Organizing a Design Space of Disparate Component Topologies

  • Mukund Kumar
  • Matthew I. Campbell

Abstract

In a previous DCC paper, the authors presented an approach to generate a large space of conceptual designs by a set of grammar rules. These results indicated a large number of topologically unique solutions that could be created from a single black box that consists of a simple description of the function of the product and the input and output flows. The problem remains as to how to efficiently organize and search this space to find the best design for a given set of user preferences. In this paper we present new results that organize the candidate space using clustering methods such as K-means algorithm that group a large number of points in space based on a certain spatial property. Candidate component topologies, referred to as Component Flow Graphs (CFGs), are categorized using this method based on properties that physically distinguish them. From a theoretical and computational standpoint, this is an open research question as the CFGs may be vastly different graph topologies and the nodes and arcs of the graph may represent many different types of components and component connections. This paper details an experiment wherein ten products are designed from function structure to CFG. A space of over 8000 candidate solutions is developed. From this large set, clustering algorithms are employed to organize the space, and eventually aid an automated or interactive search algorithm that can find a best candidate solution for a particular user. A vast space of clustered concepts would allow an interactive process to query the user about particular CFGs and gauge whether the user would like to see more similar CFGs (i.e. from the same cluster) or is more interested in different ones (i.e. ones from other clusters). Such an interactive tool would be useful in mass customization.

Keywords

Function Structure Design Space Candidate Solution Mass Customization Graph Grammar 
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. 1.
    Kurtoglu, T., Swantner, A., Campbell, M.I.: Automating the Conceptual Design Process: From Black-box to Component Selection. In: Design Computing and Cognition 2008, pp. 553–572 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer, London (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qian, L., Gero, J.S.: Function-behavior-structure paths and their role in analogy-based design. AI EDAM 10, 289–312 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hundal, M.: A Systematic Method for Developing Function Structures, Solutions and Concept Variants. Mechanism and Machine Theory 25(3), 243–256 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ward, A.C., Seering, W.P.: The performance of a mechanical design compiler. ASME, Design Engineering 17, 89–97 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracewell, R.H., Sharpe, J.E.E.: Functional Description Used in Computer Support for Qualitative Scheme Generation- Schemebuilder. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 333–345 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakrabarti, A., Bligh, T.: An Approach to Functional Synthesis of Mechanical Design Concepts: Theory, Applications and Emerging Research Issues. AI EDAM 10, 313–331 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, M., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K.: Agent-based Synthesis of Electro-Mechanical Design Configurations. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(1), 61–69 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rozenberg, G.: Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sridharan, P., Campbell, M.I.: A Study on the Grammatical Construction of Function Structure. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(3), 139–160 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agarwal, M., Cagan, J.: A Blend of Different Tastes: The Language of Coffee Makers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25(2), 205–226 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shea, K., Cagan, J., Fenves, S.J.: A Shape Annealing Approach to Optimal Truss Design with Dynamic Grouping of Members. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 119(3), 388–394 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel, J., Campbell, M.I.: An Approach to Automate and Optimize Concept Generation of Sheet Metal Parts by Topological and Parametric Decoupling. Journal Of Mechanical Design (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Starling, A.C., Shea, K.: A Grammatical Approach to Computational Generation of Mechanical Clock Designs. In: Proceedings of ICED 2003 International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swantner, A., Campbell, M.I.: Automated Synthesis and Optimization of Gear Train Topologies. In: Proceedings Of The ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences IDETC/CIE 2009, vol. DETC2009/86780. ASME, San Diego (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Starling, A.C., Shea, K.: Virtual Synthesizers for Mechanical Gear Systems. In: Proceedings of ICED 2005 International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartigan, J.A.: Clustering Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Chichester (1975)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Yassine, A.: An Introduction to Modeling and Analyzing Complex Product Development Processes Using the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Method. Quaderni di Management (Italian Management Review), No.9 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Browning, T.R.: Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering management 48(3), 292–306 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtoglu, T., Campbell, M.I.: A component taxonomy as a framework for computational design synthesis. Journal Of Computing And Information Science In Engineering 8(4), 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campbell, M.I., Rai, R., Kurtoglu, T.: A stochastic graph grammar algorithm for interactive search. In: Proceedings of ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC / CIE 2009 San Diego, California, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Likas, A., Vlassis, N., Verbeek, J.J.: The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recognition 36(2), 451–461 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurtoglu, T., Campbell, M.I.: Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. Journal of Engineering Design 19(6) (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campbell, M.I.: A Graph Grammar Methodology for Generative Systems. University of Texas, Austin (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bishop, B., Nazmul, T., Campbell, M.: A Proposed Extensible Formalism and Initial Development for Representing Electromechanical Design Architecture and Fabrication. In: Proc. DESIGN 2010, The Design Society (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shigley, J., Mischke, C.: Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math., New York (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Caelli, T., Kosinov, S.: An Eigenspace Projection Clustering Method for Inexact Graph Matching. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 515–519 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Campbell, M.I., Nakhjavani, O.B.: A Deterministic Global Optimization Method for Multimodal Spaces. Journal of Global Optimization (accepted, 2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pine, B.J., Davis, S.: Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Harvard Business School Pr., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brown, K.N., Cagan, J.: Optimized Process Planning by Generative Simulated Annealing. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11, 219–235 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmidt, L., Cagan, J.: Recursive Annealing: A Computational Model for Machine Design. Research in Engineering Design 7(2), 102–125 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mukund Kumar
    • 1
  • Matthew I. Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations