The development of automated modeling software requires strategies for synthesizing mathematical models of systems with distributed and discrete characteristics. A model order deduction algorithm (MODA) is developed to deduce a Proper System Model by selecting the proper complexity of submodels of components in a system subject to a frequency based metric. A Proper Model in this context means that (1) the system model has the minimum spectral radius out of all possible system models of equivalent or greater complexity, and (2) any increase in the model complexity will result in spectral radius beyond a specific frequency range of interest. Proper Models are also defined to have physically meaningful parameters. Proper Models are intended to be useful for design, where mapping the relationship between design parameters and dominant system dynamics is critical. While MODA is illustrated using the application of machine-tool drive systems, it is readily applicable to other modeling applications.

1.
De Kleer, J., and Williams, B. C., eds., 1991, Artificial Intelligence: Special Volume Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems II, vol. 51. North-Holland Publishing Company.
2.
Doebelin, E. O., 1980, System Modeling and Response, Wiley, New York, NY.
3.
Falkenhainer, B., and Stein, J. L., eds., 1992, Automated Modeling, DSC-Vol. 41, Anaheim, CA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
4.
Ferris, J. B., Stein, J. L., and Bemitsas, M. M., 1994, “Development of proper models of hybrid systems,” ASME WAM Symposium on Automated Modeling, C. J. Radcliffe, ed., Dynamic Systems and Control 1994, Vol. 2, Chicago, IL.
5.
Franklin, G. F., and Powell, J. D., 1991, Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
6.
Hogan, N., 1991, “Teaching Physical System Modeling and Modern Control Together: The Need for an Integrated Approach,” Jeffrey L. Stein and Ronald C. Rosenberg, eds., The Art of Physical System Modeling: Can It Be Taught?, DSC-Vol. 36, New York, NY, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
7.
Karnopp, D., Margolis, D., and Rosenberg, R. C., 1990, System Dynamics: A Unified Approach, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
8.
Rao, S. S., 1990, Mechanical Vibrations, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, second edition.
9.
Rich, E., and Knight, K., 1991, Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York.
10.
Rinderle, J. R., and Subramaniam, B. L., 1991, “Automated Bond Graph Modeling Simplification to Support Design,” Jeffrey L. Stein, ed., Automated Modeling 1991, DSC-Vol. 34, Atlanta, GA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
11.
Rosenberg, R. C., 1989, “Modeling for the Masses: Simulation as a Soft Lab,” Jeffrey L. Stein and Ronald C. Rosenberg, eds., The Art of Physical System Modeling: Can It Be Taught?, DSC-Vol. 36, San Francisco, CA, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
12.
Stein, J. L., ed., 1991, Automated Modeling, DSC-Vol. 34, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
13.
Stein, J. L., ed., 1993, Automated Modeling for Design, DSC-Vol. 47, New Orleans, LA, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
14.
Stein, J. L., and Tseng, Y. T., 1991, “Strategies for Automating the Modeling Process,” Jeffrey L. Stein, ed., Automated Modeling, DSC-Vol. 34, Atlanta, GA, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Winter Annual Meeting.
15.
Wilson, B. H., 1992, “Model-Building Assistant: An Automated Modeling Tool for Machine-Tool Drive-Trains,” PhD thesis, The University of Michigan.
16.
Wilson, B. H., and Stein, J. L., 1993, “Model-Building Assistant: An Automated Modeling Tool for Machine-Tool Drive Systems,” Jose J. Granda and Francois E. Cellier, eds., Proceedings of the 1993 SCS Western Multiconference, San Diego, CA, Society for Computer Simulation.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.