Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:04:03.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An attribute-space representation and algorithm for concurrent engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Timothy P. Darr  and
William P. Birmingham
Timothy P. Darr
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122, U.S.A.
William P. Birmingham
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Lab, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a novel formulation of the configuration-design problem that achieves the benefits of the concurrent engineering (CE) design paradigm. In CE, all design concerns (manufacturability, testability, etc.) are applied to an evolving design throughout the design cycle. CE identifies conflicts early on, avoids costly redesign, and leads to better products. Our formulation is based on a distributed dynamic interval constraint-satisfaction problem (DDICSP) model. Persistent catalog agents map onto DDICSP variables and constraint agents map onto DDICSP constraints. These agents use a set of operations and heuristics to navigate the design space to eliminate sets of designs until a solution is found. Experimental results show that an architecture where each catalog agent resides on a separate computer has performance advantages over nondistributed approaches.

Keywords

Concurrent EngineeringDistributed DesignAgent ArchitecturesDistributed Artificial IntelligenceConstraint-Satisfaction Problems
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 21 - 36
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

Balkany, A., Birmingham, W.P., & Runkel, J.T. (1994). Solving Sisyphus by design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40(2), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkany, A., Birmingham, W.P., & Tommelein, l.D. (1993). An analysis of several design tools. AI EDAM 7(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Bowen, J., & Bahler, D. (1992). Supporting multiple perspectives: a constraint-based approach to concurrent engineering. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’92, pp. 85–96. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, J., O’Grady, P., & Smith, L. (1990). A constraint programming language for Life-Cycle Engineering. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 5(4), 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, S.R., & Agogino, A.M. (1991). An intelligent real time design methodology for catalog selection. Design Theory and Methodology - ASME 1991, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, S.R., & Agogino, A.M. (1993). Computer-assisted catalog selection with multiple objectives. Design Theory and Methodology—ASME 1993, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conry, S.E., Kuwabara, K., Lesser, V.R., & Meyer, R.A. (1991). Multistage negotiation for distributed constraint satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(6), 1462–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M.C. (1989). An optimal k-consistency algorithm. Artificial Intelligence 41(1), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutkosky, M.R., Engelmore, R.S., Fikes, R.E., Genesereth, M.R., Gruber, T.R., Mark, W.S., Tenenbaum, J.M., & Weber, J.C. (1993). PACT: an experiment in integrating concurrent engineering systems. IEEE Computer 26(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darr, T.P., & Birmingham, W.P. (1993). Concurrent engineering: an automated design-space exploration approach. In Concurrent Engineering: Methodology and Applications (Gu, P., & Kusiak, A., Eds.), pp. 91–115. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Darr, T.P., & Birmingham, W.P. (1994). Automated design for concurrent engineering. IEEE Expert 9(5), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. (1987). Constraint propagation with interval labels. Artificial Intelligence 32(3), 281–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechter, R. (1990). Enhancement schemes for constraint processing: backjumping, learning, and cutset decomposition. Artificial Intelligence 41(3), 273–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechter, R., Meiri, I., & Pearl, J. (1991). Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence 49(1–3), 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1985). The anatomy of easy problems: a constraint-satisfaction formulation. In Proc. Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1066–1072.Google Scholar
Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1988). Tree-clustering schemes for constraint-processing. In Proc. Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 150–154.Google Scholar
Deville, Y., & Van Hentenryck, P. (1991). An efficient are consistency algorithm for a class of CSP problems. In Proc. 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence pp. 325–330. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
Dincbas, M., Van Hentenryck, P., Simonis, H., Aggoun, A., Graf, T., & Berthier, F. (1988). The constraint logic programming language CHIP. In Proc. International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 693–702.Google Scholar
Faltings, B. (1994). Arc-consistency for continuous variables. Artificial Intelligence 65(2), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P.C. (1970). Utility Theory and Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freuder, E.C. (1978). Synthesizing constraint expressions. Communications of ACM 21(11), 958–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freuder, E.C. (1990). Complexity of K-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pp. 4–9. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Gupta, A.P., Birmingham, W.P., & Siewiorek, D.P. (1993). Automating the design of computer systems. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 12(4), 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haralick, R.M., & Elliott, G.L. (1980). Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14(3), 263–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huyhn, P.N., Genesereth, M.R., & Letsinger, R. (1993). Automated concurrent engineering in Designworld. IEEE Computer 26(1), 74–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyvonen, E. (1992). Constraint reasoning based on interval arithmetic: the tolerance propagation approach. Artificial Intelligence 58(1–3), 71–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannapan, S.M., Bell, D.G., & Taylor, D.L. (1993). Structuring information and coordinating teams in product development. Design Theory and Methodology-ASME 1993, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannapan, S.M., & Marshek, K.M. (1991). A schema for negotiation between intelligent design agents in concurrent engineering. IFIP WG 5.2 Working Conference on Intelligent CAD, IntCAD ’91 Preprints, 233–242.Google Scholar
Kumar, V. (1992). Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: a survey. AI Magazine 13(1), 32–44.Google Scholar
Lander, S.E. & Lesser, V.R. (1992). Negotiated search: organizing cooperative search among heterogeneous expert agents. Proc. Fifth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Applications in Manufacturing and Robotics, 351–358.Google Scholar
Lander, S.E. & Lesser, V.R. (1993). Understanding the role of negotiation in distributed search among heterogeneous agents. Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 438–444.Google Scholar
Lesser, V.R. (1991). A retrospective of FA/C distributed problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(6), 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackworth, A.K. (1977). Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence 8(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, S., Stout, J., & McDermott, J. (1988). VT: an expert elevator designer that uses knowledge-based backtracking. AI Magazine 9(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
Mittal, S., & Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. Proc. Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AA A1–90), 25–32.Google Scholar
Mittal, S., & Frayman, F. (1987). COSSACK: a constraints-based expert system for configuration tasks. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Applications of AI to Engineering, Boston.Google Scholar
Navinchandra, D., & Rinderle, J.R. (1990). Interval approaches for concurrent evaluation of design constraints. Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechnical Engineers Symposium on Concurrent Product and Process Design, 101–108.Google Scholar
Pan, J.Y.C., & Tenenbaum, J.M. (1991). An intelligent agent framework for enterprise integration. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(6), 1391–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., Cutkosky, M.R., Conru, A.B., & Lee, S.-H. (1994). An agent-based approach to concurrent cable harness design. AI EDAM 8(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
Ramana Reddy, Y.V., Srinivas, K., Jagannathan, V., & Karinthi, R. (1993). Computer support for concurrent engineering. IEEE Computer 26(1), 12–16.Google Scholar
Runkel, J.T., & Birmingham, W.P. (1994). Solving VT by reuse. In Proceedings of the 8th Banff Knowledge-Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, pp. 42.1–42.28. SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Smailagic, A., & Siewiorek, D. (1993). The design and implementation of the VuMan wearable computer. Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering Design Research Center Technical Report EDRC 18–45–93.Google Scholar
Sycara, K., Roth, S., Sadeh, N., & Fox, M. (1991). Distributed constrained heuristic search. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(6), 1446–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beek, P. (1992). On the minimality and decomposability of constraint networks. Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAA1–92), 447–452.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P., & Dincbas, M. (1986). Domains in logic programming. Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-86), 759–765.Google Scholar
Van Hentenryck, P., Simonis, H., & Dincbas, M. (1992). Constraint satisfaction using logic programming. Artificial Intelligence 58(1–3), 113–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A.C., Lozano-Perez, T., & Seering, W. (1990). Extending the constraint propagation of intervals. AI EDAM 4(1), 47–54.Google Scholar
Ward, A.C., & Seering, W.P. (1989). The performance of a mechanical design “compiler.” MIT AI Memo 1084.Google Scholar
Ward, A.C., & Seering, W.P. (1993). Quantitative inference in a mechanical design compiler. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 115(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkman, K. J. (1992). Multiple agent cooperative design evaluation using negotiation. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’94, pp. 161–180, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Yokoo, M., Durfee, E.H., Ishida, T., & Kuwabara, K. (1992). Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving. In Twelfth International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 614–621. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California.Google Scholar