Representation of Conceptual Mechanical Design Knowledge

  • Albert Esterline
  • Megan Arnold
  • Donald R. Riley
  • Arthur G. Erdman


Conceptual design is typically not well represented by traditional engineering mathematics. This work is concerned with eliciting and representing the knowledge used in the conceptual stage of mechanism design. This is the first stage of design, and, along with formulating the problem, establishes a function structure and selects processes and geometries for components realizing the functions. A formally based representation is developed that reveals conceptual connections and explicates terms and their valid patterns of use. The formalisms are largely adopted from theoretical computer science. Two knowledge components are formulated: one reveals the designer’s view of the problem as it evolves, and the other captures aspects of control and strategy. The reliability of these schemes is discussed and characteristics of limited conceptual design are identified. We describe our methods of collecting and encoding protocols and discuss how our formalisms could underlie a software toolkit for acquiring and representing conceptual mechanical design knowledge. Finally, we relate our formalisms to paradigms of conceptual design.


Temporal Logic Static Ontology Process Algebra Graph Grammar Denotational Semantic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, J. H., Freiling, M. J., Shulman, S. J., Rehfuss, S., Messick, S. L. (1987). Ontological Analysis: An Ongoing Experiment, Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies 26, 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM, 26(11), 832–843.Google Scholar
  3. Anjewierden, A., Wielemaker, J., Toussaint, C. (1992). Shelley—computer aided knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition 4(1).Google Scholar
  4. Baeten, J. C. M., Weijland, W. P. (1990). Process Algebra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bose, A., Gini, M., Riley, D. R., Esterline, A. (1992a). On reusing linkage designs. Proc. 1992 International Conference on Tools for AI.Google Scholar
  6. Bose, A. (1992b). Case Based Design of Planar Linkages. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. C. (1985). Capturing mechanical design knowledge. ASME CIE, Boston, MA, pp. 121–129.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, D. C., Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies,London: Pittman.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, P. P. (1976). The entity-relationship model—Toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 1 (1).Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1990). Constraint logic programming languages. Communications of the ACM, 33(7), 52–68.Google Scholar
  11. Courcelle, B. (1990). Graph rewriting: An algebraic and logic approach. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.). Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci. Pub., Vol. B, pp. 193–242.Google Scholar
  12. Diederich, J., Ruhmann, I., May, M. (1987). KRITON: A knowledge acquisition tool for expert systems. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 26, pp. 2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrig, H. (1979). Introduction to the algebraic theory of graph grammars (a survey). In V. Claus, H. Ehrig, G. Rozenberg (Eds.). Graph-Grammars and Their Applications to Computer Science and Biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., Simon, H. A. (1984), Procotol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Esterline, A., Riley, D. R., Erdman, A. G. (1989). Design theory and AI Implementations of design methodology. NSF Engineering Design Research Conf., Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 205–220.Google Scholar
  16. Esterline, A., Bose, A., Shanmugavelu, I., Riley, D. R., Erdman, A. G. (1992). Concepts and paradigms for the early stages of mechanical design. Proc. 1992 NSF Design and Manuf. Systems Conference.Google Scholar
  17. Finger, J. J. (1987) Exploiting Constraints in Design Synthesis. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Dept., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Finger, S., Rinderle, J. R. (1990). Transforming Behavioral and Physical Representations of Mechanical Designs. In P. A. Fitzhom (Ed.). Proc. First Int. Workshop on Formal Methods in Engineering Design, Manufacturing, and Assembly. Fort Collins, CO: Dept. of Mechanical Eng., Colorado State Univ.Google Scholar
  19. Flanagan, J. C. (1962). Measuring Human Performance. Pittsburgh: The American Institute of Research.Google Scholar
  20. Freiling, M., Alexander, J., Messick, S., Rehfuss, S., Shulman, S. (1985). Starting a knowledge engineering project: A step-by-step approach. The AI Magazine, Fall, 150–164.Google Scholar
  21. Freiling, M. J. (1988). Designing an inference engine: from ontology to control. 1988 Int. Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Industrial Applications, Hitachi City, Japan, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. Goel, A., Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Functional representation of designs and redesign problem solving, IJCAI-89, Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1388–1394.Google Scholar
  23. Gordon, M. J. C. (1979). The Denotational Description of Programming Languages. New York: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregory, S. (1987). Parallel Logic Programming in PARLOG. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Gruber, T. R. (1989). The Acquisition of Strategic Knowledge. Boston: Academic Press. Harel, D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 231–274.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, P. (1985). The second naive physics manifesto. In Brachman, R. and Levesque, H. (Eds.) Readings in Knowledge Representation, Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  27. Hennessy, M. (1988). Algebraic Theory of Processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Kannapan, S. M., Marshek, M. K., Gerbert, G. (1989). An approach to nomenclature and classification for mechanical transmissions. Tech. Rep. 214, Mechanical Systems and Design, The Univ. of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  29. Keller, R. M. (1976). Formal verification of parallel programs. Communications of the ACM, 19(7).Google Scholar
  30. Kolodner, J. L., Simpson, R. L. (1989). The mediator: analysis of an early case-based problem solver.“ Cognitive Science 13 (4), 507–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kott, A. S., May, J. H. (1989). Decomposition vs. transformation: Case studies of two models of the design process. In Proc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conf. New York: ASME, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  32. Lakmazaheri, S., Rasdorf, W. J. (1989). Constraint logic programming for the analysis and partial synthesis of truss structures. AI EDAM, 3(3), 157–173.Google Scholar
  33. Maher, M. L. (1990). Process models of design thesis. The AI Magazine, Winter, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
  34. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A. (1992). The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDermott, D. V. (1982). A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science 6, 101–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Motta, E., Rajan, T., Eisenstadt, M. (1989). A methodology and tool for knowledge acquisition in Keats-2. In Guida, P., Tasso, G. (Eds.). Topics in the Design of Expert Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 265–296.Google Scholar
  37. Musen, M. A. (1989). Automated Generation of Model-Based Knowledge-Acquisition Tools. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  38. Nevins, J. L., Whitney, D. E. (Eds.) (1989). Concurrent Design of Products and Processes, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Newell, A., Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Olderog, E.-R. (1991). Nets, Terms and Formulas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pahl, G., Beitz, W. (1984). K. Wallace (Ed.). Engineering Design, Bath, UK: The Pitman Press.Google Scholar
  42. Peterson, J. L. (1981). Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Reisig, W. (1985). Petri Nets: An Introduction. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Riesbeck, C. K., Schank, R. C. (1989). Inside Case-Based Reasoning, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Rinderle, J. R., and Balasubramanian (1990). Automated modeling to support design. Design Theory and Methodology-DTM ‘80 (2nd Int. Conf. on Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, Sept. 1990), New York: ASME, pp. 281–290.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenblatt, A. et al. (1991). Concurrent engineering (Special Report). IEEE Spectrum, July, pp. 22–37.Google Scholar
  47. Sankoff, D., Kruskal, J. B. (Eds.) (1983). Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  48. Shanmugavelu, I. (1992). A hypergraph grammar with opportunistic control scheme for conceptual design automation with application to mechanism synthesis. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. Shanmugavelu, I., Esterline, A. Riley, D. R., Erdman, A. G. (1991). An opportunistic Approach to conceptual design. 1991 Computers in Engineering. New York: ASME.Google Scholar
  50. Sprague, R. A., Singh, K. J., Wood, R. J. (1991). Concurrent engineering in product development. IEEE Design and Tests of Computers, March 1991, pp. 6–13.Google Scholar
  51. Stoy, J. E. (1977). Denotational Semantics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sussman, G. J., Steele, G. L. (1980). CONSTRAINTS-A Language for expressing almost-hierarchical descriptions. Artificial Intelligence 14, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sycara, K. P., Navinchandra, D. (1989). Integrating case-based reasoning and qualitative reasoning in engineering design. In J. Gero (Ed.), AI in Engineering Design. Southampton, UK: Computational Mechanics Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Ullman, D. G., and Dietterich, T. G. (1988). Progress in Understanding the Process of Mechanical Design, Design Theory ‘88, The 1988 NSF Grantee Workshop on Design Theory and Methodology. RPI, Troy, NY: pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  55. van Benthem, J. (1983). The Logic of Time. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983.Google Scholar
  56. Waldron, K. J., Waldron, M. B. (1987). A retrospective study of a complex mechanical system design. In M. B. Waldron (Ed.), The Results from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process. The Ohio State Univ., pp. 109–141.Google Scholar
  57. Waldron, M. B., Waldron, K. J. (1989). Empirical study on generation of constraints which direct design decision in conceptual mechanical design. NSF Engineering Design Research Conference, Univ. of Mass., Amherst, MA: pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
  58. Wielinga, B. J., Schreiber, A. T., Breuker, J. A. (1992). KADS: A modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition 4 (1).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Esterline
  • Megan Arnold
  • Donald R. Riley
  • Arthur G. Erdman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations