See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234154482

Functional design and optimization of

parametric CAD models in a knowledge-based
PLM environment
ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 2009
DOI: 10.1504/IJPD.2009.026174

CITATION

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

86

146

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Samuel Gomes

Varret Antoine

Universit de Technologie de Belfort-Mont

Universit de Technologie de Belfort-Mont

128 PUBLICATIONS 255 CITATIONS

3 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Jean-Claude Sagot
Universit de Technologie de Belfort-Mont
248 PUBLICATIONS 355 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Varret Antoine

Retrieved on: 14 August 2015

60

Int. J. Product Development, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2/3, 2009

Functional design and optimisation of parametric

CAD models in a knowledge-based PLM environment
S. Gomes*, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer
and J.C. Sagot
SeT Laboratory
Belfort-Montbeliard University of Technology (UTBM)
90010 Belfort Cedex, France
E-mail: samuel.gomes@utbm.fr
E-mail: antoine.varret@utbm.fr
E-mail: jean-bernard.bluntzer@utbm.fr
E-mail: jean-claude.sagot@utbm.fr
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to present our approach to
automatically generating optimised 3D Computer-aided Design (CAD) models
into which all the known expert design rules are integrated, by changing
only functional requirements for the same product architecture. Through the
requirement specifications integrated into our ACSP Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM) system (functional and product architecture parameters),
we are able to generate and automatically draft/produce/test/validate/optimise a
parametric product architecture and its geometric skeleton, using a commercial
CAD software program. A knowledge-based engineering software program,
using constraint propagation with a first-order inference engine, and a
multiobjective optimisation solver are used as an interface between the PLM
system and the CAD software.
Keywords: functional design; knowledge-based engineering; multiobjective
optimisation; Product Lifecycle Management; PLM; Computer-aided
Design; CAD.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Gomes, S., Varret, A.,
Bluntzer, J.B. and Sagot, J.C. (2009) Functional design and optimisation of
parametric CAD models in a knowledge-based PLM environment, Int. J.
Product Development, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2/3, pp.6077.
Biographical notes: After a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Institut
National Polytechnique de Lorraine (INPL) in 1999, S. Gomes is currently an
Associate Professor at Belfort-Montbeliard University of Technology in the
Mechanical Engineering and Design Department. His current research interest
includes multidisciplinary optimisation to improve mechanical engineering
design processes using collaborative and knowledge-based engineering.
Antoine Varret is a Teacher at Belfort-Montbeliard University of Technology
in the Mechanical Engineering and Design Department. He also continues
scientific studies with a PhD work in the Systmes et Transports (SeT)
Laboratory. His research focuses on multidisciplinary optimisation in
mechanical design.
After technical studies concluded by a Masters degree in Mechanical
Engineering and Design from the Belfort-Montbeliard University of
Technology in 2006, Jean Bernard Bluntzer began scientific studies with a
Copyright 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

61

PhD work in partnership with an automotive supplier working on the bumper

area. The main topic of the research, integrating collaborative design and
knowledge management, is how to decrease the routine engineering time in the
CAD area, and particularly on models based on complex shapes.
Jean Claude Sagot is a Professor in Ergonomics. He is the Director of
the Mechanical Engineering and Design Department at Belfort-Montbeliard
University of Technology. He is also responsible for the ERgonomie et
Conception de Systmes (ERCOS) Search Unit at the SeT Laboratory. His
research focuses on the intervention of ergonomics in the design process of
products, with particular emphasis on the development of knowledge, methods
and tools to recentre design on the end user, while preserving health, safety,
comfort and the efficiency of the human-machine relationship.

Introduction

The engineering design of complex systems (Rechting, 1991) with a systematic approach
(Pahl and Beitz, 1995) is a decision-making process with the purpose of choosing from
among a set of options that leads to an irrevocable allocation of resources. It is inherently
a multiobjective process. As products become increasingly complex, their design is
usually on a large scale, typically with a significant number of design variables,
parameters, requirements, constraints and objectives. Consequently, multiobjective
optimisation is being used more often to provide one optimal solution.
The main trend, particularly in industrial companies, is to propose complex products
whose design spans several engineering contexts and disciplines. At the same time,
although companies have grown in complexity, they have also reduced the number of
areas of competence, in order to be specialised in one (or several) discipline(s); thus,
the use of subcontractors is now very common. In addition, besides the traditional
cost considerations, more recent industrial requirements, such as robustness, reliability
and design performance and also marketing criteria, have been identified and have
quickly become important characteristics of the design and of the optimisation process.
Nowadays, actual real-world engineering design problems involve simultaneous
optimisation to meet several objectives and to ensure compliance with various constraints
determined by the design team.
The main purpose of this work is to develop a design methodology and a direct
multiobjective optimisation approach, integrating functional design and knowledge-based
engineering features, such as expert rule definition or design experience feedback, in
order to reduce costs, lead time and also improve product qualities and values. This
methodology helps the designer to take parametric Computer-aided Design (CAD)
models of an optimised product through functional requirements, design rules and
design objectives that can be verified and reached using optimisation loops. This
methodology is applied in a collaborative design process (Kvan, 2000) using ACSP
(in French: Atelier Coopratif de Suivi de Projets) (Gomes and Sagot, 2002), a
self-developed knowledge-based Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) environment
(Shen, 2003; Gomes et al., 2005) based on internet technologies (Liu and Xu, 2001;
Zhuang et al., 2000).

62

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

As a first step, using the requirements specification and the technical characteristics
of the product, integrated by the project members into our ACSP PLM system (functional
and product architecture parameters), we are able to generate and automatically produce a
parametric product architecture and its geometric skeleton, in a commercial CAD
software program. CAD designers can then complete this 3D skeleton by using generic
templates of parts stored in a shared database (Gomes et al., 2006).
In the second step, a knowledge management approach (Grundstein, 2000) including
a knowledge-based engineering software program, using constraint propagation with a
first-order inference engine, is used as an interface between the PLM system and the
CAD software (Peltonen, 2000).
The last step is to develop an application for the optimisation of the product by using
specific algorithms to minimise weight or number of parts or to achieve other objective
functions with respect to various functional parameters, geometrical variables and design
rules. As the objective functions are considered nonlinear functions, depending on the
functional parameters, it is necessary to use a heuristic search method, such as Genetic
Algorithms, in order to find the best solution in the design context.
Our methodology of coupling the Genetic Algorithm optimisation approach,
constraint propagation, with the inference engine and the PLM environment will
be presented. To validate our research hypotheses, an experimental case study is
chosen: the ground-link suspension system of a racing car design and manufacturing
project, including conceptual, embodiment and detailed design phases as well as
manufacturing phases.
Before describing our functional, knowledge-based engineering (Sferro, 1999;
Whitney et al., 1999) and optimisation design methodology, we will first present the
main principles of multidisciplinary and multiobjective optimisation.

Multidisciplinary and multiobjective optimisation principles

Companies need to optimise their products and processes daily, hence optimisation plays
a significant role in todays design cycle. Optimising a system means selecting the best
available option from a wide range of possible choices. This specific approach can be a
complex task as, potentially, a huge number of options should be tested. There are several
sources of complexity, such as the computational difficulties in modelling physics
problems, the potentially high number of free variables, or a high number of objectives
and constraints/constraining factors.
A single optimisation approach is not sufficient to deal with real-life problems.
Therefore, engineers are frequently asked to solve problems with several conflicting
objective functions.
Multidisciplinary optimisation consists in finding the optimal design of complex
engineering systems, which requires analyses that take into account interactions amongst
the disciplines (or parts of the system) and which seek to synergistically exploit
these interactions.
In order to help engineers and decision-makers, old and new optimisation techniques
are studied and widely used in industry. Each optimisation technique is qualified by its
search strategy, which determines the robustness, the reliability and/or the accuracy of the

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

63

method. Robustness means that the objective functions are met even when starting far
from the final solution. On the other hand, accuracy measures the capability of the
optimisation algorithm to get as close as possible to the functional desired limits.
There are hundreds or thousands of optimisation methods in scientific literature; each
numerical method can solve a specific or more generic problem. Some methods are more
appropriate for constrained optimisation, others for unconstrained continuous problems,
or for solving discrete problems.
Many classical optimisation methods exist; these methods can be used provided that
certain mathematical conditions are satisfied. Thus, for example, linear programming
efficiently solves problems where both the objective and the constraints are linear with
respect to all the decision variables. Other specific numerical methods can be useful for
solving quadratic programming, nonlinear problems, nonlinear least squares, nonlinear
equations and multiobjective optimisation.
Unfortunately, real-world applications often include one or more difficulties which
make these methods inapplicable. Most of the time, objective functions are highly
nonlinear or may not have an analytic expression in terms of the parameters.
From a mathematical point of view, a multiobjective optimisation problem can be
written as follows:
min [f1(X), f2(X), ... , fi(X)],

Gj(X) 0, and G1(X) = 0,

X = (x1, ..., xn+u)

where:

X = (x1, ..., xn+u) is the vector of the variable generally integrating the n customers
requirements and u technical design parameters of the product. These variables are
considered as input data of the optimisation problem. These input parameters are the
quantities that the designer can vary. It is by modifying these values that the search
for an optimum is performed. The variables can be continuous or discrete. The
problem may even contain a mixture of continuous and discrete variables.

f1,...,fi are the objective functions, the response parameters. When i > 1 and the
different and conflicting functional requirements are observed, we speak about
multiobjective optimisation. These are the quantities that the designer wishes to
maximise or minimise. For example, the designer can maximise the efficiency and
the performance, or can minimise the cost and the weight.

Gi(x1, ..., xn+u) 0, and G1(x1, ..., xn+u) = 0 are the constraints. Equality and
inequality constraints directly connected to the requirements are imposed on the
project. These constraints correspond to the limits that the designer must meet due to
the need to comply with standards, or due to the particular characteristics of the
environment, the functionalities, the physical limitations, etc. These constraints must
be satisfied in order to be able to consider a certain solution as acceptable. All the
constraints define a feasible region in a multidimensional solution space. For
example, designers can impose some general constraints, such as the maximum
admissible stress, the maximum deformation, or the minimum performance. The
designer can even impose some special constraints on the variables such as the total
volume, the thickness range and so on.

With a multiobjective problem, the notion of what is optimum changes as the aim is to
find good compromises rather than a single solution. So, a multiobjective optimisation
does not produce a unique solution but a set of solutions. These solutions are called

64

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

Pareto solutions. The set of solutions can be called trade-off surface or Pareto frontier.
In the Pareto frontier, none of the components can be improved without the deterioration
of at least one of the other components.

Functional, knowledge-based engineering and optimisation

design methodology

The design activity involves many contributors and experts throughout the product
lifecycle, which starts with project tasks, proceeds to functional definition, product
modelling, manufacturing and ends with its destruction or recycling. Whether the design
solution is a tangible product, service, software program, process, or something else,
designers typically follow these main steps, applying a concurrent (Sohlenius, 1992) and
distributed (Brissaud and Garro, 1996) engineering process:

understand their customers needs and requirements (Requirements vector

R = [r1,, rn])

define the problem they must solve, and also the functions and subfunctions they
have to develop in order to satisfy these needs (Functions vector Fu = [fu1,, fum])

create and select a product solution including one or several parts (Parts vector
P = [p1,, pk])

analyse and optimise the proposed solution by finding optimal sets of technical
characteristics or parameters for each part, subproduct or product assembly
(Technical parameters vector T = [t1,, tu]), while maximising or minimising
objective functions and verifying design constraints and rules (Rules vector
Ru = [F1(X),, Fi(X)]). In this context, X is defined by the concatenation of
both R (R = [r1,, rn]) and T (T = [t1,, tu]) vectors: X = [x1, ..., xn+u]
= [r1,, rn, t1,, tu]

check the resulting design against the customers needs, by means of a

validation loop.

3.1 Our design methodology

Our design approach offers a systematic and orderly way to proceed through the
development process of optimised products (Eggers et al., 2002). This methodology
ensures that designers:

integrate the customers requirements during the entire design process, applying the
House of Quality principles (Mocquo, 2007)

store their design information during the design process in a PLM system, using the
Multi-Domains and Multi-Viewpoints data model, based upon the Axiomatic design
(Suh, 1998) and the Multi-Viewpoints Product Model (Tichkiewitch, 1996)

extract, reorder and validate engineering knowledge, using our KATRAS

multiagent society (Monticolo et al., 2006), in a collaborative engineering context
(Jin and Lu, 1998)

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

65

generate a well-structured and parametric product architecture, based on our

approach of functional constraint propagation in parametric CAD models
(Bluntzer et al., 2006)

can combine the design parameters and make each of them evolve within the
limits of the customer requirements while following all expert rules, using an
inference engine in a knowledge-based engineering system (Whitney et al., 1999;
Serrafero, 1998)

make the best possible design decisions due to multidisciplinary and multiobjective
optimisation loops, involving metaheuristic algorithms such as genetic algorithms,
for minimising and/or maximising objective functions.

As illustrated in Figure 1, our functional, knowledge-based engineering and optimisation

design methodology has been developed in order to reduce the time devoted to routine
design by connecting all these design tools, while keeping a traceability between the
different viewpoints (functional, structural, geometric, etc.) on the product:

All designers can generate Project, Product, Process and Usability information in our
PLM system, by integrating knowledge engineering features. At the same time, a
continuous and automatic process of knowledge capitalisation, using the KATRAS
multiagent society, is carried out (Monticolo et al., 2006).

The product architect creates a parametric product architecture and skeleton in the
PLM environment, and the same features can be automatically generated in the CAD
software, using a Visual Basic script file, exported directly from the PLM system. At
the same time, he/she generates a table of parameters (X = [x1, ..., xn+u]) with various
acceptable domains for continuous variables (for example : x1 [8,10.5]) or
discrete variables (x2 {steel, aluminium, carbon}).

Then, the CAD designers can begin to build solid features directly on the previous
parametric product architecture and skeleton, with a limited access control on
the parameters.

As proposed by the KnoVa-Sigma model (Serrafero, 2002), expert designers first

validate expert knowledge extracted by the artificial agents from the PLM database.
They perform a voting process in a knowledge management environment system in
order to validate the engineering knowledge such as expert rules (Fi(X), Gj(X),
if-then-else rules, etc.), and define the project-product-process context in order to
be able to reuse this knowledge in future projects.

Then, with a knowledge-based engineering platform, using an inference engine

based on constraint propagation (Yannou et al., 2003), the expert designers set up
the design parameters (X = [x1,, xn+u]) with values relating to the acceptable
domains, according to the customers requirements. In this step, we see that the
knowledge-based engineering application computed by the inference engine is
automatically generated from the knowledge-based PLM system.

In order to ensure quality-cost-time requirements on the project programme, expert

designers have to proceed to optimisation loops on the product definition, taking
into consideration design constraints (Gj(X)0) and objective functions Fi(X) to be
minimised or maximised, as described in the previous paragraph. They have to build

66

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

and compute an optimisation model, using a multidisciplinary and multiobjective
optimisation processor, computing input/output parameters (X = [x1,, xn+u])
imported from the previously presented table of parameters

Finally, product architects and expert designers can choose various vectors of
optimal solutions (input/output parameters Xi = [x1,, xn+u]i) situated on the
Pareto frontier of the optimisation problem. After a last checking loop in the
knowledge-based engineering platform, these optimal solutions, defining various
optimal design alternatives, are then archived in the CAD model table of parameters,
in order to verify the compatibility with the other nonalgebraic expert rules.

CAD designers, expert designers and product architects can finally visualise the
optimal design alternatives by opening the CAD model synchronised with the table
of parameters.

Figure 1

Functional, knowledge-based engineering and optimisation design methodology

(see online version for colours)

1. Generate Project, Product,

Process and Usability information

Designers

PLM environment
2. Generation of a parametric product architecture and skeleton (*.catvbs script file)

PRODUCT DOMAIN

Requirements (R)
Functions (Fu)
Parts (P)
Technical
characteristics (T)
(T),

4. Generation of a parameters table X with validity domain (x1 [10,35])

5. Set up of parameters (X=[x1 , ,xn+u

+u ]), validity domains (x2
{ steel, alum inum , carbon }) and design objectives (G i (X) 0)

KBE application
with an inference
engine for
constraints
propagation

PROCESS DOMAIN

Plants,
Assembly facilities
Manufacturing
means ,

EXPERT
PROCESS

EXPERT
EXPERIENCE

7. Design choices
definition

Dynamic
table of
parameters

5. Definition of valid expert rules (F i(X);

G j(X), if then else rules, etc.)

0. Continuous process of knowledge capitalisation

using KATRAS Multi
Multiagent society

PROJECT DOMAIN

Tasks
Resources
Milestones
costs,

Multi-Disciplinary
Multidisciplinary
optimisation
optimization
processor

7. Vectors of optimal
input/output
parameters
(Xi = [x 1,, xn+u ]i on
Pareto Frontier )

8. CAD model
synchronisation

Parametric
CAD modeler

3. Model solid
features

6. Definition of input/output parameters (X=[x1,, x n+u ])

EXPERT
RULES (Ru)

EXPERT
VOCABULARY

4. Validate expert
knowledge

KM environment
Expert
Designers

CAD
Designer

3.2 Software tools applied in our design methodology

Software-supporting concurrent engineering, such as PLM systems, is needed to help
design team members to manage data, information and knowledge during their project
tasks. ACSP is a web-based PLM platform which helps the design team members to carry

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

67

out cooperative activities in product-process-design projects (providing the right data, to

the right person at the right moment) and, by the integration of expert rules, to accelerate
and optimise routine design processes in order to give more time to the innovative
design tasks.
To carry out this objective, we have developed knowledge-based engineering
features, such as expert rule definition or design experience feedback, in the ACSP PLM
system, in order, first, to store this knowledge in a knowledge management system,
and then to pilot parametric CAD models of the product (in our case CATIAv5), after
one or several constraint propagation and optimisation loops using KADVISER, a
knowledge-based engineering development environment and ModeFRONTIER, a
multidisciplinary optimisation software program.
A knowledge-based engineering solver is a system which allows the routine design
process to be accelerated by guiding designers through their choices and their thinking. It
uses expert rules extracted from a knowledge database or formalised by human experts.
KADVISER includes a knowledge-based engineering solver which enables the
development and running of expert applications, taking into consideration the subject to
change and specific character of the company know-how. KADVISER includes a
reasoning module based on an inference engine which gives data entry assistance,
helps in decision-making and manages the data inexactitude. It can also communicate
with the other main software families (PLM database, CAD modellers, MS Excel
spreadsheet, etc.).
Constraint propagation is the mechanism in KADVISER which makes it possible to
deduce the remaining fields of solutions at any moment during the application of a set
of constraints. The main principles of the KADVISER inference engine with a constraint
propagation mechanism are:

reversible constraint propagation the reversibility is the mechanism of the inference

engine which makes it possible to suppress the constraints created by the
input/output concepts. This spares designers from writing the various equivalent
reversed formulas. To illustrate the reversibility mechanism, we consider the
input/output vector X = [x1, x2, x3, x4] where x1, x3, x4 are real, and x2 is a chain of
characters. If we have a constraint G1(X): x1 = x3 + x4, this constraint is also
considered by the inference engine as (x3 = x1 x4) or (x4 = x1 x3). These
reversibility properties have some limitations depending on the mathematical
expression of the constraint

management of assumptions allowing the exploration of all the possible solutions

reduction of the possible fields of solutions, starting from a numerical interval (for
example: x1[8,10.5]) or a list of discrete values (x2{steel, aluminium, carbon}).

In order to illustrate the constraint propagation in the KADVISER inference engine, the
following example is given, using numerical fields:

x1, x3, x4 are real: x1 [8.0, 10.5], x3 [22.0, 41.3] and x4 is unknown

1st computed constraint: (x4 = x3 11.0)

then

x4 [11.0; 30.3]

2nd computed constraint: (x4 = x1 + 6.0)

then

x4 [11.0; 16.5]

3rd computed constraint: (x4 12.0)

then

x4 [12.0; 16.5].

68

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

ModeFRONTIER is a tool for multidisciplinary optimisation problem solving, and

it includes the most widely used methods, in fact, both standard and metaheuristic
methods, for single and multiobjective optimisations.
Before 1980, multiobjective optimisation problems were solved only by means of
weighted functions, with which the problem was transformed into a single objective
problem using problem-dependent weightings wi, empirically defined by the user:
F(x) = w1*F1(X) + w2*F2(X) ++ wk*Fk(X).
Metaheuristic methods are a new type of method that has been developed since 1980.
These methods have the ability to solve even difficult optimisation problems in the best
way possible and aim to optimise several objectives simultaneously, thus generating
various points in the Pareto set. This class of methods includes, among others, simulated
annealing, genetic algorithms, particle swarm, ant colonies, evolutionary strategies and
tabu search. This group of methods has significantly contributed to the renewal of
multiobjective optimisation and has been applied in our experimental case study.

Experimental design case study

In order to illustrate our proposals, an experimental design case is chosen. Every year, the
Mechanical Engineering and Design Department at Belfort-Montbeliard University of
Technology has to develop and prototype an entire new racing vehicle. To simplify the
demonstration, we choose to limit the experimental case study to a subproduct of the
racing car: the ground-link suspension system. This subproduct of the racing car includes
many mechanical parts linking the wheel to the chassis. The design and optimisation
process will be focused on the suspension triangles (from the diagrams, this component
looks like the one called the wishbone in English, an A-frame component linking the
chassis to the wheel-hub) of the ground-link system. The main steps of our previously
presented methodology are applied in this experimental case. For the optimisation study,
the technical characteristics of external systems in interaction with the ground-link
suspension (chassis, hubs, brakes, wheels) have been considered as requirements (R), as
described in Table 2.
To complete the requirements, the mechanical characteristics of the ground-link
suspension are considered as technical parameters (T), the continuous or discrete
variables of our design and optimisation case study (Table 3).
As presented in Table 1 and Table 4, describing objective functions, constraints and
expert rules, the equations for the optimisation problem are defined in two steps. First, we
apply traditional mechanical analysis of nondeformable solids, allowing the definition of
the maximum deceleration acceptable to the vehicle and loads generated at the various
link points of the suspension triangles (wishbones). Then we define a standard material
strength calculation in order to identify the stresses and deformations corresponding to
these loads.
The first step allows the highest load applied to the lower triangle at point A to
be identified (the respective values of the load vectors in X and Y directions: 1792 N;
1482 N, in a constant deceleration phase, value = 10 m/s corresponding to an
emergency braking condition). However, this calculation identifies the front tie-rod of the
lower triangle as the most highly stressed component.

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

Table 1

69

Requirements defined as constants of our design and optimisation case study

(see online version for colours)
Requirements (R)

{wheel/hub/brake}
set geometry

0
25.5
A 86

0
108
B 96

0
0

Coordinates of the different points in orthonormal basis O

(X, Y, Z), in millimetres, are the following (with point (O) at the
centre of the wheel):

124
46.5
C 22

RS 262.5

Track width of the vehicle

1600 mm

Castor angle, camber

angle, toe-out

0 (simplified configuration of the sets)

{wheel/hub/brake} set mass

m = 15 kg

Vehicle suspended mass

M = 460 kg

Front/Rear allocation of the

suspended mass

front: Mv = 160 kg

Vehicle centre of gravity

height/the ground

h = 0,35 m

Vehicle wheel base

e = 2,495 m

Suspension inclination
angle in relation to
the ground

am = 45

Friction factor of the tyre on

dry road

0,85

Note:

rear: Mr = 300 kg

Lower triangles included in horizontal planes. For each triangle, bisectrix of the
angle formed by the two tie-rods and the vehicle axis are perpendicular.

Table 2

Technical parameters defined as continuous or discrete variables of our design and

optimisation case study (see online version for colours)
Technical parameters (T)

Continuous variables
Angle between the tie rods

[20; 120]

External diameter (or side) value

H [10 mm; 40 mm]

Thickness

e [1 mm; 3 mm]

Tie-rod length

L = 300 mm

L
E

70
Table 2

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

Technical parameters defined as continuous or discrete variables of our design and
optimisation case study (see online version for colours) (continued)
Technical parameters (T)

Discrete variables
Section type

square shape: B = H
or
round shape: H = 2R

Material

Table 3

cost (/T) (kg/m3) E (Gpa)

item

material

Re (MPa)

steel

700

7850

210

235

aluminium

4000

2900

75

180

stainless

4500

8700

203

185

carbon

5000

1530

50

555

1.5

Objective functions and constraints defined for our design and optimisation case study
Objective functions (Fi(X))

Tie-rod mass (to be minimised)

m = .S.L

Global stress (to be minimised)

max = tc + f

Global strain (to be minimised)

f =

f + dl

Constraints (Gj)
Maximum stress allowed in normal section
Notes:

Table 4

max

Re
n

Units: Lengths (mm), Loads (N), Youngs Modulus (N/mm or MPa),

Moment of inertia (mm4), Sag (mm), Stress (N/mm or MPa), elastic limit
(Re; N/mm or MPa), density (; kg).
Expert rules defined for our design and optimisation case study
Rules (Ru)

Axial load (wheel/lower triangle) at

point A (in O(X;Y;Z) basis)

Tix: 1792 N

Lateral load (wheel/lower triangle) at

point A (in O(X;Y;Z) basis)

Tiy: 1482 N

Normal load in front tie-rod

1
1
Dn = Tix.cos ( 2 ) Tiy.sin( 2)
2
2

Tangential load in front tie-rod

1
1
Dt = sin ( 2 ) +
Tix + Tiy.cos( 2)
2sin( 2)
2
2

Sag resulting from Dn

f =

Dn.L3
3EI

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

Table 4

71

Expert rules defined for our design and optimisation case study
Rules (Ru)

Maximum stress resulting from Dn

Normal section moment of inertia

f =

Dn.L.H
2I

round section: I =
square section: I =

Extension/Retraction resulting from Dt

Maximum stress resulting from Dt
Tie-rod normal section

dl =

64

( H 4 ( H 2e) 4 )

1
( H 4 ( H 2e) 4 )
12

Dt .L
E .S

tc =

Dt
S

round section: S =

( H 2 ( H 2e)2 )

square section: S = ( H 2 ( H 2e)2 )

Notes:

Units: Lengths (mm), Loads (N), Youngs Modulus (N/mm or MPa),

Moment of inertia (mm4), Sag (mm), Stress (N/mm or MPa), elastic limit
(Re; N/mm or MPa), density (; kg).

During the second step, we determine the normal and tangential load components in the
front tie-rod and the resulting strain and stress.
As defined previously, during the project, these requirements, technical parameters,
objective functions, constraints and expert rules are integrated by the expert designers
into the ACSP PLM environment, directly associated to the product part list (Figure 2).
The data are then extracted and structured in order to create:

knowledge archives associated with ACSP in a knowledge management system

script files which automatically generate a CATIAv5 parametric CAD model,

describing the product parametric architecture, without any solid features.
These solid features will then be created by CAD designers, using the previous
product architecture

scripts for automatic generation of a knowledge-based engineering application via

the KADVISER platform.

Figure 2

Example of an ACSP interface describing parameters and rules associated with the
product part list (see online version for colours)

72

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

The KADVISER software, linked with the ACSP PLM environment, enables the expert
designer to quickly generate specific knowledge-based engineering applications, as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3

Screenshot of KADVISER application generated from ACSP database (see online

version for colours)

With the KADVISER inference engine, it is possible to manipulate different types of

elements: continuous variables (; H; e; L), discrete variables (material, section type),
coupled variables (material: the material choice modifies cost, density, Youngs modulus,
elastic limit and safety factor values), noncoupled functions (Dn; Dt) and coupled
functions. For instance, S and I parameters are linked with section type and with all other
functions using I and S parameters.
The specific, generated Knowledge-based Engineering (KBE) application allows the
reduction of the domain of acceptable fields to be seen, when a value is assigned to one
or several parameters, applying constraint propagation and the reversibility properties of
the inference engine.
The next step is to carry out the optimisation with three contradictory objectives:
minimise mass, max and strain. We apply the ModeFRONTIER optimisation software
and declare, by importing the CAD parameter table, the following: input data (; section
type; e; H; material), output data (mass; global stress; global strain) and rules. The
optimisation was carried out in four steps:
Step 1

definition, through a random design of experiment approach, of a few sets of

vectors (X) which are representative of the whole design space (input data)

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

73

Step 2

choice of a metaheurisric algorithm (we select in ModeFRONTIER a

Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm) as a first base for calculation, analysis of
mass, strain and stress values on the whole design space

Step 3

elimination of the vectors outside the Pareto frontier Figure 4. On the left-hand
diagram, these vectors are all points on the right of the curves (we can identify
four curves, which represent the Pareto frontiers for the four materials)

Step 4

selection of several optimal solutions and exportation of their values in an

MS Excel spreadsheet.
Results of our optimisation application including the Pareto frontier graph and CAD
model table of parameters, when analysing the results of contradictory objective
functions: mass and strain (see online version for colours)

Figure 4

Design ID

section

material

stress

Re/n

strain

mass

cost

142

1.0

30.0

120

34.6

370.0

0.36

0.042

0.209

214

1.4

34.0

120

21.5

370.0

0.19

0.066

0.329

252

1.0

16.0

120

58.7

58.8

0.34

0.141

0.099

298

1.0

28.0

120

27.9

45.0

0.18

0.094

0.376

318

1.0

24.0

120

46.5

58.8

0.16

0.170

0.119

367

1.2

40.0

120

15.2

45.0

0.07

0.162

0.648

1351

2.6

34.0

120

12.2

370.0

0.11

0.118

0.589

Notes:

Section type is: 1 = round; 2 = square.

The last step is to visualise the results obtained directly, by opening the CAD model and
selecting the desired optimal design. As explained previously, the MS Excel spreadsheet
containing the optimal Xi vectors is also declared as a parameter table for the parametric
CAD model.
Figure 5 presents three different optimal solutions computed from the same
parametric CAD model, when selecting the optimal design number 142, 298 and 318
from the parameter table resulting from the application of our methodology in a racing
car experimental design project.

74

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

Figure 5

Visualisation of the results of or functional design and optimisation using a

knowledge-based PLM environment (see online version for colours)

Design ID: 142

Design ID: 298

Design ID: 318

Conclusion

In this paper, we presented our functional, knowledge-based engineering and

optimisation design methodology, which has been defined to accelerate routine design in
order to leave more time available to innovation. This methodology uses various software
tools in different research fields: PLM, Knowledge-based Engineering, multidisciplinary
optimisation and advanced parametric CAD modelling. In order to validate our
assumptions, we launched an experimental design case study: the design and build of
a racing car. In this paper, we limited the application to a small part of the system:
the suspension triangle (wishbone) of the ground-link suspension system. This
experimental case study helps us to assess the methodology by identifying the main
positive and also negative points to improve. In this context, the main positive points of
our methodology are:

ensuring that the product design remains within the limits set out by the customers
requirements, in so far as a true functional analysis and design is applied

ensuring that the design developed is verified using all the expert rules, which must
be frequently updated and validated by various expert designers

archiving the data and information from the project, and also accumulating
knowledge (expert rules, expert vocabulary, expert experiences, etc.)

defining several design parameter sets corresponding to optimal solutions and good
compromises between different contradictory objectives. The multiobjective genetic
algorithm allows us to eliminate classical analysis-synthesis-evaluation loops of a
traditional design process (Yannou et al., 2003), and to go farther than a just
acceptable solution. This approach is performed without reconsidering the
performance of the optimisation algorithm used

immediate visualisation of the different optimal solutions by automatic update of the

parametric CAD model.

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

75

Our methodology shows a few lacks that must be addressed in the future. First, the
application field of this methodology is limited to routine design. Product architecture
and technical principles must be determined before the beginning of the optimisation
loop, as an input of the illustrated process.
In our example, we use explicit mathematical functions, making the application of
optimisation algorithms faster and easier, considering the very simple shapes used for the
product (simple solids with constant section tubes) and also well-known mechanical
analysis models. Future work will consist in considering more complex shapes and solid
features and integrating data coming from other fields. These data can be measurements
resulting from numerical simulations and analyses performed in Computer Aided
Engineering (stress, strain, Young Modulus, etc.) or CAD (volume, centre of gravity,
material density, etc.) systems.
Another issue we intend to address in further work consists in reducing the number of
steps of our methodology, which can introduce a lack of traceability of the design choices
during the feedback loops.
During the whole design process, the traceability between the different choices made
about the product will be implemented through a matrix-based modelling and system
analysis method, describing product design information: requirements (Rn vector of n
requirements), functions (Fum vector of m functions), parts (Pk vector of k parts) and
technical parameters (Tu vector of u technical parameters). Our traceability method will
use several matrices:

Requirements-Functions matrix: Rfu = (rfuij), 1 i n, 1 j m

Functions-Parts matrix: FuP = (fupij), 1 i m, 1 j k

Parts-Technical parameters matrix: PT = (ptij), 1 i k, 1 j u.

Each matrix contains a binary quotation (0 or 1) representing the relationships between

the four information domains. This approach allows basic multiplication of adjacent
matrices to analyse interaction propagation between the different choices concerning the
systems and helps to proceed to a reverse engineering approach to visualise the impact of
each modification. For instance, the RFu and FuP matrices are multiplied together to
produce the Requirements-Parts matrix (RP = (rpij), 1 i n, 1 j k), which provides
a means for understanding what requirements are related to product parts. Next, the RP
is multiplied with the PT matrix to define the Requirements-Technical parameters
(RT = (rtij), 1 i n, 1 j u) to determine how the requirements are related to the
technical parameters.
The analysis performed on the matrices uses simple mathematical functions,
including the summation of rows and columns and sorting. The methods, similar to the
Axiomatic design (Suh, 1990; 1998) and Design Matrix System (Browning, 2001),
provide useful insights into system requirements, functionality and components by
focusing attention on important requirements, functions and components. This will be a
great challenge for our next piece of research work.

76

S. Gomes, A. Varret, J.B. Bluntzer and J.C. Sagot

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Metropolitan Community of the region of
Montbliard, the Franche-Comt Region Council, OSEO Innovation, the French
Ministry of Industry and the Automotive of the Future cluster, for their funding of this
research activity.

References
Bluntzer, J-B., Gomes, S. and Sagot, J.C. (2006) Application de la modlisation CAO base de
connaissances la conception fonctionnelle, collaborative et multi sites de produits
modulaires, 13me Sminaire CONFERE (Collge d'Etudes et de Recherches en Design et
Conception de Produits) sur l'Innovation et la Conception, Marrakech, 67 July.
Brissaud, D. and Garro, O. (1996) An approach to concurrent engineering using distributed
design methodology, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp.303311.
Browning, T.R. (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and
integration problems: a review and new directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 48, No. 3.
Eggers, J., Feillet, D., Kehl, S., Wagner, M.O. and Yannou, B. (2002) Optimization of the
keyboard arrangement problem using an ant colony algorithm, European Journal of
Operational Research, Elsevier.
Gomes, S., Bluntzer, J.B. and Sagot, J-C. (2006) Functional design through a PLM system for
fastening routine definition of CAD models, PLEDM 2006, Playa Del Carmen, Mexico,
26 November1 December.
Gomes, S. and Sagot, J.C. (2002) A concurrent engineering experience based on a cooperative and
object oriented design methodology, Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical
Engineering, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gomes, S., Serrafero, P., Monticolo, D. and Eynard, B. (2005) Extracting knowledge from PLM
systems, an experimental approach, International Conference on Product Lifecycle
Management PLM05, Lyon, 1113 July.
Grundstein, M. (2000) From capitalizing on company knowledge to knowledge management,
in D. Morey, M. Maybury and B. Thuraisingham (Eds.) Knowledge Management, Classic and
Contemporary Works, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.261287.
Jin, Y. and Lu, S.C.Y. (1998) An agent-supported approach to collaborative design, Annals of the
CIRP, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.107110.
Kvan, T. (2000) Collaborative design: what is it?, Automation in Construction, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp.409415.
Liu, D.T. and Xu, X.W. (2001) A review of web-based product data management systems,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.251262.
Mocquo, A. (2007) Modelling scheme for capturing and analysing multi-domain design
information a hair dryer design example, International Conference on Engineering Design,
ICED07, Paris, ISBN: 1-904670-01-6.
Monticolo, D., Gomes, S., Hilaire, V. and Serrafero, P. (2006) A multi-agent architecture to
synthesize industrial knowledge from a PLM system, PLEDM 2006, Playa Del Carmen,
Mexico, 26 November1 December.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1995) Engineering Design, A Systematic Approach, in K. Wallace (Ed.),
K. Wallace, L. Blessing and F. Bauert (Trans.), 2nd ed., New York: Springer-Verlag.

Functional design and optimisation of parametric CAD models

77

Peltonen, H. (2000) Concepts and an implementation for product data management, Acta
Polytechnica Scandinavica, Mathematics and Computing Series No. 105, Espoo, The Finnish
Academies of Technology, ISBN: 951-666-538-1, ISSN: 1456-9418.
Rechting, E. (1991) Systems Architecting, New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Serrafero, P. (1998) From CAD/CAM to KAD/KAM for the design of congruent products of the
extended enterprise, UNIMEP Seminar, 3e Seminario Internacional de Alta Tecnologia,
San Paolo, pp.90104.
Serrafero, P. (2002) Vers la mesure de la quantit de connaissance et de comptence industrielle:
le modle Knova, confrence invite, 1er Sminaire International en Gestion des
Connaissances et Comptences, Nantes.
Sferro, P.R. (1999) Direct Engineering: Toward Intelligent Manufacturing, in K. Kamrani (Ed.),
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shen, W. (2003) Knowledge sharing in collaborative design environment, Computers in Industry,
Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.13.
Sohlenius, G. (1992) Concurrent engineering, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.645655.
Suh, N.P. (1990) The Principles of Design, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Suh, N.P. (1998) Axiomatic design theory for systems, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10,
pp.189209.
Tichkiewitch, S. (1996) Specifications on integrated design methodology using a multi-view
product model, System Design and Analysis Conference, Montpellier, France, pp.101108.
Whitney, D.E., Dong, Q., Judson, J. and Mascoli, C. (1999) Introducing knowledge-based
engineering into an interconnected product development process, Proceedings of the 1999
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, September,
DET99-DTM8741.
Yannou, B., Simpson, T.W. and Barton, R.R. (2003) Towards a Conceptual Design Explorer Using
Metamodeling Approaches and Constraint Programming, DETC2003/DAC48766.
Zhuang, Y., Chen, L. and Venter, R. (2000) CyberEye: an internet-enabled environment to support
collaborative design, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp.213229.