Research Papers

Automated Manufacturing Planning Approach Based on Volume Decomposition and Graph-Grammars

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew I. Campbell

e-mail: mc1@mail.utexas.edu
Advanced Manufacturing Center,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX 78712

(.STEP) is used as the standard format for the exchange and conversion of solid models.

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 12, 2012; final manuscript received February 11, 2013; published online April 26, 2013. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 13(2), 021010 (Apr 26, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: JCISE-12-1110; doi: 10.1115/1.4023860 History: Received July 12, 2012; Revised February 11, 2013

A new graph grammar based reasoning is proposed to reason about the manufacturability of 3D solid models. The knowledge captured in the graph grammar rules serves as a virtual machinist in its ability to recognize arbitrary geometries and match them to various machining operations. For a given part, its 3D CAD geometry is first decomposed into multiple subvolumes, where each is assumed to be machined in one operation. The decomposed part is then converted into a graph so that the graph-grammar rules can perform further reasoning and determine the machining details. A candidate plan is a feasible sequence of all of the necessary machining operations needed to manufacture this part. For each operation, the rules determine the face on the part that the tool enters, the type of tools used, the type of machine used, and how the part is fixed within the machine. If a given geometry is not machinable, the rules will fail to find a complete manufacturing plan for all of the subvolumes. As a result of this reasoning, designers can quickly get insights into how a part can be made and how it can be improved (e.g., change features to reduce time and cost) based upon the feedback of the rules. A variety of tests on this algorithm on both simple and complex engineering parts show its effectiveness and efficiency.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Eftekharian, A., and Campbell, M. I., 2012, “Convex Decomposition of 3D Solid Models for Automated Manufacturing Process Planning Applications,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences IDETC, Chicago, IL.
Russell, E. L., 1967, Automated Manufacturing Planning, American Management Association, New York.
Marri, H. B., GunasekaranA., and Grieve, R. J., 1998, “Computer-Aided Process Planning: A State of Art,” Int. J. Adv. Manufacturing Technol., 14, pp. 261–268. [CrossRef]
Berenji, H. R., and Khoshnevis, B., 1986, “Use of Artificial Intelligence in Automated Process Planning,” 5(2), pp. 47–55.
Chryssolouris, G., and Chan, S., 1985, “An Integrated Approach to Process Planning and Scheduling,” Ann. CIRP, 34(1), pp. 413–417. [CrossRef]
Wang, H.-p., and Wysk, R. A., 1988, “A Knowledge-Based Approach For Automated Process Planning,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 26, pp. 994–1014. [CrossRef]
Sharma, R., and Gao, J., 2002, “Implementation of Step 224 in an Automated Manufacturing Planning System,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Sage Journals, Thousand Oaks, CA, 216(9), pp. 1277–1289. [CrossRef]
Allen, R. D., HardingJ. A., and Newman, S. T., 2005, “The Application of STEP-NC Using Agent-Based Process Planning,” Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 43, pp. 655–670. [CrossRef]
Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., and Rozenberg, G., 1999, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformations, World Science Publication Co., NJ.
Krause, F.-L., Kimura, F., Kjellberg, T., Lu, S.-Y., Wolf, V. d., Alting, L., ElMaraghy, H., Eversheim, W., Iwata, K., Suh, N., Tipnis, V., and Week, M., 1993, “Product Modeling,” Ann. CIRP, 42(2), pp. 695–716.
Rockwood, A. P., 1996, “Geometric Primitives,” ACM Comput. Surv., 28(1), pp. 149–151. [CrossRef]
Han, J., Pratt, M., and Regli, W. C., 2000, “Manufacturing Feature Recognition from Solid Models: A Status Report,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom., 16(6), pp. 782–796. [CrossRef]
Shah, J.1991, “An Assessment of Features Technology,” Comput.-Aided Des., 23(5) Elsevier, The Netherlands, pp. 331–343.
Shah, J. J., Anderson, D., Kim, Y. S., and Joshi, S., 2001, “A Discourse on Geometric Feature Recognition From CAD Models,” ASME, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 1(1), pp. 41–51. [CrossRef]
Somashekar Subrahmanyam, M. W., 1995, “An Overview of Automatic Feature Recognition Techniques For Computer-Aided Process Planning,” Comput Ind., 26, pp. 1–21. [CrossRef]
Babic, B., Nesic, N., and Miljkovic, Z., 2008, “A Review of Automated Feature Recognition With Rule-Based Pattern Recognition,” Comput Ind., 59, pp. 321–337. [CrossRef]
Marefat, M., and Kashyap, R. L., 1990, “Geometric Reasoning for Recognition of 3-D Object Features,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 12(10), pp. 949–965. [CrossRef]
Timo Laakko, M. M., 1993, “Feature Modelling by Incremental Feature Recognition,” Computer-Aided Design, 25(8), pp. 479–492. [CrossRef]
Joshi, S., and Chang, T. C., 1988, “Graph Based Heuristics For Recognition Of Machined Features From A 3-D Solid Model,” Comput.-Aided Des., 20, pp. 58–66. [CrossRef]
Trika, S. N., and Kashyap, R. L., 1994, “Geometric Reasoning for Extraction of Manufacturing Features In Iso-Oriented Polyhedrons,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 16(11), pp. 1087–1100. [CrossRef]
Kumar, B. V. S., and Rao, C. S., 2011/2012, “Automatic Extraction of Three Dimensional Prismatic Machining Features From CAD Model,” Int. J. Comp. Sci. Comm. Netw., 1(3), pp. 285–296. Available at: http://www.ijcscn.com/vol1issue3.php
Sadaiah, M., Yadav, D. R., Mohanram, P. V., and Radhakrishnan, P., 2002, “A Generative CAPP System For Prismatic Components,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 20, pp. 709–719. [CrossRef]
Bouzakis, H. K.-D., and Andreadis, G., 2000, “A Feature-Based Algorithm For Computer Aided Process Planning For Prismatic Parts,” Int. J. Prod. Eng. Comput., 3(3), pp. 17–22.
Henderson, M., and Anderson, D., 1984, “Computer Recognition and Extraction of Form Features: A CAD/CAPP Link,” Comput. Ind., 5, pp. 329–339. [CrossRef]
Sunil, V. B., and Pande, S. S., 2008, “Automatic Recognition Of Features From Freeform Surface CAD Models,” Comput.-Aided Des., 40, pp. 502–517. [CrossRef]
Kim, Y. S., Wang, E., Lee, C. S., and Rho, H. M., 1998, Feature-Based Machining Precedence Reasoning and Sequence Planning, Atlanta, GA.
Shapiro, V., 1999, “Well-Formed Set Representations Of Solids,” Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl. (IJCGA), 9, pp. 125–150. [CrossRef]
Tor, S., and Middleditch, A. E., 1984, “Convex Decomposition of Simple Polygons,” ACM Trans. Graph., 3, pp. 244–265. [CrossRef]
Dobkin, D., Guibas, L., and Hershberger, J., 1989, “An Efficient Algorithm for Finding the CSG Representation of a Simple Polygon,” SIGGRAPH '88 Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, ACM, NY., pp. 31–40.
Woo, T., 1982, “Feature Extraction by Volume Decomposition,” CAD/CAM Technology in Mechanical Engineering, Proc. Conf. CAD/CAM Technology in Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 76–94.
KimY., and Wilde, D., 1992, “Convex Hulls and Local Cause of Its Non-Convergence,” ASME, J. Mech Des., 114(3), pp. 459–467. [CrossRef]
Kim, Y.1992, “Recognition of Form Features Using Convex Decomposition,” Comput.-Aided Des., Elsevier, The Netherlands, 24(9), pp. 461–476. [CrossRef]
Ertelt, C., and Shea, K., 2009, An Application of Shape Grammars to Planning For CNC Machining, San Diego, CA.
Marinescu, R., and Dechter, R., 2004, “And/Or Tree Search for Constraint Optimization,” Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Preferences and Soft Constraints.
Campbell, M. I., “GraphSynth2: Software For Generative Grammars and Creative Search,” 7/2/2012, http://graphsynth.com/
Blarigan, B. V., Campbell, M. I., Eftekharian, A. A., and Kurtoglu, T., 2012, “Automated Estimation of Time and Cost For Determining Optimal Machining Plans,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences IDETC, DETC12-70338, Chicago, IL.
“FeatureCAM,” Delcam Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, http://www.featurecam.com/ (Accessed).
Blarigan, B. V., 2012, “Automated Estimation of Time and Cost for Determining Optimal Machining Plans,” University of Texas, Ph.D thesis, Austin, TX. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2012-05-5246
Eftekharian, A. A., Fu, W., Manion, C., and Campbell, M. I., 2013, “Automatic Reasoning for Defining Lathe Operations for Arbitrary Geometries,” Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Portland, OR.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the reasoning scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Volume decomposition tree

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The simple solid model shown as part A in Fig. 1 as a seed graph in the reasoning process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A sample face representation in the seed lexicon

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

An example of infeasible tool entry face

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Two drilling rules in graph synth (a) drilling rule 1 for hole of type 1 (b) drilling rule 2 for hole of type 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The VMC rule from rule set #5 in the grammar reasoning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Rule sets flow chart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

A sample manufacturing plan for the solid model shown as part A in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Summary report of the search space for the part discussed in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The main chassis part

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

A sample manufacturing plan for the chassis part

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

3D model of the radio-box (a) decomposed negative solid (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

One machining sequence for the radio-box

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

A sample manufacturing plan for the radio-box

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

A nonmanufacturable part due to design flaws (a), the machined model in FeatureCAM software (b), sample manufacturing plan generated in AMFA for the part (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

A sample manufacturing plan generated from FeatureCAM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The consolidated plan for the part shown in Fig. 1



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