Research Papers

Automatically Transforming Object-Oriented Graph-Based Representations Into Boolean Satisfiability Problems for Computational Design Synthesis

[+] Author and Article Information
Clemens Münzer

Engineering Design and Computing Laboratory,
ETH Zürich, Tannenstr. 3, CH-8092, Zürich,
e-mail: muenzerc@ethz.ch

Bergen Helms

Institute of Product Development, Technische Universität München,
Boltzmannstr. 15, DE-85748, Garching,
e-mail: helms@pe.mw.tum.de

Kristina Shea

Engineering Design and Computing Laboratory,
ETH Zürich, Tannenstr. 3, CH-8092, Zürich
e-mail: kshea@ethz.ch


brings object-oriented graph grammars into engineering.

Intel Xeon CPU E31245, 8 GB RAM, Windows7 64bit, SAT4J.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received March 13, 2013; final manuscript received June 7, 2013; published online July 15, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Irem Y. Tumer.

J. Mech. Des 135(10), 101001 (Jul 15, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1119; doi: 10.1115/1.4024850 History: Received March 13, 2013; Revised June 07, 2013

Ever since computers have been used to support human designers, a variety of representations have been used to encapsulate engineering knowledge. Computational design synthesis (CDS) approaches utilize this knowledge to generate design candidates for a specified task. However, new approaches are required to enable systematic solution space exploration. This paper presents an approach that combines a graph-based object-oriented knowledge representation with first-order logic and Boolean satisfiability. This combination is used as the foundation for a generic automated approach for requirement-driven computational design synthesis. Available design building blocks and a design task defined through a set of requirements are modeled in a graph-based environment and then automatically transferred into a Boolean satisfiability problem and solved, considering a given solution size. The Boolean solution is automatically transferred back to the graph-based domain. The method is validated through two case studies: synthesis of automotive powertrains and chemical process synthesis for ethyl alcohol production. The contribution of the paper is a new method that is able to determine if an engineering task is solvable for a given set of synthesis building blocks and enables systematic solution space exploration.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Hernandez, N., and Wood, K., 2011, “Computer-Based Design Synthesis Research: An Overview,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 11(2), p. 021003. [CrossRef]
VDI-Fachbereich Produktentwicklung und Mechatronik, 1993, “VDI 2221—Methodik zum Entwickeln und Konstruieren technischer Systeme und Produkte.”
Fachbach, B., 2011, “Anforderungen an die Konzeptphase aus Sicht der OEMs—Ergebnisse einer Befragung,” In 4. Grazer Symposium Virtuelles Fahrzeug.
Rude, S., 1998, Wissensbasiertes Konstruieren, 1st ed., Shaker Verlag, Herzogenrath, Germany.
Helms, B., and Shea, K., 2012, “Computational Synthesis of Product Concepts Based on Generalized Graph Grammars,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(2), p. 021008. [CrossRef]
Münzer, C., Helms, B., and Shea, K., 2012, “Automated Parametric Design Synthesis Using Graph Grammars and Constraint Solving,” ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Snavely, G., and Papalambros, P., 1993, “Abstraction as a Configuration Design Methodology,” Adv. Des. Autom., 1, pp. 297–305.
Wyatt, D., Wynn, D., Jarrett, J., and Clarkson, P., 2012, “Supporting Product Architecture Design Using Computational Design Synthesis With Network Structure Constraints,” Res. Eng. Des., 23(1), pp. 17–52. [CrossRef]
Sabin, D., and Weigel, R., 1998, “Product Configuration Frameworks—A Survey,” IEEE Intell. Syst., 12(4), pp. 42–49. [CrossRef]
van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., and Porter, B., eds., 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation, 1st ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Schmidt, L., and Cagan, J., 1997, “GGREADA: A Graph Grammar-Based Machine Design Algorithm,” Res. Eng. Des., 9(4), pp. 195–213. [CrossRef]
Schmidt, L., Shetty, H., and Chase, S., 2000, “A Graph Grammar Approach for Structure Synthesis of Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 371–376. [CrossRef]
Alber, R., and Rudolph, S., 2003, ““43”—A Generic Approach for Engineering Design Grammars,” AAAI Spring Symposium Computational Synthesis, AAAI Technical Report No. SS–03–02.
Schaefer, J., and Rudolph, S., 2005, “Satellite Design by Design Grammars,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 9, pp. 81–91. [CrossRef]
Landes, B., and Rudolph, S., 2011, “Aircraft Cabin Architectures Including Tolerancing Using a Graph-Based Design Language in UML,” In Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2011.
Starling, A., and Shea, K., 2005, “A Parallel Grammar for Simulation-Driven Mechanical Design Synthesis,” ASME 2005 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Bolognini, F., Seshia, A., and Shea, K., 2007, “Exploring the Application of Multidomain Simulation-Based Computational Synthesis Methods in MEMS Design,” International Conference on Engineering Design 2007—ICED’07, Design Society.
Lin, Y., Shea, K., Pears, J., and Johnson, A., 2009, “A Method and Software Tool for Automated Gearbox Synthesis,” ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Kurtoglu, T., and Campbell, M., 2009, “Automated Synthesis of Electromechanical Design Configurations From Empirical Analysis of Function to Form Mapping,” J. Eng. Des., 20(1), pp. 83–104. [CrossRef]
Campbell, M., Rai, R., and Kurtoglu, T., 2012, “A Stochastic Tree-Search Algorithm for Generative Grammars,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 12(3), p. 031006. [CrossRef]
Stanković, T., Štorga, M., Shea, K., and Marjanović, D., 2012, “Formal Modelling of Technical Processes and Technical Process Synthesis,” J. Eng. Des., 24, pp. 211–238. [CrossRef]
Hutcheson, R., Jordan, R., Stone, R., Terpenny, J., and Chang, X., 2006, “Application of a Genetic Algorithm to Concept Variant Selection,” ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Wyatt, D., Wynn, D., and Clarkson, J., 2009, “A Computational Method to Support Product Architecture Design,” ASME 2009 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
Rihtaršič, J., Žavbi, R., and Duhovnik, J., 2010, “SOPHY—Tool for Structure Synthesis of Conceptual Technical Systems,” 11th International Design Conference—DESIGN’10.
Jin, Y., and Li, W., 2007, “Design Concept Generation: A Hierarchical Coevolutionary Approach,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(10), pp. 1012–1022. [CrossRef]
Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., and Wood, K., 2002, “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts,” NIST Tech. Note, 1447, pp. 1–43.
Helms, B., Schultheiß, H., and Shea, K., 2013, “Automated Mapping of Physical Effects to Functions Using Abstraction Ports Based on Bond Graphs,” J. Mech. Des., 135(5), p. 051006. [CrossRef]
Helms, Bergen, 2013, “Object-Oriented Graph Grammars for Computational Design Synthesis,” Technische Universität München. Available at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:91-diss-20130208-1113665-0-9
Braha, D., 2001, “Design-as-Satisfiability: A New Approach to Automated Synthesis,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal. Manuf., 15(5), pp. 385–399.
Hatchuel, A., and Weil, B., 2003, “A New Approach on Innovative Design: An Introduction to C-K Theory,” International Conference on Engineering Design–ICED’03.
Shai, O., Reich, Y., Hatchuel, A., and Subrahmanian, E., 2009, “Creativity Theories and Scientific Discovery: A Study of C-K Theory and Infused Design,” International Conference on Engineering Design—ICED’09.
Hendriks, L., and Osman, A., 2011, “A Method for Design Reasoning Using Logic: From Semantic Tableaux to Design Tableaux,” International Conference on Engineering Design—ICED’11.
Hendriks, L., and Kazakci, A., 2012, “A Design Assistant Architecture Based on Design Tableaux,” International Design Conference—DESIGN 2012.
International Organization for Standardization, 2004, “Information Technology—Metadata Registries (MDR)-Part 1: Framework,” Report No. ISO/IEC 11179-1.
Helms, B., Hoisl, F., and Shea, K., 2009, “A Framework for Computational Design Synthesis Based on Graph-Grammars and Function-Behavior-Structure,” ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Pahl, G., Beoltz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H., 2007, Konstruktionslehre, 7th ed., Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Hoffmann, D., 2009, Theoretische Inormatik, 1st ed., Carl Hanser Verlag, München, Germany.
Zhang, L., and Malik, S., 2002, “The Quest for Efficient Boolean Satisfiability Solvers,” Comput. Aided Verification, pp.641–653.
Eén, N., and Sörensson, N., 2008, “An Extensible SAT-solver,” 11th International Conference: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing.
Liang, V.-C., and Paredis, C., 2004, “A Port Ontology for Conceptual Design of Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 4(3), pp. 206–217. [CrossRef]
Hubka, V., and Eder, W., 1988, Theory of Technical Systems, 1ST ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
W3C OWL Working Group, 2004, OWL web ontology language.
Jackson, D., 2012, Software Abstractions: Logic, Language and Analysis, 2nd ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Torlak, E., 2009, A Constraint Solver for Software Engineering: Finding Models and Cores of Large Relational Specifications, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Helms, B., and Shea, K., 2010, “Booggie—An Object-Oriented Graph Grammar Implementation for Engineering Design Synthesis,” 4th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition—DCC'10.
Jakumeit, E., Buchwald, S., and Kroll, M., 2010, “GrGen.NET,” Int. J. Software Tools Technol. Transfer, 12(3), pp. 263–271. [CrossRef]
Auber, D., 2003, “Tulip: A Huge Graph Visualisation Framework,” Graph Drawing Softwares, P.Mutzel and M.Jünger, eds., Mathematics and Visualization, Springer-Verlag, pp. 105–126.
Jackson, D., 2002, “Alloy: A Lightweight Object Modeling Language Notation,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol., 11, pp. 256–290. [CrossRef]
Sörensson, N., and Eén, N., 2005, “Minisat v1.13-A Sat Solver With Conflict-Clause Minimization,” SAT Competition2005.
Berre, D. L., and Parrain, A., 2010, “The Sat4j Library, Release 2.2 System Description,” J. Satisfiability, Boolean Model. Comput., 7, pp. 59–64.
Goldberg, E., and Novikov, Y., 2007, “BerkMin: a Fast and Robust SAT-Solver,” Discrete Appl. Math., 155(12), pp. 1549–1561. [CrossRef]
Moskewicz, M., Madiagn, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., and Malik, S., 2001, “Chaff: Engineering an Efficient SAT Solver,” 39th Design Automation Conference.
Biegler, L., Grossmann, I., and Westerberg, A., 1997, Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design, 1st ed., Prentice-Hall PTR, New Jersey.
Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Finger, S., and Tomiyama, T., 2005, “A Framework for Computational Design Synthesis: Model and Applications,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 5(3), pp. 171–181. [CrossRef]
Falkner, A., Haselböck, A., Schenner, G., and Schreiner, H., 2011, “Modeling and Solving Technical Product Configuration Problems,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal. Manuf., 25(2), pp. 115–129. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Graph-based product model using function, behavior, and structure levels and design synthesis process steps [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Example taxonomy of flow-ports

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A connection between a clutch and a gearbox as an example for elements and their connections. Throughout this paper, the in-ports are always located on the left-hand side and the out-ports always on the right-hand side of the element.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A port-matching-problem example and its corresponding problem element

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

First-order logic general taxonomy with example ports and elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Meaning of the predicates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Example element E1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Port hierarchy for chemical process synthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Element hierarchy for chemical process synthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The three generated process alternatives for the chemical process synthesis task

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Metamodel for the approach of Helms and Shea [5]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison between a unique and an enhanced solution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Structures enhancing the unique solutions. The subtopologies on the left-hand side can be replaced by those on the right-hand side.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Unique solution (Scope: 11/30, calculation time: 28 min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

The elements structured in categories over their abstracted port configuration from Fig. 13

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Metamodel for this work




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In