Advertisement

Product Definition and Dimensional Metrology Systems

  • Yaoyao (Fiona) ZhaoEmail author
  • Robert Brown
  • Thomas R. Kramer
  • Xun Xu
Chapter

Abstract

Product definition is the process in which a part is designed using CAD design software based on customer requirements. One of the key activities in any product design process is to develop a geometric model of the product from the conceptual ideas, which can then be augmented with further engineering information pertaining to the application area. For example, the geometric model of a design may be developed to include material and manufacturing information so that it can later be used in Computer-Aided Process Planning and Manufacturing (CAPP/CAM) and quality control activities. A geometric model is also a must for any engineering analysis such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). In mathematic terms, geometric modeling is concerned with defining geometric objects using computational geometry, which is often represented through computer software or rather a geometric modeling kernel. Geometry may be defined with the help of a wire-frame model, surface model or solid model. Geometric modeling has now become an integral part of any CAD system.

Keywords

Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise Resource Planning System Product Lifecycle Management Application Protocol Product Data Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    IMTI (2006) A roadmap for metrology interoperability. Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative (IMTI, Inc.)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xu X (2009) Integrating advanced computer-aided design, manufacturing, and numerical control : principles and implementations. Information Science Reference, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO (2009) ISO 10303-203:2009: industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 203: Application protocol: configuration controlled 3D design of mechanical parts and assembliesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah JJ, Mäntylä M (1995) Parametric and feature-based CAD/CAM: concepts, techniques, and applications. Wiley-Interscience, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van ‘t Erve AH, Kals HJJ (1986) XPLANE, a generative computer aided process planning system for part manufacturing. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 35(1):325–329Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wingård L (1991) Introducing form features in product models: a step towards CAD/CAM with engineering terminology. Department of Manufacturing Systems, Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shen Y, Shah JJ (1994) Feature recognition by volume decomposition using half-space partitioning. In: 20th Design Automation Conference, vol 69(1). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE, pp 575–583Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ANSI (1994) ASME Y14.5M-1994: Dimensioning and tolerancingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO (2004) ISO 1101:2004: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—geometrical tolerancing—tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-outGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO (2010) ISO 14405-1: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—dimensional tolerancing—Part 1: Linear sizesGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon JR, Cunningham JJ, Simmons MK (1987) Research in designing with features. Workshop on intelligent CAD, pp 137–148Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pratt MJ, Wilson PR (1985) Requirements for support of form features in a solid modeling system-final report. CAM-I Report R-85-ASPP-01Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wozny MJ, McLaughlin HW (1986) A taxonomy of form features for solid modeling. In: Wozny MJ (ed) Geometric modeling for cad applications: selected and expanded papers from the IFIP WG 5.2 working conference, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giacometti F, Chang TC (1990) Object-oriented design for modeling parts, assemblies and tolerances. In: Proceedings technology of object oriented languages and systems (TOOLS), pp 243–255Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brändli N, Mittelstaedt M (1989) Exchange of solid models: current state and future trends. Comput Aided Des 21(2):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen Z, Shah J, Davidson J (2008) Analysis neutral data structure for GD&T. J Intell Manuf 19(4):455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim J et al (2008) Standardized data exchange of CAD models with design intent. CAD Comput Aided Des 40(7):760–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO (2007) ISO 10303-203: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 203: Application protocols: configuration controlled 3D designGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO (2006) ISO 10303-224: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 224: Application protocol: mechanical product definition for process planning using machining featuresGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pratt MJ (2008) Introduction to ISO 10303-the STEP standard for product data exchange. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1(1):102–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henzold G (1995) Handbook of geometrical tolerancing: design, manufacturing, and inspection. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah JJ et al (2007) Navigating the tolerance analysis maze. Comput-Aided Des Appl 4(1–6):705–718Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao YF (2009) An integrated process planning system for machining and inspection. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of AucklandGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kramer TR et al (2001) A feature-based inspection and machining system. CAD Comput Aided Des 33(9):653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson RH (1985) Dimensioning and tolerancing-final report. R84-GM-02-2, CAM-IGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ranyak PS, Fridshal R (1988) Features for tolerancing a solid model. ASME Comput Eng Conf 1:262–274Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maeda T, Tokuoka N (1995) Toleranced feature modeling by constraint of degree of freedom for assignment of tolerance. In: Proceedings of 4th CIRP Design Seminar, pp 89–103Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsai JC, Cutkosky MR (1997) Representation and reasoning of geometric tolerances in design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf: AIEDAM 11(4):325–341Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Requicha AAG (1983) Toward a theory of geometric tolerancing. Int J Robotics Res 2(4):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoffmann P (1982) Analysis of tolerances and process inaccuracies in discrete part manufacturing. Comput Aided Des 14(2):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krishnan KK, Eyada OK, Ong JB (1997) Modeling of manufacturing processes characteristics for automated tolerance analysis. Int J Ind Eng: Theory Appl Pract 4(3):187–196Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turner JU (1993) Feasibility space approach for automated tolerancing. J Eng Ind 115(3):341–346Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1995) Comparison of assembly tolerance analysis by Direct Linearization and modified Monte Carlo simulation methodsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1997) Tolerance analysis of 2-D and 3-D mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. In: 21st annual Design Automation Conference, vol. 82(1). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE, pp 353–360Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang BC (1992) Geometric modeling of dimensioning and tolerancing. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu YY (2002) Development of mathematical tools for modeling geometric dimensioning and tolerancing. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kandikjan T, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2001) A mechanism for validating dimensioning and tolerancing schemes in CAD systems. CAD Comput Aided Des 33(10):721–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clement A, Rivière A, Serre P (1997) A declarative information model for functional requirement. In: Proceeding of the 5th CIRP seminar on computer aided tolerancing, Toronto, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krause FL et al (1993) Product modelling. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 42(2):695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nielsen J (2003) Information modeling of manufacturing processes: information requirements for process planning in a concurrent engineering. Department of Production Engineering, Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ungerer M, Buchanan K (2002) Usage guide for the STEP PDM schema V1.2. PROSTEP AG and ADL/PDES,IncGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kemmerer SJ (1999) STEP: the grand experience. National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    ISO (2002) ISO 10303-21: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 21: Implementation methods: clear text encoding of the exchange structureGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    ISO (1998) ISO 10303-22: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 22: Implementation methods: standard data access interfaceGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISO (1998) ISO 10303-23: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 23: Implementation methods: C++ language binding of the standard data access interfaceGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ISO (1998) ISO 10303-24: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 24: Implementation methods: C language binding of the standard data access interfaceGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    ISO (1998) ISO 10303-27: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 27: Implementation methods: Java TM programming language binding to the standard data access interface with Internet/Intranet extensionsGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    ISO (2002) ISO 10303-28: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 28: Implementation methods: XML representations of EXPRESS schema and dataGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    AMR, AMR Research Inc (2010) http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-chain/amr-research.jsp Accessed 7 Dec 2010
  50. 50.
    PDES (1998) Recommended practices for AP 203Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    ISO (2001) ISO 10303-214: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 214: Application protocol: core data for automotive mechanical design processesGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosen J (2010) Product lifecycle management and you. Ind Eng 42(1):44–49Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burkett M, Smith A (2008) Is PLM right for your business? Industry weekGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Collier W (1996) Managing the product lifecycle: the changing role of enterprise PDM. Comput Graph World 19(9):112–116Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zheng LY et al (2008) Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management: a survey of methodologies and practices. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 222(8):989–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Li WD, Qiu ZM (2006) State-of-the-art technologies and methodologies for collaborative product development systems. Int J Prod Res 44(13):2525–2559CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    AQSD1-9000 (1998) AQS D1-9000: advanced quality system tools. The Boeing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    AS9103, Variation Management of Key Characteristics (2001) Society of automotive engineers. PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kiener G (2008) Manufacturing developing guide. Wright-Patterson Air Force BaseGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thornton AC (2004) Variation risk management: focusing quality improvements in product development and production. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ceglarek D, Shi J (1995) Dimensional variation reduction for automotive body assembly. Manuf Rev 8(2):139–154Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Motley B (2005) Introduction to variability and variation reduction. Defense AT&L, pp 53–55Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chryssolouris G et al (2009) Digital manufacturing: history, perspectives, and outlook. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 223(5):451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maropoulos PG et al (2007) Key digital enterprise technology methods for large volume metrology and assembly integration. Int J Prod Res 45(7):1539–1559CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sudarsan R et al (2005) A product information modeling framework for product lifecycle management. CAD Comput Aided Des 37(13):1399–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fenves Steven J (2004) A core product model for representing design information. NIST Internal Report, 6736Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Booch G (2005) The unified modeling language user guide. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ho T-H, Tang CS (1998) Product variety management: research advances. International series in operations research & management science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wang F et al. (2003) Towards modeling the evolution of product familiesGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kempfer L (1998) Linking PDM to ERP. Comput-Aided Eng 17(10):58–64Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cheng MJ, Simmons JEL (1994) Traceability in manufacturing systems. Int J Oper Prod Manag 14(10):4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wilkinson G, Dale BG (2002) An examination of the ISO 9001:2000 standard and its influence on the integration of management systems. Prod Plan Control 13(3):284–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Töyrylä I (1999) Realising the potential of traceability—a case study research on usage and impacts of product traceability. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    ECR (2004) Using Traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer safety expectations. Efficient Consumer Response EuropeGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    van Dorp CA (2002) Extending ERP with recipe and material traceability. Eight Americas Conference on Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sohal AS (1997) Computerised parts traceability: an implementation case study. Technovation 17(10):583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jansen-Vullers MH, Van Dorp CA, Beulens AJM (2003) Managing traceability information in manufacture. Int J Inf Manag 23(5):395–413Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chiu M-L, Lan J-H (2005) Information and IN-formation: information mining for supporting collaborative design. Autom Constr 14(2):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Peng TK, Trappey AJC (1998) A step toward STEP-compatible engineering data management: the data models of product structure and engineering changes. Robotics Comput-Integr Manuf 14(2):89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Campos JG et al. (2006) e-Traceability: traceability for collaborative spread CAD-CAM-CNC manufacturing chains. In: Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on E-ACTIVITIES, Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaoyao (Fiona) Zhao
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Brown
    • 2
  • Thomas R. Kramer
    • 1
  • Xun Xu
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Mitutoyo America CorporationAuroraUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations