A case for multiple views of function in design based on a common definition

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 271-279

  Chakrabarti, Amaresh ^a   Srinivasan, V ^b   Ranjan, B S C ^a   Lindemann, Udo ^b  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (India)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Common definition; Environment; Extend function; GEMS of SAPPhIRE; Generate; Intended change; Requirement; Scenarios; Solution; System

Indexed keywords

COMMON DEFINITION; ENVIRONMENT; GENERATE; INTENDED CHANGE; REQUIREMENT; SCENARIOS; SYSTEM;

DESIGN; SOLUTIONS;

SAPPHIRE;

EID: 84880803635     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060413000279     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Brown, D., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., DETC/CIE, Report No. DECT2005-85017, Long Beach, CA, September 24-2008.
2. Chakrabarti, A. (1998). Supporting two views of function in mechanical design. Workshop on Functional Modeling and Teleological Reasoning. Proc. 15th Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence National Conf. AI, Madison, WI, July 26-30.
3. Chakrabarti, A. (2001). Improving efficiency of procedures for compositional synthesis using bidirectional search. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 15(1), 67-80.
4. Chakrabarti, A. (2004).A newapproach to structure sharing. Journal of Computer and Information Science in Engineering 4(1), 11-19.
5. Chakrabarti, A., & Blessing, L. (1996). Representing functionality in design [Guest Editorial]. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 251-253.
6. Chakrabarti, A., Johnson, A., & Kiriyama, T. (1997). An approach to automated synthesis of solution principles for micro-sensor designs. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED97, pp. 125-128, Helsinki.
7. Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 113-132.
8. Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering With Computers 16, 162-177.
9. Chittaro, L., & Kumar, A. (1998). Reasoning about function and its applications to engineering. AI in Engineering 12(4), 331-336.
10. Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic function. Design Studies 31(4), 311-344.
11. Deng, Y. (2002). Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(5), 343-362.
12. Eckert, C. (2013). That which is not form: the practical challenges in using functional concepts in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 217-232 [this issue].
13. Gero, J. (1990). Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26-36.
14. Goel, A., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 23(1), 23-35.
15. Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13(2), 65-82.
16. Hubka, V., & Eder, W. (1988). Theory of Technical Systems: ATotal Concept Theory for Engineering Design. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17. Keuneke, A. (1991). Device representation-the significance of functional knowledge. IEEE Expert 6(2), 22-25.
18. Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2006). An ontological model of device function: industrial deployment and lessons learned. Journal of Applied Ontology 1(3-4), 237-262.
19. Kitamura, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2010). Characterizing functions based on ontological models from an engineering point of view. Proc. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), pp. 301-314. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
20. Miles, L. (1972). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Nidamarthi, S. (1999). Understanding and supporting requirement satisfaction in the design process. PhD Thesis. University of Cambridge.
22. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer-Verlag.
23. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1977). Konstruktionslehre. Berlin: Springer.
24. Ranjan, B.S.C. (2012). An extended, integrated model of designing. Masters Thesis. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
25. Ranjan, B.S.C., Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2012). The extended, integrated model of designing. Proc. Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering 2012, Karlsruhe, Germany, May 7-11.
26. Ranjan, B.S.C., Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2013). System-environment view in designing. CIRP Design: 2012 Sustainable Product Development, pp. 59-70. London: Springer-Verlag.
27. Rodenacker, W. (1971). Methodisches konstruieren. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
28. Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). An integrated model of designing. Journal of Computer and Information Science in Engineering 10(3), 031013.
30. Stone, R., & Chakrabarti, A. (2005). Engineering applications of representations of function [Guest Editorial]. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 63.
31. Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359-370.
32. Ullman, D. (1992). The Mechanical Design Process. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
33. Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y., & Tomiyama, T. (1996). Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 10(4), 275-288.
34. Vermaas, P. (2011). Accepting ambiguity of engineering functional descriptions. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED11, pp. 98-107. Copenhagen: Design Society.
35. Vermaas, P.E. (2013). The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 191-202 [this issue].
36. Wood, K., & Greer, J. (2001). Function-based synthesis methods in engineering design. In Formal Engineering Design Synthesis (Antonsson, E., & Cagan, J., Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.