Using logic-based approaches to explore system architectures for systems engineering

This research is focused on helping engineers design better systems by supporting their decision making. When engineers design a system, they have an almost unlimited number of possible system alternatives to consider. Modern systems are difficult to design because of a need to satisfy many different stakeholder concerns from a number of domains which requires a large amount of expert knowledge. Current systems engineering practices try to simplify the design process by providing practical approaches to managing the large amount of knowledge and information needed during the process. Although these methods make designing a system more practical, they do not support a structured decision making process, especially at early stages when designers are selecting the appropriate system architecture, and instead rely on designers using ad hoc frameworks that are often self-contradictory. In this thesis, a framework for performing architecture exploration at early stages of the design process is presented. The goal is to support more rational and self-consistent decision making by allowing designers to explicitly represent their architecture exploration problem and then use computational tools to perform this exploration. To represent the architecture exploration problem, a modeling language is presented which explicitly models the problem as an architecture selection decision. This language is based on the principles of decision-based design and decision theory, where decisions are made by picking the alternative that results in the most preferred expected outcome. The language is designed to capture potential alternatives in a compact form, analysis knowledge used to predict the quality of a particular alternative, and evaluation criteria to differentiate and rank outcomes. This language is based on the Object Management Group’s System Modeling Language (SysML). Where possible, existing SysML constructs are used; when additional constructs are needed, SysML’s profile mechanism is used to extend the language. Simply modeling the selection decision explicitly is not sufficient, computational tools are also needed to explore the space of possible solutions and inform designers about the selection of the appropriate alternative. In this investigation, computational tools from the mathematical programming domain are considered for this purpose. A framework for modeling an architecture selection decision in mixed-integer linear programming (MIP) is presented. MIP solvers can then solve the MIP problem to identify promising candidate architectures at early stages of the design process. Mathematical programming is a common optimization domain, but it is rarely used in this context because of the difficulty of manually formulating an architecture selection or exploration problem as a mathematical programming optimization problem. The formulation is presented in a modular fashion; this enables the definition of a model transformation that can be applied to transform the more compact SysML representation into the mathematical programming problem, which is also presented. A modular superstructure representation is used to model the design space; in a superstructure a union of all potential architectures is represented as a set of discrete and continuous variables. Algebraic constraints are added to describe both acceptable variable combinations and system behavior to allow the solver to eliminate clearly poor alternatives and identify promising alternatives. The overall framework is demonstrated on the selection of an actuation subsystem for a hydraulic excavator. This example is chosen because of the variety of potential architecture embodiments and also a plethora of well-known configurations which can be used to verify the results.

[1]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[2]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[3]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[4]  G. Stiny Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars , 1980 .

[5]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems: An Introduction , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[6]  J. K. Lowe,et al.  Some results and experiments in programming techniques for propositional logic , 1986, Comput. Oper. Res..

[7]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Compromise: An effective approach for the hierarchical design of structural systems , 1987 .

[8]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[9]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  HIERARCHICAL SELECTION DECISION SUPPORT PROBLEMS IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN , 1989 .

[10]  Nelson C. Baker,et al.  Manipulating Shape and Its Function , 1990 .

[11]  J. Dixon,et al.  Engineering Design , 2019, Springer Handbook of Mechanical Engineering.

[12]  T. Saaty How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[13]  Scott Huston Mullins,et al.  Grammatical approaches to engineering design, part I: An introduction and commentary , 1991 .

[14]  James R. Rinderle Grammatical approaches to engineering design, part II: Melding configuration and parametric design using attribute grammars , 1991 .

[15]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering , 1991 .

[16]  Vipin Kumar,et al.  Algorithms for Constraint-Satisfaction Problems: A Survey , 1992, AI Mag..

[17]  Jack Hodges,et al.  Naive mechanics: a computational model of device use and function in design improvisation , 1992, IEEE Expert.

[18]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  ROBUST DESIGN USING COMPROMISE DECISION SUPPORT PROBLEMS , 1993 .

[19]  Mark Lee,et al.  Applications of qualitative model-based reasoning , 1993 .

[20]  Jeff Heisserman Generative geometric design , 1994, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[21]  Andy Schürr,et al.  Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars , 1994, WG.

[22]  A. Ron,et al.  Radial Basis Function Approximation: from Gridded Centres to Scattered Centres , 1995 .

[23]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization - Survey of recent developments , 1996 .

[24]  Ignacio E. Grossmann,et al.  Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design , 1997 .

[25]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  GGREADA: A graph grammar-based machine design algorithm , 1997 .

[26]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[27]  Daniel Le Métayer Describing Software Architecture Styles Using Graph Grammars , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[28]  Hilding Elmqvist,et al.  An Overview of the Modeling Language Modelica , 1998 .

[29]  Jonny Carlos da Silva Expert system prototype for hydraulic system design focusing on concurent engineering aspects , 1998 .

[30]  Randall P. Sadowski,et al.  Simulation with Arena , 1998 .

[31]  Imre Horváth,et al.  Development and Application of Design Concept Ontologies for Contextual Conceptualization , 1998 .

[32]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  Toyota's Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering , 1999 .

[33]  John K. Gershenson,et al.  Modular Product Design: A Life-Cycle View , 1999, Trans. SDPS.

[34]  I. Grossmann,et al.  A systematic modeling framework of superstructure optimization in process synthesis , 1999 .

[35]  Ernst Christen,et al.  Vhdl-ams---a hardware description language for analog and mixed-signal applications , 1999 .

[36]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  The NIST Design Repository Project , 1999 .

[37]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[38]  C. Adjiman,et al.  Global optimization of mixed‐integer nonlinear problems , 2000 .

[39]  Eberhardt Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting (2nd ed.) , 2000 .

[40]  Murat Dicleli,et al.  A rational design approach for prestressed-concrete-girder integral bridges , 2000 .

[41]  Lawrence D. Pohlmann,et al.  The Engineering Design of Systems – Models and Methods , 2000 .

[42]  Nelson Back,et al.  Shaping the Process of Fluid Power System Design Applying an Expert System , 2000 .

[43]  Matthias U. Heinicke,et al.  Eliminate bottlenecks with integrated analysis tools in eM-Plant , 2000, 2000 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37165).

[44]  Benno Stein,et al.  Hybrid Constraints in Automated Model Synthesis and Model Processing , 2000, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[45]  Michael T. M. Emmerich,et al.  Design of Graph-Based Evolutionary Algorithms: A Case Study for Chemical Process Networks , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[46]  Sanjeev Khanna,et al.  Complexity classifications of Boolean constraint satisfaction problems , 2001, SIAM monographs on discrete mathematics and applications.

[47]  Xiaoping Du,et al.  The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty , 2001 .

[48]  Nile W. Hatch,et al.  Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2001 .

[49]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2001 .

[50]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  Generative Programming via Graph Transformations in the Model-Driven Architecture , 2002 .

[51]  Daniel Jackson,et al.  Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation , 2002, TSEM.

[52]  I. Grossmann Review of Nonlinear Mixed-Integer and Disjunctive Programming Techniques , 2002 .

[53]  William C. Regli,et al.  Functional Modeling of Engineering Designs for the Semantic Web , 2003, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[54]  Anneke Kleppe,et al.  The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA , 2003 .

[55]  Stephan Rudolph,et al.  On a Grammar-Based Design Language That Supports Automated Design Generation and Creativity , 2004 .

[56]  Sudarsan Rachuri,et al.  Information Models for Product Representation: Core and Assembly Models , 2004 .

[57]  Michel D. Ingham,et al.  Engineering Complex Embedded Systems with State Analysis and the Mission Data System , 2004 .

[58]  Jack C. Wileden,et al.  Ontologies for supporting engineering analysis models , 2005, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[59]  Kristina Shea,et al.  A Parallel Grammar for Simulation-Driven Mechanical Design Synthesis , 2005, DAC 2005.

[60]  John E. Renaud,et al.  Update Strategies for Kriging Models for Use in Variable Fidelity Optimization , 2005 .

[61]  Russell S. Peak,et al.  Integrating engineering design and analysis using a multi-representation approach , 1998, Engineering with Computers.

[62]  Joseph A. Donndelinger,et al.  A Decision-Based Perspective on the Vehicle Development Process , 2006 .

[63]  Markus Völter,et al.  Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management , 2006 .

[64]  François E. Cellier,et al.  Quantised State System Simulation in Dymola/Modelica using the DEVS Formalism , 2006 .

[65]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007, DAC 2006.

[66]  Marcel Roelofs,et al.  AIMMS - Language Reference , 2006 .

[67]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches , 2006, IBM Syst. J..

[68]  Andy Schürr,et al.  Tool Integration with Triple Graph Grammars - A Survey , 2006, FoVMT.

[69]  Kristina Shea,et al.  A computational design method for MEMS using COMSOL , 2007 .

[70]  Stephan Rudolph,et al.  A design language for generic space-frame structure design , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol..

[71]  Jose Luis Delgado Peiroten,et al.  Quality Function Deployment (Q.D.F.) , 2007 .

[72]  Ben Taskar,et al.  Markov Logic: A Unifying Framework for Statistical Relational Learning , 2007 .

[73]  Leon F. McGinnis,et al.  System and simulation modeling using SYSML , 2007, 2007 Winter Simulation Conference.

[74]  Manas Bajaj,et al.  Simulation-Based Design Using SysML Part 1: A Parametrics Primer , 2007 .

[75]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  Reconciling TGGs with QVT , 2007, MODELS'07.

[76]  Patrick J. Driscoll,et al.  Decision Making in Systems Engineering and Management , 2007 .

[77]  Andy Schürr,et al.  A Comparison of Standard Compliant Ways to Define Domain Specific Languages , 2008, MoDELS.

[78]  Manas Bajaj,et al.  Knowledge Composition for Efficient Analysis Problem Formulation: Part 1 — Motivation and Requirements , 2007 .

[79]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Just Add Weights: Markov Logic for the Semantic Web , 2008, URSW.

[80]  Torbjörn Ekman,et al.  Development of a Modelica Compiler Using JastAdd , 2008, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[81]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Using OMG’S SYSML to support simulation , 2008, 2008 Winter Simulation Conference.

[82]  Jonathan M. Jobe,et al.  Multi-aspect component models: enabling the reuse of engineering analysis models in SysML , 2008 .

[83]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Introduction of a data schema to support a design repository , 2008, Comput. Aided Des..

[84]  Richard J. Malak,et al.  Using parameterized efficient sets to model alternatives for systems design decisions , 2008 .

[85]  Sanford Friedenthal,et al.  A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language , 2008 .

[86]  Rich Hilliard,et al.  Every architecture description needs a framework: Expressing architecture frameworks using ISO/IEC 42010 , 2009, 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture & European Conference on Software Architecture.

[87]  Kristina Shea,et al.  A FRAMEWORK FOR COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SYNTHESIS BASED ON GRAPH-GRAMMARS AND FUNCTION-BEHAVIOR-STRUCTURE , 2009 .

[88]  Carl During,et al.  Designing mechatronic systems, a model-based perspective, an attempt to achieve SysML-Matlab/Simulink model integration , 2009, 2009 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics.

[89]  Wolfgang Pree,et al.  Variability in Automation System Models , 2009, ICSR.

[90]  Paul Collopy,et al.  Implementation of value-driven optimisation for the design of aircraft fuselage panels , 2009 .

[91]  Tallys H. Yunes,et al.  An Integrated Solver for Optimization Problems , 2010, Oper. Res..

[92]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  MDE-based approach for generalizing design space exploration , 2010, MODELS'10.

[93]  Karl-Erik Årzén,et al.  Modeling and optimization with Optimica and JModelica.org - Languages and tools for solving large-scale dynamic optimization problems , 2010, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[94]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  Coping with Variability in Model-Based Systems Engineering: An Experience in Green Energy , 2010, ECMFA.

[95]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  5.5.1 An Overview of the SysML‐Modelica Transformation Specification , 2010 .

[96]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Mechanical Engineering Design Complexity Metrics: Size, Coupling, and Solvability , 2010 .

[97]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Model-Based System Verification: A Formal Framework for Relating Analyses, Requirements, and Tests , 2010, MoDELS.

[98]  Joseph Berk The Design Approach , 2010 .

[99]  Sebastian Sager,et al.  A BENCHMARK LIBRARY OF MIXED-INTEGER OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS , 2012 .

[100]  Christiaan J. J. Paredis,et al.  Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics Into SysML , 2012, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[101]  Massimo D'Auria,et al.  Process Integration and Design Optimization Ontologies for Next Generation Engineering , 2013, OTM Workshops.