Advertisement

Abstract

In the current research literature on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in design, we find many terms for types of design. In particular, the term routine design is often used, with a variety of definitions. The goal of this chapter is to discuss routine design, and to contrast it with some of the other types of design. We will attempt to clarify the definition of routineness, and point out what is missing from existing definitions. We will also consider definitions of, and comments about routine design from other authors, as a contrast to our definition. In conclusion, we relate the notion of class 1, 2, and 3 types of design, introduced by Brown and Chandrasekaran (1985), to ideas presented in this chapter.

Keywords

Design Problem Conceptual Design Design Activity Knowledge Source Routine Design 
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. AAAI (1990). AI Magazine,Special Issue on Design, Winter, Vol. 11, No. 4, American Association for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  2. Balkany, A., Birmingham, W. P., and Tommelein, I. D. (1991). A knowledge-level analysis of several design tools. In J. Gero (Ed.). Artificial Intelligence in Design `91. Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 921–940.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D. C. (1990). Research into knowledge-based design at WPI. In J. S. Gero (Ed.). Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Vol. 1, Design. London/ Berlin: Computational Mechanics Publications and Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. C. (1991). Compilation: The hidden dimension of design systems. In H. Yoshikawa and F. Arbab (Eds.), Intelligent CAD, III, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. C. (1992). Design. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd Edn., S. C. Shapiro ( Ed.), J. Wiley, pp. 331–339.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D. C. and Chandrasekaran, B. (1985). Expert systems for a class of mechanical design activity. In J. S. Gero (Ed.). Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 259–282.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. C., and Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies. Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence Series, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran, B. (1990). Design problem solving: a task analysis. Al Magazine, Special Issue on Design, Winter, Vol. 11, No. 4, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
  9. Dixon, J. R., Duffey, M. R., Irani, R. K., Meunier, K. L., and Orelup, M. F. (1988). A proposed taxonomy of mechanical design problems. Proceedings of the ASME Computers in Engineering Conference. San Francisco, CA, Vol. 1, p. 41.Google Scholar
  10. Finger, S., and Dixon, J. R. (1989). A review of research in mechanical engineering design, Part I: descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design. Research in Eng. Design, 1(1), 51.Google Scholar
  11. Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, Special Issue on Design, Winter, Vol. 11, No. 4, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar
  12. Gero, J. S., and Maher, M. L., Eds. (1989). Proc. of the Workshop on Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes-Roth, B. (1990). Three topics for discussion. Working Notes for the Workshop on Creating a Scientific Community at the Interface between Engineering Design and Al. Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 12.Google Scholar
  14. Joskowicz, L., Williams, B., Cagan, J., and Dean, T. Eds. (1992). Symposium: Design from Physical Principles, Working Notes, AAAI Fall Symposium, October, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Maher, M. L., and Fenves, S. J. (1985). HI-RISE: A knowledge-based expert system for the preliminary structural design of high rise buildings. Report No. R-85–146, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  16. Mittal, S., Dym, C. L., and Morjaria, M. (1986). PRIDE: An expert system for the design of paper handling systems. IEEE Computer Magazine, Special Issue on Expert Systems for Engineering Problems.Google Scholar
  17. Orelup, M. F., Dixon, J. R., Cohen, P. R. and Simmons, M. K. (1988). Dominic II: Meta-level control in iterative redesign. Proc. 7th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  18. Ramachandran, N., Shah, A., and Langrana, N. A. (1988). Expert system approach in design of mechanical components. Proc. ASME Int. Computers in Engineering Conf., San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Snavely, G. L., Pomrehn, L. P., and Papalambros, P. Y. (1990). Toward a vocabulary for classifying research in mechanical design automation. First International Workshop on Formal Methods in Engineering Design, Manufacturing and Assembly.Google Scholar
  20. Sriram, D., and Tong, C. (1990). AI and Engineering Design. Notes for Tutorial WP2, AAAI-90: the 8th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Tomiyama, T. (1990). Intelligent CAD Systems. Notes for Tutorial, Eurographics ‘80, Montreux, France.Google Scholar
  22. Ulrich, K. T., and Seering, W. P. (1989). Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design. Research in Engineering Design. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 3.Google Scholar
  23. Waldron, M. B. (1990). Understanding design. In H. Yoshikawa and T. Holden (Eds.). Intelligent CAD, II. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 73–87.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Brown

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations