Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B.

Adel

INTEGRATING DESIGN AND PRODUCTION PLANNING WITH KNOWLEDGE-BASED INSPECTION PLANNING SYSTEM
Ghaleb Y. Abbasi*
Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, University of Jordan

Hussein S. Ketan and Mazen B. Adil


Industrial Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq

: . ." " . . . ABSTRACT


In this paper an intelligent environment to integrate design and inspection was introduced to bring inspection earlier to the design stage. A hybrid knowledge-based approach integrating computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided inspection planning (CAIP) was developed, thereafter called computer-aided design and inspection planning (CADIP). CADIP was adopted for automated dimensional inspection planning. Critical functional features were screened based on certain attributes for part features for inspection planning application. Testing the model resulted in minimizing the number of probing vectors associated with the most important features in the inspected prismatic part, significant reduction in inspection costs and release of human labor. In totality, this tends to increase customer satisfaction as a final goal of the developed system. Key Words: Planning, inspection, prismatic parts, integration, CAD, CAM, and CMM.

*Address for correspondence: Associate Prof. and Chairman, Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, University of Jordan, Amman Jordan. Tel. + 962 6 535 5000, Fax + 962 6 535 5888. E-mail: abbasi@ju.edu.jo

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

245

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

INTEGRATING DESIGN AND PRODUCTION PLANNING WITH KNOWLEDGE-BASED INSPECTION PLANNING SYSTEM
1. INTRODUCTION Due to market competitiveness, the demand to apply modern tools and techniques to automate product inspection has increased. An automated product quality inspection not only reduces the inspection costs but also releases human labor from a heavy workload. The main objective of a modern manufacturing company is to bring new and carry-over products to customers before competitors, with lower cost, and improved quality. This mechanism is called quality function deployment (QFD), which represents a change from the old manufacturing quality control to product development quality control [1]. Quality engineering uses robust design to improve product quality and reduces the effects of variation [2]. Computer-based product quality inspection has introduced fresh perspectives in production control. This is primarily due to the advances in image processing, pattern recognition, classification, computer vision and robotics, artificial intelligence, and above all in the microelectronics and sensors [3]. Computer aided design (CAD) is the corner stone of the modern manufacturing environment. Computer integrated manufacturing (CIM), and the CAD and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) systems are well established in the literature. It is strongly recognized in the literature that to take a component model from present CAD systems and automatically generate all the information needed for down stream activities, such as inspection, is smething far from being accomplished. Hence, the linking and automation of CAD and computer-aided inspection (CAI) systems for product is considered a fertile research ground [47]. Due to the change brought about by the spreading use of CAD/CAM systems and concurrent engineering in industry dimensional accuracy has been one of the primary concerns in manufacturing. Among many forms of metrological apparatus is the use of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) in dimensional inspection [8]. CMM is an electromechanical system designed to perform coordinate metrology. It consists of a contact probe positioned in threedimensional (3-D) space relative to the surfaces of the work part; the x, y, and z coordinates of the probe can be accurately and precisely recorded to obtain dimensional data concerning the part geometry to accomplish measurement in 3-D. Basic CMM is composed of the following components: probe head to contact the work part surfaces, mechanical structure to provide motion of the probe in three Cartesian axes, and displacement transducers to measure the coordinate values of each axis. In addition, many CMMs have a drive system and control unit to move each of the three axes, and digital computer system with application software [9, 10]. Inspection is an important element toward assuring customer satisfaction. In this paper a knowledge-based approach is used to integrate a hybrid of computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided inspection planning (CAIP). This system is called computer-aided design and inspection planning (CADIP), which is used in automated dimensional inspection planning [11]. 2. CURRENT STATE OF INTEGRATING DESIGN AND INSPECTION The design process consists of several phases ranging from analysis of customer requirements to downstream manufacturing, including inspection and testing. Inspection is the fulfilling of specifications laid down by designers and manufacturers. The preliminary product design stage involves finding the form, shape, and size of product to satisfy functionality, while the detailed product design stage involves determining product quality as dimensional accuracy, surface finish, and product final functionality [1]. Inspection of the product/part requires knowledge and interpretation of the product design intent, process used, capabilities of inspection methods, and tools available. CAD is considered the cornerstone of CIM. To integrate CAD with subsequent applications, such as inspection, manufacturers have automating the function of product inspection as a mean for improving productivity and quality and of reducing labor costs. In the physical world, a product consists of units and/or parts. Each unit is described by a number of geometric entities associated with technical specifications. Hence, the proposed design representation should provide detailed descriptions so that the product model can support variety of applications such as inspection. Featured based design (FBD) is a process in which parts are specified in terms of their constituent parameterized form features, instead of geometry command such as line, arc, or primitive commands such as cylinder and cone. It ensures that the feature information necessary for the downstream applications such as inspection as a part of process planning is incorporated as

246

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

early as possible in the design cycle. FBD encompasses approaches to incorporate features into a CAD model such as automatic feature recognition (AFR) and design by features (DBF). The AFR approach is used to take the General CAD model as it is available commercially and provides an automated interface to recognize and extract the manufacturing features from the model. This feature extractor will derive all part features based on geometric and topological information stored in the CAD database. In contrast the DBF approach, features are incorporated into the part model from the beginning. Generics feature definitions are placed in the library from which features are instanced by specifying dimension, location parameters, and various attributes [6]. The major problem with transfer of CAD geometry to an off-line programming (OLP) system via CAD exchange standards is that these do not encompass tolerance data important for the evaluation of specific results. This is often done with the CMM software, and by the automation of many inspection planning tasks. Efforts have been made in the past several years to address the problems associated with the integration of CAD and the automation measuring instruments. These efforts in cluude Cowling and Mullineux [6], Marefat et al [12], Ngo and Tan [13], Lin and Chen [14], OGrady et al [15], Legge [5], Jeang [2], Ziemian and Medeiros [16], and Huang and Gu [17]. These efforts were oriented in the following four directions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Using FBD technology. Development of algorithms and techniques to evaluate actual geometric tolerances using measurement data. Development of techniques for automatic generation for inspection programs from current CAD database. Application of artificial intelligent (AI) expert system in the building of inspection process planning systems.

The above mentioned literature tackled the problems of probe selection, point selection, measuring sequence, and path planning and feature accessibility. These inspection systems avoided explicit consideration to discuss determining the appropriateness of measuring features instead of the philosophy of checking all dimensions of a part to validate the product function or quality. It seems appropriate to develop some certain guidelines based on design and manufacturing knowledge along with inspection concept and practice for inspection planning. This paper implemented an environment based on this concept via the use of critical functional features (high level features) which are screened, based on certain attributes, for part features such as geometric parameter tolerances (GPT), geometric characteristic tolerances (GCT), and process capability (PC) as design, manufacturing, and inspection knowledge for the inspection planning application. The developed environment integrates CAD and CAIP systems to assist in inspection planning tasks, i.e. reduce measurement points, sequences and paths, traveling distances, positions of measurement points etc., to direct the operation of the flexible inspection system CMM for the dimensional inspection of the prismatic parts. In this research CMM will be directed toward the most important features to be inspected to plan the inspection according to the inspection knowledge and rules that reside in the system, resulting in less workload and more reliability. 3. AUTOMATED DIMENSIONAL INSPECTION PLANNING Dimensional inspection planning consists of determining plans and instructions for measuring the dimensions and tolerances of the object's different attributes. A typical automating planning system must be able to [12]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Find the abstract shape information (higher-level feature) in a part. Determine the relationships between the features. Determine, on the basis of the above information, the physical entities (edges, etc.) to be measured. Determine the possible probe locations and a probe direction. Minimize probing operations while achieving successful measurement of all entities (optimization).

An important aspect of automated inspection planning is to establish which planning elements are required to allow inspection of all component features. The automated inspection elements are as follows [5]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Component/probe orientation strategy. Probe point placement algorithms and probing density. Sequence of probing. Clash avoidance clash detection/evasion. Generation of DMIS programs.
The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

October 2005

247

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

There are two approaches to drafting the inspection plan [8, 18]. A generative approach, where the plan generated is completely new, the planning system must have enough intelligence to interpret the task-oriented instructions and infer the inspection plan. The second is the variant approach, in which the sample inspection plans of product variants are stored in the computer. The planner retrieves these plans and fills in the parameters needed for describing the inspected object. Several researchers have addressed the integration of numerical CMM with CAD system via computer-aided inspection process planning (CAIPP) including Dereli and Filiiz [19], Saini and Jovanovski [20], Rashed [21], Duffuaa and Al-Najjar [22], Cho and Kim [23], Lim and Menq [24], Yau and Meno [10], Menq et al. [9], and Cowling and Mullinenx [6]. However, this work showed that the designers philosophy lies in inspecting all features to validate the part, with the drawbacks of the CMM as being only an accurate digitizer lacking inspection planning. Therefore automated inspection planning becomes increasingly important to enhance the CMM capability. Planning by computer has become an accepted method with the development of good expert systems for quality control (QC) planning [18]. It is certain that there will be no universal generic planning system to handle inspection of all products because there is no general definition of product features: design, manufacturing, inspection. Future planning systems for inspection will be domain-specific for families of product variants. Hence, a prismatic part and three families of polyhedral features have been selected for system implementation. 4. CADIP SYSTEM CONCEPT The system concept is explicit in the framework as shown in Figure (1), it is composed of four key elements: design by feature; data exchange format (DXF) files, feature recognizer, and inspection planner. A CADIP system is used to assist in flexible inspection planning to direct the operation of the flexible inspection system CMM inspection of the prismatic parts. This research aims at achieving inspection environment that will lead to automated dimensional inspection.
Small scale CAD DBF Product design model Common Part Definition Data File AutoCAD Tool DXF Files Feature Recognation Module Features Recognation Exctraction CAIP Inspection Planner

Inspection Systems y CMM

Figure 1. Framework of CAD/CAIP integration

5. CADIP SYSTEM METHODOLOGY This research develops an integrating environment including a hybrid CAD sub-system and a CAIP sub-system used to generate the inspection plan and detailed instructions for inspecting the final products. These components share a common database that correlates and incorporates their data as shown in Figure 2. The goal is to develop a system in which design and inspection planning are integrated. In inspection planning, the strategy of measuring a components attributes which include high level features such as slots, steps, holes, etc. and the low-level features such as lines, points, etc. is achieved by considering the interactions between these features. The methodology is achieved via the following: 1. 2. 3. Rules, structures, and pointers-based representation of knowledge and modeling of behavior of the individual components in the design and inspection planning Developing other necessary components such as interfaces data models to achieve the integrated environment. Developing a flexible approach for design by feature, feature recognition of 3-D prismatic parts, and a knowledge-based geometric reasoning approach for automated inspection planning.

The CADIP system includes three basic modules: design by feature module; feature recognition module, and inspection planning module

248

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

DXF

F.R.

User Interface (U.I.)

D.B.F.

D.B.

Inspection Planner

Figure 2. CADIP system components

6. INSPECTION PLANNING KNOWLEDGE BASE The function of the inspection planning module is to generate the inspection plans and instructions for measuring the dimensions and tolerances, optimizing probing and processing operations of the objects different attributes. Preparation of an inspection knowledge base entails the listing of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Working faces in which features are created. High-level feature types created on a certain working face. Feature directions and probe locations. The settings for each feature, which are determined by, feature type and direction. Inspection parameters and measuring edges for each setting. Edge limits and edge value. Probe approach directions and probe inspection directions for measurable edges for each setting.

By determining the list of setting features and their measurable entities of the part feature(s), inspecting methods can be determined. There is more than one way to inspect an attribute, for example as shown in Figure 3(a), a noninteracting S-slot has four edges that can be used to effectively determine its length (L). The higher-level shape information is extracted from the CAD model using geometric reasoning mechanism. This information is used to determine the different attributes to be measured and the different methods for measuring each attribute. In modeling this knowledge the concept variant feature is exploited as a super class feature that is of two types: prismatic and rotational features. This concept captures a common model about subclass features of the super class feature. New feature shapes can be implemented as simple and compound shapes by simply adding a new supper class feature to the subclass feature.
October 2005 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

249

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Primary setting

4
Secondary setting

8 4 8 3 3 7 1 5
Secondary setting

2 6 7

Z X Y 1

Figure 3(a) Boundary vertices, primary and secondary setting for object and S-slot feature.

DF-1

DF-2

DF-3

DE

AE

AE

AE

AF-1

4
AF-2

1 3 5
AE

2 6
AF-3

AE

4 3 8 7 AE

1 5
AE

DE

2
AE

4 7

Figure 3(b) Dummy Faces (DF) and Active Faces (AF) for S-slot feature.

Figure 3(c) Dummy Edges (DE) and Active Edges (AE) for s-slot feature.

1,2,6 1 d w 8 7 L 3 5 6 2 1,5 4 8 1 4 2 3 7 5 3,4,5 1 5

6 3 2 6

Figure 3(d) Geometric parameters for S-slot feature.

Figure 3(e) Best loops and paths for measuring S-slot create on face-3 in x-direction with reference vertices (vertex-1 and vertex-2).

Figure 3. Descriptive knowledge details of S-slot feature.

250

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

To determine which geometric entities should be used during inspection, the system should know the abstract feature attributes that need to be inspected and how they are related to the geometric entities of the part. This information is represented in rules and captured in the structure called inspection-structure which is used to model the collection of attributes to be measured for a particular feature, for example as shown in Figure (4) a S-slot creation in different working faces and directions and its inspection attributes viewed from different settings. The information for determining which geometric entities should be used for each attributes measurement is represented by rules in another structure called design-structure and this information is retrieved as needed. These rules basically determine the different strategies one can use for an attributes inspection and are instrumental in reasoning with abstract information about the part.

4 1

8 5 3 7 6 Z X

8 7 3

5 2 6

Y
Figure 4(a) S-slot on face-1 in Y and Z directions. Figure 4(b ) S-slot on face-1 in Y and Z directions.

7 7 8 4 3 6 5 1 8 2 3

6 2

5 4 1

Figure 4(c) S-slot on face-2 in X and Z directions

Figure 4(d) S-slot on face-2 in X and Z directions

4 8 3 7

1 5 2 6

4 8

1 5 3 7 2 6

Figure 4(e) S-slot on face-3 in X and Y directions.

Figure 4(f) S-slot on face-3 in X and Y directions.

Figure 4. S-Slot created on indifferent working faces and directions.

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

251

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Based on the primary setting faces (working faces) and the secondary faces (faces interacting with primary faces) as shown in Figure 3(a), the inspection plan parameter for each feature in any direction and location can be determined such as probing locations (inspection points), probe approach directions, probe inspection directions, linked with a list of all the physical entities (currently edges) which can be successfully inspected. These settings and edges are illustrated in Table 1 for slot feature family. Based on dummy and active faces, the different combinations of the proposed probe locations, approach directions, and inspection directions are systematically explored and simple classification procedure is performed to determine whether a minimum set of required entities of the part could be measured from the particular probing combination. For example, based on analysis of dummy and active faces analysis as shown in Figure 3 and Table 2 one can determine the best loops and paths for inspection attribute to S-slot feature as following: best loops are (14) and (37). The best paths from vertex (1) to vertex (7) are path (1) = 17, path (2) = 17, and path (3) = 17. While, from vertex (2) to vertex (8) the best paths are: path (4) = 28, path (5) = 28, and path (6) = 28. The best combination of probe parameters (probe approaches, and probe inspection direction), feature attribute's edges, edge value, etc. are used to construct an inspection plan. After the inspection plan construction, the plan is logically represented to be used by the inspection system.

Table 1. Geometric Inspection Knowledge for Slot Feature Family.


Work Face Direction Setting - 1 Setting - 2 Setting - 3

Feature Type

S. slot B. slot V. slot D. slot W. slot

F 1

Y Z

L E1-2 E3-4 E1-4 E2-3

F 2

X Z

w1 E2-3 E1-4 E1-2 E3-4 E3-4

w2

d1

d2

w1 E2-3

w2 E6-7

d1 E2-6

d2 E3-7

w1

w2

d1

d2

E3-4 E7-8 E4-8 E3-7 E4-1 E2-3 E1-2 E3-4 E1-2 E3-4 E2-3 E4-1 E1-4 E2-3 E1-2 E3-4

E7-8

E4-8

E3-7

E2-3 E1-2 E3-4 E2-3 E1-4

E6-7

E2-6

E3-7

F 3

X Y

E3-4

E7-8

E4-8

E3-7 E2-3 E6-7 E2-6 E3-7

7. INSPECTION PLANNING MODULE The inspection planner is a knowledge-based system that is an AI technique, as shown in Figure 5. A major component of inspection planning is the inspection planning knowledge, which includes the following. 1. Declarative knowledge: this about the problem part information and features, inspection characteristics specification, and manufacturing processes, etc. A sample of this knowledge is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 and Table 1 for the slot feature family. Procedural Knowledge: this is about how to solve problems that reside in the system, sample of this knowledge is illustrated in Table 3 for S-Slot feature. Declarative and procedural knowledge constitute the system's problem solving knowledge.

2.

252

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Functional Feature Geometry

Inspection Attributes

Knowledge of Inspection

Functional Feature Attributes

Inspection Plan

Figure 5. Framework of inspection planner

In order to automate the inspection planning, inspection attributes are stored in CAD database along with geometric model for making inspection plan. Geometric knowledge consists of a hierarchal description including part CAD boundary representation, which consists of the description of faces, edges, and vertices. Since this information is not sufficient for the required reasoning at higher description level, information about the type of shape features such as steps, holes, etc. and its locations represented and tied with lower level descriptions. The activities of the CADIP system are built for the inspection of machining and net shaped products of prismatic parts. The function of inspection planning module is to generate the inspection attributes, inspection points, and probing directions (probe approach and inspection directions) for the selected feature attributes. The example shown in Table 3 represents knowledge that is used to generate inspection plan for the S-slot feature. After inspection, data is generated from the inspection planning module and downloaded to CMM.

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

253

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Table 2. Dummy faces, active faces, best inspection loops, and best inspection paths for S-slot feature. Feature Type Active Face (AF) AFs loop vertices AF-1 1-4-8-5 AF-2 AF-3 5-6-7-8 2-3-7-6 Dummy Face (DF) DFs Loop vertices DF-1 3-4-8-7 DF-2 DF-3 1-2-3-4 1-2-6-5 Active Edge (AE) AEs Edges No. 10 1-4, 4-8, 8-5, 5-1 5-6, 6-7, 7-8 2-3, 3-7, 2-6 Dummy Edge (DE) A DEs Edges No. 2 1-2, 3-4

S-Slot Create on F-3 in X-directIon

Inspection Loops No 6 loop vertices 1265 2376 1485 1234 3487 5678

Inspection Edges No 12 Edges 12,26,65,51 23,37,76 14,48,85 34 87

Direct accessibility loops For B G. parameters Inspection Inspection edge G. loops parameter 1234 12 w 23 L 34 w 14 L 3487 34 w 48 d 87 w 37 d 1265 12 w 26 d 65 w 51 d No. of settings 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 AF1 AF2 AF3 Surface finish inspection loops 1485 5678 2378

Best inspection loops 1234 And 3487 Or 1234 and 1265

Best motion paths 1487 1437 1237 2378 2348 2148

No. of inspection points 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

254

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Table 3. Inspection Plan Parameters for S-slot Feature Type Inspection Parameter Parameter Edge Face Direction Settings Feature type Working Face Edge Limits From (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) To (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) Edge Value Difference Y2-1 Y4-3 Z3-2 Z4-1 Z3-2 Z7-6 X7-3 X6-2 Z4-1 Z3-2 Y2-1 Y4-3 Y4-3 Y8-7 X7-3 X8-4 Probe approach orientation 1,0,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 0,1,0 0,1,0 0,1,0 0,1,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,0,1 Probe Inspection orientation 0,1,0 0,1,0 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,0,1 1,0,0 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,0,1 0,1,0 0,1,0 0,1,0 0,1,0 1,0,0 1,0,0
No. of Inspecti on point

1 S-Slot created on different work faces and directions.

L w

0,1,0 F1

w d

1 0,0,1 3

L w w d

1-2 3-4 2-3 1-4 2-3 6-7 3-7 2-6 1-4 2-3 1-2 3-4 3-4 7-8 3-7 4-8

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8.

INSPECTION PLAN GENERATION

8.1 Critical Functional Feature Screening Criteria The developed system has been applied in two industrial firms, by inspecting and checking all features of the manufactured parts. A simple verification procedure uses three criteria to filter the more critical functional features for inspection planning purposes. These are: (i) - Geometric parameter tolerances (GPT) criteria: to classify the more critical feature(s) of a group of part features, this is achieved by increasing-order of the geometric parameter tolerances. (ii) - Geometric characteristic tolerances (GCT) criteria: to classify the more critical feature(s) of a group of part features, this is achieved by the same manner in criteria (i). (iii) - Process Capability indexes (PCIs) criteria: which is the more comprehensive criteria giving indication based on the three types of knowledge i.e. GPT, GCT, and PC to determine the normal, critical, and the feature to be modified. For this reason the PCIs criteria proposes for best inspection plan generation by CADIP system implementation. The PCIs work as follow: define the process capability, define the tolerance limits for GP and for GC tolerances, then calculate the PCIs based on GP and GC tolerances as (PCIs)1 and (PCIs)2 respectively using the PCI formula:
P.C.I = U L 6

(1)

Where U, L = denotes upper and lower tolerance limits, = denote the standard deviation. Classify the results of PCI to be =1, >1, <1 which are corresponding to the critical (C), normal (N), and modify (M) feature respectively. Select the feature whose PCI. results equal to value (1) as a critical feature(s).

These criteria are used as designer, inspection process planner, and manufacturing process planner knowledge respectively for determining the best inspection plan, Figure 6.

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

255

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Select GPTs

Manufacturing features

Select GCTs

Increaseing order of tolerance value

Modify PC or GP Select the first G P as a criteria

Select PC values Select the first GC as a criteria

Modify PC or GC

Determine UL and L

Determine PCI = (U-L)/6

Determine UL and L

<1

PC =1 OR >OR <1

=1

Selecting critical features

=1

PC =1 OR >OR <1

<1

Selecting normal feature

Determine best inspection plan based on PA or SA key parameters


P = Parameter. c = Characteristic. Ts = Tolerances . PCI = Process capabnility index. PA = Primary area. SA = Secondary area PA= SA or > SA or <SA

>1 PA
=

>1

PA <

PA > select PA or SA

Select PA

Select SA

Determine inspection settings and associated inspection instruction

Figure 6. Flow chart for critical, normal, and modify features determination for best inspection plan.

256

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

8.2 Inspection Plan Tree Generation Based on critical feature(s) of a part and the information in the inspection-structure, then the settings and the measurable edges of inspection plan tree can be extract by the CADIP system for any selecting feature. 8.3 Inspection Plan Instructions Generation Based on the design information and the inspection knowledge, generate the inspection instructions. The CADIP system allows the user to select all or part of the settings and measurable entities as shown in Table 1 to construct the final inspection plan instructions for the determined critical and normal features of the designed part. 9. CADIP SYSTEM TESTING According to the concept and methodology of the CADIP system, a mechanical prismatic part was selected to test the capability of the system, Figure 7. Part definition data file: Part dimensions : (100 x 100 x 100) (X Y Z) Max. Datum point(3) : (100 , 100 , 100) (X , Y , Z) Number of features :7 Feature type : S-Step Working face : F1/3 (YZ / XY) Feature direction : (0,1,0) (Y) Feature position : Distance-1 (D1) : 0 Distance-2 (D2) : 0 Feature parameters : Length (L) : 100 Width1(w1) : 10 Width2(w2) : 10 Depth1(d1) : 10 Depth2(d2) : 10 Geometric parameter tolerances : 0.003 Geometric characteristic tolerances: 0.005 Process capability : 0.003
Figure 7. Mechanical part design model

From Figure 6, critical features for best inspection plan are determined next: 1. 2. By increase-ordering parameter tolerances (Table 4), select feature number (1) as a critical feature. By increasing order of the geometric characteristic tolerances (Table 5), select feature number (1) as a critical feature. Table 4. Increased Ordering of Parameters Tolerances. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Feature Type S-Step W-Slot D-Slot Small-Step S-Slot Blind- Pocket Blind-Taper Pocket G. Parameter Tolerances 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

257

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

Table 5. Increasing Order of the Geometrical Features. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Feature Type W-Slot D-Slot S-Step Blind- Pocket S-Slot Blind-Taper Pocket Small-Step G. Characteristics Tolerances 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009

By computing the PCI. (Table 6), for each feature, the resultant will be that features 1, 3, and 6 are critical features. Table 6. Process Capability Index for All Features. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Feature Type S-Step W-Slot D-Slot Small-Step S-Slot Blind- Pocket Blind-Taper Pocket G.P.T-1 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 G.C.T-2 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.008 Process Capability 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.002 Process capability indexes P.C.I -1 R P.C.I -2 R 1.000 C 1.66 N 0.660 M 0.5 M 1.220 N 1 C 0.850 M 1.28 N 0.875 M 0.875 M 1.300 N 1 C 4.500 N 4 N

4.

The inspection plan tree information for critical features for the S-Step are Setting-1: L = E1-2, Setting-2: w2= E2-6 d2 = E6-7, and Setting-3: L = E7-8. By following the same procedure for features 3 and 6, the information tree can be obtained. The inspection plan instructions generated are shown in Table 7.

5.

Comparison between the developed CADIP system with other existing systems such as the one developed by Menq et al. [9] and with an other two existing intelligent inspection, design, and manufacturing companies CAD/CAM systems has proven that the CADIP has several advantages. Among these are: using the critical functional feature for determining inspection strategy; retrieving geometric information from CADIP database, and designing the best inspection plan based on the critical specifications. Table 7. Generated Inspection Plan Instructions. Work Face Settings Feature Type Edge Limits From (1,1,1) to (1,1,1) (100,0,90-100,100,90) (90,100,90-100,100,90) (90,100,100-90,100,90) (90,0,100-90,100,100) Edge value 100 10 10 100 Probe Approach Orientation 1,0,0 0,1,0 1,0,0 1,0,0 Probe inspection orientation 0,1,0 1,0,0 0,1,0 0,0,1 Number of Inspection Point 2 2 2 2
October 2005

Inspection Parameter L w2 d2 L

S-Step

F 1/3

0,1,0

1 2

258

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

Parameter Edge 1-2 2-6 6-7 7-8

Face Direction

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS The research presents a methodology for developing an integrated computer-aided design (CAD) and computeraided inspection planning (CAIP) systems into a computer-aided design and inspection planning (CADIP) system. The developed CADIP functional capabilities can be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Present a flexible approach for hybrid design system; design by feature and feature recognition approaches of 3-D wireframe prismatic part. Developing a geometric reasoning system approach for automating inspection planning. Offer the capability to select and measure the measurable entities (edges) of critical and normal features created on different par settings. Ability to determine feature edges according to different part orientations based on measurable geometric parameters (edges) for a feature defined in different measuring settings and vectors. Thus in CADIP system two primary interfaces must be constructed to link CAD and inspection system by computeraided inspection planning, this is achieved by the ability to accept part definition data from CAD system and relate the inspection attributes to geometric entities of part. CADIP stores the logical decision rules, part definition data, algorithm, and criteria to create inspection plan.

6.

Strategy in inspection planning for measuring components attributes included high-level features and low-level features by considering the interaction between these features. The inspection knowledge of three feature families: Slot, Step, and Pocket was determined based on two concepts; dummy and active faces analysis, and primary and secondary faces of a feature to obtain more effective inspection plan for a given number of part features. The CADIP system was tested and compared to other existing models. It assisted in inspection planning tasks by reducing measurement points, sequences and paths, traveling distances, and positions of measurement points to direct the operation of the flexible inspection system for the dimensional inspection of the prismatic parts. Application of this system means that much less workload and more reliability. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] U. Belhe, and A. Kusiak, The House Of Quality In A Design Process. Int. J. Prod. Res., 34 (8) (1996), pp. 21192131. A. Jeang, "Optimal Tolerance Design For Product Life Cycle". Int. J. Prod. Res., 34 (8) (1996), pp. 2187-2209. C. McMahon, and J. Brown, CAD/CAM from Principles to Practice, 2nd edn. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., 1988. X. G. Ming, Q. F. Ni, W. F. Lu, I. B. Lee, M. W. Fu, S. K. Ong, and A. Y. C. Nee, (2002). "Towards Collaboratively Integrated Manufacturing System for Tooling Production in SMEs, The INPROSE Approach", Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Cranfield, UK, July 27-31, 2002, pp. 465-474. D. I. Legge, Integrating Design and Inspection SystemsA Literature Review. Int. J. Prod. Res., 34 (5) (1996), pp. 1221-1241. G. T. Cowling, and G. Mullineux, Toward an Intelligent CAD and CMM Interface, Engineering with Computers. 5, (1989), pp. 133-141. Y. Takcuchi, H. Shimizu, and I. Mukai, Automatic Measurement of 3-D Dimensional Measuring Machine by Means of CAD and Image Data, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 39., 1990. T. C. Chang, Expert Process Planning for Manufacturing. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1990. C. H. Menq, H. T. Yau, and C. L. Wong, An Intelligent Planning Environment For Automated Dimensional Inspection using CMM, Journal Of Engineering for Industry, Transactions of the ASME, 114 (1992), pp. 222-239. H. T. Yau and C. H. Meno, "Concurrent Process Planning For Finish Milling and Dimensional Inspection of Sculptured Surfaces in Die and Mold Manufacturing", Int. J. Prod. Res., 31 (11), pp 2709-2725.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

259

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

H. S. Ketan, "Integrating Design and Inspection Activities Using AI Technique", Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted at the University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq, 1999. M. Marefat, S. Malhotra, and R.L. Kashyap, Object-Oriented Intelligent Computer-Integrated Design, Process Planning, and Inspection, IEEE Computer, 1993, pp. 54-65. B. K. A. Ngo and C. K. Tan, Geometric In Computer-Aided Tolerance Charting. Int. J. Prod. Res., 33, (3), (1995), pp. 835-868. Z. C. Lin and C. C. Chen, Study of the Automatic Planning of Measuring Points with Basic Element Features, Int. J. Prod. Res., 35 (11) (1997), pp. 3157-3178. D. J. OGrady, C. Kim, and Y. Kim, Feature-Based Design of Electronics Assemblies, Int. J. Prod. Res., 34 (5) (1996), pp. 1307-1330. C. W. Ziemian, and D. J. Medeiros, Automated Feature Accessibility Algorithm for Inspection on a Coordinate Measuring Machine, Int. J. Prod. Res., 35 (10) (1997), pp. 2839-2856. X. Huang, and P. Gu, CAD Model Based Inspection of Sculptured Surfaces with Datums, Int. J. Prod. Res., 36 (5) (1998), pp. 1351-1367. U. Rembold, B.O. Nnaji, and A. Storr, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. T. Dereli, and I. H. Filiz, "A Design for Manufacturing System for Elimination of Critical Feature Interactions on Prismatic Parts", Journal of Engineering Design, 13 (2) (2002), pp. 141-157. D. P. Saini, and P. Jovanovski, Automated Quality Control in Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Pacific Conference on Manufacturing (PCM), Queensland, Australia, Sponsored by, Industrial Research Institute Swinburne (SIRI), August 18-20, 1998. O. A. Rashed, An Integrated Computerized Inspection Station (ICIS), Pacific Conference on Manufacturing (PCM), Queensland, Australia, Sponsored by, Industrial Research Institute Swinburne (SIRI), August 18-20, 1998. S. O. Duffuaa, and H. J. Al-Najjar, A General Inspection Plan for Critical Multicharacteristic Components, Int. J. Prod. Res., 35 (10) (1997), pp. 2723-2736. M. W. Cho and K. Kim, New Inspection Planning Strategy for Sculptured Surfaces Using Coordinate Measuring Machine, Int. J. Prod. Res., 33 (2), (1995), pp. 422-444. C. P. Lim, and C. H. Menq, "CMM Feature Accessibility and Path Generation", Int. J. Prod. Res., 32 (3) (1994), pp. 1351-1367.
Paper Received 15 February 2004; Revised 27 July 2004; Accepted 5 January 2005.

[21] [22] [23] [24]

260

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2 B

October 2005

Ghaleb Y. Abbasi, Hussein S. Ketan, and Mazen B. Adel

LETTERS, NOTES, AND COMMENTS

October 2005

The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 30, Number 2B

245