Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:34:18.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating FuncSION: A software for automated synthesis of design solutions for stimulating ideation during mechanical conceptual design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Ujjwal Pal ,
Ying-Chieh Liu  and
Amaresh Chakrabarti
Ujjwal Pal
Affiliation:
IdeasLab, Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Ying-Chieh Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Design, Chang Gung University, Taiwan
Amaresh Chakrabarti*
Affiliation:
IdeasLab, Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
*
Reprint requests to: Amaresh Chakrabarti, IdeasLab, Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of the work reported in this paper is to use automated, combinatorial synthesis to generate alternative solutions to be used as stimuli by designers for ideation. FuncSION, a computational synthesis tool that can automatically synthesize solution concepts for mechanical devices by combining building blocks from a library, is used for this purpose. The objectives of FuncSION are to help generate a variety of functional requirements for a given problem and a variety of concepts to fulfill these functions. A distinctive feature of FuncSION is its focus on automated generation of spatial configurations, an aspect rarely addressed by other computational synthesis programs. This paper provides an overview of FuncSION in terms of representation of design problems, representation of building blocks, and rules with which building blocks are combined to generate concepts at three levels of abstraction: topological, spatial, and physical. The paper then provides a detailed account of evaluating FuncSION for its effectiveness in providing stimuli for enhanced ideation.

Keywords

Combinatorial SynthesisCreativityIdeationNoveltyStimuli
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 28 , Issue 3: Computational Design Synthesis , August 2014 , pp. 209 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Adams, J.L. (1986). Conceptual Blockbusting. New York: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Berliner, C., & Brimson, J.A. (Eds). (1988). Cost Management for Today's Advanced Manufacturing: The CAM-I Conceptual Design. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Blessing, L., Chakrabarti, A., & Wallace, K. (1995). A design research methodology. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED'95, Praha, pp. 50–55.Google Scholar
Boothroyd, G., & Dewhurst, P. (1987). Product Design for Assembly Handbook. Wakefield, RI: Boothroyd Dewhurst.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (1991). Designing by functions. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2001). Improving efficiency of procedures for compositional synthesis by using bidirectional search. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 15(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2004). A new approach to structure sharing. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 4(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2006). Defining and supporting design creativity. Proc. 9th Int. Design Conf., DESIGN 2006, pp. 479–486.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1994). An approach to functional synthesis of solutions in mechanical conceptual design: part I. Introduction and knowledge representation. Research in Engineering Design 6, 127–141.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1996 a). An approach to functional synthesis of solutions in mechanical conceptual design: part II. Kind synthesis. Research in Engineering Design 8, 52–62.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1996 b). An approach to functional synthesis of solutions in mechanical conceptual design: part III. Spatial configuration. Research in Engineering Design 2, 116–124.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1996 c). An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and emerging research issues. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 313–331.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Bligh, T.P., & Holden, T. (1992). Toward a decision-support framework for the embodiment phase of mechanical design. International Journal for AI in Engineering 7(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Singh, V. (2007). A method for structure sharing to enhance resource-effectiveness. Journal of Engineering Design 18(1), 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Tang, M.X. (1996). Generating conceptual solutions on FuncSION: evolution of a functional synthesizer. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design' 96, pp. 603–622.Google Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K., Kiewert, A., & Lindemann, U. (2007). Cost-Efficient Design. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Flint, L., & Gaylor, D. (1995). Expanding the effectiveness of the conceptual design phase: an industrial application of the Stanford design for manufacturability methodology. Proc. 1995 National Design Engineering Show and Conf., pp. 99–104.Google Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., Taura, T., Chakrabarti, A., & Nagai, Y. (2008). Method of design through structuring of meanings. Proc. ASME Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., IDETC, 2008, pp. 841–850. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
Jansson, D.G., & Smith, S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 22(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kletke, M.G., Mackay, J.M., Barr, S.H., & Jones, B. (2001). Creativity in the organization: the role of individual creative problem solving and computer support. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 55, 217–237.Google Scholar
Kota, S., & Chiou, S.-J. (1999). Automated conceptual design of mechanisms. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 34 467–495.Google Scholar
Langdon, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1999). Browsing a large solution space in breadth and depth. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Engineering Design ICED'99, pp. 1865–1868.Google Scholar
Li, C.L. (1998). Conceptual design of single and multiple state mechanical devices: an intelligent CAD approach. PhD Thesis. University of Hong Kong, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Li, C.L., Chan, K.W., & Tan, S.T. (1999). A configuration space approach to the automatic design of multiple-state mechanical devices. Computer Aided Design 31, 621–653.Google Scholar
Li, C.L., Tan, S.T., & Chan, K.W. (1996). A qualitative and heuristic approach to the conceptual design of mechanisms. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.-C. (2000). A methodology for the generation of concepts in mechanical design. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.-C., Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1999). Transforming functional solutions into physical solutions. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., DETC'99, p. 3.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.-C., Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2000). A computational framework for concept generation and evaluation in mechanical design: further developments of FuncSION. Proc. Artificial Intelligence in Design ‘00 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 499–519. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Mabie, H.M., & Reinholtz, C.F. (1987). Mechanisms and Dynamics of Machinery, Vol. 4. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
MacCrimmon, K.R., & Wagner, C. (1994). Stimulating ideas through creative softwares. Management Science 40, 1514–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, T., & Nakajima, N. (1997). Mechanism concept retrieval using configuration space. Research in Engineering Design 9, 9–11.Google Scholar
Nidamarthi, S., Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (1997). The significance of co-evolving requirements and solutions in the design process. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'97, Vol. 1, pp. 227–230.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2008). Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Prabhu, D.R., & Taylor, D.L. (1989). Synthesis of systems from specifications containing orientations and positions associated with generalized flow variables. Proc. ASME Design Automation Conf., Vol. 1, pp. 273–279.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J.S., Owen, S.V., & Callahan, C.M. (1974). Fluency, flexibility, and originality as a function of group size. Journal of Creative Behavior 8(2), 107–113.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity: measures of novelty, usefulness and design creativity. Design Studies 32(4), 348–383.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., Phaneendra, S., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). Developing engineering products using inspiration from nature. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 8(3), 031001.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). Investigating novelty–outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(2), 161–178.Google Scholar
Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering—Designing Quality Into Products and Processes. New York: UNIPUB/Quality Resources.Google Scholar
Torrance, E.P. (1979). Unique needs of the creative child and adult. The gifted and talented: their education and development. In 78th NSSE Yearbook (Passow, H., Ed.), pp. 352–371. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, D. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Seering, W.P. (1989). Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design. Research in Engineering Design 1(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Watson, D.L. (1989). Enhancing creative productivity with the Fisher associated lists. Journal of Creative Behavior 23, 51–58.Google Scholar
Yan, H.-S., & Ou, F.-M. (2005). An approach for the enumeration of combined configurations of kinematic building blocks. Mechanisms and Machine Theory 40, 1240–1257.Google Scholar
Young, L. (1987). The metaphor machine: a database method for creativity support. Decision Making Support System 3(4), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar