Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T17:55:19.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A general paradigm for routine design—theory and implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Albert Esterline  and
Sridhar Kota
Albert Esterline
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, and Design LaboratoryDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.
Sridhar Kota
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, and Design LaboratoryDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of discretization of a design space is used to make initial selection of prior designs using specification matching, and to direct redesign with evaluation and iteration. A general paradigm for routine design has been developed and implemented in a system called IDS (Initial Design Selection.) For a given design domain, certain characteristics are identified that allow all specifications and models (which represent prior designs) in that design domain to be described in terms of their values or intervals that these values may lie in. These characteristics are seen as dimensions of a design space discretized into a finite number of partitions. Each partition is represented by a model, thought of as occupying its center. Each such model is associated with a deep model, which contains sufficient information for the modeled device, process, or system to be realized. Despite the fact that the models inhabiting the space are shallow, the paradigm comprises a relatively rich mathematical structure. This paper describes in detail a computational methodology to implement this domain-independent paradigm. The IDS paradigm presents a convenient and structured framework for acquiring and representing domain knowledge. This paper also briefly discusses an enhanced version of the system, which attempts iterative redesign directed by the particular mismatch between a specification and an otherwise promising model. To date, this methodology has been applied in a variety of design domains, including mechanism design, hydraulic component selection, assembly methods, and non-destructive testing methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , May 1992 , pp. 73 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekharan, B. 1984. Expert systems for a class of mechanical design activity. IFIP WG5.2, Working Conference on AI in CAD, pp. 259–282.Google Scholar
Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekharan, B. 1985. Knowledge and Control for Design Problem Solving. Technical Report, Ohio State University, Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. R. and Simmons, M. K. 1984. Expert systems for engineering design: standard V-belt drive design as an example of the design-evaluate-redesign architecture, Proceedings of the 1984 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition, pp. 332–337.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. R. 1986. Artificial intelligence applied to design—a mechanical engineering view, Proceedings of the AAAl 86, 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 872–877.Google Scholar
Gomes, E. and Kota, S. 1990. A knowledge representation scheme for nondestructive testing of composite components, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Technical paper #900070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, A., Cohen, P., Dixon, J. and Simmons, M. 1986. Dominic: a domain-independent program for mechanical engineering design, Applications for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Problems, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 289–299.Google Scholar
Kota, S. and Lee, C. 1990. A functional framework for hydraulic systems design using abstraction/decomposition hierarchies, Proceedings of the 1990 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference, pp. 327–340.Google Scholar
Kota, S. and Boerger, J. G. 1990. A network-based expert system for comparative analysis of pulley assembly methods, SAE International Congress and Exposition, Technical paper #900818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shank, R. C. 1987. What is AI, anyway? AI Magazine, 8(4), 57–65.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial, Second Edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slagle, J. R., Wick, M. R. and Poliac, M. O. 1986. AGNESS: a generalized network-based expert system shell, AAAl 86, 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 996–1002.Google Scholar
Snavely, G. L., Pomrehn, L. P. and Papalambros, P. Y. 1990. Toward a vocabulary for classifying research in mechanical design automation. 1st International Workshop on Formal Methods in Engineering Design, Manufacturing and Assembly, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. P. and Navinchandra, D. 1989 a. Integrating case-based reasoning and qualitative reasoning in engineering design, in J., Gero (ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering (Cambridge, U.K., July 1989), Southampton, U.K.: Computational Mechanics, pp. 231–250.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. P. and Navinchandra, D. 1989 b. Representing and indexing design cases. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Industrial & Engineering Applications of AI and Expert Systems, pp. 735–741.Google Scholar
Verrilli, R. J., Meunier, K. L. and Dixon, J. R. 1987. Iterative respecification management: a model for problem-solving networks in mechanical design. Proceedings of the 1987 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition, pp. 103–112.Google Scholar
Verrilli, R. J., Meunier, K. L. and Dixon, J. R. 1988. Iterative respecification: a computational model for hierarchical mechanical systems design. Proceedings of the 1988 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar