Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
429
Introduction
In the present state of market globalization, product data authors and product data
consumers face the challenges of collaborative and integrated product development.
Todays PLM solutions need to manage, store and distribute the definition of a product,
as 3D data is being shared and used more frequently and intensively than ever before. For
example, 3D CAD models are increasingly used as inputs to retrieve and compare
products, parts and related information from PLM vaults to ultimately enable product
data reuse. Innovative PLM supports for the creation, editing, exchange and manipulation
of 3D data are increasingly relied upon to stimulate fast and reliable decision making
throughout a products lifecycle.
430
Numerous scenarios can be found that take advantage of comparisons between 3D CAD
models, as much in CAD- and PLM-related scientific literature as in commercial
documentation. Overall, whether the comparison is done approximately or in detail, it is
generally intended to support the work of specialists during a particular engineering
process via the assessment of the two modeled 3D shapes similarity or difference. We
classify 3D CAD model comparison scenarios into six application domains:
CAD data translation/remastering,
Product information reuse,
Engineering change management,
CAD modeling management,
Product rationalization and standardization, and
CAx model authoring.
We present the first three application domains, as they include the scenarios that are
the most frequently referred to in the literature.
431
432
The first step is to locate similar parts in the PLM vault, which may contain thousands
or hundreds of thousands of parts represented by their 3D CAD models. A model selected
as a search key will be compared to other models in order to evaluate their similarity via
a given metric which, in turn, will be used to identify and sort a subset of the compared
models that can be considered as similar.
The typical shape-based retrieval approach does not involve the comparison of the 3D
CAD models themselves. Instead, lightweight shape signatures are being extracted
beforehand or off-line for each 3D CAD model and stored as meta-data. Large amounts
of 3D shapes can therefore be compared quickly to each other and qualitative similarity
measures can be computed efficiently, since only the shape signatures are compared.
Many shape signatures, along with extraction and similarity measure algorithms, have
been proposed in recent years and duly reviewed [14,15]. Shape signatures are high-level
abstractions of 3D shapes and, therefore, possess reduced discrimination capabilities.
Unless it is expressly so designed, it is difficult to predict how well a particular shape
signature will perform in a given scenario. For instance, machining feature-based shape
signatures [16,17] will suit shape-based retrieval tasks better than other shape signatures
when the reuse of existing machining processes is the objective.
The second step of product information reuse is to detail the differences between the
CAD models considered to be similar as a result of the first step. The previously
computed shape signatures, given their reduced discrimination capabilities, are discarded
and pair-wise comparisons of each retrieved candidate model with the search key are
performed. The goal is to determine if the retrieved pairs of CAD models can rightfully
be identified as similar as per the particular reuse objective.
For instance, to determine if a retrieved existing sourced part can appropriately
replace another one in a design, sufficient evidence of their interchangeability must be
compiled. For that purpose, pair-wise 3D CAD model comparison enables the
identification of a common base between two designs, validating that features and/or
dimensions, regarded as critical from the viewpoint of the inquiring engineering process,
are present in both.
433
434
Table 1
Basic function
Basic question
Expected result
A. Find duplicate
B. Find similar
C. Detect difference
D. Estimate difference
E. Locate differences
F.
Measure differences
Accordingly, relating both the level of detail and the cardinality allows us to
distinguish each of the six basic functions for comparing 3D CAD models, depicted in
Fig. 1. Each of these two aspects has an important influence over the problems solution
domain. As it regulates the quantity of comparisons performed in a single occurrence of
the scenario, higher cardinalities justify a solution boasting good computational
efficiency. On the other hand, high levels of detail understandably command far more
methodical difference calculation algorithms and, consequently, more complex difference
representation systems.
Figure 1
Basic functions and their relation to the required level of detail and cardinality
Three solution domains are identified and related to the six basic functions on Fig. 1.
Hence, finding duplicate or similar models within large sets of 3D CAD models relates to
shape-based retrieval, the corresponding similarity measures being of qualitative nature,
at most. Comparing two models to either check their equivalency according to some
given context-specific criteria or to estimate their relative difference with reference to
specific characteristics, i.e. to provide a qualitative appraisal of how close or far they are
from each other, involves geometric validation. Then, when distinguishing differences
between two models, providing their respective locus in relation to the modeled shapes
and, furthermore, when categorizing them or measuring their geometric magnitude, we
refer to the detailed assessment of the models similarities or differences.
435
Figure 2
Figure 3
The subject represents objects, individuals or situations that form a set because they
relate through recognizable common traits as per the point of view. The model, itself a
constructed object, embodies a point of view in accordance with the rules imposed by the
language it is expressed in rules which are a priori independent of the subject.
Basically, every model is a form representing content a concrete and analyzable
representation conveying a meaning, a means of sharing knowledge.
436
In the specific context of CAD and, correspondingly, of the proposed PDMF4C metamodel, the Product constitutes the modeling subject. Accordingly, the CAD Model
embodies a temporarily and contextually set Definition, a particular point of view on the
expected features and functions of the Product and Product_Instances projected to be
manufactured, by detailing a finite set of Specification instances. It is expressed in a given
and sometimes tool-specific CAD Formalism. From the perspectives of engineering and
product development, the CAD model is a communication tool for the different actors in
the design, manufacturing and other processes of the product throughout its lifecycle.
The four CAD-specific core concepts of Product, Definition, Model and Formalism,
represented in Fig. 4, constitute the core elements of the PDMF4C meta-model for
representing pre-existing commonality and relationships between compared CAD
models. Accordingly, the development and refinement of the informal reference/target
relationship is to be approached from two perspectives: via the models respective
product definitions that they embody or via the formalisms they are respectively
expressed in.
Figure 4
437
Figure 5
The function of a software tool classified as an Editor is to enable the creation and
modification of a model by instantiation and manipulation of a particular formalism;
438
Figure 6
439
on the initial expression of intents about the product. Thus, the association of processes
and specific formalisms via the software tools supports the recognition of distinct
semantic domains.
Finally, identifying the comparisons inquiring process amounts to specifying the
initial requirements on how the located similarities and/or differences need to be
represented. Proper difference representation is central to the 3D CAD model comparison
problem as it directs the interpretation of the calculated results by the inquiring process
and provides efficiently for further manipulations.
440
Figure 7
Figure 8
The query models shape signature must also be extracted in order to be compared to
those of the candidate models (excluded from Fig. 8 due to space constraints). The
resulting shape signatures are regarded as new Model instances that now embody specific
yet very limited subsets of specifications from the initial design definitions embodied by
the original 3D CAD models. Once abstracted, the contents of all 3D CAD models can be
compared to evaluate and rank their similarity.
441
Conclusion
442
References
1
2
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
443
St-Martin, S. (2001) 'Mastering change management for CAD files', Master's Thesis, cole
de technologie suprieure, Montreal, Canada.
Sypkens Smit, M. and Bronsvoort, W.F. (2007) 'The difference between two feature models',
Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 843-851.
Franois, V. and Cuillire, J.C. (2000) '3D automatic remeshing applied to model
modification', Computer Aided Design, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 433-444.
SolidWorks 2010, http://www.solidworks.com, Dassault Systmes.
PRO/Engineer Wildfire 5.0, http://www.ptc.com, Parametric Technology Corporation.
Acrobat 9.0 Pro Extended: 3D Reviewer, http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat.html,
Adobe Systems inc.
AutoVue Electro-Mechanical Professional, http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/
autoVue/autovue-electro-mechanical-professional/index.html, Oracle Corporation.
Geolus
Search,
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/open/geolus/
index.shtml, Siemens PLM Software inc.
Wolfe, L.S. (2006) 'Shape Indexing May Help Part Reuse', CADCAMNet. Available:
www.cadcamnet.com