Advertisement

Modeling the Evolutionary Design Process

  • Dan Braha
  • Oded Maimon
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 17)

Abstract

The primary concept of FDT used in Chapter 5 is that the design process is a mapping of the desired set of specifications (requirements and constraints) onto the artifact description. This ideal view of the design process does not address how the mapping between the function space and the attribute space occurs in real design. Real design is an evolutionary process that progresses from a set of specifications toward the artifact. In this chapter, the evolutionary nature of design is formalized through a series of transformations (process steps) beginning with the leading specifications and resulting in a physical description of the artifact. There is precedence in the relationship between transformed states. Each state is driven by a set of production rules and produces a set of new specifications and/or a partial solution.

Keywords

Design Process Production Rule Finite Automaton Conjunctive Normal Form Initial Specification 
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.
    Ramsay, A., Formal Methods in Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S., Computers and Intractability: A guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoperoft, J. E. and Ullman J. D., Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ulrich, K. T., Computation and Pre-parametric Design, Technical Report 1043, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takeda, H., Veerkamp P., T. Tomiyama, and H. Yoshikawa, “Modeling Design Processes,” AI Magazine, 11 (4), pp. 37–48, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Umeda, Y., Takeda H., Tomiyama T., and H. Yoshikawa, “Function, Behavior, and Structure,” in J. S. Gero (Ed.), Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering V, Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 177–194, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takeda, H., Tomiyama T., and Yoshikawa H., “A Logical and Computable Framework for Reasoning in Design,” in D. L. Taylor and L. A. Stauffer (Eds.), Design Theory and Methodology — DTM’92, ASME, pp. 167–174, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., Engineering Design. London: The Design Council, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suh, N.P., The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandrasekaran, B., “Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis,” AI Magazine, Winter, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomiyama, T., “From General Design Theory to Knowledge-Intensive Engineering,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sriram, D. and Cheong, K., “Engineering Design Cycle: A Case Study and Implications for CAE,” In Knowledge Aided Design. New York: Academic Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takeda, H., Hamada, S., Tomiyama, T., and Yoshikawa, H., “A Cognitive Approach to the Analysis of Design Processes,” In Design Theory and Methodology — DTM’90 -, DE-Vol.27, (Rinderle, J. R., Ed.). New York: ASME, pp. 153–160, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takeda, H., Tomiyama, T., and Yoshikawa, H., “Logical Formalization of Design Processes for Intelligent CAD Systems,” In Intelligent CAD, II, (Yoshikawa, H., and Holden, T., Eds.), Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 325–336, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dasgupta, S., “Testing the Hypothesis Law of Design: The Case of the Britannia Bridge,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 6, pp. 38–57, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thagard, P., Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thagard, P., “Explanatory Coherence,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 435–467, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Braha
    • 1
  • Oded Maimon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations