Guiding conceptual design through behavioral reasoning

This paper presents a model for conceptual design based on an explicit behavioral reasoning step to guide the design process. Rather than mapping directly from function to form, we treat conceptual design as a two-step process, first transforming functional requirements to a behavioral description and then matching physical artifacts to this behavior. We believe that behavior, in terms of physical principles and phenomena, provides a natural bridge between functional requirements and physical artifacts. Behavioral reasoning breaks preconceived links between functions and artifacts, allowing for innovative solutions to be found. A new representation calledbehavior graphs (derived from bond graphs) has been developed to facilitate behavioral reasoning. This paper discusses behavior graphs and their use in a design synthesis model that generates systems of pre-defined embodiments (e.g., motor, spring, valve) to meet functional requirements given in terms of input and output parameters (e.g., force, pressure, displacement, voltage). An experimental computer program implementing this model is discussed and illustrative examples presented.

[1]  James R. Rinderle,et al.  A transformational approach to mechanical design using a bond graph grammer , 1990 .

[2]  Kurt M. Marshek,et al.  An algebraic and predicate logic approach to representation and reasoning in machine design , 1990 .

[3]  M. B. Waldron,et al.  Intelligent Computer Aided Design, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.2 Working Conference on Intelligent Computer Aided Design (IntCAD91), Columbus, OH, USA, 30 September - 3 October 1991 , 1992, IntCAD.

[4]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Readings in qualitative reasoning about physical systems , 1990 .

[5]  Jon Sticklen,et al.  Integrating quantitative and qualitative computations in a functional framework , 1991 .

[6]  D. Navinchandra,et al.  Innovative design Systems, where are we and where do we go from here? Part I: Design by association , 1990, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  I. Horváth.  Methodology for expert-system-based support of conceptual machine design , 1991 .

[8]  P. Pu,et al.  Simulating both dynamic and kinematic behaviors of mechanical mechanisms , 1991, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[9]  D. Bobrow.  Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems , 1985 .

[10]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  A transformational approach to case-based synthesis , 1991, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[11]  Warren P. Seering,et al.  Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design , 1989 .

[12]  Dean Karnopp,et al.  Introduction to physical system dynamics , 1983 .

[13]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Inducing constraint activity in innovative design , 1991, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[14]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Sridhar Kota,et al.  Qualitative matrix representation scheme for the conceptual design of mechanisms , 1990 .

[16]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Evaluating design using knowledge of purpose and knowledge of structure , 1991, IEEE Expert.

[17]  J Rinderle,et al.  Automated modeling to support design , 1990 .

[18]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[19]  John S. Gero,et al.  Behaviour: A link between function and structure in design , 1992 .

[20]  D. L. Marples,et al.  THE DECISIONS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN , 1961, IRE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[21]  Richard J. Doyle,et al.  Reasoning About Hidden Mechanisms , 1989, IJCAI.