Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Product Definition and Dimensional Metrology Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Modeling for Interoperable Dimensional Metrology

Abstract

Product definition is the process in which a part is designed using CAD design software based on customer requirements. One of the key activities in any product design process is to develop a geometric model of the product from the conceptual ideas, which can then be augmented with further engineering information pertaining to the application area. For example, the geometric model of a design may be developed to include material and manufacturing information so that it can later be used in Computer-Aided Process Planning and Manufacturing (CAPP/CAM) and quality control activities. A geometric model is also a must for any engineering analysis such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA). In mathematic terms, geometric modeling is concerned with defining geometric objects using computational geometry, which is often represented through computer software or rather a geometric modeling kernel. Geometry may be defined with the help of a wire-frame model, surface model or solid model. Geometric modeling has now become an integral part of any CAD system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A constraint solver is a computing program or module wherein relations between geometric variables are stated in the form of constraints. The constraints differ from the common primitives of imperative programming languages in that they do not specify a step or sequence of steps to execute, but rather the properties of a solution to be found.

  2. 2.

    Courtesy of Mitutoyo America Corporation for providing this table. In the table S=Size, F= Form, O= Orientation.

  3. 3.

    Courtesy of STEP Tools Inc.

References

  1. IMTI (2006) A roadmap for metrology interoperability. Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative (IMTI, Inc.)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Xu X (2009) Integrating advanced computer-aided design, manufacturing, and numerical control : principles and implementations. Information Science Reference, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  3. ISO (2009) ISO 10303-203:2009: industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 203: Application protocol: configuration controlled 3D design of mechanical parts and assemblies

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shah JJ, Mäntylä M (1995) Parametric and feature-based CAD/CAM: concepts, techniques, and applications. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  5. van ‘t Erve AH, Kals HJJ (1986) XPLANE, a generative computer aided process planning system for part manufacturing. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 35(1):325–329

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wingård L (1991) Introducing form features in product models: a step towards CAD/CAM with engineering terminology. Department of Manufacturing Systems, Royal Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shen Y, Shah JJ (1994) Feature recognition by volume decomposition using half-space partitioning. In: 20th Design Automation Conference, vol 69(1). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE, pp 575–583

    Google Scholar 

  8. ANSI (1994) ASME Y14.5M-1994: Dimensioning and tolerancing

    Google Scholar 

  9. ISO (2004) ISO 1101:2004: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—geometrical tolerancing—tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out

    Google Scholar 

  10. ISO (2010) ISO 14405-1: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—dimensional tolerancing—Part 1: Linear sizes

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon JR, Cunningham JJ, Simmons MK (1987) Research in designing with features. Workshop on intelligent CAD, pp 137–148

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pratt MJ, Wilson PR (1985) Requirements for support of form features in a solid modeling system-final report. CAM-I Report R-85-ASPP-01

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wozny MJ, McLaughlin HW (1986) A taxonomy of form features for solid modeling. In: Wozny MJ (ed) Geometric modeling for cad applications: selected and expanded papers from the IFIP WG 5.2 working conference, North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giacometti F, Chang TC (1990) Object-oriented design for modeling parts, assemblies and tolerances. In: Proceedings technology of object oriented languages and systems (TOOLS), pp 243–255

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brändli N, Mittelstaedt M (1989) Exchange of solid models: current state and future trends. Comput Aided Des 21(2):87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shen Z, Shah J, Davidson J (2008) Analysis neutral data structure for GD&T. J Intell Manuf 19(4):455–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim J et al (2008) Standardized data exchange of CAD models with design intent. CAD Comput Aided Des 40(7):760–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ISO (2007) ISO 10303-203: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 203: Application protocols: configuration controlled 3D design

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO (2006) ISO 10303-224: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 224: Application protocol: mechanical product definition for process planning using machining features

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pratt MJ (2008) Introduction to ISO 10303-the STEP standard for product data exchange. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1(1):102–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Henzold G (1995) Handbook of geometrical tolerancing: design, manufacturing, and inspection. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shah JJ et al (2007) Navigating the tolerance analysis maze. Comput-Aided Des Appl 4(1–6):705–718

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao YF (2009) An integrated process planning system for machining and inspection. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kramer TR et al (2001) A feature-based inspection and machining system. CAD Comput Aided Des 33(9):653–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson RH (1985) Dimensioning and tolerancing-final report. R84-GM-02-2, CAM-I

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ranyak PS, Fridshal R (1988) Features for tolerancing a solid model. ASME Comput Eng Conf 1:262–274

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maeda T, Tokuoka N (1995) Toleranced feature modeling by constraint of degree of freedom for assignment of tolerance. In: Proceedings of 4th CIRP Design Seminar, pp 89–103

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tsai JC, Cutkosky MR (1997) Representation and reasoning of geometric tolerances in design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf: AIEDAM 11(4):325–341

    Google Scholar 

  29. Requicha AAG (1983) Toward a theory of geometric tolerancing. Int J Robotics Res 2(4):45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krishnan KK, Eyada OK, Ong JB (1997) Modeling of manufacturing processes characteristics for automated tolerance analysis. Int J Ind Eng: Theory Appl Pract 4(3):187–196

    Google Scholar 

  32. Turner JU (1993) Feasibility space approach for automated tolerancing. J Eng Ind 115(3):341–346

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1995) Comparison of assembly tolerance analysis by Direct Linearization and modified Monte Carlo simulation methods

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1997) Tolerance analysis of 2-D and 3-D mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. In: 21st annual Design Automation Conference, vol. 82(1). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE, pp 353–360

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang BC (1992) Geometric modeling of dimensioning and tolerancing. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wu YY (2002) Development of mathematical tools for modeling geometric dimensioning and tolerancing. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kandikjan T, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2001) A mechanism for validating dimensioning and tolerancing schemes in CAD systems. CAD Comput Aided Des 33(10):721–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Clement A, Rivière A, Serre P (1997) A declarative information model for functional requirement. In: Proceeding of the 5th CIRP seminar on computer aided tolerancing, Toronto, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  39. Krause FL et al (1993) Product modelling. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 42(2):695–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nielsen J (2003) Information modeling of manufacturing processes: information requirements for process planning in a concurrent engineering. Department of Production Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ungerer M, Buchanan K (2002) Usage guide for the STEP PDM schema V1.2. PROSTEP AG and ADL/PDES,Inc

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kemmerer SJ (1999) STEP: the grand experience. National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Google Scholar 

  43. ISO (2002) ISO 10303-21: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 21: Implementation methods: clear text encoding of the exchange structure

    Google Scholar 

  44. ISO (1998) ISO 10303-22: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 22: Implementation methods: standard data access interface

    Google Scholar 

  45. ISO (1998) ISO 10303-23: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 23: Implementation methods: C++ language binding of the standard data access interface

    Google Scholar 

  46. ISO (1998) ISO 10303-24: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 24: Implementation methods: C language binding of the standard data access interface

    Google Scholar 

  47. ISO (1998) ISO 10303-27: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 27: Implementation methods: Java TM programming language binding to the standard data access interface with Internet/Intranet extensions

    Google Scholar 

  48. ISO (2002) ISO 10303-28: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 28: Implementation methods: XML representations of EXPRESS schema and data

    Google Scholar 

  49. AMR, AMR Research Inc (2010) http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-chain/amr-research.jsp Accessed 7 Dec 2010

  50. PDES (1998) Recommended practices for AP 203

    Google Scholar 

  51. ISO (2001) ISO 10303-214: Industrial automation systems and integration—product data representation and exchange—Part 214: Application protocol: core data for automotive mechanical design processes

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rosen J (2010) Product lifecycle management and you. Ind Eng 42(1):44–49

    Google Scholar 

  53. Burkett M, Smith A (2008) Is PLM right for your business? Industry week

    Google Scholar 

  54. Collier W (1996) Managing the product lifecycle: the changing role of enterprise PDM. Comput Graph World 19(9):112–116

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zheng LY et al (2008) Key characteristics management in product lifecycle management: a survey of methodologies and practices. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 222(8):989–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Li WD, Qiu ZM (2006) State-of-the-art technologies and methodologies for collaborative product development systems. Int J Prod Res 44(13):2525–2559

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. AQSD1-9000 (1998) AQS D1-9000: advanced quality system tools. The Boeing Company

    Google Scholar 

  58. AS9103, Variation Management of Key Characteristics (2001) Society of automotive engineers. Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kiener G (2008) Manufacturing developing guide. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

    Google Scholar 

  60. Thornton AC (2004) Variation risk management: focusing quality improvements in product development and production. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ceglarek D, Shi J (1995) Dimensional variation reduction for automotive body assembly. Manuf Rev 8(2):139–154

    Google Scholar 

  62. Motley B (2005) Introduction to variability and variation reduction. Defense AT&L, pp 53–55

    Google Scholar 

  63. Chryssolouris G et al (2009) Digital manufacturing: history, perspectives, and outlook. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 223(5):451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Maropoulos PG et al (2007) Key digital enterprise technology methods for large volume metrology and assembly integration. Int J Prod Res 45(7):1539–1559

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Sudarsan R et al (2005) A product information modeling framework for product lifecycle management. CAD Comput Aided Des 37(13):1399–1411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Fenves Steven J (2004) A core product model for representing design information. NIST Internal Report, 6736

    Google Scholar 

  67. Booch G (2005) The unified modeling language user guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ho T-H, Tang CS (1998) Product variety management: research advances. International series in operations research & management science. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wang F et al. (2003) Towards modeling the evolution of product families

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kempfer L (1998) Linking PDM to ERP. Comput-Aided Eng 17(10):58–64

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cheng MJ, Simmons JEL (1994) Traceability in manufacturing systems. Int J Oper Prod Manag 14(10):4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wilkinson G, Dale BG (2002) An examination of the ISO 9001:2000 standard and its influence on the integration of management systems. Prod Plan Control 13(3):284–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Töyrylä I (1999) Realising the potential of traceability—a case study research on usage and impacts of product traceability. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  74. ECR (2004) Using Traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer safety expectations. Efficient Consumer Response Europe

    Google Scholar 

  75. van Dorp CA (2002) Extending ERP with recipe and material traceability. Eight Americas Conference on Information Systems

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sohal AS (1997) Computerised parts traceability: an implementation case study. Technovation 17(10):583–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Jansen-Vullers MH, Van Dorp CA, Beulens AJM (2003) Managing traceability information in manufacture. Int J Inf Manag 23(5):395–413

    Google Scholar 

  78. Chiu M-L, Lan J-H (2005) Information and IN-formation: information mining for supporting collaborative design. Autom Constr 14(2):197–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Peng TK, Trappey AJC (1998) A step toward STEP-compatible engineering data management: the data models of product structure and engineering changes. Robotics Comput-Integr Manuf 14(2):89–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Campos JG et al. (2006) e-Traceability: traceability for collaborative spread CAD-CAM-CNC manufacturing chains. In: Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on E-ACTIVITIES, Venice, Italy

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA

    Yaoyao (Fiona) Zhao & Thomas R. Kramer

  2. Mitutoyo America Corporation, 965 Corporate Blvd, Aurora, IL, 60502, USA

    Robert Brown

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, PO Box 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

    Xun Xu

Authors
  1. Yaoyao (Fiona) Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas R. Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaoyao (Fiona) Zhao .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhao, Y.(., Brown, R., Kramer, T.R., Xu, X. (2011). Product Definition and Dimensional Metrology Systems. In: Information Modeling for Interoperable Dimensional Metrology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2167-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2167-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2166-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2167-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation