Back to all available

CAD2TechSpec: A framework for automating design processes within CAD systems

artificial-intelligence
computer-aided-design
data-mining-and-machine-learning
graphics
neural-networks

Abstract

This paper presents CAD2TechSpec, a novel framework for automating design processes within CAD systems by leveraging multimodal large language models (LLMs). The framework enables the analysis and generation of detailed design specifications, including the automated creation of machining process plans. Our system architecture combines 3D model rendering, dimensionality reduction techniques, and the capabilities of multimodal LLMs to produce structured JSON representations of manufacturing workflows. Experiments conducted on the ABC dataset demonstrate that CAD2TechSpec significantly reduces design time while enhancing the accuracy and completeness of technical specifications. The proposed approach holds considerable promise for high-tech industries such as aerospace and mechanical engineering, where efficiency and precision in design processes are critical.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].