Ontologies and Methods for Interoperability of Engineering Analysis Models (eams) in an E-Design Environment

ABSTRACT ONTOLOGIES AND METHODS FOR INTEROPERABILITY OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS MODELS (EAMS) IN AN E-DESIGN ENVIRONMENT SEPTEMBER 2007 NEELIMA KANURI, B.S., BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES PILANI INDIA M.S., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Ian Grosse Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems to exchange and reuse information efficiently. This thesis presents new techniques for interoperating engineering tools using ontologies as the basis for representing, visualizing, reasoning about, and securely exchanging abstract engineering knowledge between software systems. The specific engineering domain that is the primary focus of this report is the modeling knowledge associated with the development of engineering analysis models (EAMs). This abstract modeling knowledge has been used to support integration of analysis and optimization tools in iSIGHT FD , a commercial engineering environment. ANSYS , a commercial FEA tool, has been wrapped as an analysis service available inside of iSIGHT-FD. Engineering analysis modeling (EAM) ontology has been developed and instantiated to form a knowledge base for representing analysis modeling knowledge. The instances of the knowledge base are the analysis models of real world applications. To illustrate how abstract modeling knowledge can be exploited for useful purposes, a cantilever I-Beam design optimization problem has been used as a test bed proof-of-concept application. Two distinct finite element models of the I-beam are available to analyze a given beam design- a beam-element finite element model with potentially lower accuracy but significantly reduced computational costs and a high fidelity, high cost, shell-element finite element model. The goal is to obtain an optimized I-beam design at minimum computational expense. An intelligent KB tool was developed and implemented in FiPER . This tool reasons about the modeling knowledge to intelligently shift between the beam and the shell element models during an optimization process to select the best analysis model for a given optimization design state. In addition to improved interoperability and design optimization, methods are developed and presented that demonstrate the ability to operate on ontological knowledge bases to perform important engineering tasks. One such method is the automatic technical report generation method which converts the modeling knowledge associated with an analysis model to a flat technical report. The second method is a secure knowledge sharing method which allocates permissions to portions of knowledge to control knowledge access and sharing. Both the methods acting together enable recipient specific fine grain controlled knowledge viewing and sharing in an engineering workflow integration environment, such as iSIGHT-FD. These methods together play a very efficient role in reducing the large scale inefficiencies existing in current product design and development cycles due to poor knowledge sharing and reuse between people and software engineering tools. This work is a significant advance in both understanding and application of integration of knowledge in a distributed engineering design framework

Meeting the requirements for supporting engineering design communication – Partbook

The Engineering Design Environment is evolving in many ways. Considerable amounts of data, information and knowledge are 'building up' within engineering companies and engineers are becoming involved in ever-more distributed collaboration activities to tackle complex multi-disciplinary challenges in the design of new products requiring the need to share knowledge. These changes are placing further challenges on Engineering Design Communication (EDC, a fundamental knowledge sharing activity) as the current methods of communication were never specifically designed to support such technical and highly-contextual communication. Much research has been performed on understanding EDC, thus enabling a list of requirements to support EDC to be generated. Therefore, this paper proposes a prescriptive tool, (PartBook) which instantiates these requirements and looks at the next steps being taken to evaluate the tool in meeting the requirements

Towards a machine enabled semantic framework for the distributed engineering design

The overall aim of this thesis is to identify and propose a suitable architectural framework for supporting cooperation processes and therefore enabling semantics within the distributed engineering design environment. The proposed architecture is intended to\ud characterize a software-based management of design related data, information and knowledge flows in the distributed engineering design organization. The aim is to provide a computational context for implementing ICT tools that would: (i) Minimise the effect of user and resource dispersion (particularly temporal and geographical dispersion), the misunderstandings that might be generated by the\ud (otherwise beneficial) functional and semantic distribution, the time spent for searching and retrieval of information, the effort of information translation between different tools and the administrational and organisational efforts not directly related to the design process (e.g. revision control) (ii) Maximise the quality of information (i.e. relevant information at relevant and appropriate times), knowledge sharing and reuse among distributed design\ud actors, the flexibility of the user interfaces and the designer’s time spent in the actual designing process.\ud In order to achieve the overall aim, the research work supporting this thesis was carried out along the following objectives:\ud 1. To investigate and characterize the engineering design process performed in a distributed environment and its problematic aspects;\ud 2. To research and study alternative theories for thinking and modelling the distributed engineering design process;\ud 3. To investigate current research in information and knowledge management for identifying supporting technologies for a possible solution to the identified\ud problematic aspects (from point 1);\ud 4. To analyze the requirement needs for a solution according to the findings from previous objectives, i.e. the driving problems (from point 1), the research and\ud therefore the thinking approach (from point 2), and available supporting technologies (from point 3);\ud 5. To synthesize the architectural framework along the identified supporting technologies (from point 3);\ud 6. To instantiate a software system along the underlying computational context as described by the architectural framework (from point 5)

Sharing tacit design knowledge in a distributed design environment

Throughout the life-cycle of a design project, architects rely heavily on their tacit design knowledge to support design decisions. Tacit knowledge is highly personal and implicit. As such, it encompasses expertise, intuitive understanding, and professional insight formed as a result of experience. Due to its implicit nature, tacit design knowledge is typically shared only among colleagues who work in the same office through face-toface interactions. With emerging Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) technologies, designers face new opportunities for capturing and reusing tacit design knowledge. However, there is no accepted CMC strategy for sharing tacit design knowledge in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. This research investigates the impact of tacit design knowledge on design performance in a distributed design environment supported by CMC software. The software was developed and tested in three design studios in which design students sought advice from experts in remote locations. It provides tools for showing images, such as drawings and renderings, and for engaging in a written dialogue (chat session). The written and graphic artifacts of the conversation are stored in a Web-accessible database. The chat sessions included the identification, clarification, and explanation of real problems. Dialogue records provide evidence of a significant influence upon the studentsâ approach to conceptual design. Content analysis of the comments from the experts provides qualitative evidence for the softwareâÂÂs effectiveness. The participants shared past experience, professional recommendations, and intuitive expectations. In follow-up surveys, most participants reported that their experience with the software was very enjoyable and the software is well-designed to support sharing of design knowledge. This research also suggests that tacit design knowledge may be confidently captured and shared through careful strategic implementation of CMC technology in a distributed design environment. Demographic and attitudinal surveys of the participants suggest that enabling factors for sharing tacit design knowledge include knowledge sharing attitude, just-in-time expertise matching, and timing of the communication

The viability of IS enhanced knowledge sharing in mission-critical command and control centers

Engineering processes such as the maintenance of mission-critical infrastructures are highly unpredictable processes that are vital for everyday life, as well as for national security goals. These processes are categorized as Emergent Knowledge Processes (EKP), organizational processes that are characterized by a changing set of actors, distributed knowledge bases, and emergent knowledge sharing activities where the process itself has no predetermined structure. The research described here utilizes the telecommunications network fault diagnosis process as a specific example of an EKP. The field site chosen for this research is a global undersea telecommunication network where nodes are staffed by trained personnel responsible for maintaining local equipment using Network Management Systems. The overall network coordination responsibilities are handled by a centralized command and control center, or Network Management Center. A formal case study is performed in this global telecommunications network to evaluate the design of an Alarm Correlation Tool (ACT). This work defines a design methodology for an Information System (IS) that can support complex engineering diagnosis processes. As such, a Decision Support System design model is used to iterate through a number of design theories that guide design decisions. Utilizing the model iterations, it is found that IS design theories such as Decision Support Systems (DSS), Expert Systems (ES) and Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) design theories, do not produce systems appropriate for supporting complex engineering processes. A design theory for systems that support EKPs is substituted as the project\u27s driving theory during the final iterations of the DSS Design Model. This design theory poses the use of naive users to support the design process as one of its key principles. The EKP design theory principles are evaluated and addressed to provide feedback to this recently introduced Information System Design Theory. The research effort shows that use of the EKP design theory is also insufficient in designing complex engineering systems. As a result, the main contribution of this work is to augment design theory with a methodology that revolves around the analysis of the knowledge management and control environment as a driving force behind IS design. Finally, the research results show that a model-based knowledge captunng algorithm provides an appropriate vehicle to capture and manipulate experiential engineering knowledge. In addition, it is found that the proposed DSS Design Model assists in the refinement of highly complex system designs. The results also show that the EKP design theory is not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by systems that must support mission-critical infrastructures

Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models

The connection of resources, data, and knowledge through communication technology plays a vital role in current collaborative design methodologies and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems, as these elements act as channels for information and meaning. Despite significant advances in the area of PLM, most communication tools are used as separate services that are disconnected from existing development environments. Consequently, during a communication session, the specific elements being discussed are usually not linked to the context of the discussion, which may result in important information getting lost or becoming difficult to access. In this paper, we present a method to add synchronous communication functionality to a PLM system based on annotated information embedded in the CAD model. This approach provides users a communication channel that is built directly into the CAD interface and is valuable when individuals need to be contacted regarding the annotated aspects of a CAD model. We present the architecture of a new system and its integration with existing PLM systems, and describe the implementation details of an annotation-based video conferencing module for a commercial CAD application.This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the FEDER Funds, through the ANNOTA project (Ref. TIN2013-46036-C3-1-R).Camba, JD.; Contero, M.; Salvador Herranz, GM.; Plumed, R. (2016). Synchronous communication in PLM environments using annotated CAD models. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 25(2):142-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-016-5305-5S142158252Abrahamson, S., Wallace, D., Senin, N. & Sferro, P. (2000). Integrated design in a service marketplace. Computer-Aided Design, 32(2):97–107.Ahmed, S. (2005). Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge. Design Studies, 26:565–592.Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53:1029–1037.Ameri, F. & Dutta, D. (2005). Product lifecycle management: closing the knowledge loops. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2(5):577–590.Anderson, A.H., Smallwood, L., MacDonald, R., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. & O'Malley, C. (2000). Video data and video links in mediated communication: what do users value? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1):165–187.Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A. & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind–creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7(1): 84–113.Barley, W.C., Leonardi, P.M., & Bailey, D.E. (2012). Engineering objects for collaboration: strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Communication Research, 38:280–308.Boujut, J.F. & Dugdale, J. (2006). Design of a 3D annotation tool for supporting evaluation activities in engineering design. Cooperative Systems Design, COOP 6:1–8.Camba, J., Contero, M., Johnson, M. & Company, P. (2014). Extended 3D annotations as a new mechanism to explicitly communicate geometric design intent and increase CAD model reusability. Computer-Aided Design, 57:61–73.Camba, J., Contero, M. & Salvador-Herranz, G. (2014). Speak with the annotator: promoting interaction in a knowledge-based CAD environment built on the extended annotation concept. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 196–201.Chudoba, K.M., Wynn, E., Lu, M. & Watson-Manheim, M.B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4):279–306.Danesi, F., Gardan, N. & Gardan, Y. (2006). Collaborative Design: from Concept to Application. Geometric Modeling and Imaging—New Trends, 90–96.Durstewitz, M., Kiefner, B., Kueke, R., Putkonen, H., Repo, P. & Tuikka, T. (2002). Virtual collaboration environment for aircraft design. Proceedings of the IEEE 6th International Conference on Information Visualisation, 502–507.Fisher, D., Brush, A.J., Gleave, E. & Smith, M.A. (2006). Revisiting Whittaker and Sidner’s email overload ten years later. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, BanffFonseca, M.J., Henriques, E., Silva, N., Cardoso, T. & Jorge, J.A. (2006). A collaborative CAD conference tool to support mobile engineering. Rapid Product Development (RPD’06), Marinha Grande, Portugal.Frechette, S.P. (2011). Model based enterprise for manufacturing. Proceedings of the 44th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems.Fu, W.X., Bian, J. & Xu, Y.M. (2013). A video conferencing system for collaborative engineering design. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 344:246–252.Fuh, J.Y.H. & Li, W.D. (2005). Advances in collaborative CAD: the-state-of-the art. Computer-Aided Design, 37:571–581.Fussell, S.R., Kraut, R.E. & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21–30.Gajewska, H., Kistler, J., Manasse, M.S. & Redell, D. (1994). Argo: a system for distributed collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM Second International Conference on Multimedia, San Francisco, CA, USA. 433–440.Gantz, J., Reinsel, D., Chute, C., Schlichting, W., Mcarthur, J., Minton, S., Xheneti, I., Toncheva, A. & Manfrediz, A. (2007). The expanding digital universe: a forecast of worldwide information growth through 2010. IDC, Massachusetts.Gowan, Jr. J.A. & Downs, J.M. (1994). Video conferencing human-machine interface: a field study. Information and Management, 27(6):341–356.Gupta, A., Mattarelli, E., Seshasai, S. & Broschak, J. (2009). Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: towards the 24-h knowledge factory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18:147–161.Hickson, I. (2009). The Web Socket Protocol IETF, Standards Track.Hong, J., Toye, G. & Leifer, L.J. (1996). Engineering design notebook for sharing and reuse. Computers in Industry, 29:27–35.Isaacs, E.A. & Tang, J.C. (1994). What video can and cannot do for collaboration: a case study. Multimedia Systems, 2(2):63–73.Karsenty, L. (1999). Cooperative work and shared visual context: an empirical study of comprehension problems in side-by-side and remote help dialogues. Human Computer Interaction, 14(3): 283–315.Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Collaboration patterns in computer supported collaborative designing. Design Studies, 25:351–371.Leenders, R.T.A., Van Engelen, J.M. & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1):69–92.Levitt, R.E., Jin, Y. & Dym, C.L. (1991). Knowledge-based support for management of concurrent, multidisciplinary design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 5(2):77–95.Li, C., McMahon, C. & Newnes, L. (2009). Annotation in product lifecycle management: a review of approaches. Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, DETC2009. Vol. 2. New York: ASME, 797–806.Li, W.D., Lu, W.F., Fuh, J.Y. & Wong, Y.S. (2005). Collaborative computer-aided design-research and development status. Computer-Aided Design, 37(9):931–940.Londono, F., Cleetus, K.J., Nichols, D.M., Iyer, S., Karandikar, H.M., Reddy, S.M., Potnis, S.M., Massey, B., Reddy, A. & Ganti, V. (1992). Coordinating a virtual team. CERC-TR-RN-92-005, Concurrent Engineering Research Centre, West Virginia University, West Virginia.Lubell, J., Chen, K., Horst, J., Frechette, S., & Huang, P. (2012). Model based enterprise/technical data package summit report. NIST Technical Note, 1753.May, A. & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(3):171–186.Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M. & Meader, D.K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Ping-Hung, H., Mishra, C.S. & Gobeli, D.H. (2003). The return on R&D versus capital expenditures in pharmaceutical and chemical industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50:141–150.Sharma, A. (2005). Collaborative product innovation: integrating elements of CPI via PLM framework. Computer-Aided Design, 37(13):1425–1434.Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B. & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 Years on from Gibis and Qoc. Rationale Management in Software Engineering, 111–132.Siltanen, P. & Valli, S. (2013). Web-based 3D Mediated Communication in Manufacturing Industry. Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multidisciplinary Environment, 1181–1192. Springer London.Stark, J. (2011). Product Lifecycle Management. 1–16. Springer London.Tavcar, J., Potocnik, U. & Duhovnik, J. (2013). PLM used as a backbone for concurrent engineering in supply chain. Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, 681–692.Tay, F.E.H. & Ming, C. (2001). A shared multi-media design environment for concurrent engineering over the internet. Concurrent Engineering, 9(1):55–63.Tay, F.E.H. & Roy, A. (2003). CyberCAD: a collaborative approach in 3D-CAD technology in a multimedia-supported environment. Computers in Industry, 52(2):127–145.Toussaint, J. & Cheng, K. (2002). Design agility and manufacturing responsiveness on the web. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(5):328–339.Tsoi, K.N. & Rahman, S.M. (1996). Media-on-demand multimedia electronic mail: a tool for collaboration on the web. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing.Upton, D.M. & Mcafee, A. (1999). The Real Virtual Factory. Harvard Business School Press, 69–89.Vila, C., Estruch, A., Siller, H.R., Abellán, J.V. & Romero, F. (2007). Workflow methodology for collaborative design and manufacturing. Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering 42–49, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Wasiak, J., Hicks, B., Newnes, L., Dong, A., & Burrow, L. (2010). Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work. Research in Engineering Design, 21(1):43–64.Wasko, M.M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 29:35–57.Yang, Q.Z., Zhang, Y., Miao, C.Y. & Shen, Z.Q. (2008). Semantic annotation of digital engineering resources for multidisciplinary design collaboration. ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 617–624. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.You, C.F. & Chao, S.N. (2006). Multilayer architecture in collaborative environment. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, 14(4):273–281.Yuan, Y.C., Fulk, J., Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37: 20–47

Digital information support for concept design

This paper outlines the issues in effective utilisation of digital resources in conceptual design. Access to appropriate information acts as stimuli and can lead to better substantiated concepts. This paper addresses the issues of presenting such information in a digital form for effective use, exploring digital libraries and groupware as relevant literature areas, and argues that improved integration of these two technologies is necessary to better support the concept generation task. The development of the LauLima learning environment and digital library is consequently outlined. Despite its attempts to integrate the designers' working space and digital resources, continuing issues in library utilisation and migration of information to design concepts are highlighted through a class study. In light of this, new models of interaction to increase information use are explored

Why not empower knowledge workers and lifelong learners to develop their own environments?

In industrial and educational practice, learning environments are designed and implemented by experts from many different fields, reaching from traditional software development and product management to pedagogy and didactics. Workplace and lifelong learning, however, implicate that learners are more self-motivated, capable, and self-confident in achieving their goals and, consequently, tempt to consider that certain development tasks can be shifted to end-users in order to facilitate a more flexible, open, and responsive learning environment. With respect to streams like end-user development and opportunistic design, this paper elaborates a methodology for user-driven environment design for action-based activities. Based on a former research approach named 'Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments'(MUPPLE) we demonstrate how workplace and lifelong learners can be empowered to develop their own environment for collaborating in learner networks and which prerequisites and support facilities are necessary for this methodology