Explicitly representing the semantics of composite positional tolerance for patterns of holes

  • Yuchu Qin
  • Wenlong Lu
  • Qunfen QiEmail author
  • Tukun Li
  • Meifa Huang
  • Paul J. Scott
  • Xiangqian Jiang
Open Access


Representing the semantics of the interaction of two or more tolerances (i.e., composite tolerance) explicitly to make them computer-understandable is currently a challenging task in computer-aided tolerancing (CAT). We have proposed a description logic (DL) ontology-based approach to complete this task recently. In this paper, the representation of the semantics of the composite positional tolerance (CPT) for patterns of holes (POHs) is used as an example to illustrate the proposed approach. This representation mainly includes representing the structure knowledge of the CPT for POHs in DL terminological axioms; expressing the constraint knowledge with Horn rules; and describing the individual knowledge using DL assertional axioms. By implementing the representation with the web ontology language (OWL) and the semantic web rule language (SWRL), a CPT ontology is developed. This ontology has explicitly computer-understandable semantics due to the logic-based semantics of OWL and SWRL. As is illustrated by an engineering example, such semantics makes it possible to automatically check the consistency, reason out the new knowledge, and implement the semantic interoperability of CPT information. Benefiting from this, the ontology provides a semantic enrichment model for the CPT information extracted from CAD/CAM systems.


Tolerance semantics Semantic representation Composite positional tolerance Pattern of holes Tolerance modeling Ontology 


  1. 1.
    Armillotta A (2013) A method for computer-aided specification of geometric tolerances. Comput Aided Des 45(12):1604–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 1101 (2012) Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—geometrical tolerancing—tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASME Y14.5 (2009) Dimensioning and tolerancing. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turner JU, Wozny MJ (1987) Tolerances in computer-aided geometric design. The Visual Comput 3(4):214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gossard DC, Zuffante RP, Sakurai H (1988) Representing dimensions, tolerances, and features in MCAE systems. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 8(2):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Requicha AAG, Chan SC (1986) Representation of geometric features, tolerances, and attributes in solid modelers based on constructive geometry. IEEE J Robot Autom 2(3):156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roy U, Liu CR (1988) Feature-based representational scheme of a solid modeler for providing dimensioning and tolerancing information. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 4(3):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martinsen K (1993) Vectorial tolerancing for all types of surfaces. Proc. 19th ASME Des. Autom. Conf., p 187–198Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rivest L, Fortin C, Morel C (1994) Tolerancing a solid model with a kinematic formulation. Comput Aided Des 26(6):465–476Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP, Sorenson CD (1996) Including geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies. IIE Trans 28(10):795–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desrochers A, Clemént A (1994) A dimensioning and tolerancing assistance model for CAD/CAM systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 9(6):352–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desrochers A (1999) Modeling three dimensional tolerance zones using screw parameters. Proc. 25th ASME Des. Autom. Conf., p 895–904Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kandikjan T, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2001) A mechanism for validating dimensioning and tolerancing schemes in CAD systems. Comput Aided Des 33(10):721–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davidson JK, Mujezinovic A, Shah JJ (2002) A new mathematical model for geometric tolerances as applied to round faces. ASME Trans J Mech Des 124(4):609–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mujezinovic A, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2004) A new mathematical model for geometric tolerances as applied to polygonal faces. ASME Trans J Mech Des 126(3):504–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2007) Tolerance-maps applied to a point-line cluster of features. ASME Trans J Mech Des 129(8):782–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO 10303-203 (2011) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 203: application protocol: configuration controlled 3D design of mechanical parts and assemblies. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO 10303-214 (2010) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 214: application protocol: core data for automotive mechanical design processes. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO 10303-242 (2014) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 242: application protocol: managed model-based 3D engineering. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarigecili MI, Roy U, Rachuri S (2014) Interpreting the semantics of GD&T specifications of a product for tolerance analysis. Comput Aided Des 47(2):72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feeney AB, Frechette SP, Srinivasan V (2015) A portrait of an ISO STEP tolerancing standard as an enabler of smart manufacturing systems. ASME Trans J Comput Inf Sci Eng 15(2):021001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhong Y, Qin Y, Huang M, Lu W, Chang L (2014) Constructing a meta-model for assembly tolerance types with a description logic based approach. Comput Aided Des 48(3):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qin Y, Lu W, Liu X, Huang M, Zhou L, Jiang X (2015) Description logic-based automatic generation of geometric tolerance zones. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 79(5):1221–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lu W, Qin Y, Liu X, Huang M, Zhou L, Jiang X (2015) Enriching the semantics of variational geometric constraint data with ontology. Comput Aided Des 63(6):72–85MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu Y, Gao S, Cao Y (2009) An efficient approach to interpreting rigorous tolerance semantics for complicated tolerance specification. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 6(4):670–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (2010) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horn A (1951) On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. J Symbolic Logic 16(1):14–21MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGuinness DL, van Harmelen F (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language Overview W3C Recommendation.
  29. 29.
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider PF, Boley H, Tabet S, Grosof B, Dean M (2004) SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML.
  30. 30.
    Srinivasan V (2008) Standardizing the specification, verification, and exchange of product geometry: research, status and trends. Comput Aided Des 40(7):738–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ISO 10303-1 (1994) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 1: overview and fundamental principles. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO 10303-11 (2004) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 11: description methods: the EXPRESS language reference manual. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rachuri S, Han YH, Feng SC, Roy U, Wang F, Sriram RD, Lyons KW (2004) Object-oriented representation of electro-mechanical assemblies using UML, NISTIR 7057. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhao X, Pasupathy TK, Wilhelm RG (2006) Modeling and representation of geometric tolerances information in integrated measurement processes. Comput Ind 57(4):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dantan JY, Ballu A, Mathieu L (2008) Geometrical product specifications—model for product life cycle. Comput Aided Des 40(4):493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ballu A, Mathieu L, Dantan JY (2015) Formal language for GeoSpelling. ASME Trans J Comput Inf Sci Eng 15(2):021002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu W, Jiang X, Liu X, Qi Q, Scott PJ (2010) Modeling the integration between specifications and verification for cylindricity based on category theory. Meas Sci Tech 21(11):115107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xu Y, Xu Z, Jiang X, Scott PJ (2011) Developing a knowledge-based system for complex geometrical product specification (GPS) data manipulation. Knowl-Based Syst 24(1):10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Qi Q, Scott PJ, Jiang X, Lu W (2014) Design and implementation of an integrated surface texture information system for design, manufacture and measurement. Comput Aided Des 57(12):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fiorentini X, Gambino I, Liang VC, Foufou S, Rachuri R, Mani M, Bock C (2007) An ontology for assembly representation, NISTIR 7436. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ahmed F, Han S (2015) Interoperability of product and manufacturing information using ontology. Concurrent Eng Res Appl 23(3):265–278Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liu Y, Gao S (2004) Variational geometry based pre-inspection of a pattern of holes. Int J Prod Res 42(8):1659–1675CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu Y, Gao S (2006) Generating variational geometry of a hole with composite tolerances. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 3(1):92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ortiz M, Rudolph S, Simkus M (2010) Worst-case optimal reasoning for the Horn-DL FRAgments of OWL 1 and 2. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Prin. Knowl. Representation Reasoning, p 269–279Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abdul-Ghafour S, Ghodous P, Shariat B, Perna E, Khosrowshahi F (2014) Semantic interoperability of knowledge in feature-based CAD models. Comput Aided Des 56(11):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research (2012) Protégé:3.5
  47. 47.
    Friedman-Hill E (2003) Jess in action: rule-based Systems in Java. Manning Publications, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ciocoiu M, Nau DS, Gruninger M (2001) Ontologies for integrating engineering applications. ASME Trans J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1(1):12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Qin Y, Lu W, Qi Q, Liu X, Zhong Y, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2016) Status, comparison, and issues of CAD model data exchange methods based on standardized neutral files and OWL file. ASME Trans J Comput Inf Sci Eng. doi: 10.1115/1.4034325 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zolin E (2013) Complexity of reasoning in description logics.∼ezolin/dl/

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuchu Qin
    • 1
  • Wenlong Lu
    • 1
  • Qunfen Qi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tukun Li
    • 2
  • Meifa Huang
    • 3
  • Paul J. Scott
    • 2
  • Xiangqian Jiang
    • 2
  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Advanced Metrology, School of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK
  3. 3.School of Mechanical and Electrical EngineeringGuilin University of Electronic TechnologyGuilinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations