Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KBE Approach To Automotive Structure
KBE Approach To Automotive Structure
www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft
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
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 as
C.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, informational
906 C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912
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 focussed
C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 907
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 graphical
C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 909
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 of
C.B. Chapman, M. Pinfold / Advances in Engineering Software 32 (2001) 903±912 911
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.