Journal of Computational Design and Engineering

Society for Computational Design and Engineering (한국CDE학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A framework for similarity recognition of CAD models

  • Received : 2015.11.18
  • Accepted : 2016.04.14
  • Published : 2016.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A designer is mainly supported by two essential factors in design decisions. These two factors are intelligence and experience aiding the designer by predicting the interconnection between the required design parameters. Through classification of product data and similarity recognition between new and existing designs, it is partially possible to replace the required experience for an inexperienced designer. Given this context, the current paper addresses a framework for recognition and flexible retrieval of similar models in product design. The idea is to establish an infrastructure for transferring design as well as the required PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) know-how to the design phase of product development in order to reduce the design time. Furthermore, such a method can be applied as a brainstorming method for a new and creative product development as well. The proposed framework has been tested and benchmarked while showing promising results.

Keywords

References

  1. Bucherta T, Neugebauerb S, Schenkerc S, Lindowa K, Starka R. Multi criteria decision making as a tool for sustainable product development benefits and obstacles. J. Procedia CIRP 2015;26:70-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.110
  2. Kristianto Y, Gunasekaran A, Helo P, Sandhu M. A decision support system for integrating manufacturing and product design into the reconfiguration of the supply chain networks. J. Decis. Support Syst. 2012;52(4)790-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.014
  3. Liu E, Hsiao SW, Hsiao SW. A decision support system for product family design. J. Inf. Sci. 2014;281:113-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.04.039
  4. F. Gao, D. Roller, Modelling of feature-based design process, in: Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 13-16 September, Atlanta, USA, 1998, 331.
  5. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000;79(6)995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
  6. S.S. Iyengar, How to Make Choosing Easier, 2011. Available from: .
  7. Mogilner C, Shiv B, Iyengar SS. Eternal quest for the best: sequential (vs. simultaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment. J. Consum. Res. 2013;39(6)1300-12. https://doi.org/10.1086/668534
  8. Opitz H. Verschlusselungsrichtlinien und Definitionen zum werkstuck-beschreibenden Klassifizierungssystem. Essen: Girardet; 1966. [In German].
  9. Opitz H. A Classification System to Describe Workpieces. New York: Pergamon Press; 1970. Translated by Acton Taylor.
  10. Hong T, Lee K, Kim S. Similarity comparison of mechanical parts to reuse existing designs. Comput.-Aided Des. 2006;38:973-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2006.05.004
  11. Roller D. Design by features: an approach to high level shape manipula-tions. J. Comput. Ind. 1989;12(3)185-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3615(89)90065-1
  12. Shannon S. Trends in Computer Science. New York: NOVA Science Publisher, Inc.; 2004.
  13. Salvendy G. Handbook of Industrial Engineering Technology and Operations Management, 18. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001.
  14. Henderson M, Musti S. Automated group technology part coding from a three-dimensional CAD database. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 1988;110:278-87.
  15. Kyprianou LK. Shape Classification in Computer-Aided Design. 1980. Doctoral Dissertation.
  16. Pickett MS, Boyse JW. Solid Modeling by Computers: From Theory to Applications. New York, USA: Plenum Press; 1984.
  17. Liao T, Lee K. Integration of a feature-based CAD system and an ART1 neural model for GT coding and part-family forming. J. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1994;26:93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(94)90029-9
  18. Kaparthi S, Suresh N. A neural network system for shape-based classification and coding of rotational parts. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1991;29: 1771-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207549108948048
  19. P. Jiantao, L. Yi, X. Guyu, Z. Hongbin, L. Weibin, Y. Uehara, 3D model retrieval based on 2D slice similarity measurements, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, 6-9 September, Thessalonoki, Greece, 2004, pp. 95-101.
  20. Wei S, Tie-Qiang M, Li G. A new CAD models retrieval method based on shape similarity. Inf. Technol. J. 2009;8:708-16. https://doi.org/10.3923/itj.2009.708.716
  21. Li M, Zhang YF, Fuh JYH, Qiu ZM. Toward effective mechanical design reuse: CAD model retrieval based on general and partial shapes. J. Mech. Des. 2009;131(12).
  22. Bai J, Gao S, Tanga W, Liu Y, Guo Y. Design reuse oriented partial retrieval of CAD models. Comput.-Aided Des. 2010;42:1069-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.07.002
  23. M. Marefat, C. Pitta, Similarity-based retrieval of CAD solid models for automated reuse of machining process plans, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering Scottsdale, 22-25 September, AZ, USA, 2007.
  24. El-Mehalawi M, Miller R. A database system of mechanical components based on geometric and topological similarity. Part I: representation. J. Comput.-Aided Des. 2003;35:83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00177-4
  25. El-Mehalawi M, Miller R. A database system of mechanical components based on geometric and topological similarity. Part II: indexing, retrieval, matching and similarity assessment. J. Comput.-Aided Des. 2003;35: 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00178-6
  26. Ansaldi S, De Floriani L, Falcidieno B. Geometric modeling of solid objects by using a face adjacency graph representation. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Gr. 1985;19(3)131-13
  27. L. Zehtaban, D. Roller, Automated rule-based system for Opitz feature recognition and code generation from STEP, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Taylor & Francis, USA, ISSN 1686-4360, Published online: 16.12.15.
  28. Mesina M, Roller D, Lampasona C. Mapping of Semantic Distances into Geometrical Coordinates -Visualisation of Semantic Networks, 1st ed., Achen (DE): Shaker Verlag; 397-408.
  29. Cha SH. Comprehensive survey on distance/similarity measures between probability density functions. Int. J. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 2007;1(4)300-7.
  30. Zehtaban L, Roller D. Beyond similarity comparison: intelligent data retrieval for CAD/CAM designs. Comput.-Aided Des. Appl. 2013;10(5)789-802. https://doi.org/10.3722/cadaps.2013.789-802
  31. M. Bilenko, R. Moone, Adaptive duplicate detection using learnable string similarity measures, in: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-2003), August, Washington DC, USA, 2003, pp. 39-48.
  32. K. Audhkhasi, A. Verma, Keyword search using modified minimum edit distance measure, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing ICASSP, 15-20 April, 2007, ISSN: 1520-6149, IV-929-IV-932.
  33. J. Lu, J. Callan, Content-based retrieval in hybrid peer-to-peer networks, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 3-8 November, New Orleans, USA, 2003, pp. 199-206.
  34. M. Wester, J. Frankel, S. King, Asynchronous articulatory feature recognition using dynamic Bayesian networks, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), 4-8 October, Jeju Island, Korea, 2004, pp. 1477-1480.
  35. P. Shilane, P. Min, M. Kazhdan, T. Funkhouser, The princeton shape benchmark, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Shape Modeling International, 7-9 June, Genoa, Italy, 2004, pp. 167-178.
  36. D. Bespalov, C. Yiu Ip, W. Regli, J. Shaffer, Benchmarking CAD search techniques, in: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling (SPM'05), New York, USA, 2005, pp. 275-286.
  37. Jayanti S, Kalyanaraman Y, Iyer N, Ramani K. Developing an engineer- ing shape benchmark for CAD models. Comput.-Aided Des. 2006;38: 939-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2006.06.007

Cited by

  1. Shape distribution-based approach to comparing 3D CAD assembly models vol.31, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-017-1103-3
  2. Self-Organizing and Error Driven (SOED) artificial neural network for smarter classifications vol.4, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2017.04.003
  3. Multi-criteria retrieval of CAD assembly models vol.5, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2017.11.003
  4. Automated Manufacturing Process Selection During Conceptual Design vol.140, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4038686
  5. Reverse engineering of mechanical parts: A template-based approach vol.5, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2017.11.009
  6. A new design method based on feature reusing of the non-standard cam structure for automotive panels stamping dies vol.30, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1368-5
  7. Comparison between CAD models using modification ratio calculation vol.32, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2019.1667030
  8. Self-trained CAD assistance for constraining assemblies based on decision trees and support vector classification vol.104, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.322
  9. Performance of wearables and the effect of user behavior in additive manufacturing process vol.8, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40691-021-00251-y
  10. A new approach for reusable 3D CAD objects detection, by similarity calculation based on Bayesian network models (BNM) vol.34, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2021.1972457