In this paper, we present a framework for automated component sizing to extend a designer's ability to evaluate a particular configuration during the architecture exploration phase of a design process. Component sizing is a hard problem to solve, both from a computational and modeling aspect. This is because of competing objectives, requirements from multiple disciplines, and the need to find a good solution quickly for the architecture being considered. In current approaches, designers rely on heuristics and iterate over the multiple objectives and requirements until a satisfactory solution is found. To improve on this state of practice, we introduce advances in the following two areas: (a) solving the problem efficiently so that all of the imposed requirements are satisfied simultaneously and the solution obtained is mathematically optimal and (b) modeling a component sizing problem in a manner that is convenient to designers. An acausal, algebraic, equation-based, declarative modeling approach using mathematical programming (GAMS) is taken to solve these problems more efficiently. The object management group systems modeling language (OMG SysML™) is used to model component sizing problems in order to facilitate problem formulation, model reuse and automatic generation of low-level code that can be solved using GAMS and its solvers. This framework is demonstrated by applying it to an example of a hydraulic log splitter. Based on this initial example, we discuss two advantages of this framework—total time taken in solving multiple scenarios for a given configuration and the graphical representation of a problem in SysML.

References

References
1.
Sage
,
A. P.
, and
Armstrong
,
J. E. J.
,
2000
,
Introduction to Systems Engineering
,
John Wiley & Sons
, Hoboken, NJ.
2.
OMG
,
2008
, “Systems Modeling Language v 1.1,” http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/08-11-02.pdf
3.
Sauer-Sunstrand
,
1997
,
Selection of Driveline Components
,
Sauer-Sunstrand Company
, Ames, IA.
4.
Eaton
,
1998
,
Pump and Motor Sizing Guide
,
Eaton Corporation Hydraulics Division
, Eden Prairie, MN.
5.
Coyne
,
R. D.
,
Rosenman
,
M. A.
,
Radford
,
A. D.
,
Balachandran
,
M.
, and
Gero
,
J. S.
,
1989
,
Knowledge-Based Design Systems
,
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
,
Boston, MA
.
6.
Dym
,
C. L.
, and
Levitt
,
R. E.
,
1991
,
Knowledge-Based Systems in Engineering
,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
,
New York, NY
.
7.
Malak
,
R. J.
,
Tucker
,
L.
, and
Paredis
,
C. J.
,
2008
, “
Composing Tradeoff Models For Multi-Attribute System-Level Decision Making
,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
, IDETC/CIE, ASME Paper Number 49970.
8.
Westman
,
R.
,
Sargent
,
C.
, and
Burton
,
R.
,
1987
, “
A Knowledge-Based Modular Approach to Hydraulic Circuit Design
,”
Comput. Eng.
,
1
, pp.
37
41
.
9.
Sargent
,
C. M.
,
Burton
,
R. T.
, and
Westman
,
R. W.
,
1988
, “
Expert Systems and Fluid Power
,”
Proceedings of the 8th International Fluid Power Symposium
, pp.
68
272
.
10.
Dunlop
,
G.
, and
Rayudu
,
R.
,
1993
, “
An Expert Design Assistant for Hydraulic Systems
,”
Artificial Neural Networks and Expert Systems, Proceedings, First New Zealand International Two-Stream Conference on
, pp.
314
316
.
11.
Fujita
,
K.
,
Akagi
,
S.
, and
Sasaki
,
M.
,
1995
, “
Adaptive Synthesis of Hydraulic Circuits From Design Cases Based on Functional Structure
,”
Proceedings of the 1995 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences—21st Annual Design Automation Conference
, Vol. 82, pp.
875
882
.
12.
da Silva
,
J. C.
, and
Back
,
N.
,
2000
, “
Shaping the Process of Fluid Power System Design Applying an Expert System
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
12
(
1
), pp.
8
17
.10.1007/s001630050020
13.
Hughes
,
E. J.
,
Richards
,
T. G.
, and
Tilley
,
D. G.
,
2001
, “
Development of a Design Support Tool for Fluid Power System Design
,”
J. Eng. Design
,
12
, pp.
75
92
.10.1080/09544820110041155
14.
Modelica
,
2009
, Modelica Language Specification v 3.1. http://www.modelica.org/documents/ModelicaSpec31.pdf
15.
Fritzson
,
P.
,
2004
,
Principles of Object-Oriented Modeling and Simulation With Modelica 2.1
,
IEEE Press
, Washington, DC.
16.
Gross
,
M. D.
,
1986
, “
Design as Exploring Constraints
,” Ph.D. thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Architecture
, Boston, MA.
17.
Russell
,
S. J.
, and
Norvig
,
P.
,
2003
, “
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
,”
Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
, Chap. V,
4th ed.
,
Prentice Hall
, pp.
137
160
.
18.
Freuder
,
E. C.
, and
Mackworth
,
A. K.
,
2006
, “
Constraint Satisfaction: An Emerging Paradigm
,”
Handbook of Constraint Programming
, Chap. II,
F.
Rossi
,
P.
van Beek
, and
T.
Walsh
, eds.,
Elsevier
, Atlanta, GA, pp.
13
28
.
19.
GAMS
,
2009
, General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS), www.gams.com
20.
Marc
,
C.
,
Granvilliers
,
L.
, and
Sorin
,
V.
,
2005
, Elisa, http://sourceforge.net/projects/elisa/
21.
Granvilliers
,
L.
,
2003
, RealPaver User's Manual, version 0.3, http://realpaver.sourceforge.net/
22.
Chenouard
,
R.
,
Granvilliers
,
L.
, and
Soto
,
R.
,
2008
, “
Model-Driven Constraint Programming
,”
PPDP’ 08: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming
,
ACM
, pp.
236
246
.
23.
Kerzhner
,
A. A.
, and
Paredis
,
C. J. J.
,
2009
, “
Using Domain Specific Languages to Capture Design Synthesis Knowledge for Model-Based Systems Engineering
,”
Proceedings of the 2009 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
, ASME, Paper No. 87286.
24.
OMG
,
2006
, Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification v 2.0, http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/06-01-01.pdf
25.
Königs
,
A.
, and
Schürr
,
A.
,
2006
, “
Tool Integration With Triple Graph Grammars—A Survey
,”
Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci.
,
148
(
1
), pp.
113
150
.10.1016/j.entcs.2005.12.015
26.
Brucker
,
A. D.
, and
Doser
,
J.
,
2007
, “
Metamodel-Based UML Notations for Domain-Specific Languages
,”
4th International Workshop on Software Language Engineering (ATEM 2007)
.
27.
Weisemöller
,
I.
, and
Schürr
,
A.
,
2008
, “
A Comparison of Standard Compliant Ways to Define Domain Specific Languages
,” Models in Software Engineering, Workshops and Symposia at MoDELS 2007, Reports and Revised Selected Papers,
H.
Giese
, ed.,
Springer
,
Nashville, TN
, Sept. 30–Oct. 5,Vol. 5002, pp.
47
58
.
28.
Baresi
,
L.
, and
Heckel
,
R.
,
2002
, “
Tutorial Introduction to Graph Transformation: A Software Engineering Perspective
,”
Graph Transformation, First International Conference, ICGT 2002, Barcelona, Spain, Proceedings
,
A.
Corradini
,
H.
Ehrig
,
H.-J.
Kreowski
, and
G.
Rozenberg
, eds., Oct. 7–12, Springer, Vol. 2505 of LNCS, pp.
402
429
.
29.
Czarnecki
,
K.
, and
Helsen
,
S.
,
2006
, “
Feature-Based Survey of Model Transformation Approaches
,”
IBM Syst. J.
,
45
(
3
), pp.
621
645
.10.1147/sj.453.0621
30.
Fischer
,
T.
,
Niere
,
J.
,
Torunski
,
L.
, and
Zündorf
,
A.
,
2000
, “
Story Diagrams: A New Graph Rewrite Language Based on the Unified Modeling Language and Java
,” Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, 6th International Workshop, TAGT’98, Paderborn, Germany, 1998,
H.
Ehrig
,
G.
Engels
,
H.-J.
Kreowski
, and
G.
Rozenberg
, eds., Nov. 16–20,
Springer
, Vol. 1764, pp.
157
167
.
31.
NoMagic
,
2009
, MagicDraw, http://www.magicdraw.com
32.
Schürr
,
A.
,
1995
, “
Specification of Graph Translators With Triple Graph Grammars
,”
Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science
, 20th International Workshop, WG’ 94, Herrsching, Germany, 1994, Proceedings,
E. W.
Mayr
,
G.
Schmidt
, and
G.
Tinhofer
, eds., June 16–18, Springer, Vol. 903, pp.
151
163
.
33.
Sahinidis
,
N. V.
,
2003
, “
Global Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction: The Branch-and-Reduce Approach
,”
First International Workshop on Global Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction
, COCOS 2002, Valbonne-Sophia Antipolis, France, Oct. 2–4,
C.
Bliek
,
C.
Jermann
, and
A.
Neumaier
, eds.,
Springer
, Vol. 2861, pp.
1
16
.
You do not currently have access to this content.