Advertisement

A Study in Function Modeling Preferences and its Variation with Designer Expertise and Product Types

  • Xiaoyang Mao
  • Chiradeep SenEmail author
  • Cameron Turner
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper presents a preliminary study of modeler preferences while constructing function models of technical systems.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by National Science Foundation grant no. CMMI-1532894. The authors are thankful to their respective departments and colleagues for their assistance in this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Fenves SJ, Foufou S, Bock C, Sudarsan R, Sriram RD CPM: A core product model for PLM support. In: Frontiers in design simulation and research, Alanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khalil H, Kokotovic P (1978) Control strategies for decision makers using different models of the same system. IEEE Trans Autom Control, AC- 23(2):289–298MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carbon C (2014) Understanding human perception by human-made illusions. Front Hum Neurosci 8(7), Article 506Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boring EG (1930) A new ambiguous figure. Am J Psychol 42:444–445Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turner C, Sen C (2018) Modelling differences in individual perception of abstracted system models. In: Proceedings of the international conference on design creativity, Bath, United Kingdom, January 31–February 2, 2018Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, London Limited, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Otto KN, Wood KL (2001) Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stone R, Wood K (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Design 122(4):359–370Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohm MR, Stone RB (2004) Product design support: exploring a design repository system. ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, Anaheim, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohm M, Stone RB, Simpson T (2008) Introduction of a data schema: to support a design repository. Comput Aided Des Appl 40(7):801–811Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohm MR, Stone RB, Szykman S (2005) Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5(4):360–372Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ullman DG (1992) The mechanical design process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman P, Newell A (1971) A model for functional reasoning in design. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference for artificial intelligence, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11(4):26–36Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goel AK, Bhatta SR (2004) Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Adv Eng Inform 18(2):85–94Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Umeda Y, Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., and Yoshikawa, H. (1990) Function, behaviour, and structure. Applications of art. intelligence V. Vol 1. Springer Verlag, Boston, MA. 177–193Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2002) The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. In: Gero JS (ed) Artificial intelligence in design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, pp 89–104Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sembugamoorthy V, Chandrasekaran B (1986) Functional representation of devices and compilation of diagnostic problem-solving systems. In: Kolodner J, Riesbeck CK (eds) Experience, memory, and reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 47–53Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatta SR, Goel AK A functional theory of design patterns. In: Proceedings of the 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 1, Nagoya, JapanGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Umeda Y, Ishii M, Yoshioka M, Shimomura Y, Tomiyama T (1996) Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behaviour-state modeler. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 10(4):275–288Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Umeda Y, Tomiyama T (1995) FBS modeling: modeling scheme of function for conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the 9th. international workshop on qualitative reasoning, Amsterdam, NederlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohm MR, Stone RB (2004) Representing functionality to support reuse: conceptual and supporting functions. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2004 design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chandrasekaran B, Josephson JR (2000) Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16(3–4):162–177zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Umeda Y, Takeda H, Tomiyama T, Yoshikawa H (1990) Function behaviour and structure. In: Gero JS (ed) Applications of artificial intelligence V, Vol 1, vol Design. Springer Verlag, Boston, MA, pp 177–193Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garbacz P (2005–2006) Towards a standard taxonomy of artifact functions. Appl Ontol 1: 221–236Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kitamura Y, Mizoguchi R (2003) Ontology-based description of functional design knowledge and its use in a functional way server. Expert Syst Appl 24(2003):153–166Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vescovi M, Iwasaki Y, Fikes R Chandrasekaran B (1993) CFRL: A language for specifying the causal functionality of engineered devices. In: Proceedings of the eleventh national conference on artificial intelligence, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sasajima M, Kitamura Y, Ikeda M, Mizoguchi R (1995) FBRL: A function and behaviour representation language. In: Proceedings of the international joint conferences on artificial intelligence montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bracewell RH, Sharpe JEE (1996) Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation—“Schemebuilder”. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 10(4):333–345Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sen C, Summers JD, Mocko GM (2011) Exploring potentials for conservational reasoning using topologic rules of function structure graphs. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bobrow DG (1984) Qualitative reasoning about physical systems: an introduction. Artif Intell 24(1–3):1–5Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2000) Towards a situated function-behaviour-structure framework as the basis for a theory of designing. In: Proceedings of the workshop on development and application of design theories in AI in design research, sixth international conference on artificial intelligence in design, worcester, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dorst K, Vermaas PE (2005) John Gero’s function-behaviour-structure model of designing: a critical analysis. Res Eng Design 16:17–26Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Umeda Y, Kondoh S, Shimomura Y, Tomiyama T (2005) Development of design methodology for upgradable products based on function–behaviour–state modeling. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19:161–182Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Erden MS, Komoto H, VanBeeK TJ, D’Amelio V, Echavarria E, Tomiyama T (2008) A review of function modeling: approaches and applications. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 22(2):147–169Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goel A, Bhatta S, Stroulia E (1997) Kritik: An early case-based design system. In: Maher ML, Pu P (eds) Issues and applications of case-based reasoning in design. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 87–132Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bhatta, S., Goel, A., and Prabhakar, S. (1994) Innovation in analogical design: A model-based approach. In: Artificial intelligence in design, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iwasaki Y, Fikes R, Vescovi M, Chandrasekaran B How things are intended to work: capturing functional knowledge in device design. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on AI, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Umeda Y, Tomiyama T (1997) Functional reasoning in design. IEEE Intell Syst 12(2):42–48Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sen C, Summers JD (2013) Identifying requirements for physics-based reasoning on function structure graphs. Artif Intell Des Anal Manuf AIEDAM 27(3):219–299Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Summers JD, Eckert C, Goel A (2013) Function in engineering: benchmarking representations and models. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engnineering design, ICED13, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Albers A, Matthiesen S, Thau S, Alink T (2008) Support of design engineering activity through C&CM - temporal decomposition of design problems. In: Proceedings of the TMCE 2008 symposium, Izmir, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Albers A, Burkardt N, Ohmer M (2004) Principles for design on the abstract level of the contact & channel model. In: Proceedings of the TMCE 2004, Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sridharan P, Campbell MI (2005) A study on the grammatical construction of function structures. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19(3):139–160Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI, Gonzales J, Bryant CR, Stone RB (2005) Capturing empirically derived design knowledge for creating conceptual design configurations. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2005 international design engineering and technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Long Beach, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kurtoglu T (2007) A computational approach to innovative conceptual design. University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI (2009) Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. J Eng Des. 20(1),  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820701546165Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vucovich J, Bhardwaj N, Ho HH, Ramakrishna M, Thakur M, Stone R (2006) Concept generation algorithms for repository-based early design. In: ASME 2006 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bryant CR, Stone RB, McAdams DA, Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI (2005) Concept generation from the functional basis of design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED 05, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stone RB, Tumer IY, Stock ME (2005) Linking product functionality to historic failures to improve failure analysis in design. Res Eng Design 16(2):96–108Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stone RB, Tumer IY, Wie MV (2005) The function-failure design method. J Mech Des. 127(3): 397 (311 pages)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Papakonstantinou N, Sierla S, Tumer IY Jensen D (2012) Multi-scale simulation on interactions and emergent failure behaviour during complex system design. ASME J Comput Inf Sci Eng. In pressGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sierla S, Tumer IY, Papakonstantinou N, Koskinen K, Jensen D (2012) Early integration of safety to the mechantronic system design process for the functional failure identification and propagation framework. Mechatronics 22(2):137–151Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    VanBossuyt DL, Hoyle C, Tumer IY, Dong A (2012) Considering risk attitude using utility theory in risk-based design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf, 26(4), In PressGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    McAdams DA, Wood K (2002) A quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. J Mech Des 124(2):173–182Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nagel RL, Vucovich JP, Stone RB, McAdams DA (2007) Signal flow grammar from the functional basis. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED ‘07, Prais, FranceGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nagel RL, Stone RB, Hutcheson RS, McAdams DA, Donndelinger JA (2008) Function design framework (FDF): integrated process and function modeling for complex systems. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2008 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, Brooklyn, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bohm M, Stone RB, Nagel R (2009) Form follows form-is a new paradigm needed? In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition (IMECE2009), Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nagel RL (2011) A design framework for identifying automation opportunities. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nagel RL, Bohm MR, Stone RB, McAdams DA (2007) A representation of carrier flows for functional design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design ICED 07, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nagel RL, Perry KL, Stone RB, McAdams DA, FunctionCAD: A functional modeling application based on the function design framework. In: Proceedings of the international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bohm MR, Stone RB, Simpson TW, Steva ED (2006) Introduction of a data schema: the inner workings of a design repository. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2006 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bohm MR, Stone RB, Szykman S (2003) Enhancing virtual product representations for advanced design repository systems. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2003 design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Szykman S, Racz JW, Sriram RD (1999) The representation of function in computer-based design. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME design engineering technical conferences, Las Vegas, NV, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  2. 2.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations