Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer Current Status Of Treatment April2009
Working Knowledge Model - Purdue Polytechnic Institute - IAB April2009 - Ramani...and Working...
Transcript of Working Knowledge Model - Purdue Polytechnic Institute - IAB April2009 - Ramani...and Working...
1
Breaking Barriers between Product Lifecycle and Working Knowledge in Design
Karthik RamaniComputational Design Lab
School of Mechanical EngineeringSchool of Electrical and Computer Engineering (by
Courtesy)
2
Introduction• Design has no unique solution, so multiple alternatives can exist
(due to):– Several conflicting objectives– A requirement can be interpreted in several ways– Several solution principles / embodiments can achieve the same
function– Different composition of multiple disciplines (For example, in
mechatronic products)• Moreover, each of these solutions can be described in multiple
levels of detail and abstraction, for example– In the simplest case, an overall function broken into several simpler
functions and so on– Overall geometry (assembly) described in detail through component
models– The geometry of a single component can be described as a 2D sketch
or a 3D drawing….
3
Design Process
Activity Activity Activity
Design Problem
Process
Solutions
Alte
rnat
ives
3
4
Motivation
• Previous attempts to capture knowledge– Highly specialized tools– “Knowledge” engineer– Rationale management– Failed![1] – too much effort
• Tie visual tools to Knowledge Model– Already prevalent– No additional effort– Need grammar for each visual
Visual Tools
QFD F/M Tree
CAD SysML
C&CM …
Knowledge Model
Designer(s)
Acquisition Access &
Display
Task clarification
Decisions
[1] P. Schütt, "The post-Nonaka Knowledge Management," Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 9, pp. 451-462, 2003.
5
Working KnowledgeThe working knowledge consists of:• Knowledge about function, form and behavior of the product being
designed.• Knowledge about constraints, objectives and requirements that the
design should satisfy.• The alternatives that exist at each stage in the design processed
(expressed explicitly by the designer).• Representation of these entities in different levels of abstraction
Structure
Sub-structure
Behavior
Sub-Behavior Artifact
Function
Sub-Functions
Attributes
ConstraintsConstraintsConstraints
DesignModel
Objectives
Requirements
Working Knowledge
A B
Different levels of fidelity
A depends on B
Different alternatives
6
Vision
LMM=0 / CCM=1
LMM = CCM
Ucom Torso 22 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ucom head 1 8 2 2
Drivetrain "Pitch bottom" 2 7 1 2 1 1 2 2
Sensor "pitch bottom" 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1
Drivetrain "Roll" 2 2 9 1 2 2 2 2
Sensor "roll" 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 1
inner cardan joint 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 2 2
inner cardan plate 1 1 6 2 2
outer cardan joint 1 1 1 5 2
neck base 2 1 2 2 15 2 1 2 2 1
Drivetrain "turn" 2 2 2 1 2 14 1 2 2 2 2 1
Support "turn" 1 1 6 1 2
Sensor "turn" 2 1 2 2 1 6 1
Support "pitch top" 2 7 2 1 2
Drivetrain "pitch top" 2 2 2 2 2 8 2
Sensor "pitch top" 2 1 1 1 5 2
pivot "pitch top" 1 2 2 8 2
abstract CSS "pitch bottom" 2 2 4
abstract CSS "roll" 2 2 4
abstract CSS "turn" 2 2 4
abstract CSS "pitch top" 2 2 4
abstract CSS "convey neck ba 2 2 4
abstract CSS "tool access" 1 1 2
Drive
train
"Pitc
h bo
ttom
"
Ucom
hea
d
Ucom
Tor
so
Sens
or "r
oll"
oute
r car
dan
join
t
inne
r car
dan
plat
e
inne
r car
dan
join
t
Drive
train
"Rol
l"
Sens
or "p
itch
botto
m"
Components
Com
pone
nts
abst
ract
CSS
"pitc
h bo
tto
abst
ract
CSS
"too
l acc
es
abst
ract
CSS
"con
vey
ne
abst
ract
CSS
"pitc
h to
p"
abst
ract
CSS
"tur
n"
abst
ract
CSS
"rol
l"
pivo
t "pi
tch
top"
Sens
or "p
itch
top"
Drive
train
"pitc
h to
p"
Supp
ort "
pitc
h to
p"
Sens
or "t
urn"
Supp
ort "
turn
"
Drive
train
"tur
n"
neck
bas
e
WK Model
HoQModel
…Model
Product Model
RELATIONSHIP MATRIX9 - STRONG3 - MEDIUM1 - WEAK
Engineering Characteristics (EC's)Orientation: + increase - decrease - + + + + + - - + + -
Cust
omer
Impo
rtanc
e
Max
imum
Dim
ensi
on
Nom
inal
sup
ply
volta
ge
Max
torq
ue o
f mot
or
Ove
rall
gear
ratio
n pe
r D
OF
No
of D
OF
Max
Spe
ed
Post
ion
mea
sure
men
t ac
cura
cy
Wei
ght
Max
Cur
rent
Ran
ge o
f Mot
ion
Ove
rall
effic
ienc
y
Back
lash
in D
rivet
rain
Anthropomorphism Human-like dimensions 9 9Smooth motions 6 3 9
Human-like motion Look at floor right in front 8 3 3 9Low energy requirement 3 1 3 3 9 990 degrees in one second 3 9 3Compatible with universal contro 8 9 9easy to control 5 3 9 3 9reliable and robust controls 7 3 9 9
Accurate for cameras precise positioning of head 8 3 3 9 3 9User safety no overheating when operating fo 2 3 3 9 3
Carry at least 3kg payload 5 3 9 9 1 3
Units of Target Values mm V Nm
deg/
s
kg A deg
%
Target Values 260
24 4 90 from
<2 5 90
Absolute Importance
Relative Importance
o xx
o
x
x
oo
oo
xx
xo
ox
xx
x
xx
o
o
x
Constraint solver
Optimizer
Constraint problem
Optimization problem
CAEModel
Finite Element
Solver, etc.
Decision support
tools
Visual tools
PLMAnalysis & Simulation
tools
Current Work Future Work
7
Visual ToolsØ 200 mm
Ø 100 mm
Ø 160 mm
160
mm
120
mm
140
mm
Kopf
Hals
Torso
Schulterlinie
x
y
z
2
1
3
4
RELATIONSHIP MATRIX9 - STRONG3 - MEDIUM1 - WEAK
Engineering Characteristics (EC's)Orientation: + increase - decrease - + + + + + - - + + -
Cust
omer
Impo
rtanc
e
Max
imum
Dim
ensi
on
Nom
inal
sup
ply
volta
ge
Max
torq
ue o
f mot
or
Ove
rall
gear
ratio
n pe
r D
OF
No
of D
OF
Max
Spe
ed
Post
ion
mea
sure
men
t ac
cura
cy
Wei
ght
Max
Cur
rent
Ran
ge o
f Mot
ion
Ove
rall
effic
ienc
y
Back
lash
in D
rivet
rain
Anthropomorphism Human-like dimensions 9 9Smooth motions 6 3 9
Human-like motion Look at floor right in front 8 3 3 9Low energy requirement 3 1 3 3 9 990 degrees in one second 3 9 3Compatible with universal contro 8 9 9easy to control 5 3 9 3 9reliable and robust controls 7 3 9 9
Accurate for cameras precise positioning of head 8 3 3 9 3 9User safety no overheating when operating fo 2 3 3 9 3
Carry at least 3kg payload 5 3 9 9 1 3
Units of Target Values mm V Nm
deg/
s
kg A deg
%
Target Values 260
24 4 90 from
<2 5 90
Absolute Importance
Relative Importance
o xx
o
x
x
oo
oo
xx
xo
ox
xx
x
xx
o
o
x
8
Black box diagram
}Technical process diagram
QFD 1
}Function-structureschematic
Morphological matrix
}Organ structure• Conceptual sketch• Conceptual schematic
QFD 2, Concept selection table
}Component structure• Preliminary layoutsketch
}Component structure• Dimensional layout(scale)
LegendT.P. – Technical ProcessF.S. – Function StructureCon. – Concept
P.L. – Preliminary LayoutD.L. – Dimensional LayoutNote: Visual tools implemented are indicated with italics.
SysML requirements diagram
Hierarchical Function structures
AND-OR trees
SysML parametric diagram for equations
Design sets visualization• Pareto fronts• Interval box representations• Polytope approximation
T.P.1 T.P.2 T.P.n
F.S.1 F.S.2 F.S.n
Con.1 Con.2 Con.n
P.L.1 P.L.2 P.L.n
D.L.1 D.L.2 D.L.n
Families of organs (function carriers); Combination and basic arrangement
Establish technological principles and sequence of operation
Group functions based on boundaries of technical processes
Parts, arrangement, rough form, some dimensions, material and manufacturing
Definitive arrangement, form, all dimensions; Material & manufacturing,
partial tolerances;
Design Specification
Black box
Optimal technical process
Optimal function structure
Optimal organ structure
Optimal preliminary layout
Optimal dimensional layout
Release for detailing
Established design characteristics
Typical visual tool used
(from [3] and [20])
Additional visual representations /
toolsVisual Tools
9
Approach
• What is working knowledge?– Need to understand the design
process• Develop a simple model of
working knowledge using existing design concepts
• Connect the WKM to visual tools
10
Mod
els
ConceptsRequirements Specifications Structure
Architecture Topology
Hierarchical Structure Flow Structure
Rationale Constraints
Numerical Qualitative Logical Semantic
GeometryAssembly structure Part Features
Hierarchical Behavior Objective Alternative
Architecture/Design Geometries Constraints
AbstractionsProduct Geometry Constraints Behavior
PLM
/PDM
Sys
tem
s
Hier
arch
ical
Sy
nthe
sisCo
nfig
urat
ion
and
Gene
rativ
e De
sign
Para
met
ric D
esig
n
Wor
king
Kn
owle
dge
Mod
el
Function
PortsBehavior
Desig
n Kn
owle
dge
Mod
els
Desig
n Re
posit
orie
s
Indi
vidu
al A
rtifa
cts
Only a few Many Almost all
Legend
ModelingConcepts
11
Abstractions of concepts
12
Working Knowledge Model
DesignModel
Instance
+subStructureOf
0..1
+subStructure 0..* Attribute
Constraint
Text : StringCPM2::Function
+functionOf 1
+hasFunctions
1..*
CPM2::Form
Objective
Value
DomainhasValue
Requirement
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
chosenFrom
hasDomain
0..*«metaclass»
AbstractableProperty
«extends»
«extends»
CPM2::Behavior
0..*
«extends»
CPM2::Geometry
CPM2::Artifact
-NameGeometry
-Icon : ImageSketch
-Icon : ImageDrawing
-Icon : Image3DModel
«metaclass»AbstractableProperty
«extends»
-NameConstraint
«extends»
Qualitative Analytical Geometric
13
Parameters
Geometry
FunctionSketch1:Geometry
Text = "Convert energy"Fn1 : Function
Name = LengthID = p_lenAttributeType = RealUnit = Inch
p_len : Parameter
Name = DiameterID = p_dAttributeType = RealUnit = Inch
p_d : Parameter
valueslowerBound = 3upperBound = 10
int_len : AtomicInterval
Name = l1EntityType = LineParameters = {p_len}
l1 : SketchEntity
Name = l2EntityType = LineParameters = {p_d}
l2 : SketchEntity
l1
l2
Name = VoltageID = p_vAttributeType = RealUnit = V
p_V : Parameter
GenericMotor : DesignModel
int_d : AtomicInterval
values = {3, 6, 12, 18}int_d : FiniteDomain
NEMA17 : Instance
NEMA17Sketch:Geometry
l11 : SketchEntity
l12 : SketchEntity
Name = LengthID = p_lenAttributeType = RealUnit = Inch
p_len : Parameter
valueObj = 7.5v_len : Value
p_d : ParametervalueObj = 2.4
v_d : Value
p_V : ParametervalueObj = 18
v_V : Value
Fn1 : Function
Example
14
Visual tools and WKM
Visu
al
tool
Concepts
Requirements (complete) (complete)
Structure
Architecture (as Means)
Topology(only
Geometric)(only
Geometric)
Hierarchical Structure (complete) (as Requirement)
(complete)
Flow StructureConstraints
Numerical (possible) (as Targets) (possible) (only equality)
Geometric (complete) Qualitative (in Roof) Logical Semantic (possible)
GeometryAssembly structure (complete) Part Features (complete)
Objective (possible) (as Objective)
Alternative
Architecture/Design(as
Competition)(as Means)
Geometries
Constraints
Working Knowledge
Model
Function
SysML Requirement
Diagram
Hierarchical Function
Structures
House of Quality 1
Morphological Matrix
2D DrawingSysML
Parametric Diagram
15
Visual Tool Grammar - examples
Design Model+realizedBy
* +performsFunction*
Function
Form
Implementation
Software
«property»
Car.minStoppingDistance
«parametricRelation»
F = ma
«parametricRelation»
Cf = Fresistive / Fnormal
«property»
Car.mass«property»Earth.gravity
ma
«property»
Car.tire.cFrictionCf
Fresistive
Fnormal
F
«parametricRelation»
F = mam
a
F
«parametricRelation»
dstop = - ½ v2 / a
dstop
va
«property»Car.speed
Design Model
EqualityConstraint
Attribute
Behavior
BehaviorModel
OperatingState
Constraint
Function-Component Matrix
SysML Parametric Diagram
15
16
Visual Tool Grammar - examplesDirection
TargetsCustomer
Requirements
Engineering Characteristics
Roof
Design Model
Attribute
Objective
Function
Requirement
Constraint
QualitativeRelationship
Matrix
QualitativeRelationships
Cus
tom
erR
equi
rem
ents
TargetsAl
tern
ativ
es
Engineering characteristics
DirectionHoQ
17
Case Study I
Humanoid Robot Neck – ARMAR III – Universität Karlsruhe, Germany
18
ARMAR III Case Study
19
HoQ of ARMAR IIIARMAR II
(Objektsystem)
Working Knowledge
of ARMAR III
Requirements for ARMAR III
Constraints & Objectives
Add
QFD
Neck:DesignModel
NeckARMARII:DesignModel
Neck3ARMARIII:DesignModel
NeckARMARII_3D:Form
PositionRobotHeadARMARIII:Requirement
AccurateForCamera:Requirement
SupplyVoltage:Parameter
Speed:Parameter
PositionAccuracy:Parameter
Weight:Parameter
Torque:Parameter
MaxCurrent:Parameter
GearRatio:Parameter
Height:Parameter
MotorEqn1:Constraint
SpeedCalc:Constraint
PrecisePositioning:Requirement
HumanLikeDimensions:Requirement
EasyToControl:Requirement
CompUnivlCntr:Requirement
ReliableRobust:Requirement
Refined by
Refined by
Refined by
Refined by
invo
lve
s
Refined by
Refined by
“Compatible with Universal Controller”
Partial instance of ARMARII neck Partial listing of ARMAR III requirements
20
Case study II
Coolant valve for IC engine Schematic
SysML Req.HoQ
Function Str. Morph. Mat.
2D Drawings
Constraint Network
21
Coolant Valve Requirements
SysML Requirements diagram
22
Coolant Valve Design
House of Quality
Function Structure
Morphological Matrix
23
Coolant Valve Design
Constraint network
Drawing Interface
(Parameters
24
Coolant Valve Design
SysML Req.HoQ
Function Str. Morph. Mat.
2D Drawings
Constraint Network
25
Application – Design for Sustainability
Competing (Existing)Products
Function / Requirements
Stapler
Top
Impact plate
IndexerMagazine
SpringGuide
Housing
Bottom
Extruder
Stapler
Extrude staple
Look good
Store staplesHold staples
Load staplesPosition staples
Attach papers
Crimp staple
Reliable
Teardown Function Analysis
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Function –component relationshipFu
ncti
ons
Components
Function-ComponentMatrix
Existing design process
E-QFD
Our Approach
Voice of Customer
Engineering Characteristics
Environmental Impacts
Function-Impact Analysis (proposed)
Structure / Bill of Materials
Correlation Analysis(proposed)
RelationshipMatrix
QualitativeRelationships
Cust
omer
Requ
irem
ents
Targets
Alte
rnat
ives
Engineering characteristics
Direction
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
Pe
rce
nt
Imp
act
3 0 0 .2 2 3 2 0 0 .1 4 8 6 5 0 0 .3 7 1 60 .7 4 3 23 0 0 .1 3 7 25 0 0 .2 2 8 70 .4 5 7 4
5 0 .0 1 1 6 5 0 .1 4 3 51 0 0 .0 2 2 11 0 0 .0 2 2 11 0 0 .0 2 2 1 0 .2 2 0 71 0 0 0 .0 5 3 1
7 0 0 .0 1 93 0 0 .0 0 8 1 0 .0 2 7 11 0 00 .0 5 6 10 .0 5 6 1
0 .0 3 0 .0 0 8 1 0 .3 6 6 4 0 .0 2 2 1 0 .1 7 0 7 0 .1 5 9 3 0 .6 5 6 41 .5 5 7 6
Fu n ctio n - Impact M atrix
Me
tal
Stap
ler
To tal
Extr
ud
e S
tap
le
Cri
mp
Sta
ple
P in s
M agazin eImp act P lateExtru d e r
To p Ho u singB o tto m Ho using
Sto
re S
tap
les
Po
siti
on
Stap
les
Load
Sta
ple
s
Ho
ld P
aper
s
Tran
smit
Fo
rce
Envi
ron
me
nta
l Im
pact
(G
lob
al W
arm
ing)
Fu n ctio n
C o mp o n e nt
Average Impact (Global Warming)
Extrude Staple
Crimp Staple
Store Staples
Position Staples
Load Staples
Hold Papers
Transmit Force
Contribution of each function to the overall impact of the stapler.
26
Future work – Wiki Integration
Previous work (Devanathan et al, 2009)
Previous work (Li, Raskin & Ramani, 2007)
Design Semantics extraction
Linguistic Knowledge
Syntax Analysis Semantic Analysis
Lexicon
Syntax
Domain Knowledge
Domain Ontology
Semantic Rules
Wiki Pages
… The <attribute belongs_to=“Stapler”> Weight</attribute> of the <artifact> Stapler </artifact> should be kept as <objective attribute=“weight”> low</objective> as possible…
Tagging
Parsing
Structure
Sub-structure
Behavior
Sub-Behavior Artifact
Function
Sub-Functions
Attributes
ConstraintsConstraintsConstraints
DesignModel
Objectives
Requirements
Working Knowledge
Design
Information Model
Visual Tools
27
3D Hub
28
Conclusions• Working knowledge is much more than product data:
– Contains all the alternatives that were considered, and the relationships between them to easily reason among them
– Allows reasoning about the design in any level of detail and abstraction
• Important aspect of working knowledge– Allows setup of commonly used computational (simulation,
optimization, configuration etc.) and manual (QFD, Morphological matrix, etc.) decision support tools
– The decisions and the rationale (knowledge) taken using the support tools are added back into the working knowledge
– Contains the information about what design tasks have been performed and what tasks have to be done… (This is future work)
29
Publications1. S. Devanathan, C. Sauter, A. Albers, and K. Ramani. A working knowledge model for supporting early design
through visual tools, in International conference on engineering design, ICED'09, Stanford, CA, 2009.2. S. Devanathan and K. Ramani, "Creating Polytope Representation of Design Spaces for Visual Exploration
Using Consistency Technique," IDETC/CIE 2009. 31 Aug - 2 Sept. 2009, San Diego, CA, USA3. S. Devanathan, F. Zhao, and K. Ramani, “Integration of Sustainability into Early Design through Working
Knowledge Model and Visual Tools” 2009 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference MSEC, West Lafayette, IN, 2009
4. D. Min, J. Cho, and K. Ramani, A method for measuring part similarity using ontology and a multi-criteria decision making method, IDETC/CIE 2009. 31 Aug - 2 Sept. 2009, San Diego, CA, USA. (Paper# DETC2009-87711)
5. Walthall, C., S. Devanathan, L. Kisselburgh, K. Ramani, and E. Hirleman. A Framework for evaluating wikis as a medium for communication within engineering design teams,. IDETC/CIE 2009. 31 Aug - 2 Sept. 2009, San Diego, CA, USA
6. C.J. Walthall, C. Sauter, T. Deigendesch, S. Devanathan, A. Albers, and K. Ramani. Survey of Wikis as a Design Support Tool. ICED'09, 24-27 Aug. 2009, Stanford, CA, USA
7. S. Murugappan and K. Ramani, "FEAsy: A Sketch-based Interface Integrating Structural Analysis in Early Design", To appear in Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2009), SanDiego, CA
8. S. Murugappan and K. Ramani, "Towards beautification of Freehand Sketches using Suggestions", in review 'Sixth Eurographics Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, SIGGRAPH 2009
9. D. Cao, K. Ramani, M. W. Fu, and R. Zhang, "Port-based Ontology Semantic Similarities for Module Concept Creation,” IDETC/CIE 2009. 31 Aug - 2 Sept. 2009, San Diego, CA, USA