Parametric modeling has become a widely accepted mechanism for generating data set variants for product families. These data sets include geometric models and feature-based process plans. They are created by specifying values for parameters within feasible ranges that are specified as constraints in their definition. These ranges denote the extent or envelope of the product family. Increasingly, with globalization the inverse problem is becoming important: Given independently generated product data sets that on observation belong to the same product family, create a parametric model for that family. This problem is also of relevance to large companies where independent design teams may work on product variants without much collaboration only to later attempt consolidation to optimize the design of manufacturing processes and systems. In this paper we present a methodology for generating a parametric representation of the machining process plan for a part family through merging product data sets generated independently from members of the family. We assume that these data sets are feature-based machining process plans with relationships such as precedences between the machining steps for each feature captured using graphs. Since there are numerous ways in which these data sets can be merged, we formulate this as an optimization problem and solve using the A* algorithm. The parameter ranges generated by this approach will be used in the design of tools, fixtures, material handling automation and machine tools for machining the given part family.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
machining, CAD, computer aided production planning, optimisation, Process Planning, Part Family, Feature-Based, Parametric Representation, Machining Process Merging, Graph Matching
Topics:
Algorithms, Machining, Modeling, Optimization, Design
1.
Nilsson, N. J., 1980, Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga, Palo Alto.
2.
Farrell, R. S., and Simpson, T. W., 2001, “Improving Commonality in Custom Products Using Product Platforms,” DAC-21125, Proc. of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
3.
Simpson, T. W., Maier, J. R. A., and Mistree, F., 1999, “A Product Platform Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design,” DTM-8761, Proc. of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Las Vegas, NV.
4.
Meyer
,
M. H.
,
1997
, “
Revitalize Your Product Lines Through Continuous Platform Renewal
,”
Research Technology Management
,
40
(
2
), pp.
17
–
28
.
5.
Meyer, M. H., and Lehnerd, A. P., 1997, The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership, Free Press, New York.
6.
Nayak, R. U., Chen, W., and Simpson, T. W., 2000, “A Variation-Based Methodology for Product Family Design,” DAC-14264, Proc. of the 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Baltimore, MD.
7.
Kota
,
S.
,
Sethuraman
,
K.
, and
Miller
,
R.
,
2000
, “
A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
122
(
4
), pp.
403
–
410
.
8.
Siddique, Z., and Rosen, D. W., 1998, “On the Applicability of Product Variety Design Concepts on Automotive Platform Commonality,” DTM-5661, Proc. of the 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Atlanta, GA.
9.
Nelson
,
S. A.
, II,
Parkinson
,
M. B.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2001
, “
Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
123
(
2
), pp.
199
–
204
.
10.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P. Y., and Perez-Duarte, A., 2002, “Platform Selection Under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families,” DAC-34099, Proc. of the 2002 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Montreal, Canada.
11.
Seepersad, C. C., Hernandez, G., and Allen, J. K., 2000, “A Quantitative Approach to Determining Product Platform Extent,” DAC-14288, Proc. of the 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, Baltimore, MD.
12.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Bras, B. A., 1993, “The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm,” Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, M. P. Kamat, ed., AIAA, Washington, D.C., pp. 247–289.
13.
Shapiro, V., and Vossler, D. L., 1995, “What is a Parametric Family of Solids?” Proc. of the third ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 43–54.
14.
Chen
,
X.
, and
Hoffmann
,
C. M.
,
1996
, “
On Editability of Feature-Based Design
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
27
(
12
), pp.
905
–
914
.
15.
Capoyleas
,
V.
,
Chen
,
X.
, and
Hoffmann
,
C. M.
,
1996
, “
Generic Naming in Generative, Constraint-Based Design
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
28
(
1
), pp.
17
–
26
.
16.
Kripac
,
J.
,
1997
, “
A Mechanism for Persistently Naming Topological Entities in History-Based Parametric Solid Models
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
29
(
2
), pp.
113
–
122
.
17.
Bidarra, R., and Bronsvoort, W. F., 2000, “On Families of Objects and Their Semantics,” Proc. of the 2000 IEEE Geometric Modeling and Processing, IEEE, Hong Kong, China, pp. 101–111.
18.
Bidarra
,
R.
, and
Bronsvoort
,
W. F.
,
2000
, “
Semantic Feature Modeling
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
32
(
3
), pp.
201
–
225
.
19.
Hoffmann
,
C.
, and
Kim
,
K.-J.
,
2001
, “
Towards Valid Parametric CAD Models
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
33
(
1
), pp.
81
–
90
.
20.
Raghothama
,
S.
, and
Shapiro
,
V.
,
1998
, “
Boundary Representation Deformation in Parametric Solid Modeling
,”
ACM Trans. Graphics
,
17
(
4
), pp.
259
–
286
.
21.
Raghothama
,
S.
, and
Shapiro
,
V.
,
2000
, “
Consistent Updates in Dual Representation Systems
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
32
(
3
), pp.
463
–
477
.
22.
Raghothama, S., and Shapiro, V., 2002, “Topological Framework for Part Families,” Proc. of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, ACM, Saarbrucken, Germany, pp. 1–12.
23.
Shah, J. J., and Mantyla, M., 1995, Parametric and Feature-Based CAD/CAM: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons.
24.
Huang
,
Z.
, and
Yip-Hoi
,
D.
,
2002
, “
High-Level Feature Recognition Using Feature Relationship Graph
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
34
(
8
), pp.
561
–
582
.
25.
Onwubolu
,
G. C.
,
1999
, “
Design of Parts for Cellular Manufacturing Using Neural Network-Based Approach
,”
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
,
10
, pp.
251
–
265
.
26.
Enke
,
D.
,
Ratanapan
,
K.
, and
Dagli
,
C.
,
2000
, “
Large Machine-Part Family Formation Utilizing a Parallel ART1 Neural Network
,”
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
,
11
, pp.
591
–
604
.
27.
Koren
,
Y.
,
Hiesel
,
U.
,
Jovane
,
F.
,
Moriwaki
,
T.
,
Pritschow
,
G.
,
Ulsoy
,
G.
, and
Van Brussel
,
H.
,
1999
, “
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
,”
CIRP Ann.
,
48
(
2
), pp.
1
–
14
.
28.
McKay
,
B. D.
,
1981
, “
Practical Graph Isomorphism
,”
Congr. Numer.
,
30
, pp.
45
–
87
.
29.
Ullman
,
J. R.
,
1976
, “
An Algorithm for Subgraph Isomorphism
,”
J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.
,
23
(
1
), pp.
31
–
42
.
30.
Bomze, I., Budinich, M., Pardalos, P., and Pelillo, M., 1999, “The Maximum Clique Problem,” Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, D. Z. Du and P. M. Pardalos, eds., 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
31.
Suganthan
,
P. N.
,
Teoh
,
E. K.
, and
Mital
,
D. P.
,
1995
, “
Self-Organizing Hopfield Network for Attributed Relational Graph Matching
,”
Image Vis. Comput.
,
13
(
1
), pp.
61
–
73
.
32.
Messmer, B. T., 1995, “Efficient Graph Matching Algorithms for Preprocessed Model Graphs,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Copyright © 2003
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.