Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:13:42.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A model of function-based representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2005

MICHAEL VAN WIE ,
CARI R. BRYANT ,
MATT R. BOHM ,
DANIEL A. MCADAMS  and
ROBERT B. STONE
MICHAEL VAN WIE
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Design Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, Missouri 65409, USA
CARI R. BRYANT
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Design Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, Missouri 65409, USA
MATT R. BOHM
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Design Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, Missouri 65409, USA
DANIEL A. MCADAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Design Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, Missouri 65409, USA
ROBERT B. STONE
Affiliation:
Department of Interdisciplinary Design Engineering, University of Missouri–Rolla, 1870 Miner Circle, Rolla, Missouri 65409, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need to model and to reason about design alternatives throughout the design process demands robust representation schemes of function, behavior, and structure. Function describes the physical effect imposed on an energy or material flow by a design entity without regard for the working principles or physical solutions used to accomplish this effect. Behaviors are the physical events associated with a physical artifact (or hypothesized concept) over time (or simulated time) as perceived by an observer. Structure, the most tangible concept, partitions an artifact into meaningful constituents such as features, Wirk elements, and interfaces in addition to the widely used assemblies and components. The focus of this work is on defining a model for function-based representations that can be used across various design methodologies and for a variety of design tasks throughout all stages of the design process. In particular, the mapping between function and structure is explored and, to a lesser extent, its impact on behavior is noted. Clearly, the issues of a function-based representation's composition and mappings directly impact certain computational synthesis methods that rely on (digitally) archived product design knowledge. Moreover, functions have already been related to not only form, but also information of user actions, performance parameters in the form of equations, and failure mode data. It is essential to understand the composition and mappings of functions and their relation to design activities because this information is part of the foundation for function-based methods, and consequently dictates the performance of those methods. Toward this end, the important findings of this work include a formalism for two aspects of function-based representations (composition and mappings), the supported design activities of the model for function-based representations, and examples of how computational design methods benefit from this formalism.

Keywords

Computational Design MethodsDesign Knowledge RepresentationFunction-Based Synthesis
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 89 - 111
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Ahmed, S. & Wallace, K. (2003). Evaluating a functional basis. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DET2003/DTM-48685.
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R., & Wallace, K. (2003). A design data model to support rationale capture and functional synthesis. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DET2003/DTM-48672.
Blessing, L. (1994). A process-based approach to computer supported engineering design. PhD Thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
Bohm, M. & Stone, R. (2004). Representing functionality to support reuse: conceptual and supporting functions. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DET2004/DTM-57693.
Bohm, M., Stone, R.B., & Szykman, S. (2003). Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2003/CIE-48239.
Bohm, M., Stock, M., Hutcheson, R., McAdams, D., Stone, R., & Donndelinger, J. (2003). Opportunities for application of formal functional modeling methods in advanced vehicle development. General Motors contract report. Detroit, MI: General Motors.
Bracewell, R. (2002). Synthesis based on function–means trees: Schemebuilder. In Engineering Design Synthesis (Chakrabarti, A., Ed.), pp. 199–212.
Brown, D.C. (2003). Functional, behavioral and structural features. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DET2003/DTM-48684.
Bryant, C., Kurfman, M., Stone, R., & McAdams, D. (2001). Creating equation handbooks to model design performance parameters. ICED01—Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Glasgow.
Chakrabarti, A., Langton, P., Liu, Y., & Bligh, T. (2002). An approach to compositional synthesis of mechanical design concepts using computers. In Engineering Design Synthesis (Chakrabarti, A., Ed.), pp. 179–198. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Chandrasekaran, B. & Josephson, J. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16, 162–177.Google Scholar
Chang, E., Li, X., & Schmidt, L. (2000, May 21). The need for a form, function, and behavior-based representation system. Available on-line at www.enme.umd.edu/DATLab.
Chittaro, L. & Kumar, A. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12, 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Y. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(4), 343–362.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Gietka, P., Verma, M., & Wood., W. (2002). Functional modeling, reverse engineering, and design reuse. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34019.
Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13(2), 65–82.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. & Eder, W. (2001). Functions revisited. ICED01—Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Glasgow.
Janhager, J. (2003). Hierarchical decomposition of technical functions and user actions. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2003/DTM-48642.
Jensen, T. (2000). Function integration explained by allocation and activation of Wirk elements. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2000/DTM-14551.
Keuneke, A. (1991). Device representation—the significance of functional knowledge. IEEE Expert 6(1), 22–25.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y. & Mizoguchi, R. (1998). Functional ontology for functional understanding. AAAI Proc. 12th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR-98), pp. 77–87.
Kitamura, Y. & Mizoguchi, R. (1999). Meta-functions of artifacts. AAAI Proc. 13th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR-99), pp. 136–145.
Kitamura, Y. & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 327–351.Google Scholar
Kurfman, M., Stock, M., Stone, R., Rajan, J., & Wood, K. (2003). Experimental studies assessing the repeatability of a functional modeling derivation method. Journal of Mechanical Design 125(4), 682–693.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. & Dym, C. (2004). Modeling and information in the design process. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2004/DTM-57101.
Miles, L.D. (1961). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Pahl, G. & Wallace, K. (2002). Using the concept of functions to help synthesise solutions. In Engineering Design Synthesis (Chakrabarti, A., Ed.), pp. 109–119. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Shi, H. & Schmidt, L. (2003). Partitioning knowledge for generative configuration design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2003/DTM-48686.
Sim, S. & Duffy, A. (2003). Towards and ontology of generic engineering activities. Research in Engineering Design 14, 200–223.Google Scholar
Stetter, R., Abmann, G., & Viertlbock, M. (2001). Functional product modeling—new methods for the generation of product functions. ICED01—Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Glasgow.
Stone, R. & Wood, K. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.Google Scholar
Stone, R., Wood, K., & Crawford, R. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
Strawbridge, Z., McAdams, D., & Stone, R. (2002). A computational approach to conceptual design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34001.
Tumer, I. & Stone, R. (2003). Mapping function to failure mode during component development. Research in Engineering Design 14(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
Ullman, D. (1997). The Mechanical Design Process, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Umeda, Y. & Tomiyama, T. (1997). Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Expert 12(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
Van Wie, M., Stone, R., & McAdams, D. (2004). Sustainable design through flexible product evolution. ASME Int. Mechanical Engineering Congr. Paper No. IMECE2004-60667.
Wood, K. & Greer, J. (2001). Function-based synthesis methods in engineering design—State of the art, methods analysis, and visions for the future. In Formal Engineering Design Synthesis (Antonsson, E. & Cagan, J., Eds.), pp. 170–227. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yekula, R., McAdams, D., & Stone, R. (2003). Functional and mathematical equivalence of mechanisms: a novel approach to integrating synthesis and design analysis. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf. Proc. Paper No. DETC2003/DTM-48663.