Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:41:47.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation—“Schemebuilder”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

R.H. Bracewell  and
J.E.E. Sharpe
R.H. Bracewell
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YR, United Kingdom
J.E.E. Sharpe
Affiliation:
Engineering Design Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YR, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With increased pressures coming from global competition and requirements for greater innovation in product development, designers are hard pressed to deliver designs of higher quality and variety using a repertoire of technological options from different disciplines. This interdisciplinary product development approach has not only removed many of the traditional constraints to design but has now given designers a much wider freedom of choice as to the best solution to a design problem. The focus of this paper is a knowledge-based design environment called Schemebuilder, which is a comprehensive and integrated suite of software tools aimed at supporting the designer in the rapid development of product design models in the conceptual, through embodiment stages of design. Illustrated is the use of the software tools in the qualitative generation of alternative schemes, by application of stored working and decomposition principles in the development of a function-means tree-like information structure. With mechatronic product development as the main theme, this paper describes a closely integrated methodology that incorporates a bond graph approach to continuous-time energetic systems and high-level Petri nets for the rigorous description of discrete-time information systems. Additionally, a technique is suggested for the decomposition of free format statements of need into the rigorously defined design context and required functions, which form the starting point of the function-means development process.

Keywords

Computer SupportConceptual DesignFirst PrinciplesInterdisciplinary System DesignMechatronics
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 10 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Representing functionality in design , September 1996 , pp. 333 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andreasen, M.M. (1980). Syntesemetoder på Systemgrundlag. Ph.D. Thesis, Lund Technical University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., Bradley, D.A., Chaplin, R.V., Langdon, P.M., & Sharpe, J.E.E. (1993). Schemebuilder: A design aid for the conceptual stages of product design. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Eng. Design ICED'93, 1311–1318.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., Chaplin, R.V., Langdon, P.M., Li, M., Oh, V.K., Sharpe, J.E.E., & Yan, X.T. (1995). Integrated platform for AI support of complex design—(Part II): Supporting the embodiment process. Proc. First IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop (Knowledge Intensive CAD-1), Espoo, Finland, Vol. 1, 283–299. International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP).Google Scholar
Buur, J. (1990). A Theoretical Approach to Mechatronics Design. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.Google Scholar
Cellier, F.E. (1991). Continuous system modelling. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmqvist, H., & Brück, D. (1995). Composite constructs for objectoriented modeling, Proc. Eurosim Simulation Congress, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Filman, R.E. (1988). Reasoning with worlds and truth maintenance in a knowledge-based programming environment. Communications of the ACM 31(4), 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, S., & Rinderle, J.R. (1989). A transformational approach to mechanical design using a bond graph grammar. In Design Theory and Methodology—DTM'89, (Elmaraghy, W.H. et al. , Eds.), Vol. 17, pp. 107–115.Google Scholar
Fishwick, P.A. (1989). Qualitative methodology in simulation model engineering. Simulation 52, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, M.J. (1985). Conceptual design for engineers. Design Council, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giarratano, J., & Riley, G. (1994). Expert systems: Principles and programming. PWS Publishing,, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Hansen, C.T. (1995). An approach to simultaneous synthesis and optimization of composite mechanical systems. J. Eng. Design 6(3), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IvyTeam (1993). SystemSpecs 2.1 Reference Manual. Zug, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jensen, K., & Rozenberg, G. (1991). High-level Petri nets, theory and application. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karnopp, D.C., Margolis, D.L., & Rosenberg, R.C. (1990). System dynamics: A unified approach. 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
de Kleer, J. (1986). An assumption-based TMS. Artif. Intell. 28, 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirbel, I. (1995). A fuzzy thesaurus for semantic integration of design schemes. Proc. Lancaster Int. Workshop on Eng. Design, Ambleside, 319–335.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, V. (1993). Intelligent Design—Assistant Systems for Engineering Design. Technical Report EDC2, Lancaster University Engineering Design Centre.Google Scholar
Otter, M., Elmqvist, H., & Cellier, F.E. (1996). Modeling of multibody systems with the object-oriented modeling language Dymola. J. Nonlinear Dynamics 9(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paynter, H.M. (1961). Analysis and design of engineering systems. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rychener, M.D. (1988). Expert systems for engineering design. Academic Press, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, J.E.E. (1978). Bond graph synthesis of robots & telechirs. Proc. 3rd CISM IFFTOMM Conference in Robotics & Manipulators, Udine, Italy, 168–176.Google Scholar
Sharpe, J.E.E., & Bracewell, R.H. (1993). Application of bond graph methodology to concurrent conceptual design of interdisciplinary systems. Proc. IEEE/SMC Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics '93, Le Touquet, France, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soderman, U., & Stromberg, J. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge to generate models of physical systems. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Artif. Intell., Sydney.Google Scholar
Top, J., & Akkermans, H. (1991). Computational and physical causality. Proc. 12th Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., Sydney, 1158–1163.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Seering, W.P. (1989). Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design. Res. Eng. Design 1(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, T. (1995). The EDR electronic dictionary. Communications of the ACM 8(11), 42–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar