iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1007/S00366-014-0366-X
Managing dependencies in mechatronic design: a case study on dependency management between mechanical design and system design | Engineering with Computers Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Managing dependencies in mechatronic design: a case study on dependency management between mechanical design and system design

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we have investigated the role of dependencies in the design process of mechatronic products. Since explicit modeling of dependencies is largely considered unnecessary today, current languages do not support dependency modeling due to lack of sufficiently expressive language constructs. However, this paper argues that modeling dependencies is important in managing the overall design process. The paper highlights dependencies between two important viewpoints: system design and mechanical design. We have looked closely at how mechanical design (supported by CAD tools) establishes a backbone for the overall design concept. Mechanical design cannot be isolated from other design activities, and the mismanagement of dependencies there leads to problems in other domains too. To illustrate the process, the paper presents an example of modeling dependencies between system hierarchy in OMG SysML™ and the CAD assembly in Solid Edge for a mechatronic design example. The paper presents two different approaches to capturing dependencies—using a general purpose modeling language such as SysML and using a domain specific modeling language (DSML). We argue for using a DSML instead of a general purpose language and provide a DSML called the dependency modeling language (DML). An example DML model for a two degree of freedom robot use case is discussed. The paper also illustrates the complete process of capturing dependencies in a general purpose modeling language like SysML, which served as a good exercise on how to fetch data from a CAD tool and how to represent dependencies inside a significantly different modeling language. Lessons learned from doing this were applied to the construction of DML. Our aim for the future is to reduce the human effort required to build dependency models. Machine learning techniques and automated model transformations are valuable techniques to support this cause.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The word domain for a language should not be treated in the same way as the design domain.

  2. The word model refers to the domain-specific models, and not the dependency model itself.

References

  1. Braun SC, Lindemann U (2007) A multilayer approach for early cost estimation of mechatronical products. International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED07). Paris, pp 187–188

  2. Morkeberg Torry-Smith J, Qamar A, Achiche S, Wikander J, Henrik Mortensen N, During C (2013) Challenges in designing mechatronic systems. J Mech Des 135:011005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (2011) International standard 42010: system and software engineering architecture description

  4. Qamar A, Paredis CJJ, Wikander J, During C (2012) Dependency modeling and model management in mechatronic design. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 12:041009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cabrera AA, Foeken MJ, Tekin OA, Woestenenk K, Erden MS, De Schutter B, van Tooren MJL, Babuška R, van Houten FJAM, Tomiyama T (2010) Towards automation of control software: a review of challenges in mechatronic design. Mechatronics 20:876–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bradley D (2010) Mechatronics- more questions than answers. Mechatronics 20:827–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Herzig SJI, Qamar A, Paredis CJJ (2014) An approach to identifying inconsistencies in model-based systems engineering. Procedia Comput Sci 28:354–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siemens PLM Software. Solid Edge. http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/index.shtml. Accessed 1 July 2014

  9. Object Management Group. OMG systems modeling language specification V1.3. http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.3/. Accessed 1 July 2014

  10. No Magic. Magic draw UML/SysML. http://www.magicdraw.com. Accessed 1 July 2014

  11. Danilovic M, Browning TR (2007) Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int J Proj Manag 25:300–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sangal N, Jordan E, Sinha V, Jackson D (2005) Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture. Object oriented programming, systems, languages and applications (OOPSLA). ACM Press, San Diego, pp 167–176

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shah AA, Kerzhner AA, Schaefer D, Paredis CJJ (2010) Multi-view modeling to support embedded systems engineering in SysML. In: Engels G, Lewerentz C, Schäfer W, Schürr A, Westfechtel B (eds) Graph transformations and model driven engineering- lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 580–601

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Modelica Association. Modelica language specification version 3.2, http://www.modelica.org/documents/ModelicaSpec32.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014

  15. Cao Y, Liu Y, Paredis CJJ (2011) System-level model integration of design and simulation for mechatronic systems based on SysML. Mechatronics 21(6):1063–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mathworks. Matlab/Simulink, http://www.mathworks.com/products/simulink. Accessed 1 July 2014

  17. Gausemeier J, Schafer W, Greenyer J, Kahl S, Pook S, Rieke J (2009) Management of cross domain model consistency during the development of advanced mechatronic systems. 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’09). Stanford, pp 1–12

  18. Reichwein A (2011) Application-specific UML profiles for multidisciplinary product data integration. http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2012/6949/pdf/Axel_Reichwein_PhD_Thesis_2011.pdf

  19. Dassault Systems. CATIA virtual design. http://www.3ds.com/products/catia. Accessed 1 July 2014

  20. Object Management Group. OMG unified modeling language (UML) specification V2.4.1, http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/. Accessed 1 July 2014

  21. Adourian C, Vangheluwe H (2007) Consistency between geometric and dynamic views of a mechanical system. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference. Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, pp 31:1–31:6

  22. Gielingh W (2008) An assessment of the current state of product data technologies. Comput Des 40:750–759

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vallecillo A (2010) On the combination of domain specific modeling languages. Modeling foundations and applications, lecture notes in computer science, pp 305–320

  24. Pratt MJ (2001) Introduction to ISO 10303: the STEP standard for product data exchange. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1:102–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. W3C OWL Working Group. OWL web ontology language preview. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.2. Accessed 1 July 2014

  26. OSLC Core Specification Workgroup. OSLC core specification version 2.0. http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification. Accessed 1 July 2014

  27. Harel D, Rumpe B (2004) Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of “semantics”. Computer (Long Beach Calif) 37:64–72

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meyers B, Vangheluwe H (2011) A framework for evolution of modelling languages. Sci Comput Program 76:1223–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Czarnecki K, Helsen S (2006) Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst J 45:621–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Eclipse Foundation. Eclipse modeling framework (EMF). http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/. Accessed 1 July 2014

  31. Eclipse Foundation. Atlas transformation language (ATL). http://www.eclipse.org/atl/. Accessed 1 July 2014

  32. Eclipse Foundation. Model to model transformation (M2M), http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/. Accessed 15 Mar 2012

  33. No Magic. Cameo work Bench. http://www.magicdraw.com/cameoworkbench. Accessed 1 July 2014

  34. Siemens PLM Software. NET programmer’s guide. http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/zh_cn/Images/Solid_Edge_API_tcm78-125829.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2014

  35. Kerzhner AA, Paredis CJJ (2011) Model-based system verification: a formal framework for relating analyses, requirements, and tests. In: Dingel J, Solberg A (eds) Models in software engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 279–292

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Sodius. MDWorkBench, http://sodius.com/mdworkbench. Accessed 1 July 2014

  37. Qamar A, Herzig S, Paredis CJJ (2013) A domain-specific language for dependency management in model-based systems engineering. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling, 16th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. pp 7–16

  38. Gansner ER, Koutsofios E, North S (2009) Drawing graphs with dot. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ellson J, Gansner ER, Koutsofios E, North SC, Woodhull G (2003) Graphviz and dynagraph, static and dynamic graph drawing tools. Graph drawing software. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 127–148

    Google Scholar 

  40. Törngren M, El-khoury J, Brodtkorb D, Dahle HP (2012) Systematic and cost-efficient tool integration for embedded systems: the iFEST approach. ARTEMIS Technology Conference at the ARTEMIS Spring Event, Nuremberg, Germany

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ahsan Qamar

  2. Division of Mechatronics, Department of Machine Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Jan Wikander

  3. Micronic Mydata AB, Stockholm, Sweden

    Carl During

Authors
  1. Ahsan Qamar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Wikander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carl During
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahsan Qamar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qamar, A., Wikander, J. & During, C. Managing dependencies in mechatronic design: a case study on dependency management between mechanical design and system design. Engineering with Computers 31, 631–646 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-014-0366-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-014-0366-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation