Transcript Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps: A

2003 Aerospace Product Data Exchange (APDE) Workshop
April 7-9, 2003
NIST • Gaithersburg, Maryland
Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps:
A Preliminary Study
of CAD-CAE Model Interoperability
[email protected]
http://itimes.marc.gatech.edu/
http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/
A full report version is available here: http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/reports/EL004/
Abstract
Conference Series Archive: http://step.nasa.gov/
Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps:
A Preliminary Study of CAD-CAE Model Interoperability
This presentation describes an initial study towards characterizing model associativity gaps and other
engineering interoperability problems. Drawing on over a decade of X-analysis integration (XAI) research
and development, it uses the XAI multi-representation architecture (MRA) as a means to decompose the
problem and guide identification of potential key metrics.
A few such metrics are highlighted from the aerospace industry. These include number of structural analysis
users, number of analysis templates, and identification of computing environment components (e.g., number
of CAD and CAE tools used in an example aerospace electronics design environment).
One problem, denoted the fine-grained associativity gap, is highlighted in particular. Today such a gap in
the CAD-CAE arena typically requires manual effort to connect an attribute in a design model (CAD) with
attributes in one of its analysis models (CAE). This study estimates that 1 million such gaps exist in the
structural analysis of a complex product like an airframe. The labor cost alone to manually maintain such
gaps likely runs in the tens of millions of dollars. Other associativity gap costs have yet to be estimated,
including over- and under-design, lack of knowledge capture, and inconsistencies.
Narrowing in on fundamental gaps like fine-grained associativity helps both to characterize the cost of
today’s problems and to identify basic solution needs. Other studies are recommended to explore such
facets further.
A full report version is available here: http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/reports/EL004/
X = design, mfg., sustainment, and other lifecycle phases.
2
Model Interoperability Challenges:
Heterogeneous Transformations
 Homogeneous
Transformation
Design
Model A
Design
Model B
STEP
AP210
Mentor Graphics

Cadence
Heterogeneous Transformation
Design
Model A
STEP
AP210
Mentor Graphics
??
Analysis
Model A
STEP
AP209
Ansys
3
Analogy: Bottom-Up Budget Estimation
Detailed Travel Estimate Breakdown
Purpose of Trip
a. ECAD vendor interface meeting
b. Sys. Engineering review
c. Project planning meeting
Per Day
Per Person
Destination
Denver, CO
Los Angeles, CA
Seattle, WA
Per Trip
Subtotal Per Person
No. of No. of No. of
People Days Nights Lodging M&IE Other
1
1
1
2.0
5.0
3.0
2.0 $
5.0 $
3.0 $
83
99
104
$ 42
$ 46
$ 46
$
$
$
8
8
8
Airfare
$
$
$
266
765
474
$
$
$
388
534
618
Per Trip
Per Day
Rental Car
Other
& Gas
Other
$
$
$
$ $ $ -
Notes
1. Lodging and M&IE (Meals & Incidental Expenses) are based on DoD Joint Travel Regulations per diem rates.
2. "Other" under "Per Day Per Person" includes items like Atlanta airport parking ($8/day).
3. Airfare rates are based on the current State of Georgia contract.
4. "Other" under "Per Trip Per Person" includes items like mtg. registration fees (if applicable) and mileage to/from the Atlanta airport ($9).
5. Rental car rates are based on the current State of Georgia contract + 20% tax + $5 gas per day.
6. "Other" under "Per Trip Per Day" includes group shared items like trip-related daily equipment rental.
7. "Other" under "Per Trip" includes group shared items like trip-related equipment rental,
plus the state travel agent booking fee ($36 for domestic flights/travel).
9
9
9
$
$
$
51
51
51
Per Trip
TRIP
TOTAL
Other
$
$
$
36
36
36
$
$
$
801
1,599
1,290
TRAVEL GRAND TOTAL: $
3,690
Total person-trips:
Avg person-trip cost: $
3
1,230
Goal: Conceptual Framework
for Complex Model Interoperability
Characterization & Solutions
4
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
5
Example Industrial Needs:
Common Structures Workstation (CSW) Request for Information
Publicly available document (see http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/boeing-psi/2000-06-csw-rfi/ )
6
Process Inputs
Analysis Methods
Design Guides,
Textbooks, etc.
Idealize Structure
Gather Geometry
Data
Gather Material
Properties &
Allowables
Select Analysis
Methods & T ools
Determine
Applied Loads
Design
Requirements
Internal Loads
Geometry Data
Determine Critical
Locations
Perform
Calculations
Material Properties
and Allowables
Current Typical
Airframe Structural
Analysis Process
Repeated for Each
Load Cycle
Validate and
Approve Results
Report Results
Sizing Advice
Process Outputs
Strength Check
Notes
Analysis
Report/Summary
From: Request for Information (RFI): Common Structures Workstation (CSW).
June 14, 2000. The Boeing Company.
Available at http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/boeing-psi/2000-06-csw-rfi/
7
Common Structures Workstation (CSW)
Design Requirements and Objectives: Contents
8
P1
Freebody diagrams, pictures, and descriptive text
are included to create a fully documented, complete
analysis note.
alpha
Px
Example
Part-based
Analysis Template
Py
Input parameters are tied to external sources of
data: loads, geometry, materials,etc.
P1 =
755.8
lb.
Px =
563.2
lb.
alpha =
30.0
deg.
Py =
227.6
lb.
Aluminum 2024-T351 Bare Plate
Specif ication: AMS 4037 and QQ-A-250/4
Thickness, in.: 0.250 - 0.49
FtuL =
MSA-A 
MSA A 
64
Ftu L
 A -A
ksi
Dependent values are
calculated automatically
according to equations defined
in the template.
1 
64 ksi
1 
48 ksi
MSA A  1.333  1 
0.333
9
Connection with
CAD-based Geometric Parameters
Geometry Data
The analysis system imports geometry
data directly, from the parameterized
CAD model into analysis variables.
thk_uprchord
0.125
in.
10
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
11
JPL Projects and Technical Divisions
Soap
Sat Took Kit SDK
Doors
ApGen
Fast Flight
Ansoft
HPEE Sof
Sonnet
~100 tools
Mentor Graphics
Cadence
Mathworks Matlab
Synopsys
Synplicity
Ilogix Statemate
Orcad
AutoCad
Relex
Avant!
PTC Computer Vision
PTC Pro-E
SDRC Ideas
SDRC Femap
Solid Works
Cosmos
NASTRAN
Adams
Sinda/Fluent
Place & Route
- Actel
- Xilinx
- Atmel
PDMS -
Visual ToolSets
Cool Jex
Perceps
Rational Rose
Ruify
Harlequin LISP
I-Logix Rhapsody
Code V
LensView
TracePro
Zemax
EDMG
SDRC Metaphase
Sherpa
Software Tools
CAE Cost Centers
Customers
Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
(and many more)
System
CAE
RF & EM
CAE
Electronics
CAE
Mechanical
CAE
Software
CAE
Optical
CAE
DIVISION 31
DIVISION 33
DIVISION 34
DIVISION 35
DIVISION 36
DIVISION 38
DNP Operations
Holding Account
E-CAE Toolsmiths and Workstations
M-CAE Toolsmiths
and Workstations
Servers & Sys Admin
M-CAE Servers
& Sys Admin
Billing & Payable
Toolsmiths
Workstations
TMOD Severs
Servers & SA
* Not DNP Operations
Management and Administration
Robin Moncada
Design, Build, Assembly, Test (DBAT) Process
Adapted from “Computer Aided Engineering Tool Service at JPL” - 2001-07-22 - Mike Dickerson -NASA-JPL
12
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Constrained object knowledge representation
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability (e.g., between CAD-CAE models)
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
13
Example Chip Package Products
Source: www.shinko.co.jp
Plastic Ball Grid Array (PBGA) Packages
Wafer Level Package (WLP)
Quad Flat Packs (QFPs)
Glass-to-Metal Seals
System-in-Package (SIP)
14
Flexible High Diversity Design-Analysis Integration
Electronic Packaging Examples: Chip Packages/Mounting
Shinko Electric Project: Phase 1 (production usage)
Design Tools
y
mv6
mv5
reference temperature, To
E
T  T L To
A
ts1
ts2
Shaft
Sleeve 2
smv1
ds1
area, A
r4
F

A
A
Leff
linkage
e

s
Sleeve 1
force, F
mv4
L
F
E, A, 
T, ,  x
One D Linear
Elastic Model
(no shear)
sr1
temperature, T
L
Lo
F
material model
youngs modulus, E
cte, 
ds2
T
t


mv2
elastic strain, e
mv3
thermal strain, t
mv1
strain,
effective length, Leff
Prelim/APM Design Tool
XaiTools ChipPackage
start, x1
end, x2
cross section:
effective ring

r2
L  L  Lo
condition
r1
L  x2  x1
material
polar moment of inertia, J
L
r3 ro
outer radius,
L
linear elastic model
reaction
allowable stress
twist mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
Torsional Rod
stress,al1

temperature change,T
mode: shaft torsion
undeformed length, Lo
deformation model
al2a
al2b
shear modulus, G
al3
total elongation,L
length, L
Lo

1
2
Modular, Reusable
Template Libraries
J
r

G

T
stress mos model
allowable
twist
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
Analyzable
Product Model
PWB DB
Analysis Modules (CBAMs)
of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
Thermal
Resistance
Analysis Tools
XaiTools
General Math
ChipPackage
Mathematica
FEA
Ansys
3D
XaiTools
Materials DB*
Thermal
Stress
EBGA, PBGA, QFP
PKG

Basic
3D**
Chip
Cu
Ground
** = Demonstration module
Basic
Documentation
Automation
Authoring
MS Excel
15
ProAM Design-Analysis Integration
Electronic Packaging Examples: PWA/B
Design Tools
y
mv6
reference temperature, To
E
T  T L To
A
ts1
ts2

s
Sleeve 1
Shaft
Sleeve 2
smv1
ds1
force, F
area, A
ECAD Tools
Mentor Graphics,
Accel*
A
r4
F
A
Leff
linkage

mv4
L
F
E, A, 
T, ,  x
One D Linear
Elastic Model
(no shear)
mv5
sr1
temperature, T
L
Lo
F
material model
youngs modulus, E
cte, 
ds2
e
T
t


elastic strain, e
mv2
thermal strain, t
mv3
strain,
mv1
effective length, Leff
r2
undeformed length, Lo
start, x1
end, x2
cross section:
effective ring
L  L  Lo
condition
r1
L  x2  x1
material

polar moment of inertia, J
L
r3 ro
outer radius,
L
linear elastic model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
al3
total elongation,L
length, L
allowable stress
twist mos model
al2a
al2b
shear modulus, G
reaction
deformation model
Torsional Rod
stress,al1

temperature change,T
mode: shaft torsion
Lo

Modular, Reusable
Template Libraries
1
2
J
r

G

T
stress mos model
allowable
twist
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
STEP AP210‡
GenCAM**,
PDIF*
PWB Stackup Tool
XaiTools PWA-B
Analysis Modules (CBAMs)
of Diverse Mode & Fidelity
Analyzable
Product Model
XaiTools
PWA-B
Solder Joint 1D,
Deformation* 2D,
3D
XaiTools Analysis Tools
PWA-B
General Math
Mathematica
FEA Ansys
PWB
Warpage
1D,
2D
Laminates DB
Materials DB
‡ AP210 DIS WD1.7
* = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples)
PTH
1D,
Deformation 2D
& Fatigue**
** = Item available via U-Engineer.com
16
Analysis Template Methodology &
X-Analysis Integration Objectives (X=Design, Mfg., etc.)




Goal:
Improve engineering processes via analysis templates
with enhanced CAx-CAE interoperability
Challenges (Gaps):
– Idealizations & Heterogeneous Transformations
– Diversity: Information, Behaviors, Disciplines, Fidelity,
Feature Levels, CAD/CAE Methods & Tools, …
– Multi-Directional Associativity:
DesignAnalysis, Analysis  Analysis
Focus:
Capture analysis template knowledge
for modular, regular design usage
Approach:
Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)
using Constrained Objects (COBs)
17
X-Analysis Integration Techniques
for CAD-CAE Interoperability
http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/
a. Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)
3
Analyzable
Product Model
Design Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
2 Analysis Building Block
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
Solder
Joint
material
body 1
body4
Solder Joint
Solder Joint Plane Strain Model
4 CBAM
C
L

h1
base: Alumina
Epoxy
ABBSMM
PWB
body3
APM ABB
core: FR4
Plane Strain Bodies System
2 ABB

 total height, h c
Component
Solder
Joint
T0
Component
 linear-elastic model
 primary structural
SMM
APM ABB
Analysis Model
PWA Component Occurrence
3 APM
APM
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
Component
b. Explicit Design-Analysis Associativity
body 1
body 4
body
body 2
body 2
PWB
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
4 CBAM
Analysis Module Catalogs
Analysis Procedures
sj
solder joint
shear strain
range
component
occurrence
c

3 APM

component
total height
hc
linear-elastic model
[1.1]
total thickness
Ubiquitous Analysis
Commercial
Design Tools
Product
Model
(Module Usage)
Selected Module
Solder Joint Deformation Model
MCAD
ECAD
1.25
length 2 +
pwb
Idealization/
Defeaturization
Component
Solder Joint
solder joint
solder
hs
linear-elastic model
[1.1]
detailed shape
[1.2]
linear-elastic model
[2.1]
Ts
average
Ansys
CAE
PWB
APM  CBAM  ABB SMM
primary structural material
Tc
Ls
[1.2]
rectangle
Commercial
Analysis Tools
Plane Strain
Bodies System
T0
Lc
Physical Behavior Research,
Know-How, Design Handbooks, ...
1 SMM
deformation model
approximate maximum
inter-solder joint distance
primary structural material
ABB SMM
2 ABB
Fine-Grained Associativity
Ubiquitization
(Module Creation)
3
plane strain bodyi , i = 1...4
geometryi
materiali (E,  ,  )
Informal Associativity Diagram
Solution Tools
c. Analysis Module Creation Methodology
To
bilinear-elastoplastic model
[2.2]
a
L1
h1
stress-strain
model 1
T1
L2
h2
stress-strain
model 2
T2
geometry model 3
stress-strain
model 3
T3
 xy, extreme, 3
T sj
 xy, extreme, sj
Constrained Object-based Analysis Module
Constraint Schematic View
Abaqus
18
An Introduction to X-Analysis Integration (XAI)
Short Course Outline
Part 1: Constrained Objects (COBs) Primer
– Nomenclature
Part 2: Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Primer
– Analysis Integration Challenges
– Overview of COB-based XAI
– Ubiquitization Methodology
Part 3: Example Applications
» Airframe Structural Analysis (Boeing)
» Circuit Board Thermomechanical Analysis
(DoD: ProAM; JPL/NASA)
» Chip Package Thermal Analysis (Shinko)
– Summary
Part 4: Advanced Topics & Current Research
19
Multi-Representation Architecture for
Design-Analysis Integration
3
Analyzable
Product Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
APM
2 Analysis Building Block
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
SMM
APM ABB
Component
Solder
Joint
Component
T0
Solder Joint
PWB
body 1
body4
ABBSMM
body3
body 2
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
Solution Tools
O(100) tools
20
Analyzable Product Models
(APMs)
Provide advanced access to design data needed by diverse analyses.
Design Applications
Solid
Modeler
Combine
information
Add reusable
multifidelity
idealizations
Analysis Applications
FEA-Based
Analysis
...
Materials
Database
Fasteners
Database
Analyzable Product Model
(APM)
Support multi-directionality
FormulaBased
Analysis
21
Multi-Fidelity Idealizations
Same Behavior; Idealized Geometries of Varying Dimension
Design Model (MCAD)
Analysis Models (MCAE)
Behavior = Deformation
1D Beam/Stick Model
flap support assembly
inboard beam
3D Continuum/Brick Model
22
Flap Link Geometric Model
(with idealizations)
L
B
ts2
ts1
s
sleeve1
sleeve2
shaft
rib1
rib2
ds1
ds2
B
red = idealized parameter
Leff
A, I, J
f
f
tft
tft
htotal
tfb tf
tw
wf
hw
rf
Section B-B
(at critical_cross_section)
Detailed Design
A, I, J
A, I, J
htotal
tfb
hw
tw
htotal
tf
wf
tw
hw
wf
tapered I
Multifidelity Idealizations
basic I
28b
23
Flap Linkage Example
Manufacturable Product Model (MPM) = Design Description
flap_link
Extended Constraint Graph
L
w
sleeve_1
A
ts
ts1
2
t
Sleeve 1
r
Sleeve 2
Shaft
ds1
x
A
ds2
w
sleeve_2
R1
t
r
x
Product Attribute
shaft
Ri
cross_section
Product Relation
wf
tw
t1f
t2f
rib_1
b
h
t
rib_2
R2
b
h
t
material
R3
Constrained Object (COB) Structure (template)
COB flap_link SUBTYPE_OF part;
part_number
: STRING;
inter_axis_length, L
: REAL;
sleeve1
: sleeve;
sleeve2
: sleeve;
shaft
: tapered_beam;
rib1
: rib;
rib2
: rib;
RELATIONS
PRODUCT_RELATIONS
pr2 : "<inter_axis_length> == <sleeve2.origin.y> <sleeve1.origin.y>";
pr3 : "<rib1.height> == (<sleeve1.width> <shaft.cross_section.design.web_thickness>)/2";
pr4 : "<rib2.height> == (<sleeve2.width> <shaft.cross_section.design.web_thickness>)/2";
...
END_COB;
name
24
Flap Linkage Example
Analyzable Product Model (APM) = MPM Subset + Idealizations
flap_link
Extended Constraint Graph
effective_length
L
A
ts
ts1
w
sleeve_1
t
2
s
Sleeve 1
Sleeve 2
Shaft
ds1
r
ds2
A
x
Leff
w
sleeve_2
R1
t
R1
r
R2
x
Product Attribute
shaft
Ri
cross_section
Product Relation
wf
R3
tw
R4
t1f
Idealized Attribute
Ri
effective_length, Leff ==
inter_axis_length (sleeve1.hole.cross_section.radius +
sleeve2.hole.cross_section.radius)
Partial COB Structure (COS)
R6
R5
t2f
critical_section
critical_detailed
Idealization Relation
wf
tw
rib_1
R11
hw
b
R7
t1f
h
t
rib_2
t2f
R2
b
critical_simple
wf
h
t
material
R8
area
tw
R3
name
stress_strain_model
linear_elastic
E
hw

tf
cte
area
R9
R10
R12
25
Concurrent Multi-Fidelity
Cross-Section Representations
A, I, J
f
tft
tft
htotal
tfb
tf
tw
wf
hw
rf
Section B-B
(at critical_cross_section)
Detailed Design
A, I, J
A, I, J
f
htotal
tfb
hw
tw
htotal
tf
wf
tw
hw
wf
tapered I
basic I
Multifidelity Idealizations
MULTI_LEVEL_COB cross_section;
design : filleted_tapered_I_section;
Detailed Design Cross-Section
tapered : tapered_I_section;
Idealized Cross-Sections
basic : basic_I_section;
Associativity Relations between
RELATIONS
Cross-Section Fidelities
PRODUCT_IDEALIZATION_RELATIONS
pir8 : "<basic.total_height> == <design.total_height>";
pir9 : "<basic.flange_width> == <design.flange_width>";
pir10 : "<basic.flange_thickness> == <design.flange_base_thickness>";
pir11 : "<basic.web_thickness> == <design.web_thickness>";
pir12 : "<tapered.total_height> == <design.total_height>";
pir13 : "<tapered.flange_width> == <design.flange_width>";
pir14 : "<tapered.flange_base_thickness> == <design.flange_base_thickness>";
pir15 : "<tapered.flange_taper_thickness> == <design.flange_taper_thickness>";
pir16 : "<tapered.flange_taper_angle> == <design.flange_taper_angle>";
pir17 : "<tapered.web_thickness> == <design.web_thickness>";
END_MULTI_LEVEL_COB;
26
Flap Link APM
Implementation in CATIA v5
Design-Idealization
Relation
Design Model
flap_link
Extended Constraint Graph
effective_length
w
sleeve_1
t
r
x
w
sleeve_2
R1
t
R1
r
R2
x
Product Attribute
shaft
Ri
cross_section
Product Relation
wf
R3
tw
R4
t1f
Idealized Attribute
Ri
Idealized Model
R6
R5
t2f
critical_section
critical_detailed
Idealization Relation
wf
tw
rib_1
R11
hw
b
R7
t1f
h
t
rib_2
t2f
R2
critical_simple
wf
h
t
material
R8
area
b
tw
R3
E
name
stress_strain_model
linear_elastic
hw

tf
cte
area
R9
R10
R12
27
Multi-Representation Architecture for
Design-Analysis Integration
3
Analyzable
Product Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
APM
2 Analysis Building Block
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
O(100) types
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
SMM
APM ABB
Component
Solder
Joint
Component
Solder Joint
PWB
T0
body 1
body4
ABBSMM
body3
body 2
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
Solution Tools
28
Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
Object representation of product-independent
analytical engineering concepts
Analysis Primitives
Analysis Systems
- Primitive building blocks
Material Models



LinearElastic
Continua


Bilinear
Plastic
N
Low Cycle
Fatigue
- Predefined templates
y
Plane Strain Body
Discrete Elements
body 2
body 1
Distributed Load
Rigid
Support
x
Beam
Cantilever Beam System
No-Slip
Analysis Variables
q(x)
q(x)
Plate
Interconnections
Rigid
Support
Spring
Specialized
Beam
Geometry
Mass
- Containers of ABB "assemblies"
Temperature,T
General
- User-defined systems
Stress, 
Damper
Distributed Load
Strain, 
29
Common Structures Workstation (CSW) Request for Information
June 2000, The Boeing Company.
Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods
~110
generic template
groupings
Available at http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/boeing-psi/2000-06-csw-rfi/
30
Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods
(continued)
31
COB-based Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
Material Model and Continuum ABBs - Constraint Schematic-S
Continuum ABBs
Extensional Rod
Material Model ABB
reference temperature, To
force, F
1D Linear Elastic Model
shear stress,
cte, 
temperature change,T
r1
r4
thermal strain, t
elastic strain, e


stress,
r3

e 
E
start, x1
shear modulus, G
 t  T
r4
F

A
  e  t
modular
re-usage
end, x2
r1
L  x2  x1

e
T
t


r2
 L  L  Lo
radius, r
theta end, 2
r3
L
L
total elongation,L
y
Lo
T
T
G, r, ,  ,J
x
G


Trr
J

e
T
t




r3
r
L0
undeformed length, Lo
theta start, 1
T, ,  x
length, L
E
torque, Tr
polar moment of inertia, J
F
E, A, 

One D Linear
Elastic Model
strain, 
L
F
material model
Torsional Rod
L
Lo
E
r2
undeformed length, Lo
youngs modulus, E
poissons ratio, 
area, A
 T  T  To
One D Linear
Elastic Model
(no shear)
shear strain, 
r5

 
G
E
G
2(1  )
edb.r1
temperature, T
y
material model
 
r1
   2  1
twist, 
32
COB-based Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
Material Model and Continuum ABBs - COB Structure-S
COB one_D_linear_elastic_model SUBTYPE_OF elastic_model;
youngs_modulus, E : REAL;
poissons_ratio,  : REAL;
cte,  : REAL;
shear_modulus, G : REAL;
strain,  : REAL;
stress,  : REAL;
shear_stress,  : REAL;
shear_strain,  : REAL;
thermal_strain, t : REAL;
elastic_strain, e : REAL;
temperature_change, T : REAL;
RELATIONS
r1 : "<shear_modulus> * ( 2 * (1 + <poissons_ratio> ) )
== <youngs_modulus> ";
r2 : "<strain> == <elastic_strain> + <thermal_strain>";
r3 : "<elastic_strain> == <stress> / <youngs_modulus>";
r4 : "<thermal_strain> == <cte> * <temperature_change>";
r5 : "<shear_strain> == <shear_stress> / <shear_modulus>";
END_COB;
COB one_D_linear_elastic_model_isothermal SUBTYPE_OF
one_D_linear_elastic_model;
RELATIONS
r6 : "<temperature_change> == 0";
END_COB;
COB slender_body SUBTYPE_OF deformable_body;
undeformed_length, L0 : REAL;
reference_temperature, T0 : REAL;
temperature, T : REAL;
RELATIONS
sb1 : "<material_model.temperature_change>
== <temperature> - <reference_temperature>";
END_COB;
COB extensional_rod SUBTYPE_OF slender_body;
start, x1 : REAL;
end, x2 : REAL;
length, L : REAL;
total_elongation, &Delta;L : REAL;
force, F : REAL;
area, A : REAL;
material_model : one_D_linear_elastic_model_noShear;
RELATIONS
er1 : "<length> == <end> - <start>";
er2 : "<total_elongation> == <length> - <undeformed_length>";
er3 : "<material_model.strain> == <total_elongation> / <undeformed_length>";
er4 : "<material_model.stress> == <force> / <area>";
END_COB;
33
Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods
(continued)
K3  f (r1,b, h)
fse 
P
2r0te
fbe 
C1
P
2
hte
34
Multi-Representation Architecture for
Design-Analysis Integration
3
Analyzable
Product Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
O(10,000)
APM
2 Analysis Building Block
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
SMM
APM ABB
Component
Solder
Joint
Component
Solder Joint
PWB
T0
body 1
body4
ABBSMM
body3
body 2
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
Solution Tools
35
COB-based Constraint Schematic
for Multi-Fidelity CAD-CAE Interoperability
Flap Link Benchmark Example
Design Tools
Analysis Building Blocks
(ABBs)
MCAD Tools
CATIA, I-DEAS*
Pro/E* , UG *, ...
Analysis Modules
of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
(CBAMs)
Continuum ABBs:
y
Material Model ABB:
 

G 
E
2 (1  r5
)
e 
cte, 

T
t


area, A
T, ,  x
Extension
r3
r2
undeformed length, Lo

e
shear strain, 
 t  T
youngs modulus, E
poissons ratio, 

r4
force, F
G
F
E, A, 
E
reference temperature, To
1D Linear Elastic Model
shear stress, 
L
Lo
One D Linear
F
Elastic Model
(no shear)
edb.r1
temperature, T
L
material model
Extensional Rod
Flap Link Extensional Model
total elongation,L
r1
start, x1
shear modulus, G
linkage
effective length, Leff
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
al1
E
temperature change, T
r4
thermal strain, t
y
material model
elastic strain, e

Torsional Rod
strain, 
r3
stress, 
Lo
L
x1
L
length, L
end, x2
r1
One D Linear
T
Elastic Model
r2
E
torque, Tr

polar moment of inertia, J

radius, r
mode: shaft tension
Lo
material
T
G, r, ,  ,J
x
area, A
cross section
x2
al2
linear elastic model
A
youngs modulus, E al3
reaction
condition
G
E

F

stress mos model
e
T
t




Analysis Tools
(via SMMs)
Margin of Safety
(> case)
1D
allowable stress
allowable
General Math
Mathematica
Matlab*
MathCAD*
...
actual
r3
MS
undeformed length, Lo
r1
theta start, 1
theta end, 2
twist, 
Flap Link Plane Strain Model
inter_axis_length
linkage
deformation model
Parameterized
FEA Model
sleeve_1
w
sleeve_2
w
shaft
cross_section:basic
t
L
ws1
r
Legend
Tool Associativity
Object Re-use
ts1
rs2
t
2D
mode: tension
ux,max
ws2
r
ts2
x,max
rs2
wf
wf
tw
tw
tf
tf
material
E
name
E

linear_elastic_model

F
condition reaction
flap_link
effective_length
allowable stress
L
B
sleeve_1
w
sleeve_2
w
ts2
ts1
s
sleeve1
t
ux mos model
stress mos model
r
Margin of Safety
(> case)
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
x
sleeve2
shaft
rib1
allowable inter axis length change
R1
t
rib2
R1
r
R2
x
ds1
ds2
B
shaft
cross_section
wf
R3
tw
R4
t1f
Leff
R6
R5
deformation model
t2f
critical_section
critical_detailed
Torsional Rod
wf
linkage
tw
Materials Libraries
In-House, ...
Parts Libraries
In-House*, ...
rib_1
Lo
t
t2f
R2
critical_simple
wf
h
t
tw
R3
E
name
stress_strain_model
mode: shaft torsion
R8
area
b
linear_elastic
hw

tf
cte
area
R9
Torsion
R10
cross section:
effective ring
material
condition
polar moment of inertia, J
al2a
outer radius, ro
al2b
linear elastic model
reaction
allowable stress
R12
Analyzable Product Model
(APM)
* = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples)

1
R7
h
material
al1
b
t1f
rib_2
effective length, Leff
R11
hw
twist mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
1D
allowable
shear modulus, G
al3
2
J
r

G

T
stress mos model
allowable
twist
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
FEA
Ansys
Abaqus*
CATIA Elfini*
MSC Nastran*
MSC Patran*
...
Flap Link Torsional Model
36
Tutorial Example:
Flap Link Analysis Template (CBAM)
(1a) Analysis Template: Flap Link Extensional Model
CBAM
L
A
ts2
ts1
s
Sleeve 1
Sleeve 2
Shaft
ds1
y
E, A
effective length, Leff
APM
Geometry
mode: shaft tension
cross section
material
condition
al1
linear elastic model
x
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
x1
al2
youngs modulus, E al3
reaction
P
, 
L
Lo
Material Models
area, A
L
deformation model
Leff
linkage
L
Leff
P
(idealization usage)
ds2
A
CAD-CAE
Associativity
ABB
L
x2
A
E

F

SMM
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
ABB
allowable stress
actual
MS
Boundary Condition Objects
Requirements &
Objectives
(links to other analyses)*
Solution Tool
Interaction
37
FEA-based Analysis Subsystem
Used in Linkage Plane Stress Model (2D Analysis Problem)
Plane Stress Bodies
y
Higher fidelity version
vs. Linkage Extensional Model
ts2
tf
wf
ts1
ws1
tw
rs1
ws2
F
rs2
C
L x
L
inter_axis_length
linkage
sleeve_1
deformation model
Parameterized
FEA Model
L
w
t
sleeve_2
r
ws1
w
ts1
rs2
ws2
t
mode: tension
r
ts2
ABBSMM
SMM Template
ux,max
x,max
rs2
shaft
cross_section:basic
wf
tw
tf
wf
tw
tf
material
E
name

linear_elastic_model
condition reaction
allowable stress
E

F
allowable inter axis length change
ux mos model
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
38
Flap Link Extensional Model (CBAM)
Example COB Instance in XaiTools (object-oriented spreadsheet)
example 1, state 1
Library data for
materials
Detailed CAD data
from CATIA
Idealized analysis features
in APM
Modular generic analysis templates
(ABBs)
Explicit multi-directional associativity
between design & analysis
39
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
40
Quantity estimates by MRA representation type
3
Analyzable
Product Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
O(10,000)
APM
2 Analysis Building Block
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
O(100) types
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
SMM
APM ABB
Component
Solder
Joint
Component
T0
Solder Joint
PWB
body 1
body4
ABBSMM
body3
body 2
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
Solution Tools
O(100) tools
41
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
42
CAD-CAE associativity relations
are represented as APM-ABB relations (in CBAMs)
O(1,000,000) relations
3
Analyzable
Product Model
4 Context-Based Analysis Model
APM
2 Analysis Building Block
Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)
1 Solution Method Model
CBAM
ABB
SMM
APM ABB
Component
Solder
Joint
Component
Solder Joint
PWB
T0
body 1
body4
ABBSMM
body3
body 2
Printed Wiring Board (PWB)
Design Tools
Solution Tools
An associativity gap
is a computer-insensible relation
43
Associativity Gaps
between CAD and CAE Models
Detailed Design Model
1 : b = cavity3.inner_width + rib8.thickness/2
+ rib9.thickness/2
...
Analysis Model
(with Idealized Features)

K3  f (r1,b, h)
fse 
Idealizations
P
2r0te
fbe 
C1
P
2
hte
Channel Fitting Analysis
“It is no secret that CAD models are driving more of today’s product development
processes ... With the growing number of design tools on the market, however, the
interoperability gap with downstream applications, such as finite element analysis,
is a very real problem. As a result, CAD models are being recreated at
unprecedented levels.”
Ansys/ITI press Release, July 6 1999
http://www.ansys.com/webdocs/VisitAnsys/CorpInfo/PR/pr-060799.html
44
Flexible High Diversity Design-Analysis Integration
Phases 1-3 Airframe Examples:
“Bike Frame” / Flap Support Inboard Beam
Design Tools
strength model
product structure
(channel fitting joint) bolt BLE7K18
head
end pad
fitting
hole
radius, r1
0.4375 in
radius, ro
0.5240 in
1.267 in
eccentricity, e
2.088 in
height, h
0.0000 in
radius, r2
thickness, tb
0.307 in
thickness, tw
0.310 in
r2
tb
tw
a
1.770 in
angled height, a
material
IAS Function
Ref D6-81766
h
hole
wall
e
te
0.5 in
thickness, te
Channel Fitting
Static Strength Analysis
r1
r0
b
2.440 in
width, b
mode: (ultimate static strength)
base
MCAD Tools
CATIA v4, v5
Modular, Reusable
Template Libraries
rear spar fitting attach point
analysis context
max allowable ultimate stress, Ftu
67000 psi
Ftu
65000 psi
diagonal brace lug joint
analysis context
product structure (lug joint)
allowable ultimate long transverse stress, FtuLT
FtuLT
57000 psidiameters
lugs max allowable yield stress, Fty
LF[tyk] k = norm
L [ j:1,n ] max allowable
52000 psi
F diameter
j = top long transverse stress,
normaltyLT
, Dnorm FtyLT Dk
hole
lugj shear
39000 psi
max allowable
stress, Fsu oversize diameter,
D
F
over
condition:
mode (ultimate static strength)
load, Pu
Pu
material
max allowable ultimate stress,
jm FtuL
r1
Plug
Program
Plug joint
L29 -300
Part
Outboard TE Flap, Support
No 2;
n
8.633
K 123L4567
Inboard
Beam,
objective
deformation model
Lug Axial Ultimate
Strength Model
D
0.7500 in
5960
effective width,
W Ibs
1.6000 in
MSwall
9.17
BDM 6630
MSepb
t
MSeps
e
W
5.11
9.77
Kaxu
0.7433
Paxu
14.686 K
7050-T7452, MS 7-214
heuristic: overall fitting factor, Jm 1
Max. torque brake setting
detent 30, 2=3.5º
condition
su
0.067 in/in
plastic ultimate strain, epu
epu
2
0.35 in
thickness,
size,n ultimate strain long transverse,
epuLT t 0.030 in/in
plastic
epuLT
10000000
psi
edge margin,
e
0.7500 E
in
young modulus of elasticity, E
2G7T12U (Detent 0, Fairing Condition 1)
Analysis Modules (CBAMs)
of Diverse Feature:Mode, & Fidelity
Plug joint
F tuax
Channel Fitting67 Ksi
Template
4.317 K
Static Strength Analysis
Dataset
XaiTools
1 of 1
Bulkhead Fitting Joint
Feature
Margin
of Safety
(> case)
actual
estimated axial ultimate strength
allowable
MS
2.40
Program
L29 -300
Part
Outboard TE Flap, Support No 2;
Inboard Beam, 123L4567
Feature
Diagonal Brace Lug Joint
Template Lug Joint
Axial Ultimate Strength Model
Dataset
j = top lug
k = normal diameter
(1 of 4)
1.5D
Image API
(CATGEO);
VBScript
Analyzable
Product Model
XaiTools
Lug:
Axial/Oblique;
Ultimate/Shear
Fasteners DB
FASTDB-like
General Math
Mathematica
In-House
Codes
1.5D
Fitting:
Bending/Shear
Materials DB
MATDB-like
Analysis Tools
3D
Assembly:
Ultimate/
FailSafe/Fatigue*
FEA
Elfini*
* = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples)
45
“Bike Frame” Bulkhead Fitting Analysis Template
Using Constrained Object (COB) Knowledge/Info Representation
18 CAD-CAE associativity relations
bulkhead fitting attach point
analysis context
product structure
(channel fitting joint) bolt LE7K18
end pad
fitting
head
hole
mode: (ultimate static strength)
radius, r1
0.4375 in
radius, ro
0.5240 in
width, b
2.440 in
eccentricity, e
1.267 in
0.5 in
thickness, te
2.088 in
height, h
base
material
condition:
thickness, tb
0.307 in
thickness, tw
0.310 in
angled height, a
1.770 in
e
te
IAS Function
Ref DM 6-81766
r2
tb
K3  f (r1,b, h)
tw
a
fbe 
max allowable ultimate stress, Ftu
67000 psi
allowable ultimate long transverse stress, FtuLT
65000 psi
max allowable yield stress, Fty
57000 psi
Fty
max allowable long transverse stress, FtyLT
52000 psi
max allowable shear stress, Fsu
FtyLT
39000 psi
plastic ultimate strain, epu
0.067 in/in
plastic ultimate strain long transverse, epuLT
0.030 in/in
load, Pu
heuristic: overall fitting factor, Jm
0.0000 in
radius, r2
young modulus of elasticity, E
2G7T12U (Detent 0, Fairing Condition 1)
r0
b
Channel Fitting
Static Strength Analysis
h
hole
wall
r1
strength model
10000000 psi
5960 Ibs
1
Ftu
fse 
P
2
hte
C1
P
2r0te
FtuLT
MSwall
9.17
MSepb
5.11
MSeps
9.77
Fsu
epu
epuLT
E
Pu
jm
Program
L29 -300
Part
Outboard TE Flap, Support No 2;
Inboard Beam, 123L4567
Feature
Bulkhead Fitting Joint
Template Channel Fitting
Static Strength Analysis
Dataset
1 of 1
46
Cost of Associativity Gaps
Reference: http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/reports/EL004/
Detailed Design Model
Analysis Model
(with Idealized Features)
No explicit
fine-grained
CAD-CAE
associativity

idealizations
K3  f (r1,b, h)
P
fse 
2r0te
fbe 
C1
P
2
hte
Channel Fitting Analysis
Categories of Gap Costs
• Associativity time & labor
- Manual maintenance
- Little re-use
- Lost knowledge
• Inconsistencies
• Limited analysis usage
- Fewer parts analyzed
- Fewer iterations per part
• “Wrong” values
- Too conservative:
Extra part costs and
performance inefficiencies
- Too loose:
Re-work, failures, law suits
Initial Cost Estimate per Complex Product (only for manual maintenance costs of structural analysis problems)
O10,000 parts O10
analyses
variables
 O10
 O1,000,000gaps
part
analysis
$
O1,000,000gaps  O10
 $O10,000,000
gap
47
Cost Estimate per Complex Product
p.1/2
Manual Maintenance of Associativity Gaps in Structural Analysis Problems
O10,000 parts O10
analyses
variables
 O10
 O1,000,000gaps
part
analysis
$
O1,000,000gaps  O10
 $O10,000,000
gap
Reference:
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/reports/EL004/
48
Cost Estimate per Complex Product
p.2/2
Manual Maintenance of Associativity Gaps in Structural Analysis Problems
O10,000 parts O10
analyses
variables
 O10
 O1,000,000gaps
part
analysis
$
O1,000,000gaps  O10
 $O10,000,000
gap
Reference:
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/reports/EL004/
49
“Bike Frame” Bulkhead Fitting Analysis Template
Using Constrained Object (COB) Knowledge/Info Representation
18 associativity relations
bulkhead fitting attach point
analysis context
product structure
(channel fitting joint) bolt LE7K18
end pad
fitting
head
hole
mode: (ultimate static strength)
radius, r1
0.4375 in
radius, ro
0.5240 in
width, b
2.440 in
eccentricity, e
1.267 in
0.5 in
thickness, te
2.088 in
height, h
base
material
condition:
thickness, tb
0.307 in
thickness, tw
0.310 in
angled height, a
1.770 in
r0
b
Channel Fitting
Static Strength Analysis
e
te
IAS Function
Ref DM 6-81766
r2
tb
K3  f (r1,b, h)
tw
a
fbe 
max allowable ultimate stress, Ftu
67000 psi
allowable ultimate long transverse stress, FtuLT
65000 psi
max allowable yield stress, Fty
57000 psi
Fty
max allowable long transverse stress, FtyLT
52000 psi
max allowable shear stress, Fsu
FtyLT
39000 psi
plastic ultimate strain, epu
0.067 in/in
plastic ultimate strain long transverse, epuLT
0.030 in/in
load, Pu
heuristic: overall fitting factor, Jm
0.0000 in
radius, r2
young modulus of elasticity, E
2G7T12U (Detent 0, Fairing Condition 1)
r1
h
hole
wall
strength model
10000000 psi
5960 Ibs
1
Ftu
fse 
P
2
hte
C1
P
2r0te
FtuLT
MSwall
9.17
MSepb
5.11
MSeps
9.77
Fsu
epu
epuLT
E
Pu
jm
Program
L29 -300
Part
Outboard TE Flap, Support No 2;
Inboard Beam, 123L4567
Feature
Bulkhead Fitting Joint
Template Channel Fitting
Static Strength Analysis
Dataset
1 of 1
50
Contents

Background
– Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing)
– Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL)
– Multi-Representation Architecture
» Conceptual framework for complex model
interoperability
» Quantity estimates by representation type


Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps
Summary
51
Complex System Representation & Simulation Interoperability
Building Emergency Response Scenarios (Homeland Security)
Simulation Building Blocks
System Description
Tools & Resources
CAD Tools
CATIA,...
Simulation Templates
of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity
Simulation Tools
Continuum ABBs:
material model
Extensional Rod
h a  h s r  t p wb
e 

F
t


r1
max. height (surface relative), hsr
max. height (absolute), ha
20135-5512 digital oscillator
component, c
ABC_9230 Warning Module PWB
pwb
r2
0.060 in.
pwb
l
r2
0.500 in.
component
t
h
w
l
w
r3
length, L
end, x2
r4
thermal strain, t
standoff height, hso:
z
origin
y
material model
elastic strain, e

r3
Torsional Rod
strain, 
Lo
One D Linear
T
Elastic Model G, r, ,  ,J
r2
E
T
x
G
torque, Tr

polar moment of inertia, J

e
radius, r
T
t




linkage
1D
mode: shaft tension
r1
effective length, Leff
al1
area, A
al2
linear elastic model
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
Lo
L
x1
L
x2
A
youngs modulus, E al3
reaction
condition
undeformed length, Lo
theta start, 1
cross section
material
r3
Facilities Mgt. Systems
Evacuation Codes
Egress, Exodus, …
total elongation,L
r1
start, x1
r1
Evacuation
Mgt.
E
temperature change, T
stress,
L
T, ,  x
r3
shear modulus, G
youngs modulus, E
cte, 
T
area, A
undeformed length, Lo

e
shear strain, 
r5
poissons ratio, 

r4
force, F
1D Linear Elastic Model
shear stress, 
L
Lo
E, A, 
E
reference temperature, To
hs r  hc  hs o
z  h s o  t p wb
y
One D Linear
Elastic ModelF
(no shear)
edb.r1
temperature, T
Material Model ABB:
E

F

General Math
Mathematica,
Matlab, …
stress mos model
twist, 
theta end, 2
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable stress
allowable
actual
MS
inter_axis_length
linkage
deformation model
Parameterized
FEA Model
sleeve_1
w
r
L
ws1
sleeve_2
w
ts1
t
3D
flap_link
Airborne
Hazard Flow
effective_length
w
sleeve_1
t
r
x
w
sleeve_2
R1
mode: tension
R6
R5
t2f
tf
material
E
name
CFD
Flotherm, …

F
allowable stress
allowable inter axis length change
ux mos model
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
critical_detailed
deformation model
Torsional Rod
wf
linkage
effective length, Leff
R7
t1f
t2f
R2
R8
area
b
critical_simple
wf
h
tw
R3
E
name
stress_strain_model
linear_elastic
hw

tf
cte
area
R9
R10
R12
Integrated System Model
al1
Lo

1
R11
hw
b
h
material
E

linear_elastic_model
condition reaction
tw
t
tw
tf
…
R4
tw
t1f
rib_2
x,max
wf
R3
wf
critical_section
rib_1
ux,max
rs2
wf
R2
cross_section
t
Legend
Tool Associativity
Object Re-use
r
cross_section:basic
tw
R1
r
x
shaft
rs2
ws2
ts2
shaft
t
Libraries & Databases
Materials, Equipment,
Personnel, Procedures, …
t
Column
Destruction
mode: shaft torsion
material
condition
polar moment of inertia, J
al2a
outer radius, ro
al2b
linear elastic model
reaction
allowable stress
twist mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
2D
cross section:
effective ring
shear modulus, G
al3
2
J
r

G

T
stress mos model
allowable
twist
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
actual
MS
MS
FEA
MSC Nastran, …
[email protected] 2003-02-28
52
Characterizing Complex Model Interoperability
Using the Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)

MRA: Similar to “software design patterns”
for CAD-CAE domain
– Identifies patterns between CAD and CAE
(including new types of objects)
– Captures multi-fidelity explicit associativity

Provides hybrid top-down & bottom-up methodology
for characterizing problems & solutions
– O(1,000,000) CAD-CAE gap estimate
53
For Further Information ...

Contact: [email protected]

Web site: http://eislab.gatech.edu/
– Publications, project overviews, tools, etc.
– See: X-Analysis Integration (XAI) Central
http://eislab.gatech.edu/research/XAI_Central.doc

XaiTools home page: http://eislab.gatech.edu/tools/XaiTools/

Pilot commercial ESB: http://www.u-engineer.com/
– Internet-based self-serve analysis
– Analysis module catalog for electronic packaging
– Highly automated front-ends to general FEA & math tools
™
54
Backup Slides
Short Course: Using Standards-based Engineering Frameworks for
Electronics Product Design and Life Cycle Support
56
Constrained Object (COB) Representation
Current Technical Capabilities - Generation 2

Capabilities & features:
– Various forms: computable lexical forms, graphical forms, etc.
» Enables both computer automation and human comprehension
– Sub/supertypes, basic aggregates, multi-fidelity objects
– Multi-directionality (I/O changes)
– Reuses external programs as white box relations
– Advanced associativity added to COTS frameworks & wrappers

Analysis module/template applications (XAI/MRA):
–
–
–
–
–
Analysis template languages
Product model idealizations
Explicit associativity relations with design models & other analyses
White box reuse of existing tools (e.g., FEA, in-house codes)
Reusable, adaptable analysis building blocks
– Synthesis (sizing) and verification (analysis)
57
Constrained Objects (cont.)
Representation Characteristics & Advantages - Gen. 2

Overall characteristics
– Declarative knowledge representation (non-causal)
– Combining object & constraint graph techniques
– COBs
=
(STEP EXPRESS subset)
+
(constraint graph concepts & views)

Advantages over traditional analysis representations
– Greater solution control
– Richer semantics
(e.g., equations wrapped in engineering context)
– Unified views of diverse capabilities (tool-independent)
– Capture of reusable knowledge
– Enhanced development of complex analysis models

Toolkit status (XaiTools v0.4)
– Basic framework, single user-oriented, file-based
58
Convergence of Representations
Software Development
Database Techniques
(algorithms …)
(data structure, storage …)
Flow Charts
ER
OMT
EER
STEP Express
UML
Constrained Object - like
Representations
Objects
COBs, OCL, ...
Constraint graphs
Rules
Artificial Intelligence
& Knowledge-Based Techniques
(structure combined with algorithms/relations/behavior)
59



Technique Summary
Tool independent model interoperability
– Application focus: analysis template methodology
Multi-representation architecture (MRA)
& constrained objects (COBs):
– Addresses fundamental gaps:
» Idealizations & CAD-CAE associativity:
multi-fidelity, multi-directional, fine-grained
– Based on information & knowledge theory
– Structured, flexible, and extensible
Improved quality, cost, time:
– Capture engineering knowledge in a reusable form
– Reduce information inconsistencies
– Increase analysis intensity & effectiveness
» Reducing modeling cycle time by 75% (production usage)
60