Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 75–85 | Cite as

Dimensional Variable Expansion—A formal approach to innovative design

  • Jonathan Cagan
  • Alice M. Agogino
Article

Abstract

A methodology called Dimensional Variable Expansion (DVE) is presented to formalize the process of design space expansion and design innovation. Unlike parametric design, where the structure of the design is specified and only the parameters are allowed to vary, DVE creates new structures, including new variables, constraints, and a reformulation of the objective function. Via DVE, a body is expanded into multiple regions by dividing along a dimensional variable, and then each region is permitted independent properties. Optimality conditions are used to determine which variables to expand and which regions should be subject to property modifications. With DVE the degrees-of-freedom of a design can be expanded and designs with unique features can be derived.

Keywords

Objective Function Optimality Condition Parametric Design Unique Feature Design Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aelion, V., J. Cagan, and G. Powers (1991), “Inducing Optimally Directed Innovative Designs from Chemical Engineering First Principles,”Computers and Chemical Engineering (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Agogino, A.M. and A. Almgren (1987), “Techniques for Integrating Qualitative Reasoning and Symbolic Computation in Engineering Optimization,”Engineering Optimization Vol.12(2):117–135Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D.C., and B. Chandrasekaran (1983), “An Approach to Expert Systems for Mechanical Design,” in:Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Trends and Applications, '83, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD, May, pp. 173–180Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D.C., and B. Chandrasekaran (1984), “Expert Systems for a Class of Mechanical Design Activity,” in:Proceedings of IFIP WG5.2 Working Conference on Knowledge Engineering in Computer Aided Design, Budapest, Hungary, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  5. Cagan, J. (1990),Innovative Design of Mechanical Structures from First Principles Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, AprilGoogle Scholar
  6. Cagan, J., and A.M. Agogino (1987), “Innovative Design of Mechanical Structures from First Principles,”AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 1(3):169–189Google Scholar
  7. Cagan, J., and A.M. Agogino (1991), “Inducing Constraint Activity in Innovative Design,”AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 5(1):47–61Google Scholar
  8. Choy, J.K. and A.M. Agogino (1986), “SYMON: Automated SYbolic MONotonicity Analysis System for Qualitative Design Optimization,”Proceedings of the 1986 International Computers in Engineering Conference ASME, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 305–310Google Scholar
  9. Coyne, R.D., M.A. Rosenman, A.D. Radford, and J.S. Gero (1987), “Innovation and Creativity in Knowledge-Based CAD,” in:Expert Systems in Computer-Aided Design (Gero, J.S., ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 435–465Google Scholar
  10. Gero, J.S., M.L. Maher, and W. Zhang (1988), “Chunking Structural Design Knowledge as Prototypes,” in:Artificial Intelligence in Engineering: Design (Gero, J.S., ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 3–21Google Scholar
  11. Joskowicz, L., and S. Addanki (1988), “From Kinematics to Shape: An Approach to Innovative Design,” in:Proceedings of AAAI-88 St. Paul, August 21–26,1347–352Google Scholar
  12. Lenat, D.B. (1983), “The Nature of Heuristics II: Theory Formulation by Heuristic Search,”Artificial Intelligence 2131–59Google Scholar
  13. Murthy, S.S., and S. Addanki (1987), “PROMPT: An Innovative Design Tool,” in:Proceedings of AAAI-87 Seattle, WA, July 13–17,2637–642Google Scholar
  14. Nevins, J.L., and D.E. Whitney (1989),Concurrent Design of Products and Processes McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Papalambros, P., and D.J. Wilde (1988),Principles of Optimal Design Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Ulrich, K., and W.P. Seering (1988), “Function Sharing in Mechanical Design,” in:Proceedings of AAAI-88 St. Paul, August 21–26,1342–346Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Cagan
    • 1
  • Alice M. Agogino
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations