Res Eng Des (1989) 1:3-18
Egsineering
Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
K a r l T. U l r i c h , * W a r r e n P. S e e r i n g
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Abstract. This article describes a schematic synthesis
problem and one of its solution techniques. The problem
domain consists of devices that can be described as net-
works of lumped-parameter, idealized elements in the
translational-mechanical, rotational-mechanical, fluid-
mechanical, and electrical media. Such devices include
speedometers, accelerometers, pneumatic cylinders, and
pressure gauges. Design problems in this domain are
specified by an input quantity, an output quantity, and the
desired relationship between the input and output. The
solution technique is based on three steps: 1) generate a
candidate design, 2) derive and classify the behavior of
the candidate, 3) based on the derived behavior and do-
main knowledge, modify the candidate (if possible) to
bring it in line with the specification. The key idea behind
this technique is that an abstract characterization of the
essential properties of the candidate design expedites the
analysis and modification. The results of this work are
aimed at computer tools for preliminary mechanical de-
sign.
1 Introduction
This article describes a class o f schematic synthesis
problems and one solution technique in the domain
of single-input single-output (SISO) dynamic sys-
tems. The c o m p u t e r program implementation o f the
ideas in this article generates a schematic descrip-
tion of a device in response to a specification o f the
desired relationship between an input quantity and
an output quantity. An example of this kind of syn-
thesis is the generation of a schematic description o f
a s p e e d o m e t e r - - i n terms of idealized elements like
inertias, compliances, and r e s i s t a n c e s - - i n response
to the specification that the angular velocity of an
input and the deflection of an output should be pro-
portionally related. This article presents an intro-
duction to the schematic synthesis problem, an ex-
* Reprint requests: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 545 Technology Square, Cam-
bridge, MA 02139, USA
Research in
lgn
© 1989 Springer-Vedag New York Inc.
planation of our choice of problem domain, a
description of our synthesis technique, and a dis-
cussion of the project results. Our research is aimed
at a more fundamental understanding of how de-
signs can be generated from a specification of their
behavior. This understanding is a necessary founda-
tion for better computer tools for design and for
e n h a n c e d design teaching and practice.
I.l What is Schematic Synthesis?
We define schematic descriptions as graphs of func-
tional elements. A design described schematically
consists of a specification of its constituent func-
tional elements and their interconnections. The key
distinction between schematic descriptions and
other types o f design descriptions is that schematic
descriptions generally contain no information about
the design's geometrical and material properties.
Generating a schematic description ~ in response to
a specification of desired device behavior is sche-
matic synthesis. Researchers and practitioners have
developed schematic languages for several engi-
neering domains. Here are two examples of sche-
matic descriptions and associated synthesis prob-
lems. Figure ! is a schematic description of a
section of a process plant. The functional elements
are idealized pumps, heat exchangers, mixers, con-
densers, etc. A synthesis problem in this domain
might be: given a library of equipment elements,
generate a schematic description of a heat pump
fractionation column for a certain set o f specified
input and output streams. Figure 2 is a schematic
description of an analog circuit. The description
consists o f idealized e l e m e n t s - - r e s i s t o r s , diodes,
operational amplifiers--connected together in a
graph. A synthesis problem in this domain might be:
generate a circuit that will take a voltage signal
input and produce an output voltage corresponding
to the absolute value of the input voltage.
i We use the terms schematic description, schematic, and
description synonymously in this article.
4 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design

Overhead
product

[ Trim condensor
Compressor

Fractionation - ~ -
column ---

Feed - - ~
Alkylation unit
reactor [ Reboiler

Fig. 1. Schematic description of a chemical

Bottoms product process.

1.2 Schematic Synthesis o f Single-Input schematic synthesis problem in our domain is:
Single-Output Systems given a description of the input and o f the output of
a system, what is the schematic description of a
This article presents a schematic synthesis problem
system that provides the desired relationship be-
and one of its solution techniques in the domain of
tween input and output.
single-input single-output (SISO) dynamic systems.
Figure 3 shows several schematic synthesis prob-

~o"
lems in the dynamic systems domain along with a R

sketch version of example solutions. The figure is

intended to give a rough sense of what this article is R
about and of the kinds of problems our solution i~P~R~R/2
technique addresses. The first example problem is
utput
the design of a pressure gauge. The solution is to
connect the pressure source and output spring with
a piston-cylinder. The second problem is to design a g
device to produce a voltage on a resistor that is
m
proportional to an input velocity. The solution is to
use a rack-and-pinion connected to a generator. The
third problem is to produce a pressure in a fluid
capacitance that is proportional to an input angular
velocity. The solution is to connect the input
through a rotary damper to a rack-and-pinion. The
rack is then attached to a piston-cylinder connected
to the capacitance. The final problem is to convert a
voltage to an angular deflection. The solution is to
connect the voltage source with a series resistor to a
motor that is attached to the output. The output is
also connected to ground with a torsion spring. The Fig. 2. Schematic description o f an analog circuit.
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design 5

PROBLEM SOLUTION

....
I
:<(t) ~ xCt)

pressure gage

u(t) I
?
I
t v(t)
~ v(t)

i
[. . . . --J

velocity to volts

wCt)

w(t) r ~
? P(t)

angular velocity to pressure ~ , ~

i
I e(t)
[-- ~ -- --
Fig. 3. Example problems and solutions in
volts to angle the dynamic systems domain

1.3 Importance of Schematic Synthesis
Schematic synthesis is an important part of the
larger task of generating a physical description of a
device from a description of its behavior. This
larger task can be broken into two steps: 1) generate
a schematic description of the design in terms of
functional elements; then 2) from the schematic de-
scription, generate a physical description of a de-
vice that approximates the ideal properties of the
schematic description. The generation of a sche-
matic description as a first step in design is justified
because the strategy reduces the complexity of the
problem solving task, and because the strategy de-
couples functional and physical design issues. The
second step, generating a physical description from
the schematic description, is also quite important in
mechanical design. Our approach to this problem,
discussed thoroughly in [Ulrich88a], is to first cre-
ate a very modular physical description by direct
substitution of physical elements for functional ele-
ments, and then to subsequently look for opportuni-
ties to simplify this design by using particular physi-
cal features of the design to perform more than one
function.
1.3.1 Reducing complexity. A schematic de-
scription is an abstraction of a design, excluding all
physical information except for topology. Working
on a design problem first in this abstract problem
space is a less complex problem than trying to de-
sign directly in the design space described by the
physical representation language of the domain. In
general, there will be many fewer functional ele-
ments in a schematic description language than
there will be physical elements in a physical de-
scription language. Therefore, the space of possible
schematic descriptions is usually considerably
smaller than the space of possible physical descrip-
6 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
tions. Given these factors, an approach to reducing
the complexity of the larger design problem is to
work first in the smaller space of schematic descrip-
tions, and then, with the resulting schematic de-
scription as a starting point, work in the physical
description space. In building computer tools for
design synthesis this schematic-physical decompo-
sition is one way of coping with combinatorial com-
plexity.
1.3.2 Decoupling functional and physical is-
sues. Focusing the initial problem solving effort
on schematic descriptions decouples the functional
and structural aspects of the design problem. Gen-
erating a schematic description, without concern
for a possible physical implementation, forces the
design system to get the ideal device behavior right
first. This strategy is sound since only devices with
correct schematic descriptions will meet the design
specifications. Once the schematic description is
right, the synthesis of an efficient physical imple-
mentation can proceed. This decomposition helps
to focus both human and computer problem solving.
2 Domain Description
This section describes our choice of the lumped-
parameter dynamic systems domain, explains the
schematic description representation, and defines
problem specifications.
2.1 Single-Input Single-Output Dynamic Systems
The domain in which we have applied the schematic
synthesis concepts consists of devices that can be
described as networks of lumped-parameter ideal-
ized elements, and whose behavior can be specified
by a relationship between a single input quantity
and a single output quantity. We call this domain
SISO dynamic systems or just dynamic systems.
Examples of devices in this domain include pres-
sure gauges, speedometers, pneumatic cylinders,
and accelerometers. We chose this domain because
there is a well-defined set of primitive elements with
which to build device descriptions, and because the
domain is of engineering interest and importance.
The lumped-parameter elements used in the dy-
namic systems domain are idealized generalized re-
sistances, capacitances, and inertances, as well as
transformers and gyrators. These elements have in-
stances in the fluid-mechanical, translational-me-
chanical, rotational-mechanical and electrical me-
dia. For example, in the electrical medium the
elements are idealized resistors, capacitors, and in-
ductors. In the translational-mechanical medium
the elements are idealized dampers, springs, and
masses. In the rotational-mechanical medium the
elements are idealized rotary dampers, torsional
springs, and rotary inertias. And in the fluid-me-
chanical medium the elements are idealized fluid
resistances, fluid capacitances, and fluid inertances.
In addition to these elements there are elements
that can transform quantities in one medium to
quantities in another medium--like idealized mo-
tors, piston-cylinders, or racks-and-pinions. This
domain can be thought of as a kind of generalized
analog circuit domain in that the elements impose
constraints on generalized effort and flow variables
(corresponding to voltage and current) and their in-
terconnections obey generalized Kirchoff's laws.
The devices described in Fig. 3 are instances of
schematic descriptions that fall into this category.
An important characteristic of this domain is that it
does not deal with any information about the geo-
metrical or material properties of these devices.
2.2 Representing Schematic Descriptions
The descriptions in Fig. 3 are shown with icons that
suggest real physical components like motors and
racks-and-pinions. These icons are purely mne-
monic. We represent these devices as networks of
idealized elements 2. Associated with each element
is an effort variable and a flow variable whose prod-
uct is the power associated with an element. Figure
4 shows each of the elements in each of the four
media we deal with. Figure 5 shows a set of trans-
forming and gyrating elements that convert quanti-
ties in one medium to quantities in another medium.
Transformers convert efforts to efforts and flows to
flows. Gyrators convert efforts to flows and flows to
efforts. All of these elements are connected to-
gether in series or in parallel to form networks. The
networks obey a generalized version of Kirchoff's
current and voltage laws. That is, series elements
share the same flow quantity and parallel elements
share the same effort quantity.
2.3 Classifying the Behavior of a Schematic
Description
In order to evaluate a schematic description with
respect to a design specification, a system for per-
forming design must be able to derive behavior from
2 In performingthis research and implementingthe results as
computer programs we use Paynter's bondgraph language to de-
scribe these devices. For clarity of presentation, we have
avoided introducing the bondgraph notation here. For those
readers interested in a more detailed descriptionof the represen-
tation of this problemdomain, see [Ulrich88b]and the appendix
to this paper.
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design 7

Trans. Mechanical Rot. Mechanical Fluid Electirical Effort-Flow Relation

Inertance

MASS
+
ROT. INERTIA F. INERTANCE INDUCTOR
E =ITdF

Capacitance

dE
F = C"~-
SPRING ROT, SPRING F. CAPACITANCE CAPACITOR

Resistance

E=FR
DAMPER ROT. DAMPER F. RESISTANCE RESISTOR
Source
~_) w(t) Efforts and Flows
F(t) i(t) + v(t) specified by these
T(t) sources,

Effort Quantity
Force Torque Pressure Voltage

Flow Quantity Velocity Angular Velocity Volume Flowrate Cttrrent Fig. 4. Elements used to repre-
sent schematic descriptions

schematic descriptions. In this domain, behavior output. A simple proportionality between an effort
consists of a general characterization of the equa- or flow on the input and an effort or flow on the
tions of motion for the schematic. Classifying this output corresponds to a type number of 0. For each
behavior involves first deriving the equations of mo- derivative of the input (or integral of the output) the
tion, and second, characterizing the equations in type number is increased by 1. So, if the first deriva-
terms of their global properties. tive of the input is proportional to the output, then
The derivation of equations from the schematic the system is of type 1. If the input is proportional
description is a straightforward application of sys- to the first derivative of the output then the system
tems theory, and consists of three steps. First, im- is of type - 1 , and so on. Four canonical examples
pose the constraints from the generalized Kir- illustrate this concept. An accelerometer is a sys-
choff's laws by writing a set of network equations tem with a type number of 2, because the deflection
relating the effort and flow variables at each junc- of the indicator (the integral of the velocity of the
tion point between elements. Second, impose the output) is proportional to the input acceleration (the
constraints from the element constitutive laws. For derivative of the velocity of the input). A speedom-
each element (capacitance, resistance, inertance, eter is a system with a type number of 1, since the
transformer, gyrator, or source), establish the ap- deflection of the output (the integral of the output
propriate constraint between effort and flow vari- velocity) is proportional to the input velocity. A
ables on the element. Third, given the equations piston-cylinder is a system with a type number of 0,
generated in steps one and two, eliminate all of the
effort and flow variables except for the variables
corresponding to the desired input variable and the
desired output variables. The result of this proce-
dure is a differential equation relating the input vari-
able and its derivatives to the output variable and its
derivatives.
PUMPfrURBINE PISTON and CYLINDER
The next step in deriving the behavior of the
schematic description is to characterize its equa-
tions of motion. We have developed a characteriza-
t--
tion technique aimed at determining the nominal re-
lationship between the input quantity and output
quantity. The system is characterized according to
its type number, an idea borrowed from control the-
ory [Ogata70]. The intuition behind this character- MOTOR/GENERATOR
ization is that the type number of the system speci-
RACK AND PINION
fies which integral or derivative of the input is
proportional to which integral or derivative of the Fig. 5. Example transforming and gyrating elements
8 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design

f------~v(t) nal relationship between the voltage and velocity

I
will be a first derivative (i.e., velocity will corre-
SPECIFICATION spond to change in voltage, so displacement will
correspond to voltage). If we want a displace-
.......... .!
V(t) ment proportional to voltage rate-of-change,
then we specify that the output velocity will be
SOLUTION nominally related to the second derivative of the
input voltage. This specification is represented
as a type number. For example, the first deriva-
tive case is type 1, and the second derivative
case is type 2. The problem specification can
Fig. 6. E x a m p l e specification and solution
only include nominal, steady-state behavior of
the device. That is, the dynamic response of the
since the output force is proportional to the input device is not part of the specification. The as-
pressure (i.e., no derivatives or integrals). A mass sumption is that in preliminary design, engineers
with a force applied to it, in which the mass velocity first want to get the nominal behavior right, and
is the output, is a system with a type number o f - I, will then optimize parameters to get a particular
because the acceleration o f the mass (the derivative frequency response.
of the output velocity) is related to the force on the 3. The third part of the specification is the identifi-
mass. The formal procedure for determining the cation of the dynamic model of the input and
type number is in the appendix. output. If, for example, we want to design a volt-
The complete equations for the system are im- meter that measures the voltage of a source
portant in refining the particular details of a design, whose voltage drops with increasing current, we
and when choosing design parameters, but only this will specify the input as consisting of an ideal-
type number specification is important in getting the ized voltage source (one that can provide an ar-
gross relation between input and output quantities bitrary amount of power) in series with a resis-
right. tance. And if our voltmeter must actuate a
spring-loaded indicator, we would specify the
2.4 Specifying a Problem output flow as acting on a translational-mechani-
cal capacitance (a spring). This part of the specifi-
A schematic synthesis problem in the dynamic sys-
cation is provided by a lumped-parameter model
tems domain is specified by a relationship between
of the input and output environment of the de-
an input quantity and an output quantity. This spec-
vice. The intuition behind this is that all dynamic
ification includes three parts: 1) specification of the
systems interact in some way with their inputs
variables of interest, 2) specification o f a relation-
and outputs. These interactions partially deter-
ship between variables, and 3) specification of sche-
mine the behavior of the system. In order to cor-
matic descriptions corresponding to a dynamic
rectly synthesize a system description, one must
model of the input and output environment of the
know what the properties of the input and output
device.
interactions are.
1. The specification of the variables of interest sim-
In summary, a specification consists of an effort or
ply involves identifying either an effort or flow
flow variable in a selected medium, an identification
variable in the desired medium. For example, if a
of the derivative or integral relation of interest (indi-
voltmeter is desired, the input is a voltage (or
cated with a type number), and a specification of a
effort in the electrical medium) and the output is
lumped-parameter model, of the input and output.
perhaps a velocity (flow in the translational-me-
chanical medium). Note that the input and out-
2.4.1 Example specification. Consider the fol-
put variables must be efforts or flows. Deriva-
lowing complete specification. In designing an air-
tives and integrals of these efforts or flows are
craft instrument that must actuate a spring-loaded
specified when the relationship between vari-
valve with a displacement proportional to rate-of-
ables is specified.
change in air pressure, we specify the following
2. Specifying a relationship between variables re-
(shown in Fig. 6):
quires the identification o f the appropriate deriv-
ative or integral of the input and output vari- 1. The input variable is fluid pressure (effort in the
ables. For example, if we want a displacement in fluid medium). The output variable is transla-
response to a voltage, we specify that the nomi- tional velocity (flow in the translational mechani-
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
cal medium). These variables correspond to the
air pressure and the velocity of the valve.
2. The relationship between output velocity and in-
put pressure should be one of second derivative,
yielding the desired relationship between dis-
placement and rate-of-pressure, and so would be
specified as a type 2 system.
3. The input schematic description is a pressure-
source attached in series with a fluid resistance.
The output schematic description is a grounded
spring.
The synthesis problem is to now find a completed
schematic description that will behave as specified.
A satisfactory solution would be the description
shown at the bottom of Fig. 6.
3 Solution Technique
Our solution to the schematic synthesis problem is
based on the following strategy:
1. Generate a set of candidate schematic descrip-
tions from which all possible solutions can be
obtained through augmentations to one of these
descriptions.
2. Derive and classify the behavior of these candi-
date descriptions.
3. Based on the behavior of the candidates, the de-
sired behavior, and domain knowledge, modify
the candidates to meet the specifications.
The following three subsections correspond to
these three problem solving steps.
3.1 Generating Candidate Descriptions
Part of the specification of the schematic synthesis
problem is a description of the input and output
environment of the desired device. The procedure
for generating a set of candidate descriptions is
based on the observation that any complete sche-
matic description that performs a transformation
from a quantity in the input description to a quantity
in the output description must contain either a di-
rect connection between elements in the input and
output descriptions, or it must contain a connection
between input and output consisting of a sequence
of transforming or gyrating elements. We call this
connection a power spine.
3.1.1 Concept of a power spine. A schematic de-
scription with a non-trivial relationship between a
quantity associated with the input part of the de-
scription and the output part of the description must
contain some sort of power connection between the
9
two parts. This connection can either be a direct
junction between the input and output parts of the
schematic, or it can be a connection formed by a
sequence of transforming or gyrating elements. Any
device that meets the design specifications must
have this connection and the power spine repre-
sents the minimal possible connection for a given
set of intermediate media. Therefore any schematic
description that will meet the specifications must be
derivable from augmentations to this connection be-
tween the input and output.
3.1.2 Connecting input to output. The synthesis
strategy for generating candidate descriptions is to
generate a set of schematic descriptions consisting
of the input and output descriptions connected by a
power spine. These candidate descriptions are gen-
erated exhaustively, subject to the constraint that
the number of intermediate medium transforma-
tions be small (<3). The size limitation is a con-
straint imposed by engineering practice--because
of cost and reliability, it rarely is a wise design strat-
egy to use more than three media in a SISO dy-
namic system. The most important property of the
candidate descriptions generated by constructing
the power spine is that they are in a certain sense
minimal. Minimality in this context means that any
schematic containing fewer than three inter-me-
dium transformations and meeting the design speci-
fication, must be derivable through the addition of
elements to one of the candidates.
3.2 Classijfing Behavior
Given a minimal schematic description that will
provide some relationship between input and out-
put, the next step is to classify this initial descrip-
tion. It is possible that the candidates meet the
specifications; it is also possible that there is a mis-
match between the specified behavior and the actual
behavior of the candidate descriptions, requiring
some modifications. The degree of agreement be-
tween the behavior of the candidate descriptions
and the specifications is determined by first deriving
the equations of motion, and then categorizing
these equations according to type number. If the
type number of the candidate matches the type
number of the specification, then coincidentally the
candidate meets the design specifications, and the
synthesis problem is solved. More likely, a modifi-
cation to the candidate is required.
At this point the synthesis problem can also be
assessed as being impossible. Since increasing the
type number of a system requires the addition of
elements, and decreasing the type number of a sys-
10 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
<3"
REDUNDANCY
ELIMINATION V(t)>
HIGHER-ORDER BEHAVIOR
ELIMINATION
Fig. 7. Example simplification rules
tem requires the removal of elements, it is not pos-
sible to decrease the type number of a candidate
description. This is because no elements may be
removed from the candidate. The input and output
parts of the description can not be modified since
they are part of the problem specification; and no
elements can be removed from the power spine
since the spine is a minimal connection between the
input and output (assuming a given set of inter-me-
dium transformations). Therefore, if the specifica-
tion of the design calls for a type number that is less
than that of the candidate, the synthesis problem
has no solution.
3.3 Modifying Candidate Schematic Descriptions
The final step is to modify a candidate that does not
exhibit the specified behavior. This process in-
volves three steps: 1) transform the candidate to a
compact description; 2)based on explicit domain
knowledge, derive and perform a set of modifica-
tions; 3) reverse the compacting transformation.
The rest of this subsection is divided into parts cor-
responding to these steps.
3.3.1 Transform the candidate design to a com-
pact description. The key concept that allows for
correct modification of faulty schematics is the use
of a compact representation that highlights only the
features of the description that contribute directly
to its nominal behavior. The transformation of a
schematic description to its compact representation
consists of first converting it to a generalized equiv-
alent description and then applying some simplify-
ing rewrite rules. The rewrite rules eliminate ele-
ments that do not influence the type number of the
system. The procedure for performing this transfor-
mation is as follows:
• The first step converts a description in terms of
particular media (electrical, fluid, etc.) into a de-
scription containing only generalized resistances,
capacitances, inertances, and sources. We do not
give the details of this transformation here, al-
though it is a straightforward syntactic operation.
The transformation basically involves removing
all transforming and gyrating elements, and
changing specific resistances, capacitances, inert-
ances, and sources into their generalized equiva-
lents. The only subtlety in this process involves
the removal of gyrators. Since a gyrator converts
flows to efforts and efforts to flows, the removal
of a gyrator from a schematic requires that the
region of the schematic associated with the gyra-
tor be modified to its complementary form. That
is, elements connected in parallel are switched to
being connected in series and vice versa; and ca-
pacitive elements are replaced with inertial ele-
ments and vice versa. Converting a particular de-
scription to its generalized equivalent compresses
the space of possible schematic descriptions about
which the design system must reason.
The second step is to use rewrite rules to elimi-
nate elements that do not influence the type num-
ber of the description. Two example rules are
shown in Fig. 7 (shown with translational-me-
chanical elements for clarity). There are eight
such rules. Using the rewrite rules to eliminate
these non-essential elements completes the trans-
formation of the schematic description into its
most compact form.
The schematic description now consists of a net-
work of idealized inertances, capacitances, resis-
tances, and sources. This is a minimal characteriza-
tion of the candidate schematic description. A
system described this way represents an infinite set
of graphs that have the same type number.
3.3.2 Based on domain knowledge, generate mod-
ifications. The power of the compacting transfor-
mation in this domain is that once the candidate
description is reduced to its compact form the do-
main knowledge can be expressed concisely. There
is one special case and a set of general principles for
modifying the design to meet the problem specifica-
tions. Here we explain the intuition behind the mod-
ification procedure, although the formal explanation
is left for the appendix.
The special case is when the schematic is of type
- 1, and one desires a type 0 system. There are only
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
Non-Isolated
capacitive ~
element ~
F(t)
Type 1 s y s t e m ~ Isolated Capacitive
Element
~ Isotated capacitive element
Type 2 system ~ "
two cases in which a schematic can be of type - 1 .
The first is if an inertial element is connected di-
rectly to an effort source and the variables of inter-
est are the input effort and the output flow. In this
case, the flow will increase linearly in time for a
constant input effort (thus a system of type - 1 ) . In
order to change the type o f this system to 0, a resis-
tive element must be added between the inertial ele-
ment and ground. An example of this case is a mass
connected to a force source. The mass accelerates
at a constant rate, and therefore the first derivative
o f the mass velocity is directly related to the force
(type - 1 ) . If a translational damper is added be-
tween the mass and ground, the steady-state rela-
tionship between velocity and force is now linear
(type 0). The second instance is if a capacitive ele-
ment is connected directly to a flow source and the
variables of interest are the input flow and the out-
put effort. In this case the effort will increase lin-
early in time. In order to change the type of this
system to 0, a resistive element must be added be-
tween the flow source and the capacitive element.
In all other cases the type number of the system
is exactly the number of isolated capacitive or iner-
tial elements in the schematic. The intuition behind
an isolated capacitive or inertial element is as fol-
lows. Capacitances and inertances are the only
lumped-parameter d e m e n t s that have constitutive
relations containing derivatives. That is, the rela-
tionship between the effort and the flow on a capaci-
tance or an inertance is an equation between one
quantity and the derivative or integral o f the other
quantity. This is in contrast to resistances and
sources whose constitutive relations contain no de-
rivatives or integrals. The only way to change the
type n u m b e r o f a system is to add to it elements that
11
~ V(t)
[ "
Type 1 system ~ ' ~ Isolated Capacitive
Element
Isolated Capacitive Fig. 8. Illustration of the concept of an isolated
Element element
add derivatives to the equations of motion; in other
words, to add capacitive or inertial elements. How-
ever, there are only certain specific conditions un-
der which a capacitive or inertial element can influ-
ence the behavior of the system. For example (we
present a translational-mechanical case for clarity,
although the procedure would be carried out on the
minimal description of the system in terms of gener-
alized elements), imagine a force source connected
to ground by a spring (Fig. 8). If the force is applied
to the spring, it deflects to a position that is deter-
mined by the stiffness o f the spring and the magni-
tude of the applied force. Since the integral of the
spring velocity is directly related to the spring
force, the system is of type 1. Now, imagine that we
add another spring to the system in series with the
first spring (Fig. 8). Although we have added a ca-
pacitive element to the design, we have not altered
the type number o f the system. This new spring
does not influence the type number of the system
because it is not isolated. If, however, we added a
spring that is separated from the original spring by a
series damper (a resistive element), then the type
number of the system increases to 2 (Fig. 8). In this
second case each of the springs is isolated.
This concept of isolation is defined formally in
the appendix to this article, but a simplified expla-
nation of the rule for isolation is that the capacitive
and inertial elements must be connected into the
description in such a way that they are distinct from
existing capacitive and inertial elements. In certain
cases, this can be facilitated by the addition of resis-
tive elements that serve an isolating function. Given
this statement of the domain knowledge, the deriva-
tion of modification operators is straightforward.
E x c e p t in the case of systems of type - 1, the differ-
12 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
v(t)
l' , ?
,F-"
i(O
-I-: _,
Fig. 9. Specificationof current meter problem
ence between the type number of the candidate de-
sign and the type number of the specification is
equal to the number of new isolated capacitive or
inertial elements that must be created in the de-
scription. If one isolated element must be created
than an isolated inertial or capacitive element could
be added, or a nonisolated inertial or capacitive ele-
ment already in the description also could be iso-
lated by adding a resistive element in an appropriate
location. The only constraint that must be enforced
when creating new isolated groups is that new ele-
ments be added to the power spine between the
compact descriptions of the input and output envi-
ronment. This is because the addition of elements to
the input and output regions of the description
would require that the input and/or output environ-
ment of the device be modified.
3.3.3 Reverse compacting transformation. The
final synthesis step is to reverse the compacting
transformation on the modified schematic in order
to arrive at instantiations in specific media. The re-
verse transformation is straightforward:
1. Add the elements removed by rewrite opera-
tions.
2. Change the generalized system back to specific
media by re-introducing the transformers and gy-
rators.
The only decision that must be made in this process
is where, with respect to the newly added elements,
the gyrators and transformers should be reintro-
duced. The approach we have taken to this decision
is to create a version of the design for each possible
location of the elements with respect to the gyrators
and transformers. There is a range of possible posi-
tions in the various media associated with the sys-
tem for locations of the newly-added elements.
4 A Complete Example
This section is aimed at clarifying the synthesis
technique by presenting a concrete example. The
example is illustrated by figures 9 through 15. Imag-
ine that an engineer wanted to design a device that
would take as an input a current from an electrical
circuit and actuate a mass with a displacement pro-
portional to the current. Perhaps the device is to
serve as a kind of governor on an electric motor
circuit--an increase in motor current will move a
mass, causing an increase in the rotary inel~ia of the
system. The problem can be stated in the dynamic
systems representation as follows: synthesize a sys-
tem that will connect the electrical system input
description with the mechanical system output de-
scription (Fig. 9) such that the integral of the flow
on the output is proportion to the flow on the input
(i.e., a system with a type number of 1). The solu-
tion technique proceeds according to the steps de-
veloped in the preceding section.
1. Construct the power spine. In this case the
power spine is a motor-like element (a gyrator)
and a rack-and-pinion-like element (a trans-
former). The system elements that form the
power spine are between the two vertical dotted
lines. Just one candidate schematic description
is shown (Fig. 10) although there will in general
be several possible power spines that connect
the input graph chunk to the output graph chunk
and that consist of fewer than three gyrating or
transforming elements.
2. Derive the behavior o f the candidate schematic
description. Deriving the equations of motion
that relate the output flow to the input flow re-
veals that the candidate schematic description is
a type 0 system--the output flow (a velocity) is
proportional to the input flow (a current). Since
the candidate schematic description does not
meet the specification, the transformation and
modification steps must be carried out. Fortu-
nately, since the type number of the system must
be increased (from 0 to 1), the modification is
possible.
3. Transform the candidate schematic description
to its compact representation. The first step is to
remove all of the gyrating and transforming ele-
I
(I If tl II II II II II II I f I ~ M ]
' U -~ ,t I
Fig. 10. Example of one of the possible power spines
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design 13

Fig. 11. Description converted to generalized elements Fig. 12. Removal of redundant capacitive element

ments, replacing particular instances of inert- that occurred in step 3; that is, the generalized
ances, capacitances, resistances and sources capacitance is converted to a mass, and the gen-
with generalized inertances, capacitances, resis- eralized inertance is converted to a spring.
tances, and sources. Note that removing a gyra-
Note that there are several possible locations for
tor requires that all of the downstream 3 capaci-
the newly added element in the schematic descrip-
tive elements be changed to inertial elements,
tion. It could be a torsional spring on the motor
and that all of the downstream inertial elements
output, a.translational spring on the rack, or it could
be changed to capacitive elements; and that ele-
be an electrical inductance in the electrical portion
ments that are in parallel be changed to elements
of the system. Two of these possibilities are shown
that are in series and vice versa (Fig. I1). The
in Fig. 15.
final compacting step is to remove any superflu-
ous elements (execute any rewrite rules that may
apply). In this example one of the capacitive ele-
5 Discussion
ments closest to the source can be removed
without altering the type number of the system
This article has presented a solution to a synthesis
(Fig. I2).
problem that people have traditionally solved in an
4. Derive appropriate modifications. The design is
ad hoc, heuristic way. This section analyzes the
specified to be a type 1 system--a displacement
importance, completeness, extensibility, and com-
(integral of output flow) proportional to current
puter implementation of the synthesis technique.
(the input flow). Since the candidate schematic
description is of type 0, an isolated capacitive or
inertial element will have to be added to the 5.1 Importance and Utility of the Technique
power spine. Observing the compacted sche-
When we began thinking about the SISO dynamic
matic description reveals that an inertial element
systems synthesis problem, we gave several engi-
can be added along the power spine and will be
isolated. Adding a capacitive element, however,
will require adding a resistive element as well,
since it would otherwise not be isolated from the
existing capacitive element. These two new de-
scriptions are shown in Fig. 13.
5. Reverse the compacting transformation. The
next step is to reverse the steps carried out dur-
ing the compacting transformation (only one de-
scription is shown in Fig. 14). First the capaci-
tive element is added back to the schematic
description. Next the gyrators and transformers o 1 I
are reintroduced. Note that adding the gyrator
back into the description reverses the swapping , I
I
3 D o w n s t r e a m in this context is an arbitrary choice of direc- o I
tion within the schematic description. When a gyrator is re- ' I
moved from the design, one chooses a direction within the de-
scription as the downstream direction and then converts the Fig. 13. Two possible additions of isolated groups to minimal
elements as explained in this paragraph. description
14 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
Fig. 14. Reintroduction of redundant capacitive element (only
one description shown)
neers some sample problems to see how they per-
formed the task; most of them found ways to avoid
doing the exercise. One or two engineers actually
found a solution. No one found more than one solu-
tion. These informal observations suggest that the
synthesis problem is not simple for people and that
synthesis techniques are not widely known. The
technique we have developed provides all possible
solutions (containing fewer than three inter-medium
transformations) to a specified problem. This
results in an improvement in the state of the art in
this area of synthesis. These techniques are useful
not only for computer programs, but also for pencil
and paper approaches. The results of this single ex-
} i(O
Fig. 15. Two possible instantiations of the modified description
perience suggest that design in general will benefit
from formalizing some domains and from finding
synthesis techniques in those domains. In many
ways human engineers have been successful be-
cause they have been able to find some solution to a
problem. Synthesis techniques for even fairly sim-
ple engineering tasks can help engineers find a much
greater number of feasible solutions, many of which
will be solutions the designer has not thought of.
This work is also important because of its contri-
bution to the larger task of synthesizing a physical
description of a device from a specification of its
behavior. We propose that performing this larger
synthesis task in two steps--first generating a sche-
matic description, and from it a physical descrip-
t i o n - r e d u c e s the problem solving complexity and
focuses the problem solving effort. In this article we
have presented a solution to the first half of the
larger design problem. We present one solution to
the second half in [Ulrich88a] that is based on the
idea of function sharing--the use of a single part in
a design to implement more than one functional ele-
ment in the device schematic description.
5.2 Completeness of the Technique
Our schematic synthesis technique is in a trivial
sense incomplete--it will not generate all possible
schematic descriptions that meet the problem speci-
fications. The incompleteness results from two fac-
tors. First, there is an infinity of schematic descrip-
tions that meet the specifications. A pair of
inter-medium transforming or gyrating elements can
always be added to a schematic description to cre-
ate a new schematic description: a back-to-back
motor-generator pair added to an electrical device,
for example. Second, elements that do not change
the nominal behavior of a schematic description can
always be added to a schematic description to cre-
ate a new schematic description. An example of the
second case is the addition of a redundant capaci-
tance tO a region of the schematic description that
already has a capacitive element. Completeness
should, therefore, be defined with respect to the
compact representation of the schematic descrip-
tion, after all of the extraneous elements have been
removed, and the schematic description has been
converted to a generalized form without transform-
ers and gyrators. Under these conditions the tech-
nique is complete. The completeness rests on the
fact that the type number of a system is determined
by the number of isolated capacitive and inertial
elements within the power spine of the description.
This can be proven by the following argument. A
positive type number indicates the number of times
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
the input quantity has been differentiated. There are
only two possible ways a quantity can be differenti-
ated in this domain. Either a capacitance differenti-
ates an effort to produce a flow, or an inertance
differentiates a flow to produce an effort. Resis-
tances serve to convert efforts to flows and vice
versa. The only way to differentiate an effort source
(there is a similar argument for flow sources) is to
connect it to a capacitance (an instance of his case
is a force source attached to a spring), or to connect
it to a series resistance (to convert the effort to a
flow) and then to a parallel inertance (to differenti-
ate the flow into an effort). These two cases corre-
spond to single isolated capacitances and inert-
ances. Since the power spine of a device is a
sequence of elements, this argument applies to an
arbitrary number of differentiations. For each addi-
tional differentiation (increase in the type number)
an isolated capacitance or inertance must be added.
Because the synthesis technique produces all possi-
ble ways of modifying the candidate schematic de-
scription in order to increase the number of isolated
capacitances and inertances in the system, it pro-
duces a complete set of compact schematic descrip-
tions.
5.3 Extensibility
The ideas in this article have been directed at a very
specific synthesis problem. This subsection deals
with the problem of extending the ideas within the
dynamic systems domain and to other domains.
5.3.1 Extension within dynamic systems do-
main. The devices that can be synthesized with
the technique described in this article are limited in
several ways: they are single-input, single-output;
there is no feedback or amplification; and they can
not be specified to have particular dynamic re-
sponse characteristics. Extension of the solution
technique to erase these limitations requires either
an extension of the representation language, an ex-
tension of the synthesis procedures, or both.
To deal with feedback or amplification, we would
have to introduce the use of active elements--ele-
ments with external power sources. Along with the
active elements, signal flows would be required.
This extended representation would also require ex-
tensions to the synthesis procedures. Specifically,
the connection property of the domain that leads to
the concept of a power spine is still valid, although
the kinds of connections that are allowed are in-
creased to include signal-only connections. Under
these conditions the synthesis procedure may re-
quire the consideration as special cases each of sev-
t5
erai classes of devices--those with feedback, those
with hidden sources, those without any signal
flows.
If the problem were extended to address multi-
ple-input multiple-output systems, the synthesis
procedure would become more complex. The
power spine concept no longer is as strong as in the
SISO case. There are now many possible ways for
the multiple inputs and outputs to be connected to-
gether other than a single sequence of idealized
transforming and gyrating elements. Prabhu and
Taylor have explored some of the issues in the mul-
tiple input and output problem [Prabhu88].
The problem addressed in this article deals only
with the nominal behavior of a dynamic s y s t e m - -
we have not considered dynamic issues like
bandwidth. To some extent these issues can be ad-
dressed by optimizing parameter values numeri-
cally. In other cases, filtering elements or damping
must be added to the schematic descriptions to
achieve the specific numerical specifications de-
sired. The synthesis procedure in this article, how-
ever, is a necessary first step towards meeting more
detailed numerical design specifications. Any sche-
matic description that meets a detailed numerical
specification must also meet the specification of the
nominal behavior of the device. The work in this
article is directly applicable to this more specific
synthesis problem.
5.3.2 Extension to other domains. The three ma-
jor segments of the solution to the dynamic systems
synthesis problem are: development/selection of a
schematic language, a procedure for generating can-
didate schematic descriptions, and a procedure for
categorizing and altering schematic descriptions
falling into different classes of behavior.
The particular schematic language we use in the
dynamic systems domain can not be extended to
any other domain, although the properties of the
lumped-parameter systems language that make it a
good choice for the dynamic systems problem can
be used as guidelines for selecting schematic lan-
guages in other domains.
The power spine idea in the dynamic systems
domain has incarnations in other domains as well.
In the domain of material handling systems (i.e.,
design of conveyers) there must be a connection
between input and output. In the domain of engi-
neering structures (beams, brackets, supports,
struts) there must be a connection between input
and output. In fact, in the structures case, perhaps
the candidate schematic descriptions could be max-
imal connections--a structure that occupies all of
the possible space between the input and output
16 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
points of the structure. Then, any valid schematic
description might be derivable from material re-
moval operations on this candidate schematic de-
scription. The classification and modification proce-
dures in the dynamic systems domain are problem
specific; however, the general idea is applicable in
many other domains. Imagine for example, a syn-
thesis problem in the shaft and bearing system do-
main. A minimal characterization of the system in
terms of the types of interactions between adjacent
elements could be derived in order to compute the
degrees of freedom of the device, or to determine
whether or not the device could be assembled.
5.4 Computer Implementation
In this article, we have focused almost exclusively
on the principles and the procedures for performing
the schematic synthesis task. We have deliberately
avoided a discussion of any particular computer
program that implements these ideas. Our belief is
that programs in this context serve two purposes:
first, they may be tools for solidifying and testing
hypotheses about how to perform the synthesis
task; second, they may be embodiments of the final
procedures, useful as tools or demonstrations. We
have written a computer program that implements a
solution to the schematic synthesis problem de-
scribed in this article. The program was written to
fulfill the first purpose--to clarify the thinking in-
volved in devising a solution technique--and to that
extent was quite useful. The final version of the
program does not exactly match the solution tech-
nique presented in this article. The actual program
deviates from the theory we present in one major
way: it relies on a set of debugging rules to modify
the candidate schematic descriptions rather than
performing the compacting transformation and sub-
sequent modifications. An example debugging oper-
ator is: I f the output is a flow variable, the input is a
flow variable, and differentiation is desired, add a
series resistance and capacitance to ground. These
rules were derived by analyzing human design rea-
soning in debugging deficient schematic descrip-
tions, and in fact correspond to the same operations
as are derived by the technique presented in this
article. The debugging rules are, however, much
more complicated than the procedure using the con-
cept of a compact representation and isolated inert-
ances and capacitances. It was not until we began
exploring the completeness of the debugging proce-
dure that we realized that there was a more compact
way of characterizing the schematic descriptions
and that the domain knowledge could be expressed
more concisely.
6 Related W o r k
A more detailed presentation of this work along
with a procedure for generating physical descrip-
tions from the schematic descriptions is in [Ul-
rich88b]. The key idea behind generating a physical
description from a schematic description is to first
use a standard physical component for each func-
tional element in the schematic description, and
then to subsequently look for opportunities to sim-
plify the resulting device. Doyle describes work
aimed at generating explanations of device behavior
[Doyle88]. In particular, the input to the explana-
tion problem is a time history of events or device
states. The output is a network of causal connec-
tions between the events in the observation. Each
connection corresponds to a physical phenomenon
or mechanism. This causal network can be thought
of as a sort of schematic description of the device.
Doyle works with a very broad class of devices,
including toasters, bicycle coaster brakes, and tire
gauges. To deal with this wide variety of devices, he
has developed a very rich representation for physi-
cal phenomena, including many kinds of transduc-
tion and transport. The key contribution of this
work is the exploration of the power of various
types of constraints in controlling the combinatorial
complexity of the explanation problem. [Prabhu88]
derives some mathematical properties of multi-in-
put, multi-output devices characterized by power
flows between inputs and outputs. Prabhu uses a
bondgraph representation for these devices, and
concentrates on synthesizing the junction-structure
or network of transducing elements that can link the
inputs with the outputs while dividing the power
flows according to specification. Because the bond-
graph is a formal mathematical representation, cer-
tain results such as soundness and completeness
can be proven. [Kannapan87] develops an instance
of a schematic language for mechanical design. The
language includes primitives shafts, bearings, han-
dles, supports, etc. Pieces of devices described with
this language are combined together to form new
designs. [Williams88] is one of the very few pieces
of work that deals with the synthesis of a design
configuration. Williams explores the domain of digi-
tal circuit design at the FET level. His program is
based upon using qualitative analysis of the behav-
ior of a preliminary circuit design to guide design
modifications. Williams develops a time-based de-
pendency scheme for tracking the influence of one
event in time on another event. [Roylance83] is
probably the first effort at synthesizing analog cir-
cuit configurations computationally. In this mas-
ter's thesis, Roylance describes a design-rule-based
 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
system that designs simple R L C circuits. The de-
sign rules allow the system to backward chain from
an equation specifying the desired circuit behavior.
[Ressler84] is a thesis describing a computational
procedure for designing operational amplifiers. The
procedure is based upon a hierarchical circuit gram-
mar. Amplifiers are viewed as consisting of three
stages. Stage one may be implemented as a differen-
tial pair, a cur/rent cancellation configuration or a
super beta circuit. A differential pair m a y be viewed
as a load and emitter coupler pair. A load can be
resistive, a current mirror, a simple pair, or a
Darlington pair. There are similar expansions for
the other amplifier stages. The design procedure is
to implement the amplifier with the simplest possi-
ble pieces, then analyze the resulting circuit at each
stage in the instantiation process. If the circuit will
not meet the specifications, then a more complex
option is chosen. [Rieger77] is one o f the first pa-
pers attempting to describe the causal structure of a
mechanical device. This article presents a language
for describing devices, and develops a model in this
language for a thermostat. The functional elements
of the model are terms like: continuous and one-
shot enablement, state coupling, state equivalence,
state antagonism, threshold, and rate confluence.
This language was designed to allow descriptions o f
complex, highly non-linear device behavior, that
can not be described with differential equations.
Rieger uses these descriptions to simulate the be-
havior of the devices by assigning a computational
behavior of each functional element in the device
description.
Acknowledgments. This article describes work performed at the
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Support for the laboratory's research is provided
in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of
the United States Department of Defense under the Office of
Naval Research contract N00014-85-K-0124, and the National
Science Foundation under grant DMC 8618776. The presentation
and substance of the research described in this article were im-
proved in response to helpful comments by Randall Davis, David
Gossard, Patrick Winston, and the reviewers.
References
[Doyle88]
Doyle, R.J., "Hypothesizing Device Mechanisms: Opening Up
the Black Box," Massachusetts Institute of Technology De-
partment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ph.D. Thesis, 1988.
[Kannapan87]
Kannapan, S. and K.M. Marshek, "Design Synthetic Reason-
ing: A Program For Research," Mechanical Systems and De-
sign Technical Report 202, University of Texas at Austin,
Department of Mechanical Engineering.
17
[Ogata70]
Ogata, K., Modern ControlEngineering, Prentice-Hall, 1970. p.
284.
[Paynter61]
Paynter, H.M., Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1961.
[Prabhu88]
Prabhu, D. and D.L. Taylor, "Some Issues in the Generation of
Topology of Systems with Constant Power-Flow Input-Out-
put Requirements," Proceedings of the 1988 ASME Design
Automation Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, September
1988.
[Ressler84]
Ressler, A.L., "A Circuit Grammar for Operational Amplifier
Design," Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyArtificial In-
telligence Laboratory Technical Report 807, January 1984.
[Rieger77]
Rieger, C. and M. Grinberg, "The Declarative Representation
and Procedural Simulation of Causality in Physical Mecha-
nisms," Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Confer-
ence on Artificial Intelligence, VoL l, p. 250, 1977.
[Rosenberg83]
Rosenberg, R.C., and D.C. Karnopp, Introduction to Physical
System Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1983.
[Roylance83]
Roylance, G., "A Simple Model of Circuit Design," Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Labora-
tory Technical Report 703, 1983.
[UIrich88a]
Ulrich, K.T. and W.P. Seering, "Function Sharing in Mechani-
cal Design," Proceedings of the Seventh National Confer-
ence on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88), St. Paul, MN, Au-
gust I988.
lUlrich88b]
Ulrich, K.T. and W.P. Seering, "Computation and Pre-Paramet-
tic Design," MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical
Report 1043, October 1988.
[Williams88]
Williams, B., "Principled Design Based on Topologies of Inter-
action," Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Ph.D. The-
sis, 1988.
Appendix
A.1 Determining the Type Number from the
System Equations
The procedure for determining the type number of a
system given a differential equation relating an in-
put and output quantity is as follows:
1. Rearrange the equation so that the terms consist-
ing o f derivatives of the input are on the right-
hand side (RHS), and the terms consisting of de-
rivatives of the output are on the lefthand side
(LHS).
2. Perform a LaPlace transformation on the expres-
sion leaving an equation between polynomials in
the LaPlace operator, s, and the input and output
quantity. (In the case o f equations of this form,
the LaPlace transform is performed by simply
18 Ulrich & Seering: Synthesis of Schematic Descriptions in Mechanical Design
replacing s" for d'/dt'). Multiply both sides of
the equation by s raised to some power to elimi-
nate any s terms in the denominators of any frac-
tions. Factor out as many s's as possible from
both sides o f the equation. If an s term can be
factored out o f both sides of the equation, sim-
plify the equation by dividing both sides by the
lower-order of the two factored-out s terms.
3. We call the order of the remaining factored out s
term the type number of the system. If the s term
is on the RHS, then the type number is positive.
If the s term is on the L H S , then the type number
is negative.
As an example consider the following equation be-
tween an input pressure and an output velocity (cor-
responding to piston-cylinder connected to a mass,
a spring and a damper):
d2 d d
M~V + B ~ t V + K V = A ~ttP
Performing the LaPlace transform leaves:
MVs 2 + BVs + KV = APs.
Since there is one s that can be factored out of the
RHS, the system has a type number of l, meaning
that the input pressure changes with the integral of
the output velocity (position). One important prop-
erty of this derivation procedure is that it is al-
gorithmic and can be automated.
A.2 An Explanation of Isolated Groups Using
Bondgraphs 4
Although we have used mnemonic icons to show
the schematic descriptions in this article, the repre-
sentation we have used in this project is bondgraphs
[Paynter61, Rosenberg83]. In the bondgraph repre-
sentation, our descriptions are simply sequences of
2-ports and zero- or one-junctions with attached l-
ports that connect a source element to an n-port
corresponding to the output quantity of interest. In
this context, a power spine is a sequence o f trans-
formers and/or gyrators connecting a graph chunk
that represents the input environment of the device
to a graph chunk that represents the output environ-
ment of the device. Given this representation, the
concept of an isolated group can be defined as a
syntactic pattern within the graph sequence. In this
section, we given the procedure for modifying a
4 This section presumes familiarity with bondgraph notation.
candidate graph once it has been simplified to con-
tain only generalized resistances, capacitances, in-
ertances, and sources. This procedure corresponds
to the informal description given in section 3.3.2.
1. In the case of a bondgraph of type - t with an
effort source as input, adding a l - - R (a new one-
junction with an attached R) along the power
spine will make it a type 0 bondgraph. In the case
of a bondgraph of type - l with a flow source as
input, adding a 0 - - R along the power spine will
make it a type 0 bondgraph.
2. In all other cases, the type number o f a graph is
exactly the number of isolated 1 - - C or 0 - - 1
groups along the power spine of the graph. An
explanation of isolation is given below.
The power spine of a graph connects the input n-
port to the output n-port. The spine can be thought
of as a string of bondgraph groups of the form
(x--A, y--B, z - - C ) where x, y and z are n-ports and
A, B, and C are 1-ports. The bondgraph groups
1 - - C and 0 - - I cause differentiation of the input if
they are isolated. This differentiation is what deter-
mines the type number of a system. An isolated
1 - - C or 0 - - I group is one whose neighbors (on ei-
ther side of it in the p o w e r spine string) are isolating
groups.
1. An isolating group for a I - - C is a 0 - - R , a 0 - - I ,
or a O--SE; a 1--I or 1 - - R occurring at the last
1-port in the bondgraph sequence; or combina-
tions of 1 - - R ' s or l - - l ' s and any other isolating
groups (SE indicates effort source, SF indicates
flow source). This last c a s e - - a combination of
1 - - R ' s or l - - l ' s and any isolating g r o u p - - i s
also an isolating group because a I - - R or a 1--1
next to 1 - - C does not influence the type number
of a graph.
2. The isolating groups for a 0 - - I are either l - - R ' s ,
l - - C ' s , or 1 - - S F ' s ; 0 - - C ' s or 0 - - R ' s occurring
as the last 1-port in a bondgraph sequence; or
combinations of 0 - - C ' s or 0 m R ' s and any other
isolating group.
Given this statement o f the domain knowledge, the
derivation of modification operators is trivial. Ex-
cept in the case of systems of type - I , the differ-
ence between the type number of the candidate
design and the type number of the specification
is equal to the number of new isolated 1 - - C ' s or
0 - - I ' s that must be created in the graph. If one
isolated group must be created then an isolated 0 - - I
or a 1 - - C could be added, or a non-isolated 0 - - I or
1 - - C already in the graph could be isolated by add-
ing an isolating group.