Consistency of Assembly Related Product Information: Part 1 — Representation

In this work, NIST’s Core Product Model (CPM) and the Open Assembly Model (OAM) are extended to integrate product information including function and behavior, with an emphasis on assembly, throughout all phases of product development. The consistency validation of product information, and the verification of modified product information are discussed. These processes ensure that the product information has no contradictions and allows tracing through associations without any deficiency or disconnection. In other words, the information model has to be complete in terms of traceability of function, behavior, spatial relationships, etc., in order to support all information exchange activities. The product information representation provides a mechanism for capturing product information and storing it in a database. This representation schema also provides necessary information for any future decision making activities at the End_Of_Life (EOL) environment, such as the replacement or reuse of any part or subassembly. When there is a need to replace one artifact with another, one must consider all of the associations of the existing artifact with other artifacts and the environment, not just functional and space requirements, and the relevant modification(s) of the associated objects has to be verified. So one can manage product lifecycle activities in different perspectives by knowing how the product information is interconnected in various domains and how its characteristics affect each other.

[1]  John L. Dettbarn,et al.  Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. , 2004 .

[2]  Kyoung-Yun Kim,et al.  Ontology-based modeling and integration of morphological characteristics of assembly joints for network-based collaborative assembly design , 2008, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[3]  Bernd Bertsche,et al.  Reliability in Automotive and Mechanical Engineering: Determination of Component and System Reliability , 2008 .

[4]  Steven J. Fenves,et al.  A Semantic Product Modeling Framework and Its Application to Behavior Evaluation , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[5]  Mehmet Murat Baysal,et al.  Functional and Behavioral Product Information Representation and Consistency Validation for Collaboration in Product Lifecycle Activities , 2012 .

[6]  Sebti Foufou,et al.  OntoSTEP: Enriching product model data using ontologies , 2012, Comput. Aided Des..

[7]  Sheila A. Martin,et al.  Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain , 1999 .

[8]  Alain Bernard,et al.  The evolution, challenges, and future of knowledge representation in product design systems , 2013, Comput. Aided Des..

[9]  Daniel E. Whitney Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development [Book Review] , 2005, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[10]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[11]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  THE OPEN ASSEMBLY MODEL FOR THE EXCHANGE OF ASSEMBLY AND TOLERANCE INFORMATION: OVERVIEW AND EXAMPLE , 2004 .

[12]  Sudarsan Rachuri,et al.  Information Models for Product Representation: Core and Assembly Models , 2004 .

[13]  Richard F. Paige,et al.  Building Model-Driven Engineering Traceability Classifications , 2008 .