I think this would be an excellent subject. There are certain technologies that would have to be developed the would underpin a modular design, but that would be a huge enabler to changing the global automotive paradigm that we are presently burdened with. The potential to change the world is very large...
I would suggest a complex device (anything from a watch to an engine) where tolerances and interaction between parts is a big part of success. If you could model something like that and then animate it to see if all tolerances are correct and nothing bangs against something else, that would be truly great.
On the manufacturing side, it would be great to create models of parallel manufacturing to make sure that everything comes together correctly and that no queue ever starves for parts/materials. Once complete, the program should be simply upload-able to the plants computers/PLCs, and with the proper tooling in place, start the manufacturing process based on the model.
The PhD. level component I see here is to be sophisticated enough so that computers/machines make the decisions regarding design and remove this task from some poor fab guy who's waiting for the first prototype to be delivered so he can fine-tune it with a file before the boss sees it.
__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of dementia" - Professor Coriolus
Talking tolerances and so on, much of the cost of manufacturing results from having to achieve certain tolerances for assembly, not function. Big cost savings come from finding ways of living with big dimensional variations. Because of the financial implications I'm sure the subject has attracted attention but there's always room for novel thinking.
I think the uptake of extrusions in vehicle structures has been poor in part due to an apparent inability to get them into a useable tolerance envelope. This is a typical engineering problem that a combination of process modelling to guide (among other things) die design and creating a tolerant design and assembly system could address.
Things in the auto industry are often disappointingly fashion driven and to a certain degree aluminium was yesterdays fashion. It's still a very interesting material and far from fulfilling its potential in this field.
Unlike many CAD-CAM problems (that are just nice to have resolved) this one is real and disturbing.
CAD models of steel structures built for industrial projects may be as big as 800 members (columns, beams, braces). 'Structural Designers' have to built these 3D mazes for clearing interferences with piping and equipment, showing the intent of the design to the client and for semi-automated production of 2D structural layouts (plans and sections of the entire structure)
'Almost identical' CAM models have to be built by 'Structural Detailers' for the automated production of 'cut-sheets' (detailed drawing of each structural member) and sending electronic signals to CAM cutting & drilling equipment.
You would say: electronic transfer from CAD to CAM formats is the common feature of most prominent 3D CAD software; SNDF, SNF and other 'Neutral files' perfectly translate one model into another.
Yes, they do translate; however, the result of these 'translations' is not valuable, not workable for the CAM recipient. To see the predicaments of structural-steel-CAD-CAM transfer you're welcome to look at my web-site cadalena.com, article 'CADALENA'. Though, there I'm talking about CAD-CAE translations, the 'Geometry Differences' with CAM would be the same (or similar').
If you'd like to discuss this topic further you're welcome to write me at len.bogdanov@flour.com