Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:17:25.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A predicate logic approach to CAD/CAM modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Alan H. Bond
Alan H. Bond
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Engineering Program, 4173C Engineering 1, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024–1596, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An approach to CAD and CAM modeling and to the design of CAD/CAM systems is presented. Models of the product and of the process are represented by logical assertions in a common logical language. CAD/CAM functions are represented by the application of logical inference rules, which correspond to the derivation of new information as well as to actions. This allows all the different kinds of model and specification used in design and manufacturing to be represented in a computer in a common form. It therefore allows the representation of constraints and rules connecting any aspects of design and manufacturing together.

This approach has all the advantages of formal specifiction, namely, ease of expression, communication, standardization and abstraction. At the same time, we demonstrate its practical implementation in an efficient form, and which is industry compatible, and we report practical experience with using this approach for CAD/CAM models and for intelligent CAD/CAM functions.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 39 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abou-Zeid, M. R. 1975. Group Technology. Industrial Engineer, May, 32–39.Google Scholar
Arbab, F. and Wing, J. M. 1987. Geometric reasoning: A new paradigm for processing geometric information. In Design Theory for CAD, Yoshikawa, H. and Warman, E. A., eds, pp. 145–159. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Arbab, F. 1988. Examples of geometric reasoning in OAR. Technical Report CRI 88–31, Computer Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. (ed.) 1981. Machine Intelligence. Oxford: Pergamon-Infotech.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Ahmed, S. 1987. Rule-based automatic dimensioning. IEEE Westex conference on expert systems applications, 1987, pp. 128–135. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Ahmed, S. 1989. Knowledge-based automatic dimensioning. International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 4, 32–40.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Chang, K. J. 1988. Feature-based process planning for machine parts. ASME Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, San Francisco, 1988, pp. 571–576. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Chang, K. J. 1989. Subplanning methods for process planning. Proceedings of ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, Anaheim, California, July, 1989, pp. 403–408.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L. (eds.) 1988a. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L. 1988b. An analysis of problems and research in distributed artificial intelligence. In Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L. 1988c. Organizational analysis of distributed artificial intelligence systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Jain, R. 1987. The formal definition and automatic extraction of group technology codes. MEP report 8718, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Jain, R. 1988. The formal definition and automatic extraction of group technology codes. In ASME Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, pp 537–542, San Francisco, New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Kao, C-C. 1987. The specification and use of design checking configurations. MEP report 8736, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Kim, D. H. 1987. Automatic model construction from drawings. MEP report 8704, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Soetarman, B. 1986. Integrating PROLOG and CADAM to produce an intelligent CAD system. MEP report 8606, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H. and Soetarman, B. 1987. Integrating PROLOG and CADAM to produce and intelligent CAD system. In IEEE WESTEX Conference on Expert Systems Applications 1987, pp. 152–161.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H., Soetarman, B., Kim, D. H., Ahmed, Z. and Chang, K. J. 1987a. An intelligent CAD-CAM system. MEP report 8726, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bond, A. H., Soetarman, B., Melkanoff, M. A., Ahmed, Z., Chang, K. J., and Kim, D. H. 1987b. Automatic extraction of geometric features from CAD models. In Intelligent Manufacturing Systems II, Milacic, V. R., ed. pp. 143–160. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bruderlin, B. 1985. Using PROLOG for constructing geometric objects denned by constraints. In EUROCAL '85 European Conference on Computer Algebra, Vol. 2, pp. 448–459. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Bruderlin, B. 1987. Constructing three-dimensional geometric objects defined by constraints. In Proceedings of the 1988 workshop on interactive 3-D Graphics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Crow, F. and Pizer, S. M. eds. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 111–129.Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A. 1985. Prolog in 10 Figures. In Communications of the ACM, 28, 1296–1310.Google Scholar
Davies, C. C. 1985. The Alpha graphics system. In Engineering Designer, May-June, 14–17.Google Scholar
Fukui, S., Yoshida, K. and Kobayashi, S. 1966. Sheet Metal forming research in Japan. Journal of Engineering for Industry (Transactions of the ASME), February, 101–109.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. and Chow, C. C. 1978. SRC cracks a coding problem. Machinery and Production Engineering, September, 38–39.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. 1985. The use of PROLOG in computer-aided design. In Computer Aided Design and Manufacture—State of the Art Report, Vol. 13, No. 8, pp. 11–24, Oxford: Pergamon Infotech.Google Scholar
Gambinski, J. 1969. Fundamental aspects of component classification. Annals of the CIRP, XVII, 367–375.Google Scholar
Henderson, M. R. 1984. Feature recognition in geometric modelling. In Proceedings of CAD-I's 13th Annual Meeting and Technical Conference, pp. 5–1.Google Scholar
Henderson, M. R. 1986. Automated group technology PAR. Coding from a three-dimensional CAD database. In Knowledge-based Expert Systems for Manufacturing, Lu, S. C.-Y. and Komanduri, R., eds., pp. 195–205. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Hirschtick, J. K. and Gossard, D. C. 1986. Geometric reasoning for design advisory systems. In Proceedings of the 1986 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Gupta, G., ed., pp. 263–270. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Jain, R. 1988. The formal definition and automatic extraction of group technology codes. MSc thesis, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Nuclear Engineering Department, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Joshi, S., Vissa, N. N. and Chang, T. 1988. Expert process planning system with solid model interface. International Journal of Production Research 26, 863–885.Google Scholar
Kimura, F. et al. 1986. Variational product design by constraint propagation and satisfaction in product modelling. Annals of the CIRP 35, 75–78.Google Scholar
Kimura, F., Suzuki, H., Ando, H., Sato, T. and Kinogada, A. 1987a. Variational geometry based on logical constraint and its applications to product modelling. Annals of the CIRP, 35, 65–72.Google Scholar
Kimura, F., Suzuki, H. and Wingard, 1987b. A uniform approach t o dimensioning and tolerancing in product modelling. In CAPE 86—Second International IF1P Conference on Computer Applications in Production and Engineering, Bo, K. et al. ed. pp. 165–178, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Knight, W. A. 1971. Group technology in forging and stamping. Metallurgia and Metal forming, 38, 245–250.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. 1979. Logic for Problem Solving. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kyprianou, L. K. 1980. Shape classification in computer aided design. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
Luby, S. C., Dixon, J. R. and Simmons, M. K. 1986. Creating and using a features data base. Computers in Mechanical Engineering September pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
Malachi, M. 1986. Nonclausal logic programming. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
McCabe, F. 1987. Demotational Graphics, Research Report. Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
Nnaji, B. O. and Liu, H. C. 1990. Feature reasoning for automatic robotic assembly and machining in polyhedral representation. International Journal of Production Research 28, 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Optiz, H., Everscheim, W. and Wiendahl, H. P. 1969. Workpiece classification and its industrial application. International Journal of Machine Tool Design Research 9, 39–50.Google Scholar
Prakash Rao, P. V. P. H. 1984. Towards CAD/CAM: CAPP through automatic generation of group technology code from engineering drawings. Master's thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Reintjes, P. B. 1987. AUNT: A Universal Netlist Translator. In Proceedings 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 508–515. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Reintjes, P. B. 1988. A VLSI Design Environment in PROLOG. In Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, Kowalski, R. A. and Bowen, K. A., eds. pp. 70–81. Cambridge, MA: MTT Press.Google Scholar
Sata, T. et al. , 1985. Designing machine assembly structure using geometric constraints in product modelling. Annals of the CIRP, 34, 169–172.Google Scholar