Toward a unified representation of mechanical assemblies

Srikanth, Shashank; Turner, Joshua U.

doi:10.1007/bf01200242

Cited by 27 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second approach can be called the generative approach which starts from component CAD models and derives the relational model from them and then further derives the hierarchical model from the relational model. The approach of Srikanth and Turner (1990) belongs to this category. Both approaches are in their early stages.…”

Section: Unified Assembly Modelingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…No unique method is universally accepted. Some such efforts on unified assembly modeling can be found in the works of Srikanth and Turner (1990) and Whitney (1995Whitney ( , 1996.…”

Section: Task-specific Assembly Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CAD models CAD models represent individual components as if they were not related at all (Srikanth and Turner, 1990). CSG and B-rep are the two representative component modeling methods.…”

Section: Three-level Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many assembly modeling methods adopt a bottom-up approach (Srikanth and Turner, 1990). Based on the component CAD models, the mating relations are input by the designers manually so that the relational assembly model is established.…”

Section: Bottom-up Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Complex assembly variant design in agile manufacturing. Part I: System architecture and assembly modeling methodology

Ai-hu¹,

Koç²,

Nagi³

2005

IIE Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the distributed and horizontally integrated manufacturing environment found in agile manufacturing, there is a great demand for new product development methods that are capable of generating new customized assembly designs based on mature component designs that might be dispersed at geographically distributed partner sites. To cater for this demand, this paper addresses the methodology for complex assembly variant design in agile manufacturing. It consists in fundamental research in two parts: (i) assembly modeling; and (ii) assembly variant design methodology. This paper, the first of a two-part series, presents the assembly variant design system architecture and the assembly modeling methodology. First, a complementary assembly modeling concept is proposed with two kinds of assembly models, the hierarchical assembly model and the relational assembly model. The first explicitly captures the hierarchical and functional relationships between constituent components whereas the second explicitly captures the mating relationships at the form-feature-level. These models are complementary in the sense that each of them models only a specific aspect of assembly-related information but together they include the required assembly-related information. They are further specialized to accommodate the features of assembly variant design. As a result, two kinds of assembly models, the assembly variants model and the assembly mating graph are generated. These assembly models serve as the basis for assembly variant design which is discussed in the companion paper.

show abstract

Section: Unified Assembly Modelingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…No unique method is universally accepted. Some such efforts on unified assembly modeling can be found in the works of Srikanth and Turner (1990) and Whitney (1995Whitney ( , 1996.…”

Section: Task-specific Assembly Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CAD models CAD models represent individual components as if they were not related at all (Srikanth and Turner, 1990). CSG and B-rep are the two representative component modeling methods.…”

Section: Three-level Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bottom-up Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complex assembly variant design in agile manufacturing. Part I: System architecture and assembly modeling methodology

Ai-hu¹,

Koç²,

Nagi³

2005

IIE Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a variety of assembly models available that capture assembly information at different levels of abstraction during the design process and are useful in specific ways. Assembly representations popularly discussed in the literature and applied in practice are based on solid models, relational models, and hierarchical models [7,33,34].…”

Section: Relevant Assembly Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design for tolerance of electro-mechanical assemblies:

Narahari¹,

Lyons²,

Duffey³

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tolerancing decisions can profoundly impact the quality and cost of electro-mechanical assemblies. Existing approaches to tolerance analysis and synthesis in design entail detailed knowledge of geometry of the assemblies and are mostly applicable during advanced stages of design, leading to a less than optimal design process. During the design process of assemblies, both the assembly structure and associated tolerance information evolve continuously. Therefore, significant gains can be achieved by effectively using this information to influence the design of the assembly. Motivated by this, we identify and explore two goals for future research that we believe can enhance the scope of tolerancing for the entire design process. The first goal is to advance tolerancing decisions to the earliest possible stages of design. This issue raises the need for effective representation of tolerancing information during different stages of design and for effective assembly modeling. The second goal addresses the appropriate, synergistic use of available methods and best practices for tolerance analysis and synthesis, at successive stages of design. Pursuit of these goals leads to the definition of a multi-level approach that enables tolerancing to be addressed at successive stages of design in an incremental fashion. The resulting design process, which we call the design for tolerance process , integrates three important domains: (1) design activities at successive stages of design; (2) assembly models that evolve continuously through the design process; and (3) methods and best practices for tolerance analysis and synthesis. We demonstrate major steps of our proposed approach through a simple, yet illustrative, example.

show abstract