Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Construction of ontology for auto-interpretable tolerance semantics in skin model

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Manufacturing and inspection in model-based engineering, achieving computer-readable and -interpretable tolerance specification representations, and maintaining unambiguous and consistent semantics throughout the life cycle of product design are issues that have attracted the attention of researchers and require urgent actions. An ontology method based on skin tolerance model is proposed in this study to address the abovementioned problems. Tolerance specification semantics described by the GeoSpelling language can be consistent at different stages of product development. In the ontology as a formal shared concept model, the knowledge described by the web ontology language and the semantic web rule language can be read and interpreted automatically via computer. The ontology is based on a rigorous description logic and describes tolerance information with clear and unambiguous semantics. The inference algorithm of this ontology can be used for ontology consistency checking, knowledge reasoning, and semantic query. The proposed method utilizes the advantages of ontology artificial intelligence technology and GeoSpelling language to describe tolerance semantics. Thus, this method is suitable for consistent semantic data exchange in different heterogeneous systems and automatic interpretation of tolerance semantics in smart manufacturing.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2007) Tolerance-maps applied to a point-line cluster of features. J Mech Des 129(8):782–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwer N, Schleich B, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2014) From solid modelling to skin model shapes: shifting paradigms in computer-aided tolerancing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 63(1):137–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Armillotta A, Semeraro Q (2011) Geometric tolerances-impact on product design, quality inspection and statistical process monitoring. Geometric tolerance specification, 1st edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballu A, Mathieu L (1996) Univocal expression of functional and geometrical tolerances for design, manufacturing and inspection Computer-aided tolerancing. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballu A, Mathieu L, Dantan J-Y (2015) Formal language for GeoSpelling. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 15(2):021002

    Google Scholar 

  • Boy J, Rosche P (2014a) Recommended practices for representation and presentation of product manufacturing information (PMI)(AP242). CAx Implementor Forum

  • Boy J, Rosche P (2014b). Round 35 J test suite version 1.0. CAx Implementor Forum

  • Boy J, Rosché P, Paff E, Fischer B (2014) CAx-IF recommended practices for the representation and presentation of product manufacturing information (PMI)(AP242). Forum CI, Editor

  • Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP, Sorensen CD (1996) Including geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies. IIE Trans 28(10):795–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney D, Fischer B (2015) Measuring the PMI modeling capability in CAD systems: report 1-combined test case verification. Natl Inst Standards Technol NIST-GCR 15:997

    Google Scholar 

  • Dantan J-Y, Ballu A, Mathieu L (2008) Geometrical product specifications—model for product life cycle. Comput Aided Des 40(4):493–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson J, Mujezinovic A, Shah J (2002) A new mathematical model for geometric tolerances as applied to round faces. J Mech Des 124(4):609–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers A, Clément A (1994) A dimensioning and tolerancing assistance model for CAD/CAM systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 9(6):352–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers A, Rivière A (1997) A matrix approach to the representation of tolerance zones and clearances. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 13(9):630–636

    Google Scholar 

  • El Kadiri S, Kiritsis D (2015) Ontologies in the context of product lifecycle management: state of the art literature review. Int J Prod Res 53(18):5657–5668

    Google Scholar 

  • Etesami F (1993) A mathematical model for geometric tolerances. J Mech Des 115(1):81–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney AB, Frechette SP, Srinivasan V (2015) A portrait of an ISO STEP tolerancing standard as an enabler of smart manufacturing systems. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 15(2):021001

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentini X, Gambino I, Liang VC, Rachuri S, Mani M, Nistir CB, Turner JM (2007) An ontology for assembly representation

  • Gossard DC, Zuffante RP, Sakurai H (1988) Representing dimensions, tolerances, and features in MCAE systems. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2:51–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford J, Turner J (1993) Representational primitives for geometric tolerancing. Comput Aided Des 25(9):577–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg T, Lubell J, Fischer L, Maggiano L, Feeney AB (2016) Testing the digital thread in support of model-based manufacturing and inspection. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 16(2):021001

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann P (1982) Analysis of tolerances and process inaccuracies in discrete part manufacturing. Comput Aided Des 14(2):83–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Horridge M, Bechhofer S (2011) The owl api: a java api for owl ontologies. Semant Web 2(1):11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2010) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 214: application protocol: core data for automotive mechanical design processes

  • ISO (2011a) Geometric product specification (GPS)—general concepts—part 1: model for geometrical specification and verification

  • ISO (2011b) Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—part 203: application protocol: configuration controlled 3D design of mechanical parts and assemblies

  • ISO (2014) ISO 10303-242:2014: industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 242: application protocol: managed model-based 3D engineering. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraman R, Srinivasan V (1989) Geometric tolerancing: I. Virtual boundary requirements. IBM J Res Dev 33(2):90–104

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Juster N (1992) Modelling and representation of dimensions and tolerances: a survey. Comput Aided Des 24(1):3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Krima S, Barbau R, Fiorentini X, Sudarsan R, Sriram RD (2009) Ontostep: OWL-DL ontology for step. National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR, Gaithersburg, p 7561

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu W, Jiang X, Liu X, Qi Q, Scott P (2010) Modeling the integration between specifications and verification for cylindricity based on category theory. Meas Sci Technol 21(11):115107

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63:72–85

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Martinsen K (1993) Vectorial tolerancing for all types of surfaces. ASME Des Eng Div Publ de., ASME, New York, NY(USA), 65:187–198

  • Mathieu L, Ballu A (2003) GEOSPELLING: a common language for specification and verification to express method uncertainty. Proceeding of 8th CIRP seminar on computer aided tolerancing

  • Mathieu L, Ballu A (2007) A model for a coherent and complete tolerancing process models for computer aided tolerancing in design and manufacturing. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger F (1996) The challenge of capturing the semantics of STEP data models precisely. Workshop on product knowledge sharing for integrated enterprises, held in conjunction with the first International Conference on practical aspects of knowledge management

  • Mujezinovic A, Davidson J, Shah J (2004) A new mathematical model for geometric tolerances as applied to polygonal faces. J Mech Des 126(3):504–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Negri E, Fumagalli L, Garetti M, Tanca L (2016) Requirements and languages for the semantic representation of manufacturing systems. Comput Ind 81:55–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi Q, Jiang X, Scott PJ (2012) Knowledge modeling for specifications and verification in areal surface texture. Precis Eng 36(2):322–333

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 57:41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin Y, Zhong Y, Huang M, Liu F (2014) An assembly tolerance representation model based on spatial relations for generating assembly tolerance types. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 228(6):1005–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Technol 79(5–8):1221–1237

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin Y, Lu W, Qi Q, Li T, Huang M, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2017) Explicitly representing the semantics of composite positional tolerance for patterns of holes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(5–8):2121–2137

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin Y, Qi Q, Lu W, Liu X, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2018) A review of representation models of tolerance information. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(5–8):2193–2206

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachuri S, Han YH, Feng SC, Wang F, Sriram R, Lyons K, Roy U (2003) Object-oriented representation of electro-mechanical assemblies using UML. Assembly and Task Planning, 2003. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on

  • Ramos L (2015) Semantic Web for manufacturing, trends and open issues: toward a state of the art. Comput Ind Eng 90:444–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Requicha A, Chan S (1986) Representation of geometric features, tolerances, and attributes in solid modelers based on constructive geometry. IEEE J Robot Autom 2(3):156–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Requicha AA, Voelcker HB (1982) Solid modeling: a historical summary and contemporary assessment. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2:9–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy U, Li B (1998) Representation and interpretation of geometric tolerances for polyhedral objects—I. Form tolerances. Comput Aided Des 30(2):151–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy U, Li B (1999) Representation and interpretation of geometric tolerances for polyhedral objects. II: size, orientation and position tolerances. Comput Aided Des 31(4):273–285

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Roy U, Liu C (1988) Feature-based representational scheme of a solid modeler for providing dimensioning and tolerancing information. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 4(3–4):335–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks E, Joskowicz L (1998) Parametric kinematic tolerance analysis of general planar systems. Comput Aided Des 30(9):707–714

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2014) Skin model shapes: a new paradigm shift for geometric variations modelling in mechanical engineering. Comput Aided Des 50:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah JJ, Yan Y, Zhang B-C (1998) Dimension and tolerance modeling and transformations in feature based design and manufacturing. J Intell Manuf 9(5):475–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan V (2003) An integrated view of geometrical product specification and verification geometric product specification and verification: integration of functionality. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Standard I (1994) Industrial automation system and integration-product data representation and exchange: part 1: overview and fundamental principles. Standard number: ISO, 10303(1)

  • Turner JU, Wozny MJ (1990) The M-space theory of tolerances. Proceedings of the ASME 16th design automation conference, Chicago, IL

  • University S (2015) Protégé Desktop 5.0. https://protege.stanford.edu. Retrieved from https://protege.stanford.edu

  • Villeneuve F, Mathieu L (2010) Language of Specification:GeoSpelling, geometric tolerancing of product. ISTE Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y (2008) Semantic tolerance modeling with generalized intervals. J Mech Des 130(8):081701

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm RG, Lu SC (1992) Computer methods for tolerance design. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Xu Z, Jiang X, Scott P (2011) Developing a knowledge-based system for complex geometrical product specification (GPS) data manipulation. Knowl-Based Syst 24(1):10–22

    Google Scholar 

  • JSDAI. Java Standard Data Access Interface. Retrieved Date from http://www.jsdai.net/

  • Zhang Y, Li Z, Xu L, Wang J (2011) A new method for automatic synthesis of tolerances for complex assemblies based on polychromatic sets. Enterprise Inf Syst 5(3):337–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Pasupathy TK, Wilhelm RG (2006) Modeling and representation of geometric tolerances information in integrated measurement processes. Comput Ind 57(4):319–330

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 48:1–16

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the individuals and units who paid for SROIQ(D) DL, OWL2 DL, SRWL, and Protégé ontology development tools; Prof Alex Ballu for proposing GeoSpelling language theory for tolerance semantic representation; and Meifa Huang tutor, Professor Yanru Zhong, and Dr. Yuchu Qin for contributing in the initial ontology construction of tolerance design. The authors are also very grateful to the Foundation Project of the Guangxi Key Laboratory of Manufacturing system and Advanced Manufacturing Technology (No.16-380-12-009Z), the Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51765012), and the Study Abroad Program for Graduate Student of Guilin University of Electronic Technology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, 541004, People’s Republic of China

    Zhiguo Peng, Meifa Huang, Yanru Zhong & Zhemin Tang

  2. Guangxi Key Laboratory of Manufacturing Systems and Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, 541004, People’s Republic of China

    Zhiguo Peng & Meifa Huang

Authors
  1. Zhiguo Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meifa Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanru Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhemin Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meifa Huang.

Ethics declarations

Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest.

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

Peng, Z., Huang, M., Zhong, Y. et al. Construction of ontology for auto-interpretable tolerance semantics in skin model. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 11, 3545–3558 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01497-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01497-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation