Transcript Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps: A

ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
September 2-6, 2003
Chicago, Illinois
Paper No. CIE-48232
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/
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2003-asme-detc-peak/
Copyright © 1992-2003 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0415 USA. All Rights Reserved.
Permission to reproduce and distribute for non-commercial purposes (including internal corporate usage) is hereby granted provided this notice and a proper citation are included.
Abstract
Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps:
A Preliminary Study of CAD-CAE Model Interoperability
This paper 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.
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2003-asme-detc-peak/
X = design, mfg., sustainment, and other lifecycle phases.
2
Frame of Reference
10+ years of R&D in
CAD-CAE Model Representation & Interoperability
Design Models
Other Model
Abstractions
(Patterns)
Design
Models
Analysis
Models
Analysis Models
Resulting techniques to date:
 Architecture with new model abstractions (patterns)
– Enables modular, reusable building blocks
– Supports diversity:
» Product domains and physical behaviors
» CAD/E methods and tools
– Supports multiple levels of fidelity
3
Frame of Reference (cont.)
10+ years of R&D in
CAD-CAE Model Representation & Interoperability
Idealization & Associativity Relations
Design Models


Other Model Abstractions (Patterns)
Analysis Models
Represent design-analysis model associativity
as tool-independent knowledge
Provide methodology
– Capture analysis idealization knowledge
– Create highly automated analysis templates
– Support product design
4
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
5
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
6
FEA-based Analysis Template
Linkage Plane Stress Model
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
7
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
8
Chip Package Thermal Resistance
Analysis Template (FEA-based CBAM)
thermal model
components
chip_package_
L[i:1,n]
product_assembly
Variable Topology
FEA Model
width
W
cavity_width
CW
length
L
cavity_length
CL
height
H
depth
singular_mat
D
base_mat
isotropic_thermal_model
r1
kx
ky
composite_mat
mixed_mat
orthotropic_thermal_model
power
P
heat_generation_rate
q
convection_coefficient_1 L[j:1,m]
hc
convection_coefficient_2 L[j:1,m]
hp
convection_coefficient_3 L[j:1,m]
condition
kz
hb
temperature
Ta
air_flow_velocity L[j:1,m]
Tmax
Tmin
PTmax
ave PST
ave BTST
ave BBST
avel
Thermal Resistance
Model
P
Theta ja
Ta
Theta jc
Tmax
PTmax
9
Circuit Board 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,
Zuken, …
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 Ed2 WD8
* = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples)
PTH
1D,
Deformation 2D
& Fatigue**
** = Item available via U-Engineer.com
10
PWB Warpage Modules
a.k.a. CBAMs: COB-based analysis templates
ABB
deformation model
APM
Thermal
Bending Beam
pwa
associated_pwb
total diagonal
al1
total thickness
al2
coefficient of thermal bending
associated condition
al3
temperature
al4
al5
wrapage mos model
Margin
of Safety
actual
MS

 b L2 T
t
b
t
SMM

T
reference temperature
allowable
L
PWB Thermal Bending Model
(1D formula-based CBAM)
APM
warpage
pwa
associated_pwb
T
Treference
ABB
al6
layup
Usage of Rich
Product Models
APM
deformation model
Parameterized
FEA Model
TOTAL
total_thickness
layers[0]
nominal_thickness
layers[1]
prepregs[0]
nominal_thickness
layers[2]
top_copper_layer
nominal_thickness
related_core
nominal_thickness
primary_structure_material linear_elastic_model
CU1T
PREPREGT
CU2T
E
EXCU
cte
ALPXCU
layers[3]
prepregs[0]
UX
POLYT
nominal_thickness
UY
SX
TETRA1T
primary_structure_material linear_elastic_model E
EXEPGL
cte
ALPXEGL
condition
reference temperature
TO
ux mos model
PWB Plane Strain Model
(2D FEA-based CBAM)
temperature
DELTAT
Margin of Safety
(> case)
allowable
actual
MS
11
Purpose of this Paper
Preliminary Characterization of CAD-CAE Interoperability Problem
Number of Subsystems (Models, Tools, Relations)
Idealization & Associativity Relations
Other Model Abstractions (Patterns)
Design Models
3
Analyzable
Product Model
Analysis Models
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
12
Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Summary
Characteristics of Component Representations

Solution Method Models (SMMs)
– Packages solution tool inputs, outputs, and control as integrated
objects
– Automates solution tool access and results retrieval via tool agents
and wrappers

Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
– Represents analysis concepts using object and constraint graph
techniques
– Acts as a semantically rich 'pre-preprocessor' and 'postpostprocessor' model.
» ABB instances create SMM instances based on solution
method considerations and receive results after automated
solution tool execution
13
Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Summary
Characteristics of Component Representations (cont.)

Analyzable Product Models (APMs)
– Represent design aspects of products and enables connections
with design tools
– Support idealizations usable in numerous analysis models
– Have possibly many associated CBAMs

Context-Based Analysis Models (CBAMs)
– Contain linkages explicitly representing design-analysis
associativity, indicating usage of APM idealizations
– Create analysis models from ABBs and automatically connects
them to APM attributes
– Represent common analysis models as automated, predefined
templates
– Support interaction of analysis models of varying complexity and
solution method
– Enable parametric design studies via multi-directional input/output
(in some cases)
14
Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Summary
Overall Characteristics






Addresses information-intensive nature of
CAD-CAE integration
Breaks design-analysis integration gap into
smaller subproblems (patterns)
Flexibly supports different design and analysis
methods and tools
Based on modular, reusable information building
blocks
Defines methodology for creating specialized,
highly automated analysis tools to support product
design
Represents analysis intent as tool-independent
knowledge
15



Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Summary
Overall Characteristics (cont.)
Multiple representations required by:
– Many:Many cardinality
– Reusability & modularity
Self-Test: Consider impact of removing a representation
Similar to “software design patterns”
for CAD-CAE domain
– Identifies patterns between CAD and CAE
(including new types of objects)
– Captures explicit associativity
– Other needs: conditions, requirements, next-higher analysis
Distinctive CAD-CAE associativity needs
– Multi-fidelity, multi-directional capabilities
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
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, 
20
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/ )
21
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/
22
Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods
(continued)
23
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, 
24
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;
25
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
26
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)
27
Lug Template (CBAM)
Applied to an Airframe Problem
CAD-CAE Associativity
(idealization usage)
lugs
diagonal brace lug joint
analysis context
L [ j:1,n ]
j = top
hole
lugj
product structure (lug joint)
Geometry
2
size,n
deformation model
diameters
L [ k] k = norm
Dk
normal diameter, Dnorm
oversize diameter, Dover
mode (ultimate static strength)
thickness, t
0.35 in
edge margin, e
0.7500 in
material
Plug joint
condition
e
W
max allowable ultimate stress, FtuL
Plug joint
Plug
67 Ksi
Boundary Condition Objects
Margin of Safety
(> case)
(links to other analyses)
actual
Kaxu
0.7433
Paxu
14.686 K
F tuax
Paxu  Kaxu (
4.317 K
n
8.633 K
objective
DM 6630
t
Material Models
7050-T7452, MS 7-214
r1
D
0.7500 in
effective width, W 1.6000 in
Max. torque brake setting
detent 30, 2=3.5º
Lug Axial Ultimate
Strength Model
W
 1) DtFtuax
D
Solution Tool
Interaction
estimated axial ultimate strength
allowable
MS
Requirements
Model-based Documentation
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)
Legend: Annotations highlight model knowledge capture capabilities. Other notation is COB constraint schematics notation.
28
Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods
(continued)
K3  f (r1,b, h)
fse 
P
2r0te
fbe 
C1
P
2
hte
29
“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
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
“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
34
~1M Associativity Gaps
Reference: http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2003-asme-detc-peak/
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
35
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/
36
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/
37
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
38
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
™
39
Backup Slides
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
41
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)
42
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
43
COB Modeling Languages
Lexical and Graphical Formulations
Constraint Schematic-S
Lexical Formulations
Subsystem-S
COB Structure
Definition Language
(COS)
Structure
Level
(Template)
I/O Table-S
Object Relationship Diagram-S
Constraint Graph-S
Express-G
OWL XML UML
STEP
Express
Constraint Schematic-I
Instance
Level
100 lbs
20.2 in
R101
Lexical Formulations
COB Instance
Definition Language
(COI)
30e6 psi
200 lbs
Constraint Graph-I
R101
OWL XML UML
20.2 in
100 lbs
OWL, XML, and UML formulations
are envisioned extensions
30e6 psi
200 lbs
STEP
Part 21
44
COB Structure: Graphical Forms
Tutorial: Triangle Primitive
a. Shape Schematic-S
h
c. Constraint Schematic-S
d
A
r1
base, b
b
height, h
r2
d b h
2
r1 : A  1 bh
2
b. Relations-S
r2 : d 2  b 2  h 2
Basic Constraint Schematic-S Notation
variable a
a
subvariable a.d
d
s
h
subsystem s
of cob type h
a b
subvariable s.b
relation r1(a,b,s.c)
r1
b
r2
e  bc
c
c d
e
f
e=f
equality relation
option category 1
option 1.1
[1.1] f = s.d
g
[1.2] f = g
option 1.2
area, A
A  1 bh
2
2
2
diagonal, d
d. Subsystem-S
(for reuse by other COBs)
Triangle
b
A
h
d
w
L [ j:1,n]
aggregate c.w
wj
element wj
Aside: This is a “usage view” in AP210 terminology
(vs. the above “design views”)
45
COBs as Building Blocks
Tutorial: Triangular Prism COB Structure
a. Shape Schematic-S
c. Constraint Schematic-S
cross-section
h
Triangle
l
V
b
b. Relations-S
r1 : V  Al
e. Lexical COB Structure (COS)
COB triangular_prism SUBTYPE_OF geometric_shape;
length, l
: REAL;
cross-section : triangle;
volume, V
: REAL;
RELATIONS
r1 : "<volume> == <cross-section.area> * <length>";
END_COB;
b
A
h
d
length, l
V  Al
r1
volume, V
d. Subsystem-S
(for reuse by other COBs)
Triangular
Prism
b
h
V
l
46
Example COB Instance
Tutorial: Triangular Prism
Constraint Schematic-I
Lexical COB Instance (COI)
example 1, state 1.1
state 1.0 (unsolved):
INSTANCE_OF triangular_prism;
cross-section.base
: 2.0;
cross-section.height : 3.0;
length : 5.0;
volume : ?;
END_INSTANCE;
cross-section
Triangle
5 in
2 in
b
A
3 in
h
d
length, l
3 in2
V  Al
r1
volume, V
15 in3
Basic Constraint Schematic-I Notation
100 lbs
30e6 psi
200 lbs
X
a
Input a = 100 lbs
b
Result b = 30e6 psi
(output or intermediate variable)
c
Result c = 200 lbs
(result of primary interest)
state 1.1 (solved):
INSTANCE_OF triangular_prism;
cross-section.base
: 2.0;
cross-section.height : 3.0;
cross-section.area
: 3.0;
length : 5.0;
volume : 15.0;
END_INSTANCE;
Equality relation is suspended
X r1
Relation r1 is suspended
47
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
48
Tutorial Example:
Flap Link Analysis Template (CBAM)
(1a) Analysis Template: Flap Link Extensional Model
CBAM
Flap Link Analysis Documentation
(2) Torsion Analysis
(1) Extension Analysis
a. 1D Extensional Rod
1. Behavior: Shaft Tension
L
A
ts2
ts1
s
Sleeve 1
Shaft
ds1
2. Conditions:
10000
lbs
linkage
3. Part Features: (idealized)
in
effective length, Leff
APM
1020 HR Steel
Geometry
mode: shaft tension
cross section
material
A = 1.125 in2 E=
30e6
allowable  18000
4. Analysis Calculations:
F
L  Leff
A

E
5. Conclusion:
MS 
E, A
 allowable
 1  1.025

b. 2D Plane Stress FEA
...
psi
psi
condition
area, A
al1
P
, 
x
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
L
Lo
x1
al2
youngs modulus, E al3
reaction
L
deformation model
Material Models
linear elastic model
L
Leff
P
Leff
Flaps down : F =
5.0
y
(idealization usage)
ds2
A
Leff =
Sleeve 2
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
Pullable
Views*
(links to other analyses)*
Solution Tool
Interaction
* Boundary condition objects & pullable views are WIP concepts*
49
Flap Linkage Instance
with Multi-Directional I/O States
deformation model
linkage
Flap Link #3
Leff
effective length,
5.0 in
mode: shaft tension
critical_cross
_section
shaft
material
condition
reaction
basic
2
1.125 in
area, A
al2
linear elastic model youngs modulus,E al3
steel
30e6 psi
10000 lbs
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
al1
Lo
L
x1
L
1.43e-3 in
- Input: design details
- Output:
i) idealized design parameters
ii) physical response criteria
x2
A
8888 psi
E

F

Design Verification
description
flaps mid position
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
18000 psi
(> case)
allowable stress
allowable
actual
MS
1.025
example 1, state 1
deformation model
Design Synthesis
- Input: desired physical
response criteria
- Output:
i) idealized design
parameters
(e.g., for sizing), or
ii) detailed design
parameters
5.0 in
effective length, Leff
linkage Flap Link #3
al1
0.555 in2
mode: shaft tension
condition
1.125 in2
shaft
critical_cross
_section
material
linear elastic model
reaction
10000 lbs
steel
basic
area, A
al2
X
youngs modulus, E al3
30e6 psi
Extensional Rod
(isothermal)
Lo
L
x1
L
3.00e-3 in
x2
A
E

F

18000 psi
description
flaps mid position
stress mos model
Margin of Safety
(> case)
18000psi
allowable stress
allowable
actual
MS
0.0
example 1, state 3
50
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
51
Using Internet/Intranet-based Analysis Solvers
Web Services Architecture
Users
Engineering Service Bureau
Client PCs
Host Machines
EIS Lab
CORBA Daemon
Iona orbixdj
- Regular internal use
U-Engineer.com
CORBA Servers
XaiToolsAnsys
Ansys
XaiTools
XaiTools
Math.
XaiTools
SolverAnsys
Server
Solver
Server
Solver
Server
Solver Server
Internet/Intranet
FEA Solvers
Ansys
Math Solvers
Mathematica
- Demo usage:
- US
- Japan
Nov.’00-Present:
Electronics Co.
- Production usage
(dept. Intranet)
Future:
...
XaiTools
CORBA
IIOP
Internet
Thick Client
June’99-Present:
Company Intranet
and/or
U-Engineer.com
(commercial)
- Other solvers
Current Version: XaiTools Web Services - SOAP (adds Patran & Abaqus, ACIS, …)
52
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)
53
Short Course: Using Standards-based Engineering Frameworks for
Electronics Product Design and Life Cycle Support
54



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)
55