The application of a knowledge based engineering approach to the rapid design and analysis of an automotive structure
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft
The application of a knowledge based engineering approach to the rapid
design and analysis of an automotive structure
Craig B. Chapman*, Martyn Pinfold
Warwick Manufacturing Group, Advanced Technology Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Received 17 February 2000; revised 14 December 2000; accepted 29 June 2001
Abstract
This paper describes a knowledge based engineering system (KBES) to extend the current capabilities of automotive body-in-white (BIW)
engineers. It allows them to respond dynamically to changes within a rapid timeframe and to assess the effects of change with respect to the
constraints imposed upon them by other product cycle factors. The system operates by creating a uni®ed model description that queries rules
as to the suitability of the concept design and is built using a standard KBES to reduce project costs and system implementation. Knowledge
from expert engineers and technical literature are captured and represented within the KBE application framework. q 2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge based engineering; Computer aided design; Finite element analysis; Meshing; Design automation; Automotive application
1. Introduction Design effort to optimise material usage and improved
construction methods has lead to the use of mixed material
The use of computing technology in the design and analy- structures. More design effort and time will be needed to
sis of automobiles has been developing at an increasing rate. ensure the optimum design for this wider range of options.
Such systems are currently used piecemeal and provide This in turn requires a faster method for concept structure
solutions to very speci®c problems. Understanding the design in order to avoid the lengthening design and
vast amount of data and managing its ¯ow through complex development programmes for these hybrid material body
systems is extremely dif®cult without an integrated systems structures.
approach. One such approach is the use of knowledge based This paper describes the design analysis response tool
engineering (KBE) techniques as a way of organising the (DART) created to aid in the design/analysis of a BIW
data ¯ow and as architecture for the effective implementa- structure consisting of structural beams, jointing methods
tion of automated variant design solutions. A speci®c chal- and body panel creation.
lenge is the integration of concept design tools to allow the
rapid development of structural design solutions within the
body-in-white (BIW) automotive area while supporting 2. The BIW design analysis problem
existing analytical solutions.
BIW is an automotive term used to describe the structural An integral part of the BIW structure design route is the
body of a vehicle. The structure is comprised of many sub- analysis of components or assemblies using ®nite element
structures that come together to form a framework. The (FE) techniques. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the design analysis
framework has a number of functions such as distributing procedure may be broken down into four distinct phases:
the structural load and providing a level of safety in the case product modelling, pre-processing, analysis and post-
of impact. External environmental legislation is forcing processing.
automotive manufacturers to minimise body weight. The In order to accurately analyse the computer aided design
BIW represents the heaviest singular component that has (CAD) geometric product model and recognise it as a real
the largest in¯uence on many of the vehicle characteristics. world entity, additional non-geometric information is
required by the analysis process. Thus, material property
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 144-24-76-524-721;
data is attached to the model and the model subjected to
fax: 144-24-76-524-783. forces, stresses and strains. In FE analysis, the model is
E-mail address: c.b.chapman@warwick.ac.uk (C.B. Chapman). broken down into a large number of interconnecting FEs
0965-9978/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0965-997 8(01)00041-2904 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
Fig. 1. The design analysis loop.
that form an appropriate mesh, each element knows its automatic meshing routines, they as yet still require time
material, mechanical and thermal properties. This informa- consuming manual modi®cation to create optimum loca-
tion allows the prediction of the resultant effect of loads at lised conditions within the model. The next phase of the
particular points in the model. The analysts then use their actual analysis requires the analyst to run the analysis
experience to interpret the results and make suggestions to program. This is normally done in batch mode, in which
the designer, who then makes the necessary manual changes the job is submitted to the computer to run automatically
to the original model. Currently, in the traditional BIW in the background or overnight. The ®nal phase is post-
environment the design and analysis stages are de-coupled processing or the interpretation of the results. The system
as they are undertaken by different experts utilising different presents the results to the analyst who veri®es or suggests
computer softwares and creating separate non-relational changes to the design model. The results generated are one
product models. Once changes have been agreed the of many factors that aid the engineer in determining the
engineers re®ne their individual models and the analysis± feasibility of the original design or in further optimisation
modify loop is entered into again until a satisfactory result is and redesign strategies.
obtained. The need to consider a number of different alternatives at
Most authors [1±3] agree that the most time consuming an early stage in design has been well established. A tool for
part of undertaking an analysis is the pre-processing, i.e. the automatically modelling and analysing the behaviour of a
creation of the analysis model, as the models created in design would aid the designer by providing the facilities to
CAD systems have to be processed to ensure that they are consider more varied alternatives. In many cases within a
in a suitable form for meshing. As Jones et al. [3] state the company the geometry, FE mesh and boundary conditions
geometric model created in a CAD system can be incoherent for the analysis are generically essentially the same for
and ambiguous and ªmay require signi®cant cleaning and many generations of components. Currently any geometry
modi®cation in preparation for meshing and analysisº. To of such a structure provided by a CAD system to an analyst
avoid these problems analysts may create their own model has to be simpli®ed before the creation of an FE mesh and
from scratch [3,4]. The creation of a model for analysis subsequent structural analysis. This simpli®cation and mesh
involves importing the model in the form of a neutral ®le creation process can be very time consuming, Desaleux and
format from the (CAD) system. Alternatively, in the case of Fouet [5] state that the costs for the creation of an FE mesh
the CAD and analysis system sharing the same data base represent about 80% of the total analysis cost.
structure, the analysts use the CAD model to make the The BIW group although existing at present as an island
necessary changes and then store the model to the data of automation was required to interface with both upstream
base as a new model. This leads to the analyst creating a and downstream clients in the product cycle. These clients
totally new model within the analysis software package. All imposed constraints that had to be adhered to. Upstream
these present strategies lead to model duplication. Once the clients such as styling and packaging imposed an outer
model is correctly represented within the analysis environ- surface de®nition (OSD), areas of attachment and also no-
ment, materials and loading conditions are applied and a go areas. A structural member's position may be optimised,
mathematical mesh representation created. This is time but if were to pass through an occupants body there would
consuming as although some systems have developed surely be complaints. The downstream clients such asC.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 905
manufacturing need to take the developed structure within disciplinary teams helps to reduce concurrency barriers that
their CAD systems and develop a fully detailed vehicle exist in today's process. It was felt that the key to the natural
representation, at present the data structure of the FE model- integration of such systems into the BIW area must lie in the
ling software prevents this. BIW design can be seen as a fact that any system can be created utilising traditionally
routine or variant design problem, as the same generic understood concurrent engineering (CE) methods and be
problem is faced over and over again, the design require- modi®ed and used readily by the workforce in the domain
ments are understood, including the knowledge needed but area without necessitating the use of additional resources,
the speci®c design solution and the pattern of use of the which are only speci®cally focussed on one area of a system
knowledge is not repetitive. This type of problem lends development.
itself to automation by the use of a KBE system [6].
3.1. Concurrent engineering
2.1. Problem summary
CE allows the engineering team to utilise the varied
inputs, knowledge and technology to speed up product
1. The present methods of using CAD and ®nite element development by integrating product cycle concerns as
analysis (FEA) systems do not use a uni®ed product/ early as possible in the design process, by performing simul-
process model representation and lead to the creation of taneously many activities that used to be performed in
separate non-relational data models that only capture the sequence [7]. For CE to work, the agents in the product
result of the engineering process. cycle need to be integrated with respect to appropriate infor-
2. The present methods do not automatically transform or mation exchange. For the purpose of creating an integrated
simplify the model to suit the speci®c process request. design environment, computer tools are used to complement
3. The present methods do not automate the meshing and assist the multidisciplinary team, giving the ability of
process with respect to `best-practice' guidelines, mate- each member to access a common product model data struc-
rial or assembly considerations. ture. Using today's traditional CAD tools and the reliance of
geometric modellers to provide representations necessary to
create a high degree of parallelism in the design process is
unlikely to succeed [8]. Most research focuses on one or a
3. The solution small number of product cycle activities [9] and the more
abstract design activities such as the capture of functional-
The BIW engineers experience is used to develop a body
ity, conceptual design and the generation of design alterna-
structure concept consisting of beams, joints and panels to
tives, reuse and reasoning are just impossible [10]. To
satisfy the vehicle requirements with respect to strength,
overcome these limitations set by the traditional design
durability, stiffness, low frequency vibration and crash. To
tools, we are now seeing a revolution in design, one
save time, existing FE models that closely represent the type
where the knowledge of the actual process is being repre-
of structure required called donor cases are looked into and
sented. The speci®cations are being transformed into sets of
modi®ed to suit, within the analysis software packages. If
attributed objects that act together to satisfy the speci®ca-
the vehicle were of a new type that did not suit using a past
tion. We are also seeing the role of the human/computer
case then a new concept structure would be developed
interface changing, where the system takes a more active
within the analysis package. It became clear through discus-
role. The interface allowing human ideas to be externalised
sions that if the current situation were to improve then the
and the limited inference abilities of the design tools are
way of working must change. It would be necessary to move
being increased to interpret and assess the impact of any
away from a progression of simpli®ed to detailed meshed
change to the product cycle model. One of the methods
models created directly within the analysis software and that
being used and researched to acquire, represent, store,
could not be used directly by the other product cycle clients
reason and communicate the intent of the design process
to a modelling environment that could satisfy the needs of
is KBE.
all the clients.
By taking a holistic approach to BIW design that meets 3.2. Knowledge based engineering
this need, we needed to create a free form three-dimensional
feature based environment that would provide a concept KBE represents an evolutionary step in CAE and is an
area where the engineers could bring in past models or engineering method that represents a merging of object
create new structural models rapidly. These structural oriented programming (OOP), arti®cial intelligence (AI)
models then needed to be veri®ed with respect to the techniques and CAD technologies, giving bene®t to custo-
style, packaging and manufacturing constraints. In the mised or variant design automation solutions. KBE systems
®nal stage, the model needed to automatically transform aim to capture product and process information in such a
into the representation required for whichever product way as to allow businesses to model engineering design
cycle client requests it, based on in house best-practice processes, and then use the model to automate all or part
knowledge. Capturing the best knowledge from the multi- of the process. The emphasis is on providing, informational906 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
Fig. 2. Initial basic layout.
complete product representations, captured in a product created within the KBE environment. Once ASTROS has
model. The product model represents the engineering intent been used to create an optimal structure the cost model,
behind the product design, storing the how, why and what of which is based on a preliminary level manufacturing analy-
a design. The product model is an internal computer repre- sis, is used to determine both one time and per piece costs
sentation of the product design process and can contain for producing the wing design. The research [19] reports
information on both the product and processes that go to that the program developed signi®cantly reduced the time
create the part. Attributes can describe geometry, functional to create the ASTROS FE models.
constraints, material type and processes such as the methods
required to analyse, manufacture and cost a part. The KBE 3.3. Implementation
product model can also use information outside its product
model environment such as databases and external company There have been many development methodologies
programs. The ultimate goal of the KBE system is to capture suggested for the KBS domain, such as KADS [20]. These
the best design practices and engineering expertise into a methodologies have been aimed at assisting the developer
corporate knowledge base. KBE methodology provides an de®ne and model the problem in question. Successful
open framework for formally capturing and de®ning the commercial KBE developments have not followed these
process of design creation within a system that can infer routes as the methodologies are felt not to be ¯exible
and then act on this information [11]. There have been enough to model the dynamic design engineering environ-
many examples of KBE being successfully used to model ment. Work carried out by the MOKA Consortium (metho-
products that require knowledge from various design cycle dology and software tools oriented to knowledge based
activities and represent themselves based on the varying engineering applications) recognises the de®ciency in
activity perspectives, such as Textron Aerostructures who dynamic methodologies speci®c to the KBE domain [21]
announced the deployment of a tooling design application and aims to provide the KBE community with a working
that delivered a 73% reduction in design time [12]. Boeing implementation/development methodology. The ¯exible
has published that approximately 20,000 parts for the 777 nature of KBE tools does not dictate a particular
aircraft have been designed using KBE [13]. The use of implementation or development approach. However, many
KBE within the British Aerospace sector has lead to cases applications follow a similar pattern, that of a normal
such as the BAe Airbus Rib Foot KBE application which design-engineering problem. The only difference being the
when using Parametric CAD and analysis tools took on an use of a KBES language to implement the desired solution
A340-600 aircraft 1 man year to design and analyse all the and due to the object-oriented nature of KBES and the use of
rib feet once. Using KBE and using a holistic approach the rapid application development (RAD) programming techni-
entire A340-600 wing is done in 10 h [14]. A number of ques. The process of incremental development accom-
papers have been published by the US Air Force Research plishes implementation.
Laboratory [15±19] which discuss the development of a The ®rst step is to state the problem. Full de®nition is not
structural modelling tool using KBE techniques to address required as the prototype model is often used to `bring out'
structural concept designs of a uninhabited combat air full and open discussions between all personnel involved in
vehicle (UCAV). The papers concentrate on the design of the product life cycle. The DART initial speci®cation and
a wing with the KBE environment being used to integrate project requirements were gathered by using standard CE
the model with various analysis programs such as ASTROS methods, consisting of initial meetings to understand the
FE analysis, an activity based cost model and a commercial problem, focussed interviews with relevant engineering
optimisation algorithm called design optimisation tools staff, the iterative creation of solutions (paper based) and
(DOT). The input data deck for the ASTROS analysis is open brainstorming meetings bringing about focussedC.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 907
decomposition varying the intelligence of the objects. For
example, primitive objects might only know how to draw
themselves, whereas higher level objects will use the knowl-
edge base to make speci®c decisions regarding their shape,
relationships, manufacturing process and cost.
Part object terminology changes depending on the appli-
cation domain. As most KBE systems are based on OOP
methodology, they solve problems by de®ning, creating and
manipulating collections of data and procedures called
objects. The terminology and concepts behind OOP and
KBE relate to how objects are de®ned, have properties
assigned to them, how they interact and how they are
Fig. 3. Class and object relationship.
combined to form more complex objects.
The object encapsulates the data or properties, and the
agreed actions between all product-cycle concerns. Treating methods to manipulate that data into a single unit. The class
the project as a normal engineering problem solving exer- is the template, and the object is speci®c case, (Fig. 3). An
cise meant that all people involved in supplying rules and object with a particular set of values is called an instance, of
de®ning the system had the necessary skill sets. The CE a class de®nition.
team meetings were held over a period of time until a system When values change that are used by the object to calcu-
requirement and initial layout was established. The require- late properties or as parameters for method procedures, the
ment was agreed as follows. object is re-evaluated. This is called demand driven compu-
The concept design system will use the speci®ed struc- tation and is a fundamental difference between OOP and
tural performance and overall dimensions to establish an conventional procedural programming. It is typical that
appropriate stiffness distribution within the constraints of any change made to a procedural language or CAD/CAM
the initial style and package. It will then use relevant struc- macro language will result in re-computing everything,
tural, manufacturing and material knowledge to create an since the computations are performed in sequence. In a
initial concept body structure. The structural performance of procedural language a value is computed when the proce-
this design will be assessed using FE simulation, for which dure for computing it is encountered in the sequence. In
the system will generate appropriate FE models and analysis KBE systems, values are computed only when required.
input data. For the evaluation of the effects of modi®cations This technique is called dependency backtracking. For
on the structural performance the system will revise the example if the topology changes, the model will not be re-
design in accordance with any geometric changes which computed until a request is made to draw the object on
the designer makes, and generate updated analysis input to screen, or a calculation for the changed objects mass proper-
re-evaluate its structural performance within a timescale ties are made.
needed to support the design decision processes. The tools The method of creating objects is very similar in most
will be developed for use by structural analysts and body commercial KBE systems. The adaptive modelling
concept engineers, see Fig. 2. language (AML) from TechnoSoft [22] used within this
After stating the problem and identifying the information project has the ability to create objects and write rules
required by the model, key objects were created, to form a from templates that assist the designer in writing the
parts library. As each of the part objects was de®ned, they programme. The object or de®ne-class form is used to de®ne
were individually tested, by creating an instance of the new classes. In any de®ne-class, the following may be
object. Part objects created within the KBE system form speci®ed:
the building blocks of any model, often representing real
world objects. The DART model breaks down into six main 1. Other classes which the new class should inherit from
parts the style, packaging, structural members, joints and (superclasses).
panels. These parts then decompose further, each stage of 2. The properties for the new class and their formulas (attri-
butes).
3. The sub-objects of the new class (children).
The next step was to create an initial conceptual product
model. This is not a complete representation, but acted as a
®rst draft, a blueprint of the implementation. The conceptual
product model can be thought of as a schematic of the
completed system. A product model tree (Fig. 4) describes
a particular design instance of a product model. This struc-
Fig. 4. Product model tree. ture describes the hierarchical relationships between the908 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
Fig. 5. AML virtual layer architecture [22].
various components (parts and processes) of the model. The There are some development process differences in that
model also determines the methods of how the objects will the process is not entirely sequential, key parts of the devel-
obtain the correct information, in order to carry out their opment occur simultaneously [25]. The developer sequen-
speci®c tasks and as to the information they will provide to tially works from system analysis through design and
other objects. This hierarchical abstraction means the programming to testing, and ®nally ends up with the
decomposition of information into levels of increasing product. Changes are made to the system design at the
detail [23,24]. The decisions made by the system to create appropriate level, rippling down to the rest of the program.
a model will be based on the user inputs and the knowledge The developer then changes the code and retests the system.
bases. With RAD, the developer designs and prototypes the
Using the initial part library and conceptual product component parts separately. This type of technique allows
model as a starting point, a subset of the overall system is teams of engineers to work in parallel.
de®ned, complete with user interfaces (UIs). The system is
extended by increasing the part library, UI and by expanding 3.5. Hardware and software
the object class de®nitions. The incremental RAD develop-
To develop the system a Silicon Graphics R10000 and a
ment approach means that the system can be continuously
P400 PC running Windows95 were purchased. A number of
evaluated and utilised as it is always operational.
commercial KBES were assessed for project feasibility. The
system needed to run independently on both UNIX and PC
3.4. Rapid application development platforms and its commercial cost needed to be below the
allocated project budget costs of £75,000 when included
Building KBE systems within the iterative design envir-
with the computer hardware. It needed to have an open
onment has lead to the use of RAD techniques being
architecture (Fig. 5) with easy interface creation, knowledge
employed, by KBE developers. A typical system will evolve
capture methods and geometric reasoning capabilities. The
over time. Akman [23] suggests that the strategy, in the
AML from TechnoSoft was selected as the most cost effec-
development of an intelligent CAD system, should be to
tive solution and provided a KBE framework that allowed
ªPlan to throw one away. You will anyhowº. The nature
the capture of knowledge from the modelled domain and the
of design is an exploratory adventure within a set of possibly
ability to create free form parametric models with that
con¯icting constraints. The techniques of RAD are comple-
knowledge. To meet the analysis requirements a PATRAN
mentary to the designer's natural way of working, RAD is in
and an ANSYS license were purchased.
fact exploratory programming. The techniques advocate
iterative programme enhancement, leading to an evolution-
ary life cycle. The KBE system starts with a skeletal system, 4. The design analysis response tool system
with new modules added until a review stage is entered into.
From the rapid prototype demonstration, the strengths and The DART application is designed to allow the BIW
weaknesses are assessed and the program developed further. engineer to interact through a set of menus and graphicalC.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 909
4.2. Frame structure design
This task addressed the various issues related to the
design of the structural frame. These issues dealt with
the speci®cation of the various structures members
centre curve, cross-sections type, shape constraints,
interference checking and interference avoidance. The
creation of the structural frame design addressed the
issues related to the design of the structural beams,
the frame interlocking joints, stiffening and joining
panels. Issues related to 3D positioning and routing of
the structure was addressed to allow the speci®cation of
the various frame members, i.e. members attached to
Fig. 6. Frame structure around style model. the sheet body, and or stiffening members. The system
allowed non-geometric data to be assigned by the engi-
neer, such as material type, target stiffness, etc.
interface tools, to rapidly create a BIW space-frame struc- The user can edit, if necessary, any of the member or
ture with panelling in a three dimensional solid/surface panel details or positions. From a standard library of exist-
representation. The model can be created in a non-structured ing designs, general stiffness targets for each member can be
way with material and target stiffness information added at obtained based on the overall size of the vehicle being
any point in the modelling session. Structure sub-parts such analysed. The DART system will automatically check the
as beams, joints and panels can be modi®ed in real time member geometry and materials against the required stiff-
without consideration of the analysis requirements. At any ness targets and allow alterations if necessary. This is a very
point within the design session, the engineer has the ability quick ®rst shot analysis to ensure the vehicle being designed
to simplify the design model automatically for input to is realistic. At this stage, the geometry or material of the
analysis. The concept structure can be veri®ed at any members can be altered before more costly and detailed
point within the session with respect to manufacturability analysis is undertaken. The DART system can be used to
styling and packaging con¯icts. do `what if' analyses by studying the effects of altering
materials, removing structural members, altering the posi-
4.1. Vehicle surface model and packaging tion of member's etc. This quick analysis allows the effects
of change, maybe due to packaging problems to be assessed
The initial input to the DART structural process, is the such that their relative importance to the overall stiffness
speci®cation of a vehicle OSD. This OSD forms the outer targets can be assessed before a more time consuming and
working constraint to which the BIW structural package costly analysis is undertaken. In addition, if relevant manu-
must adhere to and meet all its functionality. Secondary facturing information is stored within the database, and the
attachment and `no-go' areas are de®ned by the importing user selects a particular type of material and manufacturing
of packaging objects, for example mannequins and power- method, the system will highlight any case were the rules
train components. The system was developed to enable the have been violated. For example, using AML's geometric
speci®cation of the OSD using: reasoning capabilities a member might return to the rule
base that a radius of curvature is too small to allow the
² Imported data via standard format such as IGES, STEP, component to be manufactured using the speci®ed method
(style and packaging). or material.
² The speci®cation of structured point data sets, de®ning The model created at this stage can be used as a master
the OSD surfaces and edges boundaries, (style only). model to provide downstream clients with exact geometry,
² The import of models via native CAD database formats, negating the need for model replication in other systems.
e.g. Parasolid and Shapes, (style and packaging). The model can be also used to provide more than just
² The import of previously stored models retrieved from geometric information the non-geometric information
the object database, (style and packaging). This provides contained within the KBE object model can also be queried
a rapid response to the analyst if changes late in the to provide manufacturing or costing information, and can
development programme have occurred, such as packa- also be output through neutral ®le formats to non-integrated
ging alterations that will force modi®cation to the systems. However, the aim of the DART system is to enable
assigned structural members. rapid structure creation and a detailed FEA of the structure
to be undertaken. Fig. 6 shows a system screenshot of an
If a model was not available at this level of concept imported style model. Showing the build up of a frame
design the system allows for the structure to be de®ned structure using adaptive-beam-objects and automatic cast-
without reference to an initial OSD. node-joint-objects.910 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
Fig. 7. Simpli®ed and full model representation.
4.3. Simpli®ed geometry for analysis mixture of both depending upon the material selected and
the loads applied. Rule sets have been created for how these
Upon receipt of a detailed CAD model of the automotive joints should be represented within the FE model. The parti-
body structure in the BIW analysis area, the analyst will ®rst cular types of joints to be used will be determined by the
seek to simplify that model. This will entail the deletion or KBE system depending upon the surrounding material type.
modi®cation of much of the detail. The analyst will then If a cast aluminium joint is to be used for example, then the
start to create the FE mesh based mainly upon past experi- KBE system will automatically determine the allowable
ence of how various components and features should be mating length and adjust the connecting members automa-
presented in the FE modelling package. Some items, such tically. This information will be used when simplifying the
as the engine may be represented as a lumped mass rather geometry for analysis such that the appropriate position and
than in any detail, and these may be obtained from a library types of element to represent the joints is chosen and their
of such standard parts. However, the manner in which the associated constants such as stiffness are applied. Fig. 7
analyst simpli®es the initial CAD geometry should be the shows a simple structure created in DART in both its natural
same regardless of the size or type of vehicle being analysed solid representation and then its simpli®ed analysis repre-
as, for example, the same types of components and jointing sentation, a simpli®ed surface model with gauge thickness
methods are used. Thus, the types of elements used, the described as associated attribute thickness.
element size, the methods of modelling joints, etc. should
be the same each time. Each time this geometry modi®ca- 4.4. Mesh generation
tion is undertaken the analyst repeats the same generic steps.
The panels are usually are usually represented as shell Once the simpli®ed representations of the design model
elements in a FE analysis and thus, the detailed geometry suitable for the creation of a FE mesh is created it could be
needs to be simpli®ed such that the panel is represented as a passed to an external system for mesh generation. However,
simple surface. This, in some areas, may mean that when the as the AML software has a module for mesh generation, the
surface data for the panels is extracted from the detailed FE mesh can be automatically generated within AML based
CAD model, gaps between adjacent surfaces may appear, on the rules contained within the system. Rules have been
or some surfaces may overlap. Before any subsequent crea- created in the DART database regarding the creation of the
tion of a FE mesh this surface representation may need mesh, and hence, this is done automatically and takes only a
`mending'. As the methods of doing this `mend' are few minutes. From the rule base the system knows which
known then the KBE system can do this automatically. types of elements should be used. The vehicle structure
The structural members for analysis are also represented requires two different types of analysis models to be created.
as shell elements. This means that the detailed CAD model One for stiffness analysis and one for impact modelling.
with gauge thickness again needs to be transformed into Thus, two different rule sets need to be created, as the
shells and the appropriate constants such as thickness mesh required may be different for each case in terms of
applied. In some areas, the members are represented as element types, mesh density and boundary conditions for
beam elements. In this case, the detailed geometry is trans- example. Also, the output ®les required are different as
formed into a beam representation and the appropriate the analyses are undertaken in different software packages.
constants, such as cross-sectional area and moments of iner- Currently only the rule sets for the generation of the FE
tia, are calculated from the solid geometry and applied to the mesh for the stiffness analysis have been created. The output
beams. The rule sets for how the geometry is to be trans- ®le from DART is in a format suitable for use in the ANSYS
formed have been created such that this is done automati- analysis software with various types of elements such as
cally by the KBE system and the appropriate mesh beams and shells being used. This output ®le contains all
automatically created. of the ANSYS commands required to undertake a stiffness
The various panels and structural members are joined in analysis of the structure. The boundary conditions for the
particular ways. They may be spot welded, bonded or a analysis are applied within DART from a database ofC.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 911
automotive structure consideration here is typically between
80,000 and 250,000 and the mesh generation can entail up to
®fteen man weeks of effort upon receipt of the CAD model.
Currently, due to the time and cost required to generate the
analysis models, they are often used in a post-design phase
to evaluate a ®nal design that will only be modi®ed if the
results are unacceptable. This work has demonstrated that if
the geometry simpli®cation and mesh generation is
achieved in a KBE system such as DART then the FE
mesh can be generated in minutes. The meshing is done
with respect to heuristic material and analysis solution
rule bases at an object level. The FE mesh created in
DART is directly associated with the model geometry and
Fig. 8. Automatic quad mesh. thus any alteration of the model due to packaging problems
for example does not entail costly and time consuming
re-work. The new mesh is automatically regenerated,
standard boundary conditions for different sizes and types of reducing enormously the overall time taken for the analysis
vehicles. Similarly, a database of material properties is of the structure, which means that the analysis department
available. The DART system automatically chooses the can respond much more quickly to potential design changes
element types based on the rules such that, for example, a imposed by other departments.
different shell element is used if the structure is composite to The use of DART also means that many more design
that used if the structure is steel. The user does have the options can be studied in the same time as was previously
ability to override the system such that solid elements may used, and thus the use of new materials to optimise the
be used in place of shells for example, if they are more solution can be investigated. In a traditional engineering
appropriate. As already mentioned, the element properties environment, more material options tends to lead to slower
required by the analysis software are computed automati- overall design and analysis times. Thus, these material
cally. In addition, the elements are grouped in such manner options may not be investigated at all due to the need to
to facilitate ease of manipulations. do things quickly. Use of different materials in a hybrid
Such automatic creation of an FE mesh based on rule sets material structure may mean that different element types
does tend to formalise this information and allows a stan- are needed, e.g. composites may use a laminated shell
dardised mesh to be created time after time. This ensures element, and the joint types are also different. This selection
that the sum methods of modelling are always used for of element types is done automatically in the KBE system
particular items such as spot welds, such that the same once the material type is applied as the system has rule sets
types of elements are used, the same element properties for the simpli®cation of the geometry and the types of
are used and the geometry is simpli®ed in the same manner. element to be used. Thus, the use of the DART system
However, within such a KBE system there is always the means that the engineers can investigate more `what if'
possibility of allowing the users to override defaults such scenarios than would traditionally be possible due to the
that design creativity is not sti¯ed and other possible time constraints. These quick analyses allow the effect of
solutions studied. Fig. 8 shows a system screenshot of an alterations Ð may be due to packaging problems Ð to be
automatic quad mesh created from design model. assessed such that their relative importance to the overall
stiffness targets can be assessed before a more time consum-
4.5. Integration and graphical user interface ing FE analysis is undertaken. This should result in better,
more optimised design solutions being achieved.
This task focussed on the integration of the various
modules in a single framework supported by a common
GUI focussing on the design automation of the vehicle
6. Conclusions
frame. The application code was implemented, integrated
and tested using AML. Initially the implementation
The use of the DART system developed here negates the
focussed on the part geometry features, speci®cations and
need to create a new model for analysis. The detailed
detailing. Once the architecture was reviewed and accepted,
geometry created is automatically transformed into the
a custom UI was developed to enable the dynamic manip-
form required for analysis purposes hence reducing duplica-
ulation and modi®cation of the part models.
tion of the CAD model. As the models are all created from a
uni®ed model description duplication of data is eliminated.
5. Bene®ts of DART Thus by using the DART system the analysis department
can respond much more quickly to potential design changes
The number of elements used in the analysis of the type of imposed by other departments. In addition the use of the912 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
DART system also means that the investigation of the use of [7] Brandon JA, Huang GQ. Cooperating expert systems for CADCAM,
new materials to optimise the design is much easier and Proceedings of the 29th International MATADOR Conference,
Manchester, UK, 6±7 April 1992.
quicker and that manufacturing concerns can be veri®ed
[8] Manufacturing Information Models EPSRC GR/L41493. Loughbor-
from within the modelling session. The system also provides ough University, www.lboro.ac.uk.
a useable model and information to other product cycle [9] Case K, Gao JX. Feature technology Ð an overview, Proceedings of
clients. Whilst the system described here is speci®c to an the Symposium on Feature-Based Approaches to Design and Process
automotive structure the methodology used is generic and Planning, 24±25 September. UK: Loughborough University of
can be applied to any structure where the same steps in the Technology, 1991.
[10] Henderson MR. Representing functionality and design intent in
analysis are undertaken time after time. product models, Second Symposium on Solid Modelling and Appli-
cations, vol. 1 1993. p. 387±97.
[11] Chapman CB. The design process: a need to rethink the solution using
Acknowledgements knowledge based engineering. University of Warwick, MSc Thesis.
February 1997.
This work was undertaken as part of a UK Government [12] Brewer H. Automated tool design: age forming tool for aerospace
EPSRC sponsored research programme under the IMI Land panels, International ICAD Users Group Conference Proceeding
Transport programme entitled Structural Advanced Light- 1996.
[13] Heinz A. 777 rule based design: integrated fuselage system, Interna-
weight Vehicle Objective Project 4 (SALVO 4). The partner
tional ICAD Users Group Conference Proceeding 1996.
companies to the University of Warwick in this part of the [14] Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Knowledge-Based Engi-
programme are Rover Group, British Steel and Ove Arup neeringÐA Best Practise Guide. London, UK: Paul Gay, DTI, 2000.
Ltd. TechnoSoft supplied the AML used for this project, and [15] Blair M, Hill S, Weisshaar T, Taylor R. Rapid modelling with inno-
the authors would like to thank them for their support vative structural concepts. American Institute of Aeronautics and
throughout this project. Astronautics, AIAA-98-1755, 1998.
[16] Veley D. Optimisation in the adaptive modeling language. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-98-4872, 1998.
References [17] Blair M, Hartong A. Multidisciplinary design tools for affordability.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-2000-
1378, 2000.
[1] Robertson T, Prasad B, Duggirala R. In: Bocks P, Prasad B, editors. A
[18] Veley D, Blair M, Zweber J. Aerospace technology assessment
knowledge based engineering method to integrate metal forming
system. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-
process design and simulation, Proceedings of the ASME database
98-4825, 1998.
Symposium, Engineering data Management: Integrating the Engi-
[19] Zweber J, Blair M, Kamhawi H, Bharatram G, Hartong A. Structural
neering Enterprise, 1994. New York: ASME, 1994. p. 41±50.
and manufacturing analysis of a wing using the adaptive modeling
[2] Haghighi K, Kang E. A knowledge based approach to the adaptive
language. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA-
®nite element analysis. In: Babushka I, et al. (Eds.), Modelling, mesh
generation and adaptive numerical methods for partial differential 98-1758, 1998.
equations, the IMA volumes in mathematics and its applications, [20] Blount GN, Kneebone S, Kingston MR. Selection of knowledge-
vol. 75. Berlin: Springer, 1995. p. 267±76. based engineering design applications. J Engng Des 1995;6(1):31±8
[3] Jones M, Price M, Butlin G. Geometry management support for auto- (CARFAX International Periodical Publishers, ISSN 0954-4828).
meshing, Proceedings of the 4th International Meshing Roundtable, [21] MOKA Consortium. MOKA Ð methodology and software tools
16±17 October. New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories, 1995. oriented to knowledge based engineering applications. CEC ESPRIT
p. 153±64. proposal EP25418. 1997.
[4] Sheehy M, Grosse I. An object oriented blackboard based approach [22] Adaptive Modelling Language version 2.1.1. TechnoSoft Inc, 4424
for automated ®nite element modelling and analysis of multichip Carver Woods Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45242, USA.
modules. Engng Comput 1997;13:197±210. [23] Ackman V, Ten Hagen PJW, Tomiyama T. A fundamental and theo-
[5] Desaleux T, Fouet JM. In: Bathe K, Owen D, editors. Expert systems retical framework for an intelligent CAD system. Computer-Aided
for automatic meshing, Proceedings Of International Conference on Design 1990;22(6):352±67.
Reliability of Methods for Engineering Analysis, Swansea, 1986. [24] Cooper SC, Fan IS, Roy R, Sehdev K. In: Sivaloganathan S, Shahin
p. 503±14. TMM, editors. Reuse of machining knowledge in aircraft design,
[6] Ansgar L, Blount GN. In¯uences of KBE on the aircraft brake indus- Engineering Design Conference '98, 132. 1860 ISBN 186058 132 3.
try. Aircraft Engng Aerospace Technol 1998;70(6):439±44 (MCB [25] Booty F. The affordable face of customised software. Manufacturing
University Press, ISSN 0002-2667). computer solutions. ET Heron and Co. Ltd, April 1996.You can also read
