Application of Logic-Based Methods to Machine Component Design

Authors Bram Aerts, Joost Vennekens

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 398 kB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Bram Aerts
  • EAVISE , Technology Campus De Nayer, KU Leuven, Belgium
Joost Vennekens
  • EAVISE , Technology Campus De Nayer, KU Leuven, Belgium

Cite AsGet BibTex

Bram Aerts and Joost Vennekens. Application of Logic-Based Methods to Machine Component Design. In Technical Communications of the 34th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2018). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 64, pp. 13:1-13:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)


This paper describes an application worked out in collaboration with a company that produces made-to-order machine components. The goal of the project is to develop a system that can support the company's engineers by automating parts of their component design process. We propose a knowledge extraction methodology based on the recent DMN (Decision Model and Notation) standard and compare a rule-based and a constraint-based method for representing the resulting knowledge. We study the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches in the context of the company's real-life application.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Applied computing → Engineering
  • Application
  • Expert Systems
  • Constraint Solving
  • Rule-based Systems
  • Decision Modelling
  • DMN
  • Product Configuration


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Mario Alviano, Francesco Calimeri, Günther Charwat, Minh Dao-Tran, Carmine Dodaro, Giovambattista Ianni, Thomas Krennwallner, Martin Kronegger, Johannes Oetsch, Andreas Pfandler, et al. The fourth answer set programming competition: Preliminary report. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 42-53. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  2. David C Brown. Defining configuring. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12(4):301-305, 1998. URL:
  3. M. Bruynooghe, H. Blockeel, B. Bogaerts, B. De Cat, S. De Pooter, J. Jansen, A. Labarre, J. Ramon, M. Denecker, and S. Verwer. Predicate logic as a modeling language: Modeling and solving some machine learning and data mining problems with IDP3. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 15(6):783–817, 2015. URL:
  4. Ingmar Dasseville, Laurent Janssens, Gerda Janssens, Jan Vanthienen, and Marc Denecker. Combining DMN and the knowledge base paradigm for flexible decision enactment. In Tara Athan, Adrian Giurca, Rolf Grütter, Marc Proctor, Kia Teymourian, and William Van Woensel, editors, Supplementary Proceedings of the RuleML 2016 Challenge, RuleML, Stony Brook, 6-9 July 2016., 2016. URL:
  5. Marc Denecker and Joost Vennekens. Building a knowledge base system for an integration of logic programming and classical logic. In Maria Garcia de la Banda and Enrico Pontelli, editors, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP, Udine, Italy, 9-13 December 2008, pages 71-76. Springer, 2008. URL:
  6. C. Forza and F. Salvador. Product configuration and inter-firm co-ordination: An innovative solution from a small manufacturing enterprise. Computers in Industry, 49(1):37-46, 2002. URL:
  7. Anders Haug, Lars Hvam, and Niels Henrik Mortensen. A layout technique for class diagrams to be used in product configuration projects. Computers in Industry, 61(5):409-418, 2010. URL:
  8. Anders Haug, Lars Hvam, and Niels Henrik Mortensen. The impact of product configurators on lead times in engineering-oriented companies. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 25(2):197-206, 2011. URL:
  9. Lars Hvam, Anders Haug, Niels Henrik Mortensen, Christian Thuesen, Relationship Management, and Product Architecture Group. observed benefits from product configuration systems (Hvam) 2011. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2013. Google Scholar
  10. Lars Hvam, Martin Malis, Benjamin Hansen, and Jesper Riis. Reengineering of the quotation process: application of knowledge based systems. Business Process Management Journal, 10(2):200-213, 2004. URL:
  11. David Mitchell, Eugenia Ternovska, Faraz Hach, and Raheleh Mohebali. Model expansion as a framework for modelling and solving search problems. Technical report, Technical Report TR 2006-24, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, 2006. Google Scholar
  12. N. Nethercote, P.J. Stuckey, R. Becket, S. Brand, G.J. Duck, and G. Tack. MiniZinc: Towards a standard CP modelling language. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, volume 4741 of LNCS, 2007. Google Scholar
  13. Object Modelling Group. Decision Model and Notation, 2016. Version 1.1. URL:
  14. OpenRules, Inc. OpenRules, 2017. Version 6.4.2. URL:
  15. F. Salvador and C. Forza. Configuring products to address the customization-responsiveness squeeze: A survey of management issues and opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics, 91(3):273-291, 2004. URL:
  16. Fabrizio Salvador, Aravind Chandrasekaran, and Tashfeen Sohail. Product configuration, ambidexterity and firm performance in the context of industrial equipment manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management, 32(4):138-153, 2014. URL:
  17. Alessio Trentin, Elisa Perin, and Cipriano Forza. Overcoming the customization-responsiveness squeeze by using product configurators : Beyond anecdotal evidence. Computers in Industry, 62(3):260-268, 2011. URL:
  18. Alessio Trentin, Elisa Perin, and Cipriano Forza. Product configurator impact on product quality. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2):850-859, 2012. URL:
  19. Hanne Vlaeminck, Joost Vennekens, and Marc Denecker. A logical framework for configuration software. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming PPDP '09, Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, Coimbra, Portugal, 7-9 September, 2009. ACM, September 2009. URL:
  20. Bob Wielinga and Guus Schreiber. Configuration-design problem solving. IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 12(2):49-56, 1997. URL:
  21. Olga Willner, Jonathan Gosling, and Paul Schönsleben. Establishing a maturity model for design automation in sales-delivery processes of ETO products. Computers in Industry, 82:57-68, 2016. URL:
  22. Johan Wittocx, Broes De Cat, and Marc Denecker. Towards computing revised models for FO theories. In Salvador Abreu and Dietmar Seipel, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management 2009, International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management, Evora, Portugal, 5-7 November 2009, pages 199-211, November 2009. URL:
  23. Dong Yang, Ming Dong, and Rui Miao. Development of a product configuration system with an ontology-based approach. CAD Computer Aided Design, 40(8):863-878, 2008. URL:
  24. Linda L. Zhang. Product configuration: A review of the state-of-the-art and future research. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21):6381-6398, 2014. URL:
  25. Linda L. Zhang, Petri T. Helo, Arun Kumar, and Xiao You. Implications of product configurator applications: An empirical study. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2016-Janua(i):57-61, 2016. URL: