Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:06:48.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirical study of the expressiveness of the functional basis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2010

Benjamin W. Caldwell ,
Chiradeep Sen ,
Gregory M. Mocko  and
Joshua D. Summers
Benjamin W. Caldwell
Affiliation:
Clemson Engineering Design Applications and Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Chiradeep Sen
Affiliation:
Clemson Engineering Design Applications and Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Gregory M. Mocko
Affiliation:
Clemson Engineering Design Applications and Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Joshua D. Summers
Affiliation:
Clemson Engineering Design Applications and Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Function models are frequently used in engineering design to describe the technical functions that a product performs. This paper investigates the use of the functional basis, a function vocabulary developed to aid in communication and archiving of product function information, in describing consumer products that have been decomposed, analyzed, modeled functionally, and stored in a Web-based design repository. The frequency of use of function terms and phrases in 11 graphical and 110 list-based representations in the repository is examined and used to analyze the organization and expressiveness of the functional basis and function models. Within the context of reverse engineering, we determined that the modeling resolution provided by the hierarchical levels, especially the tertiary level, is inadequate for function modeling; the tertiary terms are inappropriate for capturing sufficient details desired by modelers for archiving and reuse, and there is a need for a more expressive flow terms and flow qualifiers in the vocabulary. A critical comparison is also presented of two representations in the design repository: function structures and function lists. The conclusions are used to identify new research opportunities, including the extension of the vocabulary to incorporate flow qualifiers in addition to more expressive terms.

Keywords

Functional BasisFunction ModelFunction RepresentationVocabulary
Type
Regular Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 3: The Role of Gesture in Designing , August 2011 , pp. 273 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Bohm, M.R., Stone, R.B., & Szykman, S. (2005). Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 5(4), 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, M.R., Vucovich, J.P., & Stone, R.B. (2008). Using a design repository to drive concept generation. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 8(1), 014502–014501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16(3), 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J.A., Hagan, B.T., & Bratt, H.M. (1976). Failure-experience matrix—a useful design tool. Journal of Engineering for Industry Series B 98(3), 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Design Engineering Lab. (2008). Design Repository. Rolla, MO: Missouri University of Science and Technology, Design Engineering Lab. Accessed at http://repository.designengineeringlab.org/ on February 22, 2008.Google Scholar
Garbacz, P. (2006). Towards a standard taxonomy of artifact functions. Applied Ontology 1(3), 221–236.Google Scholar
Grantham Lough, K.A., Stone, R.B., & Tumer, I.Y. (2008). Failure prevention in design through effective catalogue utilization of historical failure events. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 8(5), 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13(2), 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design. New York: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (2001). Functions revisited. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Hundal, M.S. (1990). Systematic method for developing function structures, solutions and concept variants. Mechanism & Machine Theory 25(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschman, C.F., & Fadel, G.M. (1998). Classifying functions for mechanical design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120(3), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurfman, M.A., Stone, R.B., VanWie, M., Wood, K.L., & Otto, K.N. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of functional modeling: preliminary experimental studies. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Leung, P., Ishii, K., & Benson, J. (2005). Modularization of work tasks for global engineering. Proc. ASME 2005 Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
McAdams, D.A., Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (1999). Functional interdependence and product similarity based on customer needs. Research in Engineering Design 11(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mocko, G.M., Summers, J.D., Fadel, G.M., Teegavarapu, S., Maier, J.R.A., & Ezhilan, T. (2007). A modelling scheme for capturing and analyzing multi-domain design information: a hair dryer design example. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Nagel, R.L., Midha, P.A., Tinsley, A., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., & Shu, L.H. (2008). Exploring the use of functional models in biomimetic conceptual design. Journal of Mechanical Design 130(12), 121102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K.N., & Wood, K.L. (2001). Product Design Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed. London: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salton, G. (1988). Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Sen, C., Caldwell, B.W., Summers, J.D., & Mocko, G.M. (2009). Topological information content and expressiveness of function models in mechanical design. Proc. 29th Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Sen, C., Caldwell, B.W., Summers, J.D., & Mocko, G.M. (2010). Evaluation of the functional basis using an information theoretic approach. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staab, S., & Studer, R. (2004). Handbook on Ontologies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Turner, I.Y., & Stock, M.E. (2005). Linking product functionality to historic failures to improve failure analysis in design. Research in Engineering Design 16(1–2), 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., & Crawford, R.H. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroble, J.K., Watkins, S.E., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., & Shu, L.H. (2008). Modeling the Cellular Level of Natural Sensing With the Functional Basis for the Design of Biomimetic Sensor Technology, pp. 27–32. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Szykman, S., Racz, J.W., & Sriram, R.D. (1999). The representation of function in computer-based design. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., Sen, C., Mocko, G.M., Summers, J.D., & Fadel, G.M. (2009). Investigation of the interpretability of three function structure representations: a user study. Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2008). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2007). The functional modelling account of stone and wood: some critical remarks. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Vucovich, J., Bhardwaj, N., Ho, H., Ramakrishna, M., Thakur, M., & Stone, R. (2006). Concept generation algorithms for repository-based early design. Proc. 26th Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. New York: ASME.Google Scholar