0
Research Papers

Dependency Modeling and Model Management in Mechatronic Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Ahsan Qamar, Jan Wikander

Department of Machine Design,
School of Industrial Engineering and Management,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
10044 Stockholm, Sweden

Christiaan J. J. Paredis

Model-Based Systems Engineering Center,
G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

Carl During

Micronic Mydata AB,
Box 3141, 18303 Täby, Sweden
e-mail: carl.during@micronic-mydata.com

This paper is based on the article published in the proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2012-70272 [3].

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering. Manuscript received May 25, 2012; final manuscript received October 11, 2012; published online December 11, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Shuming Gao.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 12(4), 041009 (Dec 11, 2012) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007986 History: Received May 25, 2012; Revised October 11, 2012

Mechatronic design is traditionally supported through domain-specific design activities throughout the product development process. The partitioning into domain-specific problems leads to a situation where product properties influence each other, hence giving rise to dependencies. These dependencies play a key role in the prediction of properties and, as a result, in the decision-making process. The important question is how to manage the dependencies for efficient and effective decision making? The aim of this paper is threefold. First, we investigate the nature of dependencies and study how to model them. The paper proposes appropriate terminology taking into account the synthesis and analysis nature of both the properties and the dependencies. This terminology will be the core of the new dependency modeling language. The concepts related to dependency modeling are then illustrated through a simple robot design example, where the creation and importance of a dependency model are explained. Second, we study practical approaches for consistency management and model management in the presence of dependencies. Six levels-of-detail in modeling dependencies are presented; emphasizing that modeling at a higher level-of-detail ensures that more inconsistencies are avoided. Available languages such as OMG SysML™ are evaluated for a possible creation of the dependency models leading toward executable dependency networks. However, at present, SysML does not provide sufficiently rich language constructs to model dependencies. Third, we compare our dependency modeling approach to other state-of-the-art approaches such as dependency modeling with a design structure matrix (DSM), and highlight the benefits of the terminology proposed in this paper. We aim to convince the reader that there is substantial value in modeling dependencies explicitly, especially to avoid inconsistencies, which is not the current state of practice. However, an overall value from dependency modeling can only be obtained if the cost of creating the dependency model is reasonable. Issues such as human interaction/effort and model management through product lifecycle management (PLM) are discussed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Topics: Robots , Design , Modeling , Networks
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Friedenthal, S., Moore, A., and Steiner, R., 2008, A Practical Guide to SysML, The Systems Modelling Language, Morgan Kaufmann.
Herzig, S. J. I., Qamar, A., Reichwein, A., and Paredis, C. J. J., “A Conceptual Framework for Consistency Management in Model-Based Systems Engineering,” Proceedings of ASME 2012 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2011, ASME, pp. 1329–1339.
Qamar, A., and Paredis, C. J. J., “Dependency Modeling and Model Management in Mechatronic Design,” Proceedings of ASME 2012 Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012, ASME.
Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R., and Simmonds, J., 2005, “A Framework for Managing Consistency of Evolving UML Models,” Software Evolution With UML and XML, IGI Global, pp. 1–30. [CrossRef]
Mens, T., Straeten, R. V. D., and D'Hondt, M., 2006, “Detecting and Resolving Model Inconsistencies Using Transformation Dependency Analysis,” Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4199/2006, pp. 200–214.
Hazelrigg, G. A., 1998, “A Framework for Decision Based Engineering Design,” J. Mech. Des., 120(4), pp. 653–658. [CrossRef]
Thompson, S. C., 2011, “Rational Design Theory: A Decision-Based Foundation for Studying Design Methods,” Ph.D. thesis, GW. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engieering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Object Management Group, 2010, “OMG System Modeling Language Specification V1.2,” http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.2/PDF/
Tjalve, E., 2003, Systematic Design of Industrial Products, Institute of Product Development, The Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elmqvist, H., and Otter, M., “Methods for Tearing Systems of Equations in Object-Oriented Modeling,” Proceedings of European Simulation Multiconference, pp. 326–332.
Hayes, C. C., Goel, A. K., Tumer, I. Y., Agogino, A. M., and Regli, W. C., 2011, “Intelligent Support for Product Design: Looking Backward, Looking Forward,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 11(2), p. 021007. [CrossRef]
Fenves, S. J., Sriram, R. D., Subrahmanian, E., and Rachuri, S., 2005, “Product Information Exchange: Practices and Standards,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 5(3), pp. 238–246. [CrossRef]
W3C OWL Working Group, 2002, “OWL Web Ontology Language Pverview,” http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.2
Pratt, M. J., 2001, “Introduction to ISO 10303—The STEP Standard for Product Data Exchange,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 1(1), pp. 102–103. [CrossRef]
Peak, R. S., Lubell, J., Srinivasan, V., and Waterbury, S. C., 2004, “STEP, XML, and UML: Complementary Technologies,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 4(4), pp. 379–390. [CrossRef]
Fenves, S. J., Foufou, S., Bock, C., and Sriram, R. D., 2008, “CPM2: A Core Model for Product Data,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 8(1), p. 014501. [CrossRef]
Fiorentini, X., Rachuri, S., Suh, H., Lee, J., and Sriram, R. D., 2010, “An Analysis of Description Logic Augmented With Domain Rules for the Development of Product Models,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 10(2), p. 021008. [CrossRef]
Object Management Group, 2011, “OMG Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification V2.4.1,” http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
Reichwein, A., 2011, “Application-Specific UML Profiles for Multidisciplinary Product Data Integration,” Ph.D. thesis, Univeristy of Stuttgart, Germany.
Eclipse Foundation, 2011, “Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF),” http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/
Johnson, T., Kerzhner, A., Paredis, C. J. J., and Burkhart, R., 2012, “Integrating Models and Simulations of Continuous Dynamics into SysML,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 12(1), p. 011002. [CrossRef]
Tomiyama, T., Amelio, V. D., Urbanic, J., and ElMaraghy, W., 2007, “Complexity of Multi-Disciplinary Design,” Ann. CIRP, 56(1), pp. 185–188. [CrossRef]
Adamsson, N., “Model-Based Development of Mechatronic Systems - Reducing the Gap Between Competencies?,” Proceedings of Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, Vol. 1(2), pp. 405–413.
Braun, S. C., and Lindemann, U., “A Multilayer Approach for Early Cost Estimation of Mechatronical Products,” Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED07), pp. 187–188.
Buremester, S., Giese, H., and Oberschelp, O., 2006, “Hybrid UML Components for the Design of Complex Self-Optimizing Mechatronic Systems,” Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics I, Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 281–288.
Cao, Y., Liu, Y., and Paredis, C. J. J., 2011, “System-Level Integration of Design and Simulation for Mechatronic Systems Based on SysML,” Mechatronics, 21(6), pp. 1063–1075. [CrossRef]
Gausemeier, J., Frank, U., Donoth, J., and Kahl, S., 2009, “Specification Technique for the Description of Self-Optimizing Mechatronic Systems,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(4), pp. 201–223. [CrossRef]
Egyed, A., 2011, “Automatically Detecting and Tracking Inconsistencies in Software Design Models,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 37(2), pp. 188–204. [CrossRef]
Adourian, C., and Vangheluwe, H., “Consistency Between Geometric and Dynamic Views of a Mechanical System,” Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, pp. 1–6.
Gausemeier, J., Schafer, W., Greenyer, J., Kahl, S., Pook, S., and Rieke, J., “Management of Cross Domain Model Consistency During the Development of Advanced Mechatronic Systems,” Procedings of 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'09), pp. 1–12.
Hehenberger, P., Egyed, A., and Zeman, K., “Consistency Checking of Mechatronic Design Models,” Proceedings of 2010 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2010, ASME, pp. 1141–1148.
Danilovic, M., and Browning, T. R., 2007, “Managing Complex Product Development Projects With Design Structure Matrices and Domain Mapping Matrices,” Int. J. Project Manage., 25(3), pp. 300–314. [CrossRef]
Sangal, N., Jordan, E., Sinha, V., and Jackson, D., “Using Dependency Models to Manage Complex Software Architecture,” Proceedings of Object Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), ACM Press, pp. 167–176.
Wynn, D. C., Nair, S. M. T., and Clarkson, P. J., “The P3 Platform: An Approach and Software for developing Diagrammatic Model-Based Methods in Design Research,” Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED09), pp. 559–570.
Phoenix Integration, 2012, “ModelCenter,” http://www.phoenix-int.com/software/phx_modelcenter_10.php
Comet Solutions, 2012, “Comet Workspace,” http://cometsolutions.com/products/workspace/
Morris, H., Lee, S., Shan, E., and Zeng, S., 2004, “Information Integration Framework for Product Life-Cycle Management of Diverse Data,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 4(4), pp. 352–358. [CrossRef]
Törngren, M., Dahle, H. P., Brodtkorb, D., El-khoury, J., Chaplin, R., Díez, A., Bertels, K., Beran, J., Salecker, J., Demathieu, S., Espinoza, H., Oudrhiri, R., Svensson, J., and Asplund, F., “Towards an Industrial Framework for Emebdded Systems Tools,” Proceedings of HOPES Workshop at ECMFA.
Eisenmann, H., and Fuchs, J., 2012, “Mutlidisciplinary Approach for Industrial Phases in Space Projects,” MBSE Workshop at Incose IW2012.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Analysis dependency (left) and synthesis dependency (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Artifacts and property spaces [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Semantic relationships between properties in addition to dependencies

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Visualization of a dependency network within and across two domain-specific models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A design concept for the robot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dependency network for the robot example

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

An illustration of a causal loop within the dependency network of the robot example

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Robot mechanical structure modeled in SysML

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Topological configuration with SysML as a common product model among domain-specific models. P stands for a producer and C stands for a consumer of a property.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

A visualization of dependency patterns. Pattern-A: CAD-SysML. Pattern B: controller design-SysML. Properties shared between two domain-specific models are also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Metalevels in relation to modeling/executing dependencies

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Multiple SDs leading to a single SP, requiring multiple selections

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

DSM for the robot example built in CAM [34]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

PLM as a core for model management, dependency network represented in SysML with other dependencies spread cross domains. Figure adapted from Ref. [41].

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In