Advertisement

An ontology approach to product disassembly

Long Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1319)

Abstract

In recent years, growing ecological concern has prompted for ‘design for environment’. One way to achieve this is to design products that are easy to disassemble, because this improves the ability to reuse or recycle parts of a product. This paper presents a computational theory for product modeling and reasoning about product disassembly. This theory, implemented in the PROMOD system, is based on an ontology of different connection types between product components. For the task of reasoning about disassembly, the standard topological relation that expresses that two components are connected or in contact proves to be inadequate. We therefore introduce, within a topological context, a small number of new ontological primitives concerning the rigidness of connections and the constrained degrees of freedom, which in effect are task-oriented abstractions of geometric and physical-chemical properties of products. On this basis, it is demonstrated that one can automatically generate all feasible product disassembly sequences, and in addition perform an ecological cost-benefit analysis. The latter provides a preference order over disassembly sequences, allowing to compare alternative product designs for recycling and reuse. Finally, we show how the proposed ontology for disassembly is an extension of existing ontologies dealing with physical systems, is based on the same ontology design principles and discuss how it compares to ontologies of full geometry.

Keywords

Product Component Connection Type Disassembly Sequence Disassembly Process External Connection 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borgo, S., N. Guarino, and C. Masolo (1996). A pointless theory of space based on strong connection and congruence. In Proceedings of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR96), Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 220–229. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. Borst, W. N., J. M. Akkermans, and J. L. Top (1997). Engineering ontologies. InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies 46, 365–406. Special Issue on Ontologies in KBS Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, B. L. (1981). A calculus of individuals based on `connection. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 22(3), 204–218.Google Scholar
  4. Cohn, A. G., D. A. Randell, and Z. Cui (1995). Taxonomies of logically defined qualitative spatial relations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 831–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faltings, B. (1992). A symbolic approach to qualitative kinematics. Artificial Intelligence 56,139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fazio, T. L. D. and D. E. Whitney (1987). Simplified generation of all mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation RA-3(6), 640–658.Google Scholar
  7. Fiksel, J. (1996). Design For Environment. Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Gruber, T. R. and G. R. Olsen (1994). An ontology for engineering mathematics. In J. Doyle, P Torasso, and E. Sandewall (Eds.), Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Mateo, CA, pp. 258–269. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. Heijst, G. V., A. T. Schreiber, and B. J. Wielinga (1997). Using explicit ontologies in KBS development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46, 183–292. Special Issue on Ontologies in KBS Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ishii, K. and B. H. Lee (1996, August). Reverse fishbone diagram: A tool in aid of design for product retirement. In ASME Design for Manufacturability Conference, Irvine, California. 96-DETC/DFM-1272, ASME DTC/CIE Proceedings CD, ISBN 0-7918-1232-4.Google Scholar
  11. Joskowicz, L. and E. Sacks (1991). Computational kinematics. Artificial Intelligence 51, 381–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khosla, P K. and R. Mattikali (1989). Determining the assembly sequence from a 3-D model. Journal of Mechanical Working Technology 20, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Randell, D. A. and A. G. Cohn (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connections. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the third National Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning., Los Altos, pp. 165–176. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  14. Randell D. A., A. G. Cohn, and Z. Cui (1992). Naive topology: Modeling the force pump. In B. Faltings and P. Struss (Eds.), Recent Advances in Qualitative Physics, pp. 177–192. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-06142-2.Google Scholar
  15. Sturges Jr., R. H. and M. I. Kilani (1992, February). Towards an integrated design for an assembly evaluation and reasoning system. Computer-Aided Design 24(2), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Top, J. L. and J. M. Akkermans (1994, December). Tasks and ontologies in engineering modelling. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 41(4), 585–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson, R. H. and J.-C. Latombe (1994). Geometric reasoning about mechanical assembly. Artificial Intelligence 71, 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems Department INF/ISUniversity of TwenteAE EnschedeNetherlands
  2. 2.Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECNZG PettenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations