providing a precise, scalable representation without . Detailed views enlarge specific areas for clarity on intricate features, while title blocks in the lower right corner include critical metadata such as drawing number, scale, units, date, and approver signatures. Dimensions and tolerances are often presented on dedicated sheets or sections to prevent , adhering to international standards like for general principles of presentation in technical drawings. The workflow for creating conventional 2D drawings traditionally involves manual drafting by hand or, in modern contexts, semi-automated generation using CAD software that extracts views from 3D models. This process begins with sketching or modeling the design, followed by projecting orthographic views, adding annotations, and verifying compliance with standards; however, the resulting drawing functions as an independent artifact, separate from the originating 3D model, establishing dual sources of truth that must be manually synchronized. Despite their precision, conventional 2D drawings exhibit significant limitations, including susceptibility to interpretation errors arising from ambiguous line work, hidden features, or inconsistent scaling across views. Version mismatches frequently occur when updates to the 3D model are not fully propagated to the drawing, leading to outdated specifications in downstream . Scalability issues emerge with complex assemblies, where hundreds of sheets may be needed to capture inter-part relationships, complicating and . Moreover, revisions demand time-intensive manual updates to all affected views and annotations, often consuming hours or days per change. Engineering drawings achieved historical dominance as the primary design communication tool during the 19th-century , when necessitated standardized, reproducible plans for machinery and infrastructure, evolving from artisanal sketches to formalized orthographic methods. This practice was further codified through (GD&T) in the standard, first published in 1966, with subsequent revisions including 1982, which provided a symbolic language for specifying form, orientation, and location tolerances on 2D drawings to ensure interchangeability in .

Limited Dimension Drawings

Limited Dimension Drawings (LDDs) consist of 2D sheets containing only essential views, critical dimensions, tolerances, and notes, with explicit references to the accompanying 3D model as the authoritative source for complete product definition, such as statements like "Refer to 3D model for all unspecified dimensions and details." These drawings minimize redundancy by avoiding full replication of the 3D data, focusing instead on key or requirements that benefit from visual 2D representation. As a hybrid approach, LDDs function as a transitional method between conventional 2D drawings—which offer standalone, comprehensive specifications—and fully integrated Model-Based Definition (MBD) systems. They are particularly useful in engineering sectors transitioning to digital workflows, where legacy processes and tools still predominate, allowing teams to leverage existing 3D CAD models while retaining familiar 2D formats for review, procurement, or . This setup reduces the effort required to produce and maintain extensive 2D documentation, streamlining communication without demanding immediate overhaul of infrastructure or training. In applications, LDDs often include assembly overviews, primary datums, and (GD&T) callouts for critical features, directing users to the 3D model for supplementary geometry and attributes; for instance, the engineering drawings for 's wheels employed LDDs to specify only key wall thickness controls and tolerances, with all other details derived from models. Similarly, engineering practices define LDDs as delineating single parts with limited annotations to establish essential requirements, supplemented by the 3D model to ensure full compliance with intent. These practices align with standards like ASME Y14.41, which supports digital product definition data practices integrating 2D and 3D elements. LDDs facilitate adoption in regulated industries by providing a compliant "drawing" artifact where 2D documentation is mandated, enabling gradual integration of MBD without violating legacy requirements for tangible records. This model-referenced strategy enhances accuracy by centralizing information in the 3D source, mitigating errors from dual documentation while preserving accessibility for stakeholders accustomed to paper-based or PDF formats.

Standards and Adoption

Key Standardization Efforts

The (ASME) Y14.41 standard, first published in 2003 and revised in 2012 and 2019, provides essential guidelines for digital product definition data practices in the United States. It specifies requirements for embedding product manufacturing information (PMI), such as (GD&T), directly into 3D models, enabling the transition from traditional 2D drawings to fully annotated digital representations. This standard addresses the preparation, revision, and interpretation of 3D data sets, ensuring consistency in how PMI is applied and visualized in (CAD) environments. Internationally, ISO 16792, first edition released in 2006, second edition in 2015, and third edition in 2021, establishes requirements for technical product documentation using digital formats. It focuses on the preparation, revision, and presentation of 3D data sets, with particular emphasis on integrating GD&T and other annotations into models to support unambiguous instructions. The standard promotes across software tools by defining rules for PMI syntax and semantics, facilitating global adoption of model-based practices in . For data exchange, the STEP Application Protocol 242 (AP242), defined in ISO 10303-242, serves as a neutral file format that preserves PMI during transfer between systems. The second edition, published in 2020, supports managed model-based 3D engineering by including capabilities for assembly structures, , and process data alongside geometric models. A fourth edition is under development, with publication expected in 2025. This protocol ensures that MBD information remains intact and interpretable, reducing errors in collaborations. Sector-specific efforts complement these core standards. In the , the (AIAG) issued the 3D Model Technical Data Package Exchange Guideline in July 2025, promoting standardized exchange of 3D model data to support model-based practices and streamline design-to-manufacturing workflows. Similarly, ASD-STE100 provides rules for simplified technical English in annotations, ensuring clear, unambiguous text within 3D models for and defense applications. These guidelines enhance and compliance in PMI elements like notes and callouts.

Industry Implementation

Model-based definition (MBD) has been widely adopted in the aerospace and defense sector, where organizations like NASA and Lockheed Martin have integrated it into their workflows since the mid-2010s to enhance digital engineering practices. NASA launched its Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Pathfinder in 2016, demonstrating MBD's application in mission-focused areas and establishing it as a core component of digital model-based engineering across more than two-thirds of its field centers by 2017. Lockheed Martin has driven MBD adoption through its Model-Based Enterprise (MBE) Playbook for suppliers, first released in 2024, which outlines practices for mechanical, electronics, and software categories in new programs. By 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense's digital engineering strategy has incorporated MBD requirements into solicitations for major programs, aligning with broader goals for modular open systems and reduced lifecycle costs. In the automotive industry, companies such as and Ford have implemented MBD via product lifecycle management () integration to streamline design-to-manufacturing processes. utilizes systems to synchronize 3D models across its truck brands. Ford's -driven 3D interoperability strategy incorporates MBD through multi-CAD visualization and JT file generation, enabling global . These implementations leverage standards like ASME Y14.41 as a foundation for consistent PMI exchange, ensuring compliance in supplier ecosystems. Supply chain challenges in MBD adoption often stem from varying levels of digital maturity among vendors, prompting the development of targeted programs and initiatives. For instance, Lockheed Martin's MBE Playbook includes guidance for supplier transformation, emphasizing to align with MBD requirements in subcontracts. In 2024, PTC expanded its educational offerings with advanced MBD modules in Creo , while Purdue University's MBD , ongoing as of 2025, provides vendor focused on creating compliant 3D models with PMI. These efforts address issues, with compliance strategies involving validation tools to verify model integrity before production handover. A notable metric of MBD's success is evident in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner program, which pioneered 100% digital definition as the first fully digital aircraft definition in the industry. This approach achieved a 62% reduction in product development time and 42% reduction in development costs. Overall, these sector-specific adoptions demonstrate MBD's role in accelerating compliance with digital engineering mandates up to 2025, fostering measurable improvements in efficiency across complex supply chains.

Benefits and Challenges

Advantages Over Legacy Methods

Model-based definition (MBD) significantly reduces errors in product development by embedding all product manufacturing information (PMI) directly into the 3D model, eliminating the transcription and interpretation challenges inherent in traditional 2D drawings. This approach minimizes discrepancies between design intent and manufacturing execution. In comparison to conventional 2D drawings and limited dimension drawings, MBD serves as a single authoritative source, preventing the manual recreation of models that plagues downstream manufacturing processes. MBD delivers substantial time and cost savings by streamlining the design-to-manufacturing handoff, bypassing the need for separate creation and maintenance. Industry research indicates that robust MBD implementations can accelerate production by up to 40% and reduce times by 60%. These efficiencies contribute to decreased rework and resource allocation, as the integrated 3D model automates flow and cuts overhead associated with legacy practices. Enhanced is a core advantage of MBD, enabling real-time access to the 3D model via lightweight viewers that support global teams and advanced inspections using (AR) or (VR). This fosters seamless communication across , , and stakeholders by providing a shared, interactive rather than static 2D views, improving and reducing misalignments in distributed environments. Compared to traditional methods, MBD's centralized supports concurrent reviews and updates, enhancing productivity in multinational projects. MBD promotes by transitioning to a fully digital that eliminates paper-based drawings and , thereby reducing physical and . The approach also integrates tools directly with the 3D model for , enabling iterative improvements that minimize material use and energy demands in production. As of 2025, advancements such as PTC's MBD capabilities and Siemens' enhancements have accelerated adoption, with some sectors reporting over 70% growth in MBD implementations.

Barriers to Widespread Use

One major technical hurdle to the widespread adoption of model-based definition (MBD) is the incompatibility of legacy software systems with 3D models enriched with product manufacturing information (PMI). Older CAD and tools often fail to fully support or interpret MBD data, leading to workflows that require manual workarounds or hybrid 2D/3D processes. Another significant issue arises during file exchanges, where PMI—such as geometric dimensions, tolerances, and annotations—can be lost or degraded when transferring models between different software platforms or to neutral formats. This loss disrupts downstream processes like and , undermining the single-source-of-truth promise of MBD. Solutions are emerging through updated standards like STEP AP242, which enhances by better preserving PMI in neutral exchanges, though full implementation requires software vendors to adopt these revisions. Organizationally, resistance from personnel trained in traditional 2D drafting poses a substantial barrier, as veteran engineers and drafters view MBD as a threat to established practices and fear a loss of familiarity in reviewing . This cultural inertia is compounded by a broader skills gap, with 61% of and leaders reporting difficulty finding employees proficient in technical digital tools, including those needed for MBD. Upskilling initiatives, such as Autodesk's expanded training programs in 2025, aim to address this, but persistent gaps—evident in reduced continuous learning adoption from 71% in 2024 to 64% in 2025—highlight the need for targeted to bridge the divide. Regulatory and legal challenges further impede progress, particularly in industries like defense where 2D drawings remain the legally accepted and authoritative source of product information for compliance and liability purposes. Some jurisdictions continue to mandate physical or "signed" drawings to establish accountability in case of disputes, creating hesitation around fully transitioning to digital 3D models. However, this is evolving with the broader acceptance of digital signatures under frameworks like the U.S. ESIGN Act, which legally equates electronic approvals to traditional ones when conditions for authenticity are met, facilitating gradual MBD integration in regulated sectors. Cost factors also deter adoption, as initial investments in upgrading CAD and systems to MBD-compliant versions can be substantial, often requiring hardware refreshes, software licenses, and process reengineering. For large enterprises, these upfront costs—potentially in the millions for comprehensive implementations—are offset by long-term ROI through reduced errors and faster time-to-market, with studies showing productivity gains of up to 30% in tasks after full deployment. Smaller organizations, however, face steeper relative barriers without similar scale to justify the expenditure.

References

  1. https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/design-manufacturing/model-based-definition
  2. https://www.ptc.com/en/technologies/cad/model-based-definition
  3. https://plm.sw.siemens.com/en-US/nx/cad-online/mcad-software/model-based-definition/
  4. https://www.3ds.com/technologies/cad-software/model-based-definition
  5. https://bct-technology.com/en/mbd
  6. https://www.action-engineering.com/blog/standardizing-model-based-definition-mbd/
  7. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=920003
  8. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y1447-2019-model-organization-practices
  9. https://www.autodesk.com/blogs/design-and-manufacturing/model-based-definition-mbd-and-the-role-it-plays-in-modern-manufacturing/
  10. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/about-standards/technology-highlights/model-based-enterprise-%28mbe%29
  11. https://www.capvidia.com/blog/mbd-model-based-definition-guide
  12. https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/99177-model-based-definition-in-3d-cad-advances-methods-and-quality-implications
  13. https://www.itcinfotech.com/model-based-definition-mbd-replacing-technical-drawings/
  14. https://www.onshape.com/en/blog/what-is-model-based-definition-mbd
  15. https://www.action-engineering.com/blog/mbd-vs-mbse/
  16. https://www.ats-global.com/resources/blogs/understanding-the-different-model-based-approaches-mbse-mbd-and-mbe/
  17. https://www.sigmetrix.com/blog/what-is-mbd-beginners-guide-model-based-definition
  18. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-5-dimensioning-tolerancing
  19. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-36-surface-texture-symbols
  20. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-41-digital-product-definition-data-practices
  21. https://www.iso.org/standard/73871.html
  22. https://www.iso.org/standard/84667.html
  23. https://www.nist.gov/ctl/smart-connected-systems-division/smart-connected-manufacturing-systems-group/mbe-pmi-validation
  24. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1461551.1461591
  25. https://www.sintef.no/en/publications/publication/1272480/
  26. https://www.shapr3d.com/history-of-cad/autodesk-and-autocad
  27. https://www.3ds.com/about/company/history
  28. https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/the-benefits-of-moving-from-2d-drawings-to-3d-cad-files/
  29. https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y1441-2003-digital-product-definition-data-practices
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225235858_Model-based_definition_design_in_the_product_lifecycle_management_scenario
  31. https://www.prostep.org/en/medialibrary/fact-sheets/iso-10303-242-step-ap242
  32. https://go.aiag.org/d-39-sasig-white-paper
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-design-society/article/framework-for-circular-aidriven-modelbased-systems-engineering/A4F602571A5E73FCCB4E33856136768D
  34. https://develop3d.com/cad/ptc-unveils-cloud-native-mbd-in-onshape/
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374268032_An_MBD-Enabled_Digital_Twin_Modeling_Method_for_Cognition_Assistance_in_Human-Centric_Smart_Assembly
  36. https://ac.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2018-Digital-Engineering-Strategy_Approved_PrintVersion.pdf
  37. https://www.nist.gov/publications/promoting-model-based-definition-establish-complete-product-definition
  38. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933076
  39. https://www.janus-engineering.com/us_en/news/blog/blog-detail/news/model-based-definition/
  40. https://www.solidworks.com/product/solidworks-mbd
  41. https://help.solidworks.com/2020/english/SolidWorks/sldworks/c_solidworks_mbd.htm
  42. https://help.autodesk.com/view/INVNTOR/2024/ENU/?guid=GUID-B8779786-A71C-4A5C-B9A9-7EB1A9918946
  43. https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/94579-model-based-definition-puts-gdt-data-to-work
  44. https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2025/04/3dexperience-model-based-definition-and-2d-drawings/
  45. https://www.cadinterop.com/en/your-needs/mbd-mbe-approach/cad-model-validation-with-pmi.html
  46. https://resources.sw.siemens.com/en-US/case-study-siemensenergy/
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382772107_Integrating_MBD_with_BOM_for_consistent_data_transformation_during_lifecycle_synergetic_decision-making_of_complex_products
  48. https://gpdisonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/17ITI-Doug-Cheney-MBD-Interop-Challenges-Solutions-ITI.pdf
  49. https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-nist-pmi-cad-models-and-cad-system-pmi-modeling-capability-verification-testing
  50. https://cadexchanger.com/jt/
  51. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=cgttheses
  52. https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/2016/04/mbd-implementation-dos-donts-organize-present-3d-pmi-clearly.html
  53. https://www.autodesk.com/design-make/articles/product-manufacturing-information
  54. https://www.ispatguru.com/basics-of-engineering-working-drawings/
  55. https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/2023/10/modern-engineering-and-manufacturing-part-2-integrating-model-based-definition-practices-and-2d-drawings.html
  56. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/technicalnotes/NIST.TN.1820.pdf
  57. https://astcad.com.au/history-of-engineering-drawing/
  58. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/IR/nistir4509.pdf
  59. https://xrgtechnologies.com/model-based-definition-what-is-it-and-why/
  60. https://www.action-engineering.com/blog/why-arent-there-basic-dimensions-in-mbd/
  61. https://miller3dprinting.com/reaching-the-outer-limits-with-gibbscam-and-the-mars-rover-wheel/
  62. https://standards.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/standards/KSC/H/1/GP-435-Vol-I-Chg-H-1.pdf
  63. https://www.iso.org/standard/84300.html
  64. https://www.aiag.org/training-and-resources/manuals
  65. https://www.asd-ste100.org/
  66. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180006165/downloads/20180006165.pdf
  67. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170006995/downloads/20170006995.pdf
  68. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/suppliers/news/features/2024/mbe-playbook-available.html
  69. https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/MOSA-Implementation-Guidebook-27Feb2025-Cleared.pdf
  70. https://www.ansys.com/blog/defense-digital-engineering
  71. https://www.engineering.com/volkswagens-epic-challenge-to-synchronize-plm-for-its-truck-brands/
  72. https://gpdisonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/15Ford-Ilan-Weitzer-PLM-Interop-%40-Ford.pdf
  73. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1370
  74. https://www.ptc.com/en/ptc-university
  75. https://polytechnic.purdue.edu/digital-enterprise-center/mbd-certificate-program
  76. https://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1986179/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  77. https://www.ptc.com/en/blogs/cad/model-based-product-development-holds-the-key-to-efficient-innovative-design
  78. https://www.ptc.com/en/news/2025/ptc-unveils-onshape-model-based-definition
  79. https://blogs.sw.siemens.com/solidedge/solid-edge-2025-model-based/
  80. https://www.engineering.com/6-reasons-we-still-cant-switch-to-mbd-and-the-ways-forward/
  81. https://www.sigmetrix.com/blog/challenges-implementing-mbd-how-overcome
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335870398_Challenges_of_Model-Based_Definition_for_High-Value_Manufacturing
  83. https://damassets.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/www/pdfs/2025-sdm-report-final.pdf
  84. https://www.clio.com/blog/are-electronic-signatures-legal/
  85. https://www.lifecycleinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/LCI-ROI-of-MBD-v14a.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.