Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assembly modeling as an extension of feature-based design

  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The advantages and limitations of procedural and declarative approaches for product modeling are discussed. Concepts are developed for modeling all levels of product relations with a uniform set of structures and relationships. It is shown that five basic structures,Part-of, Structuring relation, Degrees of freedom, Motion limits, andFit can be used to define relationships between assemblies, parts, features, feature volume primitives, and evaluated boundaries. Generic relations which facilitate constraint specification between target and reference entities are also presented. Methods for the derivation of the location of an assembly unit from high level constraint specifications, such as mating conditions, and techniques for determining the degrees of freedom, motion limits, and assemblability are required. This can be done by uni-directional parameter derivation in the procedural approach, or by symbolic geometric reasoning or numerical equation solution in the declarative approach. The former is less expensive, easy to implement, avoids conflicts, but leads to combinatorial explosion. The latter is general, flexible, decouples constraint specification from validation, but is expensive, and may require conflict resolution.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shah, J. (1991) “Assessment of Features Technology”,J. of CAD,25(5), June.

  2. Libardi, E.C.; Dixon, J.R.; Simmons, M.K. (1988) “Computer environments for the design of mechanical assemblies: A research review”,Engineering with Computers,3, 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mantyla, M. (1989) “A modeling environment for top-down design of assembled products”, IBM Research Report, RC 15250 (# 68063).

  4. Eastman, C.M. (1981) “The design of assemblies”, SAE Technical Paper #810197.

  5. Schubert, L.K. (1979) “Problems with parts”,Proceedings of Sixth IJCAl, Tokyo, 778–784.

  6. Schubert, L.K. (1979) “Representing and using knowledge about part”, Computing Science Technical Note, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wesley, M.A.; Lozano, P.T.; Lieberman, L.I.; Lavin, M.A.; and Grossman, D.D. (1980) “A geometric modeling system for automated mecahnical assembly”,IBM J. Res. Dev. 24(1), 64–74.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mantyla, M., (1990) “The Design Browser—a hierarchical part-of graph browser”, IBM Research Report, Watson Research Center, Modeling Science Project.

  9. Lee, K.; and Gossard, D.C. (1985) “A hierarchical data structure for representing assemblies: Part 1”,CAD,17(1), 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lee, K.; Andrews, G. (1985) “Inferencing of positions of components in an assembly: part 2”,CAD,17(1), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rocheleau, D.; Lee, K. (1985) “System for interactive assembly modelling”,CAD,19(2), 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kim, S.; Lee, K. (1989) “An asembly modelling system for dynamic and kinematic analysis”,CAD,21(1), 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Popplestone, R.J.; Ambler, A.P.; Bellows, I. (1980) “An interpreter for language for describing assemblies”,AI,14(1), 79–107.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Popplestone, R.J. (1987) “The Edinburgh designer system as a framework for robotics”,Proceeding 1987 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1972–1977.

  15. Freeman, P.; Newell, A. (1971) “A model for functional reasoning in design”,Proceedings Second IJCAI, Los Altos, Calif., 621–633.

  16. Tadepalli, R. (1991) “Feature based assembly modeling of mechanical components”, MS Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shah, J.; Tadepalli, R. (1992) “Feature based assembly modeling”, ASME CIE Conf, August 2–6, 1992, San Francisco, CA.

  18. Kramer, G. (1991) “Solving Geometric Constraint Problems”, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Anantha, R.; Crawford, R.; Kramer, G. (1992) “An architecture to represent over, under, and fully constrained assemblies”, ASME Winter Annual Mtg.

  20. Crawford, R.; Srikantappa, A. (1992) “Intermediate geometry and inter-feature relationships for automatic group technology part coding”, ASME Computers in Engineering Conf, August 2–6, 1992, San Francisco, CA.

  21. Balakrishnan, G. (1993) “Constraint Based Approach to Product Modeling”, MS Thesis, Mechanical & Aerospace Engng, Arizona State University, Tempe.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shah, J.; Zhang, B. (1992) “Attributed graph model for geometric tolerancing”, ASME Design Auto Conf., Phoenix, Ariz.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, ASU, 85258-6106, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Jami J. Shah & Mary T. Rogers

Authors
  1. Jami J. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary T. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shah, J.J., Rogers, M.T. Assembly modeling as an extension of feature-based design. Research in Engineering Design 5, 218–237 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01608364

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01608364

Keywords

Search

Navigation