Research Papers

A Formal Representation of Function Structure Graphs for Physics-Based Reasoning

[+] Author and Article Information
Chiradeep Sen

Courtesy Faculty School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331
e-mail: csen@engr.orst.edu

Joshua D. Summers

e-mail: joshua.summers@ces.clemson.edu

Gregory M. Mocko

Associate Professor
e-mail: gmocko@clemson.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921

Repository. designengineeringlab.org, accessed on May 16, 2012.

Version downloaded on April 23, 2012.

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering. Manuscript received November 28, 2011; final manuscript received November 5, 2012; published online April 22, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Ashok K. Goel.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 13(2), 021001 (Apr 22, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: JCISE-11-1465; doi: 10.1115/1.4023167 History: Received November 28, 2011; Revised November 05, 2012

The paper presents a formal representation for modeling function structure graphs in a consistent, grammatically controlled manner, and for performing conservation-based formal reasoning on those models. The representation consists of a hierarchical vocabulary of entities, relations, and attributes, and 33 local grammar rules that permit or prohibit modeling constructs thereby ensuring model consistency. Internal representational consistency is verified by committing the representation to a Protégé web ontology language (OWL) ontology and examining it with the Pellet consistency checker. External representational validity is established by implementing the representation in a Computer Aided Design (CAD) tool and using it to demonstrate that the grammar rules prohibit inconsistent constructs and that the models support physics-based reasoning based on the balance laws of transport phenomena. This representation, including the controlled grammar, can serve, in the future, as a basis for additional reasoning extensions.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of model-level inconsistencies allowed by the lack of formalism [21]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

An intentionally inconsistent Function-CAD model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Error report from the Function-CAD model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Entity-relation-attribute model of the vocabulary

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Asserted ontology version of the representation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Result of consistency checking of the representation (consistent)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Validation of modeling and reasoning using software implementation




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