A study on the grammatical construction of function structures

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 139-160

  Sridharan, Prasanna ^a,b   Campbell, Matthew I ^{a,b,c,d,e,f,g}  

^a The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^b Mechanical Engineering Department ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^d AIAA   (United States)

^e Honor Society   (United States)

^f ASME   (United States)

^g Design Society   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual Design; Function Structures; Knowledge Representation; Shape Grammars; Tree Search

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN; FUNCTION STRUCTURES; SHAPE GRAMMARS; TREE SEARCH;

FUNCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; PROBLEM SOLVING; TEACHING;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 33744495759     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060405050110     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cagan, J. (2001). Engineering shape grammars. In Formal Engineering Design Synthesis (Antonsson, E.K., & Cagan, J., Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Cagdas, G. (1996). A shape grammar: The language of traditional Turkish houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23(4), 443-464.
3. Chandrasekaran, B., Goel, A. K., & Iwasaki, Y. (1993). Functional representation as design rationale. Computer 26, 48-56.
4. Chase, S.C. (1998). User interaction models for grammar based design systems. International Journal of Design Computing 1, Paper 2. Available online at www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/journal/voll/dcnet/stream4/paper2/
5. Chen, L., Jayaram, M., & Xi, J.F. (2002). A new functional representation scheme for conceptual modeling of mechatronic systems. Proc. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34012, Montreal, Canada.
6. Collins, J., Hagan, B., & Bratt, H. (1976). The failure-experience matrix - a useful design tool. Journal of Engineering for Industry 98, 1074-1079.
7. Fu, Z., De Pennington, A., & Saia, A. (1993). A graph grammar approach to feature representation and transformation. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 6(102), 137-151.
8. Gero, J.S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2003). The situated function-behaviour-structure framework. Design Studies 25(4), 373-391.
9. Gietka, P., Verma, M., & Wood, W. (2002). Functional modeling, reverse engineering, and design reuse. Proc. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34019, Montreal, Canada.
10. Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. (2001). Evolving a functional basis for engineering design. Proc. ASME 2001 Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Paper No. DETC2001/DTM-21688, Pittsburgh, PA.
11. Hubka, V., Andreasen, M., & Eder, W. (1988). Practical Studies in Systematic Design. London: Butterworths.
12. IEEE Computer Society. (1998). IEEE Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process, pp. 1220-1998. New York: IEEE.
13. Kirschman, C., & Fadel, G. (1998). Classifying functions for mechanical design. Journal of Mechanical Design 120, 475-482.
14. Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R., Eds. (1987). Production System Models of Learning and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Koning, H., & Eizenberg, J. (1981). The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 8, 295-323.
16. Kurfman, M., Rajan, J., Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2001). Functional modeling experimental studies. Proc. ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2001/DTM21709, Pittsburgh, PA.
17. Li, X., Schmidt, L., He, W., Li, L., & Qian, Y. (2001). Transformation of an EGT grammar: new grammar, new designs. Proc. ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2001/DTM-21716, Pittsburgh, PA.
18. Longenecker, S.N., & Fitzhorn, P.A. (1991). A shape grammar for nonmanifold modeling. Research in Engineering Design 2(3), 159-170.
19. Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Design Council.
21. Pinilla, J.M., Finger, S., & Prinz, F.B. (1989). Shape feature description using an augmented topology graph grammar. Proc. NSF Engineering Design Research Conf., pp. 285-300, Amherst, MA, June 11-14.
22. Progelhof, R.C. (1993). Polymer engineering principles: Properties and tests for design. In Polymer Science (Gowariker, V.R., Viswanathan, N.V., & Sreedhar, J., Eds.). New York: Wiley.
23. Schmidt, L.C. (1995). An implementation using grammars of an abstraction-based model of mechanical design for design optimization and design space characterization. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University.
24. Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 7, 343-351.
25. Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal Mechanical Design 122, 359-370.
26. Szykman, S., Bochenek, C., Racz, J.W., Senfaute, J., & Sriram, R.D. (2000). Design repositories: Next-generation engineering design databases. IEEE Intelligent Systems 15(3), 48-55.
27. Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S. (1995). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Wang, K., & Yan. J. (2002). An analytical approach to functional design. Proc. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34084, Montreal, Canada.