Next-Cut: A second generation framework for concurrent engineering

  • D. R. Brown
  • M. R. Cutkosky
  • J. M. Tenenbaum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 492)


We discuss Next-Cut, a second-generation computational framework for concurrent design and manufacturing. The Next-Cut architecture permits human and computational agents to cooperate in design and manufacturing. The architecture features a central knowledge base that serves both as a shared knowledge base and a medium for information exchange. We review the architecture in Next-Cut, focusing on the central model and the key agents. We then present an example in which the agents interact with each other and with a human designer to prototype or incrementally refine a simple mechanical assembly.


Central Model Tolerance Module Connection Graph Concurrent Design Concurrent Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  1. [Balakumar, et al. 88]
    P. Balakumar, et al. VANTAGE: A Frame-Based Geometric Modeling System. Carnegie-Mellon University Technical Report, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [Cutkosky and Lee 89]
    M. R. Cutkosky and S-H. Lee. Fixture Planning with Friction for Concurrent Product/Process Design. Proceedings of the 1989 NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, pp. 613–628, June 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [Cutkosky and Tenenbaum 90]
    M. R. Cutkosky and J. M. Tenenbaum. A Methodology and Computational Framework for Concurrent Product and Process Design. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 25(3):365–381, April 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [Cutkosky, et al. 89]
    M. R. Cutkosky, D. Brown and J. M. Tenenbaum. Extending Concurrent Product and Process Design Toward Earlier Design Stages. Proceedings of the Symposium on Concurrent Product and Process Design, ASME PED 36:65–72, December 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [Davis 84]
    R. Davis. Diagnostic Reasoning Based on Structure and Behavior. Artificial Intelligence, 24(3):347–410, December 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [Descotte and Latombe 85]
    Y. Descotte and J-C. Latombe. Making Compromises among Antagonist Constraints in a Planner. Artificial Intelligence, 27:183–217, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [Frants, et al. 90]
    L. Frants, T. O. Binford, J-C Tsai and M. R. Cutkosky. Representation and Propagation of Tolerances for CAD/CAM Systems. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Geometric Modeling, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., June 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [Hanada and Leifer 89]
    H. Hanada and L. J. Leifer. Intelligent Design System for Injection-Molded Parts Based on the Process Function Analysis Method. Proceedings of the 1989 NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, pp. 597–612, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [Kambhampati and Cutkosky 90]
    R. Kambhampati and M. R. Cutkosky. An Approach Toward Incremental and Interactive Planning for Concurrent Product and Process Design. To be presented at the ASME Symposium on Computer-based Approaches to Concurrent Engineering, November 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [Konkar, et al. 90]
    R. Konkar, M. R. Cutkosky and J. M. Tenenbaum. Towards an Assembly Editor for Concurrent Product and Process Design. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Geometric Modeling, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., June 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [Londono, et al. 89]
    F. Londono, K. J. Cleetus and Y. V. Reddy. A Blackboard Scheme for Cooperative Problem-Solving by Human Experts. Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative Product Development, pp. 1–30, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [Pan, et al. 89]
    J. Y-C. Pan, J. M. Tenenbaum and J. M. Glicksman. A Framework for Knowledge-Based Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, SM-2:33–46, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [Riesenfeld, et al. 87]
    R. F. Riesenfeld, et al. DARPA Semi-Annual Technical Report. University of Utah Computer Science Dept. Technical Report, Salt Lake City, April 1987.Google Scholar
  14. [Roth 84]
    B. Roth. “Screws, Motors, and Wrenches That Cannot Be Bought in a Hardware Store.” In Robotics Research, edited by P. Brady, pp. 679–693. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. [Singh 85]
    N. Singh. Exploiting design morphology to manage complexity. Ph.D. diss., Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. [Tsang 89]
    J. P. Tsang. PROPEL: An Expert System for Generating Process Plans. SIGMAN Workshop on Manufacturing Planning, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. R. Brown
    • 1
  • M. R. Cutkosky
    • 2
  • J. M. Tenenbaum
    • 3
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City
  2. 2.Center for Design ResearchStanford UniversityStanford
  3. 3.Schlumberger Technologies Corp. and Computer Science DepartmentStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations