Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructing assembly design model capable of capturing and sharing semantic dynamic motion information in heterogeneous CAD systems

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last decades, collaborative assembly design has received much attention, which has provided fruitful results in terms of data models, knowledge-based, and top-down geometric modeling approaches, to name a few. Particularly, researchers have focused their efforts towards assembly relationships within product models, but have limited the scope to static assembly geometric description as currently stated in computer-aided design (CAD) systems. A disruptive vision is assumed in this research work, arguing that the assembly design itself presents a dynamic nature via, especially, dynamic motion. Such a paradigm shift requires an appropriate logical and semantic foundation to augment current CAD systems and data models’ capabilities with the capture of dynamic phenomena such as assembly motions and kinematic behaviors. Traditional CAD systems nowadays can handle the kinematics-related motion-related information; however, the interoperation of this motion-related information from one CAD system to the other is still a limitation of the interoperability standards. To tackle this research challenge, this paper aims at defining an original framework built upon a formal ontology to capture and share dynamic assembly motion among heterogeneous CAD systems. The formal ontology uses spatiotemporal mereotopology, which serves as a theoretical backbone to qualitatively describe the dynamic behavior of a product. This theory addresses the qualitative description of the temporal dimension over the spatial dimension of 3D objects. The proposed ontology is then enhanced to maintain semantic continuity of the spatial and temporal aspects embedded in assembly design ontology models. Built with a Web Ontology Language (OWL) data structure to interact with a CAD system and a motion visualization application, the ontology ensures the dynamic motion information capturing and sharing. SWRL (Semantic Web Rule Language) is utilized to show the semantic reasoning among the moving and non-moving parts of the product assembly. As a result, a semantic articulation ensuring flexibility and interoperability as a competitive industrial edge is demonstrated with proof of concept to be effective in a collaborative assembly design environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Soh SL, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2016) Design for assembly and disassembly for remanufacturing. Assembly Automation 36(1):12–24

    Google Scholar 

  2. You CF, Tsou PJ, Yeh SC (2007) Collaborative design for an assembly via the Internet. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 31(11-12):1217–1222

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen Y, Faccio M, Pilati F, Yao X, 2019. Design and management of digital manufacturing and assembly systems in the Industry 4.0 era.

  4. Zhang Y, Luo X, Zhang H, Sutherland JW (2014) A knowledge representation for unit manufacturing processes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73(5–8):1011–1031

  5. Bodein Y, Rose B, Caillaud E (2014) Explicit reference modeling methodology in parametric CAD system. Computers in Industry 65(1):136–147

    Google Scholar 

  6. Renolen A (2000) Modelling the real world: conceptual modelling in spatiotemporal information system design. Transactions in GIS 4(1):23–42

    Google Scholar 

  7. Khan MTH, Demoly F, Kim KY, (2017) Formal ontology and CAD integration with macro parametric approach. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 14(sup1), p 24–32.

  8. Khan MTH, Rezwana S (2020) A review of CAD to CAE integration with a hierarchical data format (HDF)-based solution. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences

  9. Han S (2010) Macro-parametric: an approach for the history-based parametrics. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 4(4):321–325

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mun D, Han S, Kim J, Oh Y (2003) A set of standard modeling commands for the history-based parametric approach. Computer-aided design 35(13):1171–1179

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bittner T, Donnelly M, Smith B (2004) Endurants and perdurants in directly depicting ontologies. AI Communications 17(4):247–258

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Galton A, 2018 The treatment of time in upper ontologies. In FOIS (p. 33–46)

  13. Merricks T (1994) Endurance and indiscernibility. The Journal of Philosophy 91(4):165–184

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gallois A, 2005 Identity over time. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sider T (2001) Four-dimensionalism: an ontology of persistence and time. Oxford University Press on Demand

  16. Khan MT, Demoly HF, Kim KY (2016) Dynamic design intents capture with formal ontology and perdurants object concept for collaborative product design. In Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2016 International Conference on (pp 90–96). IEEE

  17. Chandrasekaran B, Josephson JR, Benjamins VR (1999) What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications 14(1):20–26

    Google Scholar 

  18. Demoly F, Kim K-Y, Horvath I (2019) Ontological engineering for supporting semantic reasoning in design: deriving models based on ontologies for supporting engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design 30(10-12):405–416

    Google Scholar 

  19. Qiao L, Qie Y, Zhu Z, Zhu Y, uz Zaman UK, Anwer N (2018) An ontology-based modelling and reasoning framework for assembly sequence planning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 94(9-12):4187–4197

    Google Scholar 

  20. Salustri FA (2002) Mereotopology for product modelling. A new framework for product modelling based on logic. Journal of Design Research 2(1):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lesniewski S (1982) On the foundations of set theory. Topoi 2(7):52

  22. Varzi AC (2006) A note on the transitivity of parthood. Applied Ontology 1(2):141–146

    Google Scholar 

  23. Munkres JR, 2000 Topology. 2nd. PHI learning private limited.

  24. Khan MTH, Kim K-Y (2015) Spatiotemporal discrete mereotopology to support assembled additive manufacturing, SDPS 2015. Dallas Fort Worth, TX, November 1–5:2015

  25. Eschenbach C (1994) A mereotopological definition of point. In Topological foundations of Cognitive Science. Papers from the Workshop at the FISI-CS, Buffalo

    Google Scholar 

  26. Polkowski L, Skowron A (1996) Rough mereology: a new paradigm for approximate reasoning. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 15(4):333–365

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith B (1996) Mereotopology: a theory of parts and boundaries. Data & Knowledge Engineering 20(3):287–303

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohn AG, Gotts NM (1994) A theory of spatial regions with indeterminate boundaries. Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science 94

  29. Fenves SJ (2001) Core product model for representing design information. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fenves SJ, Foufou S, Bock CE, Bouillon N, Sriram RD (2005) Cpm 2: a revised core product model for representing design information. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR)-7185

  31. Baysal MM, Roy U, Sudarsan R, Sriram RD, Lyons KW (2005) Product information exchange using open assembly model: issues related to representation of geometric information. 2005 ASME IMECE 2005, 5–11

  32. Kim KY, Chin S, Kwon O, Ellis RD (2009) Ontology-based modeling and integration of morphological characteristics of assembly joints for network-based collaborative assembly design. AI EDAM 23(1):71–88

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kim KY, Manley DG, Yang H (2006) Ontology-based assembly design and information sharing for collaborative product development. Computer-Aided Design 38(12):1233–1250

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kim KY, Yang H, Kim DW (2008) Mereotopological assembly joint information representation for collaborative product design. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 24(6):744–754

    Google Scholar 

  35. Demoly F, Matsokis A, Kiritsis D (2012) A mereotopological product relationship description approach for assembly oriented design. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 28(6):681–693

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gruhier E, Demoly F, Dutartre O, Abboudi S, Gomes S (2015) A formal ontology-based spatiotemporal mereotopology for integrated product design and assembly sequence planning. Advanced Engineering Informatics 29(3):495–512

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gruhier E, Demoly F, Kim KY, Abboudi S, Gomes S (2016) A theoretical framework for product relationships description over space and time in integrated design. Journal of Engineering Design 27(4-6):269–305

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hlomani H, Stacey D (2014) Approaches, methods, metrics, measures, and subjectivity in ontology evaluation: a survey. Semantic Web Journal 1(5):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  39. Horváth I, Pourtalebi S, 2015 Fundamentals of a mereo-operandi theory to support transdisciplinary modeling and co-design of cyber-physical systems. In ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  40. Altidor J, Wileden JC, Yang Y, Hanayneh L, Wang Y, 2009 Analyzing and implementing a feature mapping approach to CAD system interoperability.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Matsokis A, Kiritsis D (2010) An ontology-based approach for Product Lifecycle Management. Computers in industry 61(8):787–797

    Google Scholar 

  42. Otte J, Kiritsi N, Ali D, Yang MM, Zhang R, Rudnicki BR, Smith B (2019) An ontological approach to representing the product life cycle. Applied Ontology, (Preprint), 1–19

  43. Aameri B, Cheong H, Beck JC (2019).Towards an ontology for generative design of mechanical assemblies. Applied Ontology, (Preprint), 1–27

  44. Abadi A, Ben-Azza H, Sekkat S (2018) Improving integrated product design using SWRL rules expression and ontology-based reasoning. Procedia Computer Science 127:416–425

    Google Scholar 

  45. King DW, Casto J, Jones H (1994) Communication by engineers: a literature review of engineers’ information needs, seeking processes, and use. Council on Library Resources, Center for Information Studies University of Tennessee, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  46. Aurisicchio M, Bracewell R (2013) Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram-based approach. Journal of Engineering Design 24(6):397–428

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kunz W, Rittel H 1970. Issues as elements of information systems. Technical Report Working Paper No. 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  48. Bracewell RH, Gourtovaia M, Wallace KM, Clarkson PJ (2007) Extending design rationale to capture an integrated design information space. In: Bocquet JC (ed) 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2007, Paris, France, August 28–31. The Design Society, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bennett M (2013) The financial industry business ontology: best practice for big data. Journal of Banking Regulation 14(3-4):255–268

    Google Scholar 

  50. Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W, Goldberg LJ, Eilbeck K, Ireland A, Mungall CJ, Leontis N (2007) The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature biotechnology 25(11):1251

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wallace E, Kiritsis D, Smith B, Will C (2018) The industrial ontologies foundry proof-of-concept project. In: IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems. Springer, Cham, pp 402–409

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pan C, Smith S 2003 Extracting geometrical data from CAD Step files. In ASME 2003 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 503–509). American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  53. González-Lluch C, Company P, Contero M, Camba JD, Plumed R (2017) A survey on 3D CAD model quality assurance and testing tools. Computer-Aided Design 83:64–79

    Google Scholar 

  54. Li Y, Hedlind M, Kjellberg T, Sivard G (2015) System integration for kinematic data exchange. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 28(1):87–97

    Google Scholar 

  55. Perzylo A, Profanter S, Rickert M, Knoll A 2019 OPC UA NodeSet ontologies as a pillar of semantic digital twins of manufacturing resources. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA)

  56. Rachuri S, Han YH, Foufou S, Feng SC, Roy U, Wang F, Sriram RD, Lyons KW (2006) A Model for Capturing Product Assembly Information. In: A model for capturing product assembly information

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sudarsan R, Fenves SJ, Sriram RD, Wang F (2005) A product information modeling framework for product lifecycle management. Computer-aided design 37(13):1399–1411

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kim Y, Lee H, Safdar M, Jauhar TA, Han S (2019) Exchange of parametric assembly models based on neutral assembly constraints. Concurrent Engineering 27(4):285–294

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ramnath S, Haghighi P, Venkiteswaran A, Shah JJ 2020 Interoperability of CAD geometry and product manufacturing information for computer integrated manufacturing. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, p 1–17

  60. Welty C, Murdock JW, Da Silva PP, McGuinness DL, Ferrucci D, Fikes R (2005) Tracking information extraction from intelligence documents. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (IA 2005) (pp 2-6)

  61. Chen H, Finin T, Joshi A (2003) An ontology for context-aware pervasive computing environments. The knowledge engineering review 18(3):197–207

    Google Scholar 

  62. Milea V, Frasincar F, Kaymak U (2012) tOWL: a temporal web ontology language. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 42(1):268–281

    Google Scholar 

  63. Muller P (2002) Topological spatio–temporal reasoning and representation. Computational Intelligence 18(3):420–450

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Hobbs JR, Pan F (2006) Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft, 27, 133

  65. Batsakis S, Petrakis EG, Tachmazidis I, Antoniou G (2017) Temporal representation and reasoning in OWL 2. Semantic Web 8(6):981–1000

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stravoskoufos K, Petrakis EG, Mainas N, Batsakis S, Samoladas V (2016) SOWL QL: querying spatio-temporal ontologies in OWL. Journal on Data Semantics 5(4):249–269

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ghorbel F, Hamdi F, Métais E, Ellouze N, Gargouri F (2019) Ontology-based representation and reasoning about precise and imprecise temporal data: a fuzzy-based view. Data & Knowledge Engineering 124:101719

    Google Scholar 

  68. Guarino N, Oberle D, Staab S (2009) What is an ontology? In: Handbook on ontologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  69. Vilmart H, Léon JC, Ulliana F (2018) From CAD assemblies toward knowledge-based assemblies using an intrinsic knowledge-based assembly model. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 15(3):300–317

    Google Scholar 

  70. Obrst L Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (2003) (pp 366–369). ACM

  71. Hornsby KS, Cole S (2007) Modeling moving geospatial objects from an event-based perspective. Transactions in GIS 11(4):555–573

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bhatt, Wallgr̈un JO (2014) Geospatial narratives and their spatio-temporal dynamics: commonsense reasoning for high-level analyses in geographic information systems. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Information 3(1):166–205

    Google Scholar 

  73. Noy NF, Sintek M, Decker S, Crubézy M, Fergerson RW, Musen MA (2001) Creating semantic web contents with protege-2000. IEEE intelligent systems 16(2):60–71

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bak, J., Nowak, M. and Jedrzejek, C., 2013. Graph-based editor for SWRL rule bases. In RuleML (2).

  75. Hill, E.F., 2003. Jess in action: Java rule-based systems.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Brank J, Mladenic D, Grobelnik M, 2006 Gold standard based ontology evaluation using instance assignment. In Workshop on Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web, EON

  77. Maedche A, Staab S (2002, October) Measuring similarity between ontologies. In: International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Springer, Berlin, pp 251–263

    Google Scholar 

  78. Donovan JJ (2002) Work motivation

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is partially supported by the USA National Science Foundation Industry & University Cooperative Research Center for e-Design (IIP-1338780).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cyberlearning Innovation and Research Center, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Md Tarique Hasan Khan

  2. ICB UMR 6303, CNRS, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, UTBM, Belfort, France

    Frédéric Demoly

  3. Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Kyoung-Yun Kim

Authors
  1. Md Tarique Hasan Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frédéric Demoly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyoung-Yun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyoung-Yun Kim.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, M.T.H., Demoly, F. & Kim, KY. Constructing assembly design model capable of capturing and sharing semantic dynamic motion information in heterogeneous CAD systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 111, 945–961 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06046-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06046-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation