Cutting Tool Data Representation and Implementation Based on STEP AP242

  • Yujiang LiEmail author
  • Mikael Hedlind
  • Torsten Kjellberg
  • Gunilla Sivard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Production Engineering book series (LNPE)


For cutting tool data exchange in manufacturing CAx (Computer-Aided technologies), standardized representation and classification of items and properties is important. ISO 13399 (Cutting tool data representation and exchange) provides a solution to represent cutting tool data classified with an ISO 13584 (Parts Library, PLib) based dictionary. However, ISO 13399 does not support classification of shape geometry directly, which limits its use. Another limitation is representing GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing) as simplified general properties, which does not fulfill high semantic precision and validation rules. This research provides a unified solution to represent cutting tool parameters integrated with geometry and dedicated properties based on STEP AP242 (ISO 10303-242 Managed model-based 3D engineering). Standardized libraries such as the ISO 13399 dictionary can be reused with the modeling approach for AP242 cutting tool representation. Software is developed to validate and demonstrate how this solution facilitates the data integration process to support CAx applications.


Modeling STEP AP242 Cutting tool Classification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Veeramani, D., Upton, D.M., Barash, M.M.: Cutting-Tool Management in Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 4(3/4), 237–265 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zelinski, P.: Coming Soon: Universal, CAM-Independent Cutting Tool Library. Modern Machine Shop 84(4), 22–24 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaymakci, M., Kilic, Z.M., Altintas, Y.: Unified Cutting Force Model for Turning, Boring, Drilling and Milling Operations. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 54-55, 34–45 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Helgoson, M., Kalhori, V.: A Conceptual Model for Knowledge Integration in Process Planning. Procedia CIRP 3, 573–578 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chungoora, N., Cutting-Decelle, A.-F., Young, R.I.M., Gunendran, G., Usman, Z., Harding, J.A., Case, K.: Towards the ontology-based consolidation of production-centric standards. International Journal of Production Research, 1–19 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bay, J., Rosché, P.: Recommended Practices for Supplemental Geometry, Release 1.0. CAx Implementor Forum (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, Y., Hedlind, M., Kjellberg, T.: Implementation of Kinematic Mechanism Data Exchange Based on STEP. In: 7th CIRP-Sponsored International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology, Athens, pp. 152–159 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, Y., Hedlind, M., Kjellberg, T.: Kinematic Error modeling Based on STEP AP242. In: 1st CIRP Sponsored Conference on Virtual Machining Process Technology, Montreal (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kjellberg, T., Euler-Chelpin, A.V., Hedlind, M., Lundgren, M., Sivard, G., Chen, D.: The Machine Tool Model — A Core Part of the Digital Factory. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 58(1), 425–428 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yujiang Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mikael Hedlind
    • 1
  • Torsten Kjellberg
    • 1
  • Gunilla Sivard
    • 1
  1. 1.Production EngineeringKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations