Transcript Slides - Georgia Tech Engineering Information Systems Lab

Planning Meeting for Product, Lifecycle Management,
and Systems Engineering Models
May 20, 2003
NIST • Gaithersburg MD (via telecon)
Elements towards Next-Generation
Knowledge Representations and
Product Modeling Techniques
[email protected]
http://itimes.marc.gatech.edu/
http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/
Contents
Purpose: Help identify comparison factors
and encourage thinking about next-generation needs



Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
– Some factors for comparing knowledge representations



Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
See backup slides for other examples & references
2
Contents

Multiple views in a knowledge representation
– Human-sensible & computer-sensible
– Graphical, lexical, application-oriented

Declarative thinking
Examples from
Constrained
Objects (COBs)
& CAD-CAE
Integration
– Multi-directional (non-causal)
– With derivable lower-level procedural approaches




Object graph view of model interoperability
Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
3
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”)
4
COB Structure (cont.): Lexical Form
Tutorial: Triangle Primitive
e. Lexical COB Structure (COS)
COB triangle SUBTYPE_OF geometric_shape;
base, b
: REAL;
height, h
: REAL;
diagonal, d : REAL;
area, A
: REAL;
RELATIONS
r1 : "<area> == 0.5 * <base> * <height>";
r2 : "<diagonal>**2 == <base>**2 + <height>**2";
END_COB;
for reference: c. Constraint Schematic-S
base, b
height, h
r1
A  1 bh
2
r2
d b h
2
2
2
area, A
diagonal, d
5
Example COB Instance
Tutorial: Triangle Primitive
Constraint Schematic-I
example 1, state 1.1
2 in
3 in
r1
base, b
r2
d b h
2
2
2
example 1, state 2.1
2 in
9 in
area, A
A  1 bh
2
height, h
diagonal, d
r1
base, b
area, A
A  1 bh
2
height, h
r2
d b h
2
2
2
Lexical COB Instance (COI)
diagonal, d
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)
Equality relation is suspended
X r1
Relation r1 is suspended
3 in2
3.60 in
9 in2
9.22 in
state 1.0 (unsolved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: 3.0;
area
: ?;
diagonal : ?;
END_INSTANCE;
state 1.1 (solved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: 3.0;
area
: 3.0;
diagonal : 3.60;
END_INSTANCE;
.
.
.
state 2.1 (solved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: 9.0;
area
: 9.0;
diagonal : 9.22;
END_INSTANCE;
6
Multi-Directional I/O (non-causal)
Tutorial: Triangle Primitive
Constraint Schematic-I
example 1, state 2.1
2 in
9 in
base, b
height, h
r1
A  1 bh
2
r2
d b h
2
2
2
example 1, state 3.1
2 in
6 in
base, b
height, h
r1
A  1 bh
2
r2
d b h
2
2
2
Lexical COB Instance (COI)
area, A
diagonal, d
area, A
diagonal, d
9 in2
9.22 in
6 in2
6.32 in
state 2.1 (solved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: 9.0;
area
: 9.0;
diagonal : 9.22;
END_INSTANCE;
state 3.0 (unsolved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: ?;
area
: 6.0;
diagonal : ?;
END_INSTANCE;
state 3.1 (solved):
INSTANCE_OF triangle;
base
: 2.0;
height
: 6.0;
area
: 6.0;
diagonal : 6.32;
END_INSTANCE;
7
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
8
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
9
COB Modeling Languages & Views
Constraint Schematic-S
COB Structure
Definition Language
(COS)
Structure
Level
(Template)
Subsystem-S
I/O Table-S
Object Relationship Diagram-S
Constraint Graph-S
XML UML
Express-G
Instance
Level
STEP
Express
Constraint Schematic-I
100 lbs
COB Instance
Definition Language
(COI)
20.2 in
R101
30e6 psi
200 lbs
Constraint Graph-I
R101
20.2 in
STEP
Part 21
100 lbs
30e6 psi
200 lbs
10
Contents



Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
– Include connections with lower-level models & COTS tools
– Facilitate solution management & reasoning control
– Some factors for comparing knowledge representations



Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
Examples from
Constrained
Objects (COBs)
& CAD-CAE
Integration
11
Constrained Object Panorama
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
12
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)
13
Usage of a COB-based Analysis Template
CAD-CAE Interoperability during Lug Strength Analysis
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
e
W
condition
max allowable ultimate stress, FtuL
r1
Plug joint
Plug
67 Ksi
8.633 K
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
objective
DM 6630
t
Material Models
7050-T7452, MS 7-214
Plug joint
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)
14
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)
15
Contents



Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
– Include connections with lower-level models & COTS tools
– Facilitate solution management & reasoning control
– Some factors for comparing knowledge representations



Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
16
Dimensions of Associativity
Some Knowledge Representation Comparison Factors
Associativity = Relations among objects
System X
a
r1
X .a  Y .a
a
r2
X .a  r2 (Z .b)

Operand representation: a, b
System Y
b
System Z
electrical
circuits
analogy
– Type: numeric, logical, string, …, general object
– Human-sensible vs. computer-sensible
» Computer-sensible: Flattened vs. object/feature-oriented
– Other facets: security, units, uncertainty, maturity, version history,
(un)known/withheld, …

Relation representation: r1, r2
– Relation type: Math formula, geometric constraint, computable algorithm,
computer system (e.g., FEA tool), higher order constraint, arbitrary
human process, ...
17
Dimensions of Associativity (cont.)
System X
a
r1
a
X .a  Y .a
r2
X .a  r2 ( Z .b)

System Y
b
System Z
Relation representation (continued)
– Explicit vs. implicit vs. unrecognized vs. unknown
– Human-sensible vs. computer-sensible
» Computer-sensible: Dumb string vs. smart string
vs. object/feature-oriented relation
– Level: instance, template (schema, structure), adaptable template
– Other facets: priority, (in)active, plus similar facets as operands

Relation directionality
– Uni-directional vs. multi-directional
vs. iteratively multi-directional

Relation duration
– Continuous (“live”) vs. event-controlled

Relation granularity

Associativity graph type
– Declarative vs. procedural
– Cyclic vs. acyclic
– Variable vs. fixed topology
– Coarse vs. fine (macro vs. micro)
18
Contents





Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
– Including versioning & configuration mgt.
of meta-models, standards, and tools

Elevated terminology & thinking
19
Tool-Product Model Schema Relationships in a
Standards-Based Engineering Framework
Traditional
Tools
Electrical
CAD Tools
Mechanical
CAD Tools
Systems Engineering
Tools
Eagle
Pro/E
Doors
Mentor
Graphics
CATIA
AP210
Slate
AP203, AP214
…
AP233
Smart Product Model
Building Blocks
AP210
Gap-Filling
Tools
XaiTools
XaiTools
PWA-B
PWA-B
AP2xx
pgef
PWB Stackup Tool, Engineering
…
Framework Tool
• Models & meta-models
• International standards
• Industry specs
• Corporate standards
• Local customizations
• Modeling technologies:
• Express, UML, XML, COBs, …
EPM,
LKSoft,
LKSoft,
…
STI, …
STEP-Book AP210,
SDAI-Edit,
STI AP210 Viewer, ...
Instance Browser/Editor
20
Primary Technologies
for Schema-based Engineering Frameworks
Based on Engineering Framework Interest Group (EFWIG) emails from [email protected]
(dated July 13, 2002 wrt PGPDM directions) and David Leal (dated November 26, 2002).
21
Contents






Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
22
Needed Shifts in Engineering Thinking
Traditional
Viewpoint

Math-based models
of physical behavior
Information/Knowledge-based
Modeling Viewpoint

Information models
of physical objects
–

Learn mathematics
as a modeling language

Includes math-based models of
physical behavior, but in their
richer context
Learn information representation
as another type
of modeling language
Note: Information models have their roots in modern mathematics (e.g. set theory).
23
Needed Shifts in Engineering Thinking (cont.)
Traditional
Computing Viewpoint
Information/Knowledge-based
Modeling Viewpoint

Tool usage


Data / files


Data exchange


Translators
Single tools
Drawings &
documents
Calculations







Model creation & interaction
(using tools) - knowledge capture
Information models &
knowledge representations (objects)
Model connection, associativity,
interoperability
(often via equality relations)
Interfaces
Integrated submodels
Views (submodels)
connected to their richer models
Usage of model operations
Objects (having structure and operations) that are interrelated.
24
Summary
Purpose: Help identify comparison factors
and encourage thinking about next-generation needs



Multiple views in a knowledge representation
Declarative thinking
Object graph view of model interoperability
– Some factors for comparing knowledge representations



Leveraging multiple standards
Managing computing environments
via systems engineering methods
Elevated terminology & thinking
See backup slides for other examples & references
25
Other Slides for Reference
Procedural vs. Declarative
Knowledge Representations
Procedural Representation
Declarative Representation
h
Traditional programming: C, C++, Java, ...
b
function definition: area
area(base,height)
return (0.5 * base * height);
state 3 (I/O change)
intent
A := 6;
status:
h := 9;
relation definition: r1
r1(base,height,area):
area :=: 0.5 * base * height;
A = 1/2 bh
state 1 (function usage) b=2
b := 2, h := 3;
area
A := area(b,h);
h=3
status:
A := 3;
state 2 (value change)
intent
h := 9;
status:
A := 3;
A := area(b,h);
status’: A := 9;
Math solvers: Maple, Mathematica, ...
b=2
A=3
b=2
b
A=3
r1
h=3
h
state 1 (relation usage)
f :=: new instance of r1(b,h,A);
b :=: 2, h :=: 3, A :=: ?;
status:
A :=: 3
A=3
b=2
h=9
b=2
A=9
state 2 (value change)
h :=: 9;
status:
A :=: 9
A=6
state 3 (I/O change)
h :=: ?, A :=: 6;
status:
h :=: 6
r1
A=9
h=9
A=6
b=2
area
h=9
b=2
?
h=9
r1
h=6
How does one compute h given A, b ?
27
Constrained Objects: A Knowledge Representation
for Design, Analysis, and Systems Engineering Interoperability
Students: Manas Bajaj, Injoong Kim, Greg Mocko
Faculty: Russell Peak
Chip Package Stress
Analysis Template
Objectives
Contributions
 Develop better methods of capturing engineering knowledge that :
 Are independent of vendor-specific CAD/CAE/SE tools
 Support both easy-to-use human-sensible views and
robust computer-sensible formulations in a unified manner
 Handle a diversity of product domains, simulation disciplines,
solution methods, and leverage disparate vendor tools
 Apply these capabilities in a variety of sponsor-relevant test scenarios:
 Proposed candidates are templates and custom capabilities
for design, analysis, and systems engineering
To Scholarship:
 Develop richer understanding of modeling
(including idealizations and multiple levels of
abstraction) and representation methods
To Industry:
 Better designs via increased analysis intensity
 Increased automation and model consistency
 Increased modularity and reusability
 Increased corporate memory
via better knowledge capture
Constrained Object (COB) Formulations
Approach and Status
Resources Needed
 Approach:
 Extend and apply the constrained object (COB) representation
and related methodology based on positive results to date
 Expand within international efforts like the OMG UML for
Systems Engineering work to broaden applicability and impact
 Status:
 Current generation capabilities have been successfully
demonstrated in diverse environments (circuit boards, electronic
chip packages, airframes) with sponsors including NASA,
Rockwell Collins, Shinko (a major supplier to Intel), and Boeing.
 Templates for chip package thermal analysis are in production
usage at Shinko with over 75% reduction in modeling effort
(deformation/stress templates are soon to follow)

Support for 1-3 students
depending on project scope
Sponsor involvement to
provide domain knowledge
and facilitate pilot usage
COB Structure
Definition Language
(COS)
I/O Table-S
Object Relationship Diagram-S
Constraint Graph-S
XML UML
Express-G
STEP
Express
COB-based Airframe Analysis Template
CAD-CAE Associativity
lugs
diagonal brace lug joint
(idealization usage)
L [ j:1,n ]
hole
lugj
Geometry
2
size,n
deformation model
diameters
L [ k] k = norm
Dk
normal diameter, Dnorm
oversize diameter, Dover
j = top
analysis context product structure (lug joint)
mode (ultimate static strength)
thickness, t
0.35 in
edge margin, e
0.7500 in
material
Plug joint
condition
Plug joint
r1
n
8.633 K
objective
Plug
e
W
67 Ksi
(links to other analyses)
actual
Requirements
Kaxu
0.7433
Paxu
14.686 K
W
 1) DtFtuax
D
Solution Tool
Interaction
estimated axial ultimate strength
allowable
MS
DM 6630
F tuax
Paxu  K axu (
4.317 K
Boundary Condition Objects
Margin of Safety
(> case)
D
t
Material Models
max allowable ultimate stress, FtuL
7050-T7452, MS 7-214
Lug Axial Ultimate
Strength Model
0.7500 in
effective width, W 1.6000 in
Max. torque brake setting
detent 30, 2=3.5º
Subsystem-S
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)
[email protected] -- 2003-05-12
 Additional Information:
1. http://eislab.gatech.edu/projects/
2. Response to OMG UML for Systems Engineering RFI:
http://eislab.gatech.edu/tmp/omg-se-33e/
3. Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps:
A Preliminary Study of CAD-E Model Interoperability
http://eislab.gatech.edu/pubs/conferences/2003-asme-detc-cie-peak/

Constraint Schematic-S
COB-based Libraries of
Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
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, 
29
Flap Link Example
Parametric Design Description
flap_link
Extended Constraint Graph
w
sleeve_1
L
t
A
r
x
2
R1
t
Sleeve 2
Shaft
Sleeve 1
w
sleeve_2
ts
ts1
ds1
A
ds2
r
x
shaft
COB Structure (COS)
cross_section
wf
tw
t1f
t2f
rib_1
b
h
t
rib_2
R2
b
h
t
material
name
R3
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;
30
Representing External Tools as COB Relations
Parametric FEA Model
(ux,max , x,max )  r1 ( L, ws1, ts1, rs1,...,E, , F )
Plane Stress Bodies
y
FEA Tool
wf
ts1
ws1
tw
rs1
linkage
C
L x
w
t
sleeve_2
r
L
ws1
w
ts1
rs2
t
mode: tension
rs2
cross_section:basic
wf
tw
tf
name
linear_elastic_model
r1
ws2
r
ts2
condition reaction
rs2
L
sleeve_1
material
ws2
F
inter_axis_length
shaft
ts2
tf
E

wf
ux,max
x,max
tw
tf
E

F
31
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)
32
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
33
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
34
Techniques for Complex System Representation
& Model Interoperability (CAD-CAE)
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
35
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,
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
PTH
1D,
Deformation 2D
& Fatigue**
36
Iterative Design & Analysis
PWB Stackup Design & Warpage Analysis
PWB Stackup Design Tool
1D Thermal Bending Model
Quick Formula-based Check

Layup
Re-design
b 
b L2 T
t
w y
t / 2 w
i
i
i
i
PWB Warpage Modules
Analyzable
Product Model
Detailed FEA Check
1 Oz. Cu
3 x 1080
Tetra GF
2 Oz. Cu
1 Oz. Cu
Tetra GF
1 Oz. Cu
2 Oz. Cu
2 x 2116
3 x 1080
2D Plane Strain Model
1 Oz. Cu
37
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
38
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)
39
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
40
Typical Issues: Knowledge Representation,
Inter-Model Associativity (Model Interoperability)
CAD Model
bulkhead assembly attach point
detailed
design
geometry
CAE Model
channel fitting analysis
material
properties
idealized
analysis
geometry
analysis
results
41
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)
42
Explicit Capture of Idealizations
(part-specific template adaptation in bike frame case)
2
Detailed
Features/Parameters
Tagged in CAD Model
(CATIA)
Idealized Features
in CAE Model
zf
yf
te
yf
yf
xf
zf
cavity3.base.minimum_thickness
xf
xf
b
cavity3.width, w3
zf
yf
cavity 3
rib9
xf
1
rib8
= t8,t 9
rib8.thickness
rib9.thickness
Tension Fitting Analysis
i - Relations between idealized CAE parameters and detailed CAD parameters
1 : b = cavity3.inner_width + rib8.thickness/2 + rib9.thickness/2
2 : te = cavity3.base.minimum_thickness
43
Today’s Fitting Catalog Documentation
from DM 6-81766 Design Manual
Calculation Steps
Categories of Idealized Fittings
Channel Fitting
End Pad Bending Analysis
Channel
Fitting
Angle
Fitting
Bathtub
Fitting
44
Modular Fitting Templates
Object-Oriented Hierarchy of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs)
ABB: - independent of specific products
- usable on many designs
ABB
* = Working Examples
Specialized Analysis
Body
Fitting Casing Body
Fitting Washer Body
Specialized Analysis
System
Fitting Bolt Body*
bolt
washer
Fitting System ABB
casing
load
Channel Fitting Casing Body*
Open Wall Fitting
Casing Body
Bathtub Fitting
Casing Body
K1  f (r1, R, r0, e)
Fitting Wall ABB
K2  f (te ,tw)
Angle Fitting
Casing Body
tw  min(twa, twb ) R  a  b
K3  f (r1,b, h)
Fitting End Pad ABB
Fitting End Pad
Bending ABB
Open Wall Fitting
End Pad Bending ABB
p
e  R
f d
2
C1  K1K2
fbe 
P
C1
P
2
hte
Fitting End Pad
Shear ABB*
fse 
P
2pr0te
Channel Fitting
End Pad Bending ABB*
C 1  K 3 ( 2e  t b )
45
Channel Fitting System ABBs
End Pad Bending Analysis
1
0.8
DM 6-81766 Figure 3.3
3
0.6
2.5
0.4
0.1
r1
bolt.hole.radius, r1
end_pad.height, h
end_pad.width, b
2
0.2
1.5
0.3
r1
h
0.4
1
K3
channel fitting factor,
b
h
r3
r2
end_pad.eccentricity, e
base.thickness, tb
end_pad.thickness, te
f be  K 3 ( 2e  tb )
P
ht
actual bending stress,
f be
2
e
load, P
End Pad Shear Analysis
r1
bolt.head.radius, r0
end_pad.thickness, te
load, P
f se 
P
f
actual shear stress, se
2pr0te
ABB = analysis building block
46
“Bike Frame” Bulkhead Fitting Analysis Template
Using Constrained Object (COB) Knowledge/Info Representation
bulkhead fitting attach point
analysis context
product structure
(channel fitting joint) bolt LE7K18
end pad
fitting
strength model
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
10000000 psi
5960 Ibs
1
Ftu
fse 
P
2
hte
C1
P
2pr0te
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
47
Bike Frame Bulkhead Fitting Analysis
COB-based Analysis Template - in XaiTools
Detailed CAD data
from CATIA
Library data for
materials & fasteners
Idealized analysis features
in APM
Object-oriented spreadsheet
Modular generic analysis templates
(ABBs)
Explicit multi-directional associativity
between detailed CAD data
& idealized analysis features
48
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 
2pr0te
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
49
Information Capture Gaps:
Content Coverage and Semantics
Existing Tools
Tool A1
...
Legend
Content
Coverage Gaps
“dumb” information capture
(only human-sensible,
I.e., not computer-sensible)
Example “dumb” figures
Tool An
Content
Semantic Gaps
Smart Product Model
Building Blocks
• Models & meta-models
• International standards
• Industry specs
• Corporate standards
• Local customizations
• Modeling technologies:
• Express, UML, XML, COBs, …
50



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)
51
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
– Engineering Framework Interest Group (EFWIG)
http://eislab.gatech.edu/efwig/

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
™
52