Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:25:42.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In defense of coexisting engineering meanings of function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2016

Dingmar van Eck  and
Erik Weber
Dingmar van Eck*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Erik Weber
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
*
Reprint requests to: Dingmar van Eck, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technical function is a key concept in engineering design. Despite the centrality of the concept, a systematic, rigorous analysis of the utility of function and its different conceptualizations is missing in the engineering design literature. This paper addresses this challenge. We investigate the utility of function and its different meanings in the following engineering design contexts: malfunction explanation, innovative design, redesign, and routine design. This analysis provides theoretical justification for the current engineering practice of accepting ambiguity of functional descriptions and for methods to translate and/or convert functional descriptions across engineering design frameworks. We show that the utility of specific meanings of function is highly task dependent, identify novel roles for functional descriptions in engineering design, and present methodological implications for translation methods for functional descriptions.

Keywords

Case StudiesEngineering DesignMalfunction ExplanationTechnical Function
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 55 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Albers, A., Braun, A., Clarkson, P.J., Enkler, H.G., & Wynn, D. (2009). Contact and channel modeling to support early design of technical systems, pp. 161.1–161.12. eProc. 17th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Stanford, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Braun, A., Sadowski, E., Wyatt, D., Wynn, D.C., & Clarkson, P.J. (2010). Contact and channel modeling using part and function libraries in a function-based design approach. Proc. 2010 ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2010-28481, Montreal, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R., & Armstrong, G. (2013). The function analysis diagram: intended benefits and coexistence with other functional models. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 249–257.Google Scholar
Bell, J., Snooke, N., & Price, C. (2005). Functional decomposition for interpretation of model based simulation. Proc. 19th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, QR-05, pp. 192–198, Graz, Austria, May 18–20.Google Scholar
Bell, J., Snooke, N., & Price, C. (2007). A language for functional interpretation of model based simulation. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21, 398–409.Google Scholar
Bohm, M.R., & Stone, R.B. (2004). Product design support: exploring a design repository system. Proc. 2004 ASME Int. Mechanical Engineering Congr., Paper No. IMECE2004-61746, pp. 55–65, Anaheim, CA, November 13–19.Google Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1986). Knowledge and control of a mechanical design expert system. IEEE Computer 1(1), 92–100.Google Scholar
Bryant, C.R., McAdams, D.A., Stone, R.B., Kurtoglu, T., & Campbell, M.I. (2006). A validation study of an automated concept generator design tool. Proc. 2006 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conf., Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2006-99489, pp. 1–12, Philadelphia, PA, September 10–13.Google Scholar
Bryant, C.R., Stone, R.B., Greer, J.L., McAdams, D.A., Kurtoglu, T., & Campbell, M.I. (2007). A function-based component ontology for systems design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED 07), pp. 478.1–478.12, Paris, July 28–31.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting two views of function in mechanical designs. Proc. 15th National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'98, Madison, WI, July 26–30.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., & Bligh, T.P. (2001). A scheme for functional reasoning in conceptual design. Design Studies 22, 493–517.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Srinivasan, V., Ranjan, B.S.C., & Lindemann, U. (2013). A case for multiple views of function in design based on a common definition. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 271–279.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16, 162–177.Google Scholar
Deng, Y.M. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 16(5), 343–362.Google Scholar
Eisenbart, B., Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. (2013). An analysis of functional modeling approaches across disciplines. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 281–289.Google Scholar
Erden, M.S., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T.J., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modelling: approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 147–169.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Goel, A., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving. Proceedings 11th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), pp. 1388–1394, Detroit, MI, August.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K. (2013). A 30-year case study and 15 principles: implications of an artificial intelligence methodology for functional modeling. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 203–215.Google Scholar
Goel, A.K., & Bhatta, S.R. (2004). Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18, 85–94.Google Scholar
Hawkins, P.G., & Woollons, D.J. (1998). Failure modes and effects analysis of complex engineering systems using functional models. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12(4), 375–397.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology 1, 237–262.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2003). Ontology-based description of functional design knowledge and its use in a Functional Way Server. Expert Systems With Applications 24, 153–166.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Ontology-based systematization of functional knowledge. Journal of Engineering Design 15(4), 327–351.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Y., Takafuji, S., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards a reference ontology for functional knowledge interoperability. Proc. ASME 2007 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. (IDETC/CIE), Paper No. DETC2007-35373, Las Vegas, NV, September 4–7.Google Scholar
Lind, M. (1994). Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants. Applied Artificial Intelligence 8, 259–283.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20, 13–27.Google Scholar
Ookubo, M., Koji, Y., Sasajima, M., Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Towards interoperability between functional taxonomies using an ontology-based mapping. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED 07), Paris, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Otto, K.N., & Wood, K.L. (1998). Product evolution: A reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design 10, 226–243.Google 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. (1988). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (2006). Thinking About Acting: Logical Foundations for Rational Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, C.J. (1998). Function-directed electrical design analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 12(4), 445–456.Google Scholar
Sembugamoorthy, V., & Chandrasekran, B. (1986). Functional representation of devices and compilation of diagnostic problem-solving systems. In Experience, Memory, and Reasoning (Kolodner, J., & Riesbeck, C.K., Eds.), pp. 47–53. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sen, C., & Summers, J.D. (2013). Identifying requirements for physics-based reasoning on function structure graphs. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 291–299.Google Scholar
Sen, C., Summers, J.D., & Mocko, G.M. (2011). A protocol to formalize function verbs to support conservation-based model checking. Journal of Engineering Design 22(11–12), 765–788.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). SAPPhIRE: an approach to analysis and synthesis. eProc. 17th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 2.417–2.428. Stanford, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Chakrabarti, A., & Lindemann, U. (2012). A framework for describing functions in design. Proc. Int. Design Conference—Design 2012, pp. 1111–1121, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 21–24.Google Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Chakrabarti, A. (2005). Engineering applications of representations of function: part 2. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(3), 137.Google Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 359–370.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., van Beek, T.J., Cabrera, A.A.A., Komoto, H., & D'Amelio, V. (2013). Making function modeling practically usable. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 301–309.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(4), 275–288.Google Scholar
Van der Vegte, W., Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Coping with unintended behavior of users and products: ontological modeling of product functionality and use. Proc. ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers in Engineering Conf., pp. 1–10, Paper No. DETC2004-57720. Salt Lake City, UT, September 28–October 2.Google Scholar
van Eck, D. (2010). Explaining and relating different engineering models of functional decomposition. Proc. Design Research Society (DRS) International Conf., pp. 122.1–122.11, Montreal, July 7–9.Google Scholar
van Eck, D. (2011). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design 22(11–12), 839–858.Google Scholar
van Eck, D., & Weber, E. (2014). Function ascription and explanation: elaborating an explanatory utility desideratum for ascriptions of technical functions. Erkenntnis 79, 1367–1389. doi:10.1007/s10670-014-9605-1Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2009). The flexible meaning of function in engineering. eProc. 17th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 2.113–2.124. Stanford, CA, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical functions: towards accepting different engineering meanings with one overall account. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, TMCE 2010, April 12–16, Ancona, Italy, Vol. 1, pp. 183–194. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2011). Accepting ambiguity of engineering functional descriptions. eProc. 18th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 1–10. Copenhagen, Denmark, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 191–202.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Eckert, C. (2013). My functional description is better! Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 187–190.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., Van Eck, D., & Kroes, P. (2013). The conceptual elusiveness of engineering functions: A philosophical analysis. Philosophy and Technology 26(2), 159–185.Google Scholar