Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 173–192 | Cite as

Extracting alternative machining features: An algorithmic approach

  • William C. Regli
  • Satyandra K. Gupta
  • Dana S. Nau
Article

Abstract

Automated recognition of features from CAD models has been attempted for a wide range of application domains. In this article we address the problem of representing and recognizing a complete class of features in alternative interpretation for a given design.

We present a methodology for recognizing a class of machinable features and addressing the computational problems posed by the existence of feature-based alternatives. Our approach addresses a class of volumetric features that describe material removal volumes made by operations on three-axis vertical machining centers, including drilling, pocket-milling, slot-milling, face-milling, chamfering, filleting, and blended surfaces.

This approach recognizes intersecting features and is complete over all features in our class; i.e., for any given part, the algorithm produces a set containing all features in our class that correspond to possible operations for machining that part. This property is of particular significance in applications where consideration of different manufacturing alternatives is crucial.

This approach employs a class of machinable features expressible as MRSEVs (a STEP-based library of machining features). An example of this methodology has been implemented using the ACIS solid modeler and the National Institute's of Health C++ class library.

Keywords

Design critique Feature-based recognition Feature recognition Manufacturing alternatives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tien-Chien Chang.Expert Process Planning for Manufacturing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. H. Chuang and M. R. Henderson. Three-dimensional shape pattern recognition using vertex classification and the vertex-edge graph.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 22, No. 6, 1990, pp. 377–87.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. H. Chuang and M. R. Henderson. Compound feature recognition by web grammar parsing.Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991, pp. 147–58.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Corney and D. E. R. Clark. Method for finding holes and pockets that connect multiple faces in 2 1/2 d objects.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 23, No. 10, 1991, pp. 658–68.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Corney and D. E. R. Clark. Face based feature recognition: Generalizing special cases.International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 6, No. 1, and 2, 1993, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diginta Das, Satyandra K. Gupta, and Dana S. Nau. Reducing setup cost by automated generation of redesign suggestions. In Kosuke Ishii (ed.),ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, MN, 11–16 September, pp. 159-70. ASME, September 1994. ASME Press, NY.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leila De Floriani. Feature extraction from boundary models of three-dimensional objects.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1989. pp. 785–798.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xin Dong.Geometric Feature Extraction for Computer-Aided Process Planning. PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Gadh and F. B. Prinz. Recognition of geometric forms using the differential depth filter.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 24, No. 11, 1992, pp. 583–98.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Gavankar and M. R. Henderson. Graph-based extraction of protrusions and depressions from boundary representations.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 22, No. 7, 1990, pp. 442–50.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. K. Gupta and D. S. Nau. A systematic approach for analyzing the manufacturability of machined parts.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 27, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. K. Gupta, D. S. Nau, W. C. Regli, and G. Zhang. A methodology for systematic generation and evaluation of alternative operation plans. In Jami Shah, Martti Mäntylä, and Dana Nau (eds),Advances in Feature Based Manufacturing. Elsevier/North-Holland, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Satyandra K. Gupta.Automated Manufacturing Analysis of Machined Parts. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Satyandra K. Gupta, Thomas R. Kramer, Dana S. Nau, William C. Regli, and Guangming Zhang. Building MRSEV models for CAM applications.Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 20, No. 2/3, pp. 121–130, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Satyandra K. Gupta, William C. Regli, and Dana S. Nau. Manufacturing feature instances: Which ones to recognize? In Jaroslaw Rossignac and Christoph Hoffman (eds),Third Symposium on Solid Mødeling Foundations and CAD/CAM Applications, New York, 17–19 May, Salt Lake City, Utah 1995. ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mark R. Henderson.Extraction of Feature Information from Three-Dimensional CAD Data. PhD thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 1984.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christoph M. Hoffman.Geometric and Solid Modeling: An Introduction. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, USA, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Joshi and T. C. Chang. Graph-based heuristics for recognition of machined features from a 3D solid model.Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1988, pp. 58–66.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Karinthi and D. Nau. An algebraic approach to feature interactions.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992, pp. 469–84.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. S. Kim. Recognition of form features using convex decomposition.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 24, No. 9, 1992, pp. 461–76.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yong Se Kim and D. J. Wilde. A convergent convex decomposition of polyhedral objects.Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 114, 1992, pp. 468–76.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas R. Kramer. A parser that converts a boundary representation into a features representation.International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1989, pp. 154–63.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas R. Kramer. A library of material removal shape element volumes (MRSEVs). Technical Report NISTIR 4809, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899, March 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lycourgos K. Kyprianou.Shape Classification in Computer Aided Design. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Timo Laakko and Martti Mäntylä. Feature modelling by incremental feature recognition.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1993, pp. 479–92.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martti Mäntylä.An Introduction to Solid Modeling. Computer Science Press, College Park, Md., 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Marefat and R. L. Kashyap. Geometric reasoning for recognition of three-dimensional object features.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 12, No. 10, 1990, pp. 949–65.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michael Marefat and R. L. Kashyap. Automatic construction of process plans from solid model representations.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1992, pp. 1097–1115.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yun Peng and James A. Reggia. Diagnostic problem-solving with causal chaining.International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 265–302.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomas J. Peters. Encoding mechanical design features for recognition via neural nets.Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1992, pp. 67–74.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomas J. Peters. Mechanical design heuristics to reduce the combinatorial complexity for feature recognition.Research In Engineering Design, Vol. 4, 1993, pp. 195–201.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Miguel Pinilla, Susan Finger, and Friedrich B. Prinz. Shape feature description using an augmented topology graph grammar. InProceedings NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, pp. 285–300. National Science Foundation, June 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Prabhakar and M. R. Henderson. Automatic form-feature recognition using neural-network-based techniques on boundary representations of solid models.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 24, No. 7, 1992, pp. 381–93.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. J. Pratt. Application of feature recognition in the product life-cycle.International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 6, No. 1 and 2, 1993, pp. 13–19.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. A. Reggia, D. S. Nau, and P. Y. Wang. A formal model of diagnostic inference. II. algorithmic solution and applications.Information Sciences, Vol. 37, 1985, pp. 257–85.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    William C. Regli.Geometric Algorithms for Recognition of Features from Solid Models. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, 1995. In preparation.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aristides A. G. Requicha. Representation for rigid solids: theory, methods, and systems.Computing Surveys, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1980, pp. 437–64.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    David W. Rosen, John R. Dixon, and Susan Finger. Conversions of feature-based representations via graph grammar parsing. InASME Design Theory Methodology Conference, 1992. ASME Press, NY.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scott A. Safier and Susan Finger. Parsing features in solid geometric models. InEuropean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hiroshi Sakurai and Chia-Wei Chin. Definition and recognition of volume features for process planning. In Jami Shah, Martti Mäntylä, and Dana Nau (eds),Advances in Feature Based Manufacturing, ch. 4, pp. 65–80. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hiroshi Sakurai and David C. Gossard. Recognizing shape features in solid models.IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, Vol. 10, No. 5, September, 1990, pp. 22–32.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jami Shah, Martti Mäntylä, and Dana Nau (eds),Advances in Feature Based Manufacturing. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. H. Vandenbrande and A. A. G. Requicha. Spatial reasoning for the automatic recognition of machinable features in solid models.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 15, No. 12, 1993, pp. 1269–1285.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Douglas L. Waco and Yong Se Kim. Geometric reasoning for machining features using convex decomposition.Computer Aided Design, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1994, pp. 477–89.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tony C. Woo. Feature extraction by volume decomposition. InConference on CAD/CAM Technology in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 76–94, March 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Regli
    • 1
    • 3
  • Satyandra K. Gupta
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dana S. Nau
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Systems ResearchUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations