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

Abstract

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.

Taking a look at the utilisation of function models in interdisciplinary design: insights from ten engineering companies

“…fulfilling a goal and changing the state of the system or user); this is typically associated with the interaction of stakeholders or another technical system with the technical system under development (interaction processes), which triggers, respectively requires, subsequent processes to be carried out by the system Kurfman et al (2003), Kitamura and Mizogushi (2007), and Sen et al (2010Sen et al ( , 2013 have been able to show an increase in clarity and intelligibility through use of function taxonomies which substantiates the large potential that these approaches offer. All these approaches have their particular benefits and shortcomings for application in design practice.…”

“…1 Comprehensive discussions are provided, e.g., by Charkarbarti and Bligh (2001), Chandrasekaran and Josephson (2000), Chandrasekaran (2005), Kitamura and Mizogushi (2007). 2 Examples can be found in Iwasaki et al (1993), Umeda and Tomiyama (1997), Szykman et al (1999), Stone and Wood (2000), Hirtz et al (2001), Ookubo et al (2007); Sen et al (2010Sen et al ( , 2013 further analysed function modelling in design projects carried out with students but also in industry. Central findings reported in the studies are as follows:…”

A DSM-based framework for integrated function modelling: concept, application and evaluation

“…Prominently, Kurfman et al (2003), Kitamura and Mizogushi (2007), and Sen et al (2010Sen et al ( , 2013 have been able to show an increase in clarity and intelligibility through use of function modelling ontologies and/or taxonomies in a mainly mechanical engineering design context. However, such approaches are also critically discussed, e.g.…”

“…These and other ontologies have been successfully applied in practice (see, e.g. Srinivasan et al 2011;Kitamura et al 2004;Sen et al 2013). They are all attempts to provide designers with means for clearly describing relevant information of product functionality, but differ in the specific way this information is broken down and interrelated.…”

“…These typically employ specific models in conjunction with function taxonomies, 5 i.e. ''a standard language of function'' (Ahmed and Wallace 2003, p. 1), in order to raise clarity in the communication about functions (Kurfman et al 2003;Sen et al 2013). In other words, by introducing precision in what specific textual formulations and related visual representations semantically entail, the intelligibility of the generated models should be enhanced.…”