An Introduction to X-Analysis Integration (XAI) Part 4: Advanced Topics & Current Research Georgia Tech Engineering Information Systems Lab eislab.gatech.edu Contact: Russell S. Peak Revision: March 15, 2001 Copyright © by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia USA. All Rights Reserved. Developed by eislab.gatech.edu. Permission to use for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided this notice is included.

2 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC An Introduction to X-Analysis Integration (XAI) Short Course Outline Part 1: Constrained Objects (COBs) Primer –Nomenclature Part 2: Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) Primer –Analysis Integration Challenges –Overview of COB-based XAI –Ubiquitization Methodology Part 3: Example Applications »Airframe Structural Analysis »Circuit Board Thermomechanical Analysis »Chip Package Thermal Analysis –Summary Part 4: Advanced Topics & Current Research

3 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Advanced Topics & Current Research Outline Advanced Product Information-Driven FEA Modeling –Focus on cases with: »Variable topology multi-body geometries »Different design & analysis geometries »Mixed analytical bodies and idealized interfaces Constrained Object (COB) Extensions –Automating support for multiple views –Next-generation capabilities Optimization and the MRA

4 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC a 2 3a 1b 1c 3b3c 3a3b 2 1a1b1c 1d1e 3 1a1b 1c 1d 2 3 4a4b4c Analytical BodiesFEA Model Decomposed Volumes original topology change (no body change) variable body change (includes topology change) Variable Topology Multi-Body (VTMB) FEA Meshing Challenges Labor-intensive “chopping”

5 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Product Information-Driven FEA Methodology Purpose of VTMB Methodology [Gen. 1 - Koo, 2000] algorithm ij Design Types i = 1…m Analysis Types j = 1…n Design Instances Analysis Instances VTMB FEA Models VTMB Methodology create algorithm ij once for a given ijj  {1…n} (not all design types have all analysis types) e.g.) for i=1(EBGA), j=1(thermal resistance) j=2 (thermal stress) for i=2 (PWB), j=1 (warpage) Chip package APMsthermal resistance CBAMs PWB APMs thermal stress CBAMs ANSYS SMMs VTMB= variable topology multi-body use algorithm ij many times

6 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Gen. 2 Research Questions a) How to represent ABB assembly? Overall Objectives [Zeng thesis] u Develop broader algorithm(s) vs. Koo method [2000] u Clarify & generalize representations vs. Zhou method [1997] L1 C1 C2 C1 C2 S1 Distributed Force Slip bonding Glue bonding Shell Body A Continuum B Fully constraint Assembly Framework L1: Loading Constraints C1,C2:Connectivity Constraints S1:Support Constraints Example ABB assembly

7 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC ABB assembly view ABB assembly view combined with ANSYS- specific consideration Research Questions b) How represent Preprocessor Solution Method Model (PSMM)? (FEA model specific)

8 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC L1 C1 C2 S1 PSMM framework Research Questions b) How represent Preprocessor Solution Method Model? (cont.) (FEA model specific)

9 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Research Questions c) How map ABB assembly model to PSMM? L1 C1C1 C2C2 C1C1 C2C2 S1 ABB Assembly Framework LL C C C1C1 C1C1 C C2C2 S S S Preprocessor SMM Framework ABB  PSMM

10 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Chip Package Applications Automatic FEA Pre/Post-processing & Solution (in vendor-specific Solution Method Model) Idealized Model (ABB Assembly)

11 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Benchmark Example Extended wing in-deck galley end tie (ewidget) - case 1 Case 1.a Blocks = analytical solids (turns into FEA elements) Sheet = analytical shell Idealized body interfaces = no-slip Case 1.b Same as 1.a except: Idealized body interfaces = mixture of no-slip and possible gap regions Design model Idealized geometry for analytical model (not shown yet)

12 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Benchmark Example Extended wing in-deck galley end tie (ewidget) - case 2 Case 2 Same as 1.a except: Need transition between blocks for shell surfaces (matching outer vs. inner faces vs. mid-plane faces) Design model Idealized geometry for analytical model (not shown yet)

13 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Airframe Applications Automatic FEA Pre/Post-processing & Solution (in vendor-specific Solution Method Model) Design Model

14 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Status: Advanced Product Info-Driven FEA Modeling u Building on previous work u PhD thesis proposal underway [Zeng] u Target applications identified & work underway: –Chip package thermal analysis (Shinko) –Airframe structural analysis (Boeing)

15 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Advanced Topics & Current Research Outline Advanced Product Information-Driven FEA Modeling Constrained Object (COB) Extensions –Automating support for multiple views –Next-generation capabilities Optimization and the MRA

16 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Constrained Object (COB) Representation Current Technical Capabilities - Generation 2 u Capabilities & features: –Various forms: computable lexical forms, graphical forms, etc. –Sub/supertypes, basic aggregates, multi-fidelity objects –Multi-directionality (I/O change) –Wrapping external programs as white box relations u Analysis module/template applications: –Product model idealizations –Explicit associativity relations with design models & other analyses –White box reuse of existing tools (e.g., FEA, in-house codes) –Reusable, adaptable analysis building blocks –Synthesis (sizing) and verification (analysis)

17 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Constrained Objects (cont.) Representation Characteristics & Advantages - Gen. 2 u Overall characteristics –Declarative knowledge representation (non-causal) –Combining object & constraint graph techniques –COBs = (STEP EXPRESS subset) + (constraint graph concepts & views) u Advantages over traditional analysis representations –Greater solution control –Richer semantics (e.g., equations wrapped in engineering context) –Capture of reusable knowledge –Enhanced development of complex analysis models u Toolkit status (XaiTools v0.4) –Basic framework, single user-oriented, file-based

18 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Planned Generation 3 + COB Enhancements u Use standard forms: Express v3, STEP Parametrics, XML, UML OCL, … u Leverage standard content: STEP generic resources, APs,... u Support concurrent multiple users (block points/buffering, synchronization, …) u Enable interactive COS and COI construction u Provide variety of interaction views/forms: –textual/graphical –geometric/logical –definition/solution/documentation –traditional (e.g., classical equation form)

19 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Interaction Views/Forms u information structure navigation u template/instance u textual/graphical u geometric/logical u definition/solution/documentation u traditional (e.g., classical equation form) u native CAD/CAE tool u specialized application view Novice Users: Graphical forms and specialized applications Expert Users: All forms Each form has its niche

20 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC COB Modeling Views HTML

21 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC COB Structure: Graphical Forms Spring Primitive Basic Constraint Schematic Notation Template Structure (Schema ) Constraint Schematic Parameterized Figure Relations Subsystem View (for reuse by other COBs)

22 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC COB Structure: Lexical Form Spring Primitive Constraint Schematic Lexical COB Schema Template COB spring SUBTYPE_OF abb; undeformed_length, L 0 : REAL; spring_constant, k : REAL; start, x 1 : REAL; end, x 2 : REAL; length, L : REAL; total_elongation, ΔL : REAL; force, F : REAL; RELATIONS r1 : " == - "; r2 : " == - "; r3 : " == * "; END_COB;

23 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC COB Instance Views Spring Primitive Constraint Schematic Instance ViewsLexical COB Instances Basic Constraint Schematic Notation Instances input: INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : 5.0; start : ?; end : ?; length : ?; total_elongation : ?; force : 10.0; END_INSTANCE; result (reconciled): INSTANCE_OF spring; undeformed_length : 20.0; spring_constant : 5.0; start : ?; end : ?; length : 22.0; total_elongation : 2.0; force : 10.0; END_INSTANCE;

24 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC spring2 spring1 Constraint Graph-S Two Spring System L 10 k1k1 L1L1 L1L1 L 20 k2k2 x 21 x 22 F2F2 L2L2 F1F1 x 11 x 12 u1u1 u2u2 P L2L2 bc4 r12 r13 r22 r23 bc5 bc6 bc3 r11 r21 bc2 bc1

25 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Extended Constraint Graph-S Two Spring System Extended Constraint Graph-S Constraint Graph-S Groups objects & relations into parent objects Object-oriented vs. flattened partial (BC relations not included)

26 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Multi-Disciplines/Users Constraint Schematic

27 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Pullable Documentation Views * Boundary condition objects & pullable views are WIP* (1) Extension Analysis a. 1D Extensional Rod b. 2D Plane Stress FEA 1. Mode: Shaft Tension 2. BC Objects Flaps down : F = 3. Part Feature (idealized) 4. Analysis Calculations 1020 HR Steel E= 30e6 psi L eff = 5.0 in lbs 5. Objective A = 1.13 in 2  allowable   psi 1.03 (2) Torsion Analysis (1a) Analysis Problem for 1D Extension Analysis Solution Tool Links BC Object Links (other analyses)* Design/Idealization Links Material Links Pullable Views* Flap Link SCN

28 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Views with FEA templates & Native CAE

29 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Generic COB Browser with design and analysis objects (attributes and relations) Specialized Analysis Module Tool with idealized package cross-section Idealized Graphical Views, Generic Browser, & Specialized Applications

30 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Parameterized Geometry at Preliminary Design Fidelity APM = analyzable product model

31 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Native CAD inter_axis_length sleeve2.width sleeve2.inner_diameter

32 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Planned Generation 3 + Other COB Enhancements u Support units and automatic conversions u Extend COI language capabilities u Improve constraint graph algorithms –Support structural loops –Support multiple subsolvers (for specified subgraphs) u Enable hybrid declarative/procedural approaches u Allow constraint hierarchies (i.e., relations with variable satisfaction priorities) u Support enhanced relations u Support explicit COS categories (e.g., APMs, CBAMs, ABBs) u Versioning & configuration management of structure

33 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Enhanced Relations u Inequalities –Enable capture of model assumptions & limitations u Arbitrary aggregate elements: a[ i ] = 5 + a[i+1]a[n/2] = 9 u Object relations:vs. Real no. relations: point1 = point2point1.x = point2.x u Conditionals (higher order constraints): if (x > y) then (a = b) u Buffered relations

34 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Status: Next Gen. COBs and Views u Building on previous work u Needs and anticipated approaches identified u Seeking extension opportunities

35 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Advanced Topics & Current Research Outline Advanced Product Information-Driven FEA Modeling Constrained Object (COB) Extensions –Automating support for multiple views –Next-generation capabilities Optimization and the MRA

36 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Thesis Abstract

37 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Optimization Integration Thrust (work-in-process) Improved Design / Process Optimization Module (OMEP) CONMIN DSIDES

38 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Optimization Model Diversity Min Weight g (x)<0 h(x) =0 subject to Stress Design variables Area Min Weight OPTIMIZATION MODEL CLASS Optimization Object 1Optimization Object 2 Min Weight subject to X(H) Min Weight subject to X(H,LL,LR) OPTIMIZATION MODEL CLASS Optimization Object 1Optimization Object 2 Min Weight, Cost subject to Optimization Object 3 X(H,LL,LR,Mat) g (x)<0 h(x) =0 g (x)<0 h(x) =0 2D PLANE STRAIN MODEL 1D EXTENSIONAL STRESS MODEL Analysis Model(s) Enhancement and/or Addition subject to Stress Buckling Design variables Area, Material Objective, design variable, and/or constraint function enhancement

39 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Optimization Model Enhancement Minimize LAf  1 Weight Subject to 0)( 1  AMSg stress Normal Stress Margin of Safety Design variables X ={A} Minimize LAf  1 Weight Subject to 0)( 1  AMSg stress Normal Stress Margin of Safety Design variables X ={A, material} OPTIMIZATION MODEL I OPTIMIZATION MODEL II

40 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Minimization of Weight of a Linkage X(area) subject to (extensional stress) L eff product structure:linkage material effective length, L eff deformation model linear elastic model L o Extensional Rod (isothermal) F  L  A L  E x 2 x 1 youngs modulus, E cross sectionarea, A al1 al3 al2 analysis context goal:optimization mode:shaft tension condition: flaps down linkage reaction allowable stress Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS t s1 A Sleeve 1 A t s2 d d s1 Sleeve 2 L Shaft L eff  s y x PP E, A  L L eff ,  L minimize weight constraint Design Variable A weight,W WAL  MS  0 density,  MS stress 

41 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Minimization of Weight of a Linkage X(area, material) subject to (extensional stress) L eff product structure:linkage material effective length, L eff deformation model linear elastic model L o Extensional Rod (isothermal) F  L  A L  E x 2 x 1 youngs modulus, E cross sectionarea, A al1 al3 al2 analysis context goal:optimization mode:shaft tension condition: flaps down linkage reaction allowable stress Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS t s1 A Sleeve 1 A t s2 d d s1 Sleeve 2 L Shaft L eff  s y x PP E, A  L L eff ,  L minimize weight constraint Design Variable area,A weight,W WAL  MS  0 density,  MS stress  material

42 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Optimization Model Enhancement Minimize LAf  1 Weight Subject to 0)( 1  AMSg stress Normal Stress Margin of Safety 0)( 2  AMSg buckling Buckling Margin of Safety Design variables X ={A, material} OPTIMIZATION MODEL III OPTIMIZATION MODEL IV

43 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Minimization of Weight of a Linkage X(area) subject to (extensional stress, buckling load) L eff product structure:linkage material effective length, L eff deformation model linear elastic model L o Extensional Rod (isothermal, buckling) F  L  A L  E x 2 x 1 youngs modulus, E cross section area, A analysis context goal:optimization mode:shaft tension condition: flaps down linkage reaction allowable stress Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS t s1 A Sleeve 1 A t s2 d d s1 Sleeve 2 L Shaft L eff  s y x PP E, A  L L eff ,  L minimize weight constraints Design Variables A weight,W WAL  MS  0 MS stress  Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS moment of inertia, I load,P MS buckling L o Extensional Rod (Buckling) P cr I E density, 

44 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Minimization of Weight of a Linkage X(area, material) subject to (extensional stress, buckling load) L eff product structure:linkage material effective length, L eff deformation model linear elastic model L o Extensional Rod (isothermal, buckling) F  L  A L  E x 2 x 1 youngs modulus, E cross section area, A analysis context goal:optimization mode:shaft tension condition: flaps down linkage reaction allowable stress Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS t s1 A Sleeve 1 A t s2 d d s1 Sleeve 2 L Shaft L eff  s y x PP E, A  L L eff ,  L minimize weight constraints Design Variables A weight,W WAL  MS  0 MS stress  Margin of Safety (> case) allowable actual MS moment of inertia, I load,P MS buckling L o Extensional Rod (Buckling) P cr I E density,  material

45 Engineering Information Systems Lab  eislab.gatech.edu © GTRC Status: Optimization u Initial PhD thesis completed [Cimtalay, 2001] u Seeking insertion & extension opportunities u Need to leverage recent optimization tools –Ex. iSIGHT, ProductCenter, … –Provide enhanced modularity & knowledge capture