Geometrical Theory for Mechatronic Design Ontology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN & APPLICATIONS, 2017 VOL. 14, NO. 5, 595–609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2017.1280270 Use of technologically and topologically related surfaces (TTRS) geometrical theory for mechatronic design ontology Régis Plateaux 1, Olivia Penas 1, Romain Barbedienne 1, Peter Hehenberger 2, Jean-Yves Choley 1 and Aude Warniez 1 1SUPMECA, Laboratoire Quartz (EA 7393), Saint Ouen, France; 2Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper presents the MBSE challenges related to the conceptual design of mechatronic systems Ontology; semantic and especially the need to ensure geometrical knowledge consistency. To tackle this issue, we pro- modeling; mechatronic pose to define an ontology based on the TTRS (Technologically and Topologically Related Surfaces) design; geometrical geometrical modeling. We implement it in the Protégé environment and validate it through the modeling modeling process of an Electric Power Train, including many additional geometrical issues related to mechatronic system design, such as physical integration and the related compactness metric and the thermal modeling for multi-physical couplings. Geometrical knowledge consistency has been ensured through a model transformation between SysML and FreeCAD, using Python. 1. Introduction and Topologically Related Surfaces) geometrical model- ing theory into a mechatronic ontology is presented, in Today, very few research studies on conceptual design order to ensure geometrical data consistency during the have focused on the integration and importance of conceptual design stage. Finally, it is implemented in an geometrical knowledge consistency management when Electric Power Train case study. selecting promising solution concepts related to their component 3D positioning and physical behavioral con- straints. As geometrical data can be multiple and vari- 2. Context ous, they indeed depend on the model they are used in. 2.1. Geometrical consistency needed for When considering mechatronic systems design, geome- mechatronic conceptual design try challenges mainly relate to their high physical inte- gration, be it to increase their compactness (that needs This section describes why ensuring geometry consis- to be evaluated through metrics), or to take into account tency is important for mechatronic conceptual design. multi-physical couplings due to the proximity of com- The design of mechatronic systems is particularly ponents. The definition of a suitable ontology including complex because of their high functional integration, the geometrical point of view is then required in order to multi-domain and multi-physical aspects, and other cor- ensure the geometrical data consistency in such a com- responding couplings [11][17]. Indeed, such systems plexmechatronicsystemdesignthankstoaModel-Based are characterized by the synergic interactions between System Engineering (MBSE) approach. Indeed, semantic their components from different technological domains, knowledge-based engineering can efficiently support an as they integrate mechanics, electronics, automation automatic consistent products design. In order to meet and information technologies. These interactions enable these objectives, it is then necessary to describe the geo- mechatronic systems to achieve more functionalities (due metrical properties of the mechatronic system as of the to couplings) than the sum of the functionalities of early design stage to select a suitable concept, but also to their components considered independently. Individual ensure their consistency from the requirements specifica- parts also incorporate more functions in an increas- tion phase to the verification phase (with the traceability ingly highly-integrated package (“cross-functional inte- of the selected geometrical concept 3D architecture). In gration”) [1], which results in an increasing number of this paper, the integration of the TTRS (Technologically components to be integrated in a compact volume, in CONTACT Régis Plateaux [email protected] © 2017 CAD Solutions, LLC, http://www.cadanda.com 596 R. PLATEAUX ET AL. which various physical fields interact and create multi- architectures, in order to evaluate their performance physical couplings [11]. For example, Pérez-Grande & al. relating to the considered MoP [13]. show that compactness is a current optimization crite- Finally, it is also necessary to trace whether initial rion for an aircraft environmental control system [27], (geometrical and physical) requirements are fulfilled by and Ooshima & al. underline the issue of multi-physical the various potential 3D designed architectures. interactions for the optimization of the size of a system Toaddress these challenges, we have proposed a MBSE [24]. As the physical integration of mechatronic systems approach to build a seamless process during the concep- is one major issue of their design, it requires to be con- tual design phase for a consistent transmission of the 3D sidered as one of the criteria of the decision-making geometrical data Fig. 1 [7]. The corresponding platform process, to select the convenient system architecture. The implementation has to guarantee that all representations definition of such physical integration metrics (based of the system - in the System model for the specifications, on these criteria) requires to know, from the concep- in multi-disciplinary modeling for physic behavioral sim- tual design stage, the simplified geometry and relative ulation or in 3D environment for 3D architecting - will be positioning of components [33]. Additionally, the high consistent. integration of mechatronic systems leads to an increas- Finally, the implementation of such an approach pre- ing number of desired and undesired interactions among viously requires a geometry knowledge formalization to the components. Undesired interactions are the distur- describe features, such as the structure and the behav- bances (mainly due to multi-physical couplings between ior of such complex systems, in a clear and consistent components) that can affect the behavior of the entire way. The topological (graph-based) representation of the system. However, due to the lack of 3D data in the early system could then be useful to define the hierarchical design stage, the multi-physical behavior of mechatronic structure of components and their interconnection laws, systems is not usually studied before the detailed design be it geometrical or physical, but it is not sufficient to phase, and its modeling is thus based on time consuming define the corresponding semantic. In fact, according to finite elements methods. However, assessing the 3D spa- the semantic complexity of mechatronic design, even dic- tial architectures, under multi-physical constraints, from tionaries, thesauri and taxonomies are not enough to theconceptualdesignphasewilldefinitelydecreasethe express, formalize and structure all the knowledge enti- risk of the late expensive changes occurring during fur- ties described in such a semantic environment. Thus, ther design phases, and consequently reduce the global an ontology modeling, based on a geometrical theory design time [5]. adapted to conceptual design, will ease the definitions of To meet this challenge and support the design of these complex concepts and relationships required for mecha- complex mechatronic systems, it is necessary to take into tronic design. It will help to automatically describe a account the components geometry and positioning as coherent knowledge-based engineering design process of soon as possible, as of the conceptual design stage, by mechatronic products, by providing powerful means of proposinganapproachtoevaluatethe3Darchitecture analysis (of problems, of their causes, of their solutions), under geometrical and physical constraints. to support knowledge sharing and reuse, and also plan- Therefore, system architects first need to easily supply ning, coordination and control of the complex product the same geometry specifications to all domain techni- design process activities. cal teams. These can be either geometrical requirements of the system and its components or some geometrical 2.2. TTRS modeling constraints of relative positions between them. Then, designers have to analyze and compare them, The Technologically and Topologically Related Surfaces prior to selecting the optimal one, by usually perform- (TTRS) theory represents and classifies surfaces [10]. ing some preliminary physical behavior simulations. Still Classes of TTRS refer to the symmetry-based classifica- as the simplest assessment of any physical behavior relies tion of surfaces and relate to their kinematic invariance. on the orientation and distance between the compo- Then, any surface or association of the real surfaces of nents or even on some dimensional data [32], designers an object is related to a kinematic invariance class named usually need to consider geometry as soon as possible TTRS class. There are 7 classes of TTRS classified accord- in the design life cycle (notably during the conceptual ing to their increasing degrees of freedom (DOF). These design phase) in order to evaluate physical interactions. classesare:spherical,planar,cylindrical,helical,revolute, For example, in the case of Measures of Performances prismatic, and complex. For example, the revolute class (MoP), some geometrical relationships like physical laws characterizes all invariant to rotation forms such as a cir- including shape factors, are usually required for pre- cle, a torus or cone.