Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An ontology-based modelling and reasoning framework for assembly process selection

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

Abstract

Assembly joining process selection is a knowledge-intensive task that needs an efficient tool to capture, represent, reuse, and share knowledge related to various joint requirements. This paper presents an ontology-based knowledge framework for identifying the appropriate assembly joining process to support designers and process planners effectively. A joining process selection (JPS) ontology is developed to represent different core concepts like feature, material, product, joint requirement, and joining process. Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) is used for ontology mapping of joining process selection concepts to retrieve the required knowledge for process selection that integrates several instances and knowledge rules. Further, a five-step sequential procedure is established to select the joining process from the CAD model automatically. The proposed approach automatically infers the possible, probable, and most probable joining processes through rule-based reasoning. Based on the evaluation of the ontology, the precision, recall, and F-measure obtained are 89.4%, 85.7%, and 87.5%, respectively. Finally, the efficacy of the ontology is evaluated using industrial case studies from the automotive and aerospace industry.

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
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nof SY, Wilhelm WE, Warnecke H (2012) Industrial assembly. Springer Science & Business Media

  2. Xu LD, Wang C, Bi Z et al (2012) AutoAssem: an automated assembly planning system for complex products. IEEE Trans Ind Informat 8(3):669–678. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2188901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rafibakhsh N (2017) Automated assembly planning: from CAD model to virtual assembly process. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University

  4. Kim JH, Wang LS, Putta K, Haghighi P, Shah JJ, Edwards P (2019) Knowledge based design advisory system for multi-material joining. J Manuf Syst 52:253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. L'Eglise T, De Lit P, Fouda P (2001) A multicriteria decision-aid system for joining process selection. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning (ISATP2001). Assembly and Disassembly in the Twenty-First Century (Cat. No. 01TH8560) 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISATP.2001.929043

  6. LeBacq C, Brechet Y, Shercliff HR, Jeggy T, Salvo L (2002) Selection of joining methods in mechanical design. Mater Des 23(4):405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(01)00093-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lae L, Brechet Y, LeBacq C, Jeggy T, Salvo L (2002) Knowledge-based systems for selecting joining processes. Adv Eng Mater 4(6):403–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/1527-2648(20020605)4:6<403::AID-ADEM403>3.0.CO;2-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Darwish SM, Tamimi AA, Habdan SA (1997) A knowledge base for metal welding process selection. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37(7):1007–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(96),00073-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Swain AK, Sen D, Gurumoorthy B (2014) Extended liaison as an interface between product and process model in assembly. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 30(5):527–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2014.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lohse N, Hirani H, Ratchev S, Turitto M (2005) An ontology for the definition and validation of assembly processes for evolvable assembly systems. In (ISATP 2005) The 6th IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning: From Nano to Macro Assembly and Manufacturing. pp 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISATP.2005.1511480

  11. Qiao L, Qie Y, Zhu Z et al (2018) An ontology-based modelling and reasoning framework for assembly sequence planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94:4187–4197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1077-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Das SK, Swain AK (2020) An ontology-based framework for decision support in assembly variant design. ASME J Comput Inf Sci Eng 21(2):021007. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Saha S, Usman Z, Li WD, Jones S, Shah N (2019) Core domain ontology for joining processes to consolidate welding standards. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 59:417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim KY, Yang H, Kim DW (2008) Mereotopological assembly joint information representation for collaborative product design. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 24(6):744–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2008.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang Y, Luo X, Zhang H, Sutherland JW (2014) A knowledge representation for unit manufacturing processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5–8):1011–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5864-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Swain AK (2012) Integrating product model with assembly process model using liaisons. PhD Thesis, IISc Bangalore, India

  17. Esawi AMK, Ashby MF (2004) Computer-based selection of joining processes: methods, software and case studies. Mater Des 25(7):555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2004.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mesa JA, Illera D, Esparragoza I, Maury H, Gómez H (2018) Functional characterisation of mechanical joints to facilitate its selection during the design of open architecture products. Int J Prod Res 56(24):7390–7404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1412530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bond D, Suzuki FA, Scalice RK (2020) Sheet metal joining process selector. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 42(5):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-02310-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Imran M, Young B (2015) The application of common logic based formal ontologies to assembly knowledge sharing. J Intell Manuf 26(1):139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-013-0768-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. J Eng Des 27(4–6):269–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1144049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Solano L (2021) Ontological modelling of welding processes. In IOP Conference Series. Mat Sci Eng 1193(1):012019. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1193/1/012019

  23. Houldcroft PT (1990) Which process?: a guide to the selection of welding and related processes. Elsevier

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Swift KG, Booker JD (2003) Process selection: from design to manufacture. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  25. Messler RW (2004) Joining of materials and structures: from pragmatic process to enabling technology. Butterworth-Heinemann

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Das SK, Swain AK (2019) Classification, representation and automatic extraction of adhesively bonded assembly features. Assembly Autom 39(4):607–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/aa-07-2018-095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. O’Connor M (2018) SWRLTab: a development environment for working with SWRL rules in Protégé-OWL

  28. Stanford University (2018) PROTÉGÉ 5.2. Available at: https://protege.stanford.edu/

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is financially supported by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), Government of India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 247667, India

    Shantanu Kumar Das & Abinash Kumar Swain

Authors
  1. Shantanu Kumar Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abinash Kumar Swain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abinash Kumar Swain.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

We declare that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed in our research.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

We declare our consent for publication.

Research involving human and animal

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Das, S.K., Swain, A.K. An ontology-based modelling and reasoning framework for assembly process selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 120, 4863–4887 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09002-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09002-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation