Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:17:30.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontology-based modeling and integration of morphological characteristics of assembly joints for network-based collaborative assembly design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Kyoung-Yun Kim ,
Seongah Chin ,
Ohbyung Kwon  and
R. Darin Ellis
Kyoung-Yun Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Seongah Chin
Affiliation:
Division of Multimedia, College of Engineering, Sungkyul University, Anyang, South Korea
Ohbyung Kwon
Affiliation:
School of International Management, Kyunghee University, Yongin, Korea
R. Darin Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents our research on developing an ontology-based framework that can represent morphological characteristics related to assembly joints. Joints within the physical structure of an assembly are inevitable because of the limitations of component geometries and the associated, required engineering properties. Consequently, a framework is needed that can capture and propagate assembly design and joint information in a robust assembly model throughout the entire product development processes. The framework and model are based on an understanding of the morphological characteristics of an assembly and its different physical effects. The morphological characteristics are consequences of the principal physical processes and of the design intentions. Therefore, the morphological characteristics should be carefully represented while considering the geometry and topology of assembly joints. In this research, assembly joint topology is defined by a mereotopology, which is a region-based theory for the parts and associated concepts. This formal ontology can differentiate often ambiguous assembly and joining relations. Furthermore, the mereotopological definitions for assembly joints are implemented in Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) rules and Web Ontology Language triples. This process provides universality to the mereotopological definitions. Two geometrically and topologically similar joint pairs are presented to describe how the assembly joints can be defined in mereotopology and be transformed into SWRL rules. Web3D is also employed to support network-enabled sharing of assembly geometry. Finally, the proposed modeling framework is demonstrated using a real fixture assembly. This case study demonstrates the usability of the proposed framework for network-based design collaboration.

Keywords

Collaborative Product DesignMereotopologyMorphological CharacteristicsOntologySemantic Web Rule Language
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 23 , Issue 1: Developing and Using Engineering Ontologies , February 2009 , pp. 71 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Welding Society. (2001). A3.0-01: Standard Welding Terms and Definitions. Ann Arbor, MI: American Welding Society.Google Scholar
Beeson, R. (1999). Pipeline welding goes mechanized. Welding Journal 78(11), 47–50.Google Scholar
Bell, H., & Bjørkhanug, L. (2006). A buildingSMART ontology. In eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (Martinez, M., & Scherer, R., Eds.), pp. 185–190. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bossam Rule/OWL Reasoner. (2008). Accessed at http://bossam.wordpress.com/about/Google Scholar
Brown, D.R., Cutkosky, M.R., & Tenebaum, J.M. (1989). Next-cut: a second generation framework for concurrent engineering, in computer-aided cooperative product development. Proc. MIT-JSME Workshop (Sriram, D., Logcher, R., & Fukuda, S., Eds.), pp. 8–25. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Casati, R., and Varzi, A.C. (1997). Spatial entities. In Spatial and Temporal Reasoning (Stock, O., Ed.), pp. 73–96. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chui, W.H., & Wright, P.K. (1999). A WWW computer integrated manufacturing environment for rapid prototyping and education. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 12(1), 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocreate. (2008). Accessed at www.cocreate.comGoogle Scholar
Cutkosky, M.R., Tenenbaum, J.M., & Glicksman, J. (1996). Madefast: collaborative engineering over the Internet. Communications of ACM 39(9), 78–87.Google Scholar
Cycorp, Inc. (2008). Accessed at http://www.cyc.com/cycGoogle Scholar
Deneux, D. (1999). Introduction to assembly features: an illustrated synthesis methodology. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 10(1), 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engineous. (2005). Engineous Int. Symp. Workshop, Novi, MI, October 10–12.Google Scholar
Eschenbach, C. (1994). A mereotopological definition of point. Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, pp. 63–80. Workshop at FISI-CS, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
Eschenbach, C., & Heydrich, W. (1995). Classical mereology and restricted domains. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 43(5–6), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fensel, D. (2001). Ontologies: A Silver Bullet for Knowledge Management and Electronic Commerce. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Florida-James, B., Rossiter, N., & Chao, K.M. (2000). An agent system for collaborative version control in engineering. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11(4), 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M.S. (1992). The TOVE Project: Towards a Common-Sense Model of the Enterprise. Enterprise Integration Laboratory Technical Report.Google Scholar
Fox, M.S., & Grüninger, M. (1998). Enterprise modeling. AI Magazine Fall, 109–121.Google Scholar
Graf, T., & Staufer, H. (2003). Laser-hybrid welding drives VW improvements. Welding Journal 82(1), 42–48.Google Scholar
Gruber, T.R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220.Google Scholar
Gruninger, M., Sriram, R.D., Cheng, J., & Law, K. (2003). Process specification language for project information exchange. International Journal of IT in Architecture, Engineering and Construction 1, 307–328.Google Scholar
Horváth, I., Pulles, J.P.W., Bremer, A.P., & Vergeest, J.S.M. (1998). Towards an ontology-based definition of design features. SIAM Workshop on Mathematical Foundations for Features in Computer Aided Design, Engineering, and Manufacturing.Google Scholar
Kals, H.J.J., Mentink, R.J., Wijinker, T.C., & Lutters, D. (2004). Information management and process integration in manufacturing. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Systems 33(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Kao, Y.C., & Lin, G.C.I. (1996). CAD/CAM collaboration and remote machining. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 9(13), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kao, Y.C., & Lin, G.C.I. (1998). Development of a collaborative CAD/CAM system. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 14(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katranuschkow, P., Gehre, A., & Scherer, R.J. (2002). An engineering ontology framework as advanced user gateway to IFC model data. In eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (Turk, Z., & Scherer, R., Eds.), pp. 269–276. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Kim, C.Y., Kim, N.K., Kim, Y.H., Kang, S.H., & O'Grady, P. (1998). Distributed Concurrent Engineering: Internet-Based Interactive 3-D Dynamic Browsing and Markup of STEP Data. Iowa Internet Laboratory, Technical Report TR98-02.Google Scholar
Kim, K.Y., & Nnaji, B.O. (2003). Virtual assembly analysis and simulation in an e-design and realization environment. The 2003 NDIA Systems Engineering Conf., San Diego, CA, October 20–23.Google Scholar
Kim, K.Y., Manley, D.G., & Yang, H.J. (2006). Ontology-based assembly design and information sharing for collaborative product development. Computer-Aided Design 38(12), 1233–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K.Y., Wang, Y., Muogboh, O.S., & Nnaji, B.O. (2004). Design formalism for collaborative assembly design environment. Computer-Aided Design 36(9), 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Kashiwase, M., Masayoshi, F., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Deployment of an ontological framework of function design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 327–351.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, L., & Law, K.H. (1997). A data management model for collaborative design in a CAD environment. Engineering with Computers 13(2), 65–86.Google Scholar
Kurland, R. (2003). NX Systems Engineering Powers the Product Lifecycle. Rockaway, NJ: TechniCom Inc.Google Scholar
Larson, J., & Cheng, H.H. (2000). Object-oriented cam design through the Internet. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 11(6), 515–534.Google Scholar
Leśniewski, S. (1982). On the foundations of mathematics. Topoi 2, 7–52 (abridged English translation of Podstawach Matematyki).Google Scholar
Liang, V., & Paredis, C.J.J. (2004). A port ontology for conceptual design of systems. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 4(3), 206–217.Google Scholar
Lin, J., Fox, M.S., & Bilgic, T. (1996). A requirement ontology for engineering design. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 4(3), 279–291.Google Scholar
Mizoguchi, R. (2003). Tutorial on ontological engineering part 1: introduction to ontological engineering. New Generation Computing 21(4), 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, R. (2004 a). Tutorial on ontological engineering part 2: ontology development tools and languages. New Generation Computing 22(2), 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizoguchi, R. (2004 b). Tutorial on ontological: engineering part 3 advanced course of ontological engineering. New Generation Computing 22(2), 198–220.Google Scholar
Mueller, A. (1999). Shared Engineering With OneSpace. Technical White Paper.Google Scholar
Nnaji, B.O., Wang, Y., & Kim, K.Y. (2004). Cost-effective product realization—service-oriented architecture for integrated product life-cycle management. 7th IFAC Symp. Cost Oriented AutomationGatineau, Ottawa, Canada, June 7–9.Google Scholar
Pegasus. (2003). NSF I/UCRC for e-Design. Strategic Planning Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, December 9–10. Accessed at http://www.e-designcenter.infoGoogle Scholar
PTC Global Services Data Sheet. (2007). Migrating from Pro/INTRALINK® 3.x with PTC Global Services Datasheet. Accessed at http://www.ptc.com/WCMS/files/45948/en/2139_ILINKUM_DS_EN_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Qiang, L., Zhang, Y.F., & Nee, A.Y.C. (2001). A distributive and collaborative concurrent product design system through the WWW/Internet. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 17(5), 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randell, D.A., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A.G. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. (KR-92) (Nebel, B., Swartout, W., & Rich, C., Eds.), pp. 165–176, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rippey, W.G. (2004). NISTIR 7107: A Welding Data Dictionary. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
Rojas, E.M., & Songer, A.D. (1999). Web-centric systems: a new paradigm for collaborative engineering. Journal of Management in Engineering 15(1), 39–45.Google Scholar
Salustri, F.A. (2002). Mereotopology for product modeling. A new framework for product modeling based on logic. Journal of Design Research 2(1).Google Scholar
Schlenoff, C., Ivester, R., Libes, D., Denno, P., & Szykman, S. (1999). An Analysis of Existing Ontological Systems for Applications in Manufacturing and Healthcare. NISTIR 6301. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
Shyamsundar, N., & Gadh, R. (2002). Collaborative virtual prototyping of product assemblies over the Internet. Computer-Aided Design 34(10), 755–768.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1996). Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20, 287–303.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1997). Boundaries: an essay in mereotopology. In The Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm (Hahn, L., Ed.), pp. 534–561. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Smith, C.S., & Wright, P.K. (1996). CyberCut: A World Wide Web based design-to-fabrication tool. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 15(6), 432–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teamcenter. (2008). Accessed at http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/teamcenter/Google Scholar
Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., & Zorgios, Y. (1998). The enterprise ontology. Knowledge Engineering Review 13, 31–89.Google Scholar
van Holland, W., & Bronsvoort, W.F. (2000). Assembly features in modeling and planning. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 16(4), 277–294.Google Scholar
Wagner, R., Castanotto, G., & Goldberg, K. (1997). FixtureNet: interactive computer-aided design via the WWW. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 46(6), 773–788.Google Scholar
Whitney, D., Mantripragada, E.R., Adams, J.E., & Rhee, S.J. (1999). Toward a theory for design of kinematically constrained mechanical assemblies. International Journal Robotics Research 18(12), 1235–1248.Google Scholar
World Wide Web Consortium. (2004 a). OWL web ontology language guide. Accessed at http://www.w3c.org/TR/owl-guideGoogle Scholar
World Wide Web Consortium. (2004 b). SWRL: a semantic web rule language. Accessed at http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/Google Scholar
Yao, Z., Bradley, H.D., & Maropoulos, P.G.. (1998). An aggregate weld product model for the early design stages. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing 12(5), 447–461.Google Scholar