Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:45:24.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontologies for supporting engineering analysis models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2005

IAN R. GROSSE ,
JOHN M. MILTON–BENOIT  and
JACK C. WILEDEN
IAN R. GROSSE
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 160 Governor's Drive, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-2210, USA
JOHN M. MILTON–BENOIT
Affiliation:
United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, Connecticut, USA
JACK C. WILEDEN
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-2210, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we lay the foundations for exchanging, adapting, and interoperating engineering analysis models (EAMs). Our primary foundation is based upon the concept that engineering analysis models are knowledge-based abstractions of physical systems, and therefore knowledge sharing is the key to exchanging, adapting, and interoperating EAMs within or across organizations. To enable robust knowledge sharing, we propose a formal set of ontologies for classifying analysis modeling knowledge. To this end, the fundamental concepts that form the basis of all engineering analysis models are identified, described, and typed for implementation into a computational environment. This generic engineering analysis modeling ontology is extended to include distinct analysis subclasses. We discuss extension of the generic engineering analysis modeling class for two common analysis subclasses: continuum-based finite element models and lumped parameter or discrete analysis models. To illustrate how formal ontologies of engineering analysis modeling knowledge might facilitate knowledge exchange and improve reuse, adaptability, and interoperability of analysis models, we have developed a prototype engineering analysis modeling knowledge base, called ON-TEAM, based on our proposed ontologies. An industrial application is used to instantiate the ON-TEAM knowledge base and illustrate how such a system might improve the ability of organizations to efficiently exchange, adapt, and interoperate analysis models within a computer-based engineering environment. We have chosen Java as our implementation language for ON-TEAM so that we can fully exploit object-oriented technology, such as object inspection and the use of metaclasses and metaobjects, to operate on the knowledge base to perform a variety of tasks, such as knowledge inspection, editing, maintenance, model diagnosis, customized report generation of analysis models, model selection, automated customization of the knowledge interface based on the user expertise level, and interoperability assessment of distinct analysis models.

Keywords

Engineering Analysis ModelsInteroperabilityKnowledge BaseOntologies
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alberts, L.K. & Dikker, F. (1992). Integrating standards and synthesis knowledge using the YMIR ontology. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S. & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 517–534. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Bachant, J. (1988). RIME: preliminary work toward a knowledge acquisition tool. In Automatic Knowledge for Acquisition for Expert System (Marcus, S., Ed.), pp. 201–224. Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Batory, D., Singhal, V., Thomas, J., Dasari, S., & Sirkin, M. (1994). The GenVoca model of software-system generation. IEEE Software 11(5), 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J., Cleary, L., Englemore, R., & Melosh, R. (1978). SACON: A Knowledge-Based Consultant for Structural Analysis. Report No. STAN-CS-699. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Computer Science.
Borst, P., Pos, A., Top, J.L., & Akkermans, J.M. (1994). Physical systems ontology. In Working Papers of the European Conf. Artificial Intelligence ECAI'94 Workshop on Implemented Ontologies (Mars, N.J.I., Ed.), pp. 47–80. Amsterdam: ECCAI.
Borst, P., Akkermans, J.M., Pos, A., & Top, J.L. (1995). The PhysSys ontology for physical systems. In Working Papers of the Ninth Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning QR'95 (Bredeweg, B., Ed.), pp. 11–21. University of Amsterdam.
Brunnermeier, S.B. & Martin, S.A. (1999). Interoperability Cost Analysis of the US Automotive Supply Chain, Final Technical Report To NIST. RTI Project No. 7007-03. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Buchanan, B.G. & Shortliffe, E.H. (1984). Uncertainty and evidential support. In Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristics Programming Project. Boston: Addison–Wesley.
Chandrasekaran, B., Goel, A., & Iwasaki, Y. (1993). Functional representation as design rationale. IEEE Computer January, 48–56.CrossRef
Clancey, W.J. (1983). The epistemology of rule-based expert system: a framework for explanation. Artificial Intelligence 20, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancey, W.J. (1985). Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence 27(3), December.CrossRef
de Kleer, J. & Brown, J.S. (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models. In Mental models (Genter, D. & Stevens, E.L., Eds.), pp. 155–190. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doraiswamy, S., Krishnamurty, S., & Grosse, I. (1999). Decision making in finite element analysis. Proc. 1999 Design Technical Conf., DETC99/CIE-9058, September. Las Vegas, NV: ASME.
Dubois–Pelerin, Y. & Zimmermann, T. (1993). Object-oriented finite element programming: III. An efficient implementation in C++. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 108, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duda, R.O., Gasching, J., Hart, E., Konolige, K., Reboh, R., Barrett, P., & Slocum, J. (1978). Development of the PROSPECTOR consultation system for mineral exploration, final report. In SRI Projects 5821 and 6415. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Dym, C. & Levitt, R. (1991). Toward the integration of knowledge for engineering modeling and computation. Engineering with Computers 7, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, D. & Cunningham, P. (1994). Physical model generation in PDE analysis using model-based case-based reasoning. QR '94: 8th Int. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pp. 90–97, Nara, Japan, June.
Finn, D., Grimson, J.B., & Harty, N.M. (1992). An intelligent mathematical modeling assistant for analysis of physical systems. Proc. ASME 1992 Computers in Engineering Conf. Exposition, Vol. 2, pp. 69–74. San Diego, CA: ASME.
Goel, A., Bhatta, S., & Stroulia, E. (1996a). KRITIK: an early case-based design system. In Issues and Applications of Case-Based Reasoning to Design (Maher, M. & Pu, P., Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goel, A., Gomez, A., Grue, N., Murdock, J.W., Recker, M., & Govindaraj, T. (1996b). Explanatory interface in interactive design environments. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Grosso, W.E., Eriksson, H., Fergerson, R.W., Gennari, J.H., Tu, S.W., & Musen, M.A. (1999). Knowledge Modeling at the Millennium (The Design and Evolution of Protégé-2000). Stanford's Medical Informatics Report No. SMI-1999-0801. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Grower, M.D. (1982). A Pragmatic Knowledge Acquisition Methodology. Redondo Beach, CA: TRW Defense Systems Group.
Gruber, T.R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, T. & Olsen, G. (1994). An ontology for engineering mathematics. Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Doyle, J., Torasso, P. & Sandewall, E., Eds.), pp. 258–269. San Mateo, CA: Morgan–Kaufmann.CrossRef
Hazelrigg, G.A. (1996). Systems Engineering: An Approach to Information-Based Design. New York: Prentice–Hall.
Henson, B., Juster, N., & de Pennington, A. (1994). Towards an integrated representation of function, behavior and form, computer aided conceptual design. Proc. 1994 Lancaster Int. Workshop on Engineering Design (Sharpe, J. & Oh, V., Eds.), pp. 95–111. Lancaster: Lancaster University EDC.
Holzhauer, D. & Grosse, I. (1999). Finite element analysis using component decomposition and knowledge-based control. Engineering with Computers 15, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO 10303-104. (1994). Industrial Automation Systems and Integrations—Product Data Representation and Exchange—Part 104: Integrated Application Resource: Finite Element Analysis. ISO TC184, SC4. New York: ISO, ISO Technical Committee 184, Subcommittee 4.
Iwasaki, Y. & Chandrasekaran, B. (1992). Design verification through function and behavior-oriented representations: bridging the gap between function and behavior. In Artificial Intelligence in Design (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 597–616. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Java Native Interface Specification. (1997). Cupertino, CA: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Mackie, R.I. (1992). Object oriented programming of the finite element method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 35, 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, J. (1980). R1: an expert in the computer system domain. In Proc. National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pp. 269–271.
Miller, R.A., Pople, H.E., & Myers, J.D. (1982). INTERNIST—I: an experimental computer based diagnostic consultant for general internal medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 306(8), 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musen, M.A. (2000). Ontology-oriented design and programming. In Knowledge Engineering and Agent Technology (Cuena, J., Demazeau, Y., Garcia, A & Treur, J., Eds.). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Noy, F.N. & McGuinness, D.L. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Paredis, C.J.J., Diaz–Calderon, A., Sinha, R., & Khosla, P.K. (2001). Composable models for simulation-based design. Engineering with Computers 17, 112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peak, R.S. (2000). X-Analysis Integration Technology. Technical Report EL002-2000A. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, Engineering Information Systems Lab.
Qian, L. & Gero, J.S. (1996). Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy based design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, M., Mantyla, M., Umeda, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Integration of functional and feature based product modeling—the IMS/GNOSIS Experience. Computer-Aided Design 28(5), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, J.A. & Afjeh, A.A. (1998). An object-oriented framework for distributed computational simulation of aerospace propulsion systems. Proc. 4th USENIX Conf. Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems (COOTS), Santa Fe, NM, April 27–30.
Rohl, P.J., Kolonay, R.K., Irani, R.M., Sobolewski, M., Kao, K., & Bailey, M.W. (2000). A federated intelligent product environment. In AIAA-2000, pp. 5–6. Paper No. AIAA-2000-4902.CrossRef
Shanbhag, S. (2001). Metaobject based finite element modeling. MS Thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Shanbhag, S., Grosse, I.R., Wileden, J.C., & Kaplan, A. (2001). Meta-object based finite element analysis. Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21062. Proc. ASME 2001 Design Automation Conf.Pittsburgh, PA: ASME.
Sheehy, M. & Grosse, I. (1997). An object-oriented blackboard based approach for automated finite element modeling and analysis of multichip modules. Engineering with Computers 13, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, R., Liang, V.C., Paredis, C.J.J., & Khosla, P.K. (2001). Modeling and simulation methods for design of engineering systems. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 1, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, M.S., Bachmann, L., Georges, M.K., & Korngold, E.V. (1990). Framework for reliable generation and control of analysis idealisations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 82(1–3), 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szykman, S., Fenves, S.J., Keirouz, W., & Shooter, S.B. (2000). A foundation for interoperability in next generation product development systems. Proc. 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Baltimore, MD, September, pp. 10–13. New York: ASME.
Tatsubori, M. (1999). An extension mechanism for the Java language. MS Thesis. Ibaraki, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Tomiyama, T., Kiriyama, T., Takeda, H., & Xue, D. (1989). Metamodel: a key to intelligent CAD systems. Research in Engineering Design 1, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkiyyah, G.M. & Fenves, S.J. (1996). Knowledge-based assistance for finite element modeling. AI Applications in Civil and Structural Engineering 11(3), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function–behavior–state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Melle, W. (1978). A Domain Independent System That Aides in Constructing Consultation Programs. Report HPP-78-19. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Computer Science Department.
Wujek, B., Koch, P., McMillan, M., & Chiang, W.-S. (2002). A distributed, component-based integration environment for multidisciplinary optimal and quality design. 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symp. Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, September.CrossRef
Zimmermann, T., Dubois–Pelerin, Y., & Bomme, P. (1992). Object-oriented finite element programming: I. Governing principles. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 98, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar