Application Feature Model for Geometrical Specification of Assemblies

Romero, Fernando; Rosado, P.; Bruscas, G.M.

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.605

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the generic featured-based frameworks used for geometric specification and aimed at fulfilling the requirements of a consistent product and process plan specification, is summarized in the second part of this section. This framework has been presented in prior published authors’ work [ 12 , 13 ]. The third part of this section presents the parts of the framework for geometric specification that includes a geometry model, a specification feature model and an assembly model.…”

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to [ 22 ], the engineering community lacks a common way to represent features, which is suitable to support data sharing and interoperability between systems and communities. Two feature frameworks, both using Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams, are highlighted by [ 22 ]: the Generic Feature proposed by [ 23 ] and the Unified Application Feature proposed by [ 12 ]. The Unified Application Feature (UAF) is the basis for this work and, therefore, it will be briefly described in the next section.…”

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This framework defines a generic feature, the Application Feature [ 12 , 13 ], as a container of different feature categories, likewise other authors had already done [ 15 , 16 ]. The Application Feature is able to support any design solution, including the mapped functional and structural design solutions and independently of the abstraction/specialization level.…”

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The requirement of a generic feature concept to support the CIDP 2 R process, led to the proposal of the Unified Application Feature (UAF) framework, which includes the definition of a generic Application Feature, and which will be briefly reviewed in the next section [ 12 ]. In addition, a Specification Feature, such as a specialization of the Application Feature, was proposed in [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Feature-Based Framework for Inspection Process Planning

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature-based approaches have been profusely used in the last decades to incorporate domain-specific knowledge in the design and development of technical systems that, according to the new Concurrent Engineering approaches, involves not only the definition of the product, but also of the required manufacturing/inspection/assembly process and the corresponding production system. Although the ability of feature-based modeling to ease and integrate knowledge intensive processes has always been recognised, in practise the different feature-based modeling proposals are strongly dependent on the domain and on the development stage of the solution (conceptual, detailed, etc.). On the other hand, inspection process planning, including the design and selection of the technical system to realize the dimensional and geometrical verification of the manufactured artefacts, has been traditionally considered separately from the rest of the manufacturing process planning, and even also from the product functional specification tasks. In this work, a feature-based framework for inspection process planning, based on a similar approach to the one applied in GD&T (Geometrical Dimensioning & Tolerancing) specification, analysis and validation of product artefacts, is presented. With this work, the proposed framework and feature concept ability to model interaction components belonging to both the product and the inspection system (inspection solution) is proved. Moreover, to facilitate the Collaborative and Integrated Development of Product-Process-Resource, the Inspection Feature has been conceived as a specialization of a generic Feature previously proposed by the authors.

show abstract

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%