The CAD/CAM Interface: A 25-Year Retrospective

[+] Author and Article Information
J. Corney

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland, UKj.r.corney@hw.ac.uk

C. Hayes

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 111 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USAhayes@me.umn.edu

V. Sundararajan

Mechanical Engineering, University of California, A317 Bourns Hall, Riverside, CA 92521, USAvsundar@engr.ucr.edu

P. Wright

Mechanical Engineering, University of California, 5133 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740, USApwright@me.berkeley.edu

For instance, STL specifies the vertices of each triangle separately, even though the vertices are shared and can be more efficiently and accurately represented by referencing a list of vertices. This can result in “open” solids. The problem is traditionally rectified by vendor-provided software that is responsible for slicing the mesh and connecting up paths for the deposition head for FDM or the laser for SLA.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 5(3), 188-197 (Jul 19, 2005) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2033009 History: Received April 07, 2005; Revised July 19, 2005

The vision of fully automated manufacturing processes was conceived when computers were first used to control industrial equipment. But realizing this goal has not been easy; the difficulties of generating manufacturing information directly from computer aided design (CAD) data continued to challenge researchers for over 25 years. Although the extraction of coordinate geometry has always been straightforward, identifying the semantic structures (i.e., features) needed for reasoning about a component’s function and manufacturability has proved much more difficult. Consequently the programming of computer controlled manufacturing processes such as milling, cutting, turning and even the various lamination systems (e.g., SLA, SLS) has remained largely computer aided rather than entirely automated. This paper summarizes generic difficulties inherent in the development of feature based CAD/CAM (computer aided manufacturing) interfaces and presents two alternative perspectives on developments in manufacturing integration research that have occurred over the last 25 years. The first perspective presents developments in terms of technology drivers including progress in computational algorithms, enhanced design environments and faster computers. The second perspective describes challenges that arise in specific manufacturing applications including multiaxis machining, laminates, and sheet metal parts. The paper concludes by identifying possible directions for future research in this area.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The wide range of possible manufactured shapes has made generic CAD/CAM interfaces difficult to define

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Multiple feature interpretations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Milling feature volumes



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In