erasmus-decker
Uploaded by
14 SLIDES
275 VUES
140LIKES

Geometric Model Processing in Identifying Functional Designations for Product Components

DESCRIPTION

This briefing outlines the progress of Task 1 in the ROMMA project, focusing on geometric model processing to identify components' functional designations from solid product models. The project employs geometric analysis to establish conventional interfaces among neighboring solids, which can include interference, contact, or clearance. The outcomes consist of annotated models and categorized components based on functional designations. Future directions involve developing efficient algorithms and formalizing inference rules to enhance understanding of product geometry and kinematics.

1 / 14

Télécharger la présentation

Geometric Model Processing in Identifying Functional Designations for Product Components

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ahmad Shahwan - Gilles Foucault - Jean-Claude Léon G-SCOP Laboratory Université de Grenoble, Grenoble-INP March 2011 ROMMA Task 1Geometric Model ProcessingStatus Briefing

  2. Introduction • A PhDthesis in participation to ROMMA Project. • The ultimate goal is to identify components’ funtional designation given the solid model of a product. • Subtasks • Geometric analysis of the model. • Reasoning and inference.

  3. Introduction • Input: the solid model of a product (its DMU). • Output: the same model, now annotated with components functional designations. Task 1

  4. Conventional Interfaces • A Conventional Interface between two neighboring solids describe the geometrical interaction between them. • They can be either of the following: • Interference, • Contact, or • Clearance.

  5. Conventional Interfaces • Example: A cap-screw Contact Clearance Interference

  6. The Identification Process • Models are analysed geometrically to obtain Conventional Interfaces between solids. • Conventional Interface Graph (CIG) is built as the data structure upon which the reasoning will be done. • The inference of functional designation and kinematic classes is accomplished based on hypotheses and reference states.

  7. The Identification Process • Example: Cap-screw. Solid Model CIG Annotated Model

  8. Geometric Analysis • Detection of conventional interfaces between components. • We consider DMUs to be presented as B-Reps in a STEP format file. • Tools: OpenCASCADE development platform. • Basic algorithms have been sketched so far based on bounding boxes and Boolean operations to detect interaction zones. • Efficient and robust algorithms are to be developed: • Exploiting the canonical nature of functional surfaces, • Using octrees… • The output of this phase is the CIG.

  9. Reasoning and Inference • Reference States • The product is mechanically isolated; no external forces. • No internal mobility in the general case. • Dualities • Geometry/Force • Geometry/Mobility • Mobility classes are inferred • Structures; One mobility class. • Mechanisms; Two or more mobility classes. • User Interaction may be required to guide the reasoning. • Iterative process.

  10. Reasoning and Inference • Example: Threaded connection.

  11. Semantic Annotations • Based on the result of our analysis and reasoning, components are classified according to their functional designation into a comprehensive taxonomy. • Preliminary ontology is sketched using OWL to this end. • Methods of augmenting the models with such semantic annotation are suggested in [1].

  12. Conclusions • Current work motivates the reasoning upon component geometric interaction to infer functional and kinematic properties. • Future work • More efficient and robust algorithms is to be developed exploiting the prevailing features of product models. • Data structures. • Continue formalizing inference rules.

  13. Bibliography • G. Foucault, A. Shahwan, J-C. Léon, & L. Fine. What is the Content of a DMU? Analysis and Proposal of Improvements. In Proc. AIP-PRIMECA, La Plagne France, March2011. • A. Shahwan, G. Foucault, J-C. Léon, & L. Fine. Towards Automated Identification of Functional Designations of Components Based on Geometric Analysis of a DMU. In Proc. GTMG, Grenoble France, March 2011.

  14. Thanks

More Related