Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps: A Preliminary Study of CAD-CAE Model Interoperability Aerospace Product Data Exchange (APDE) Workshop April 7-9, 2003 NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland A full report version is available here:

2 Abstract Conference Series Archive: Characterizing Fine-Grained Associativity Gaps: A Preliminary Study of CAD-CAE Model Interoperability This presentation describes an initial study towards characterizing model associativity gaps and other engineering interoperability problems. Drawing on over a decade of X-analysis integration (XAI) research and development, it uses the XAI multi-representation architecture (MRA) as a means to decompose the problem and guide identification of potential key metrics. A few such metrics are highlighted from the aerospace industry. These include number of structural analysis users, number of analysis templates, and identification of computing environment components (e.g., number of CAD and CAE tools used in an example aerospace electronics design environment). One problem, denoted the fine-grained associativity gap, is highlighted in particular. Today such a gap in the CAD-CAE arena typically requires manual effort to connect an attribute in a design model (CAD) with attributes in one of its analysis models (CAE). This study estimates that 1 million such gaps exist in the structural analysis of a complex product like an airframe. The labor cost alone to manually maintain such gaps likely runs in the tens of millions of dollars. Other associativity gap costs have yet to be estimated, including over- and under-design, lack of knowledge capture, and inconsistencies. Narrowing in on fundamental gaps like fine-grained associativity helps both to characterize the cost of today’s problems and to identify basic solution needs. Other studies are recommended to explore such facets further. A full report version is available here: X = design, mfg., sustainment, and other lifecycle phases.

3 Model Interoperability Challenges: Heterogeneous Transformations u Heterogeneous Transformation u Homogeneous Transformation Mentor GraphicsCadence STEP AP210 Mentor GraphicsAnsys STEP AP210 STEP AP209 ?? Design Model A Design Model B Design Model A Analysis Model A

4 Analogy: Bottom-Up Budget Estimation Goal: Conceptual Framework for Complex Model Interoperability Characterization & Solutions

5 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

6 Example Industrial Needs: Common Structures Workstation (CSW) Request for Information Publicly available document (see )

7 Current Typical Airframe Structural Analysis Process From: Request for Information (RFI): Common Structures Workstation (CSW). June 14, The Boeing Company. Available at

8 Common Structures Workstation (CSW) Design Requirements and Objectives: Contents

9 Example Part-based Analysis Template

10 Connection with CAD-based Geometric Parameters

11 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

12 Holding Account Billing & Payable E-CAE Toolsmiths and Workstations DNP Operations Toolsmiths WorkstationsSystemCAE DIVISION 31 Servers & Sys Admin M-CAE Servers & Sys Admin Servers & SA TMOD Severs * Not DNP Operations Design, Build, Assembly, Test (DBAT) Process CAE Cost Centers JPL Projects and Technical Divisions Customers Robin Moncada Management and Administration Soap Sat Took Kit SDK Doors ApGen Fast Flight Ansoft HPEE Sof Sonnet Mentor Graphics Cadence Mathworks Matlab Synopsys Synplicity Ilogix Statemate Orcad AutoCad Relex Avant! Place & Route - Actel - Xilinx - Atmel (and many more) PTC Computer Vision PTC Pro-E SDRC Ideas SDRC Femap Solid Works Cosmos NASTRAN Adams Sinda/Fluent PDMS - EDMG SDRC Metaphase Sherpa Visual ToolSets Cool Jex Perceps Rational Rose Ruify Harlequin LISP I-Logix Rhapsody Code V LensView TracePro Zemax Software ToolsElectronicsCAE DIVISION 34 RF & EM CAE DIVISION 33 MechanicalCAE DIVISION 35 SoftwareCAE DIVISION 36 OpticalCAE DIVISION 38 M-CAE Toolsmiths and Workstations Adapted from “Computer Aided Engineering Tool Service at JPL” Mike Dickerson -NASA-JPL Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) ~100 tools

13 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Constrained object knowledge representation »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability (e.g., between CAD-CAE models) »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

14 Example Chip Package Products Source: Plastic Ball Grid Array (PBGA) Packages Quad Flat Packs (QFPs) Wafer Level Package (WLP) System-in-Package (SIP) Glass-to-Metal Seals

15 Flexible High Diversity Design-Analysis Integration Electronic Packaging Examples: Chip Packages/Mounting Shinko Electric Project: Phase 1 (production usage) EBGA, PBGA, QFP Analysis Modules (CBAMs) of Diverse Behavior & Fidelity FEA Ansys General Math Mathematica Analyzable Product Model XaiTools ChipPackage Thermal Resistance 3D3D Modular, Reusable Template Libraries Analysis Tools Design Tools PWB DB Materials DB* Prelim/APM Design Tool XaiTools ChipPackage Thermal Stress Basic 3D** ** = Demonstration module Basic Documentation Automation Authoring MS Excel

16 ProAM Design-Analysis Integration Electronic Packaging Examples: PWA/B Analysis Modules (CBAMs) of Diverse Mode & Fidelity Design Tools Laminates DB FEA Ansys General Math Mathematica Analyzable Product Model XaiTools PWA-B XaiTools PWA-B Solder Joint Deformation* PTH Deformation & Fatigue** 1D, 2D 1D, 2D, 3D Modular, Reusable Template Libraries ECAD Tools Mentor Graphics, Accel* Analysis Tools PWB Warpage 1D, 2D Materials DB PWB Stackup Tool XaiTools PWA-B STEP AP210 ‡ GenCAM**, PDIF* ‡ AP210 DIS WD1.7 * = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples) ** = Item available via U-Engineer.com

17 Analysis Template Methodology & X-Analysis Integration Objectives (X=Design, Mfg., etc.) u Goal: Improve engineering processes via analysis templates with enhanced CAx-CAE interoperability u Challenges (Gaps): –Idealizations & Heterogeneous Transformations –Diversity: Information, Behaviors, Disciplines, Fidelity, Feature Levels, CAD/CAE Methods & Tools, … –Multi-Directional Associativity: Design  Analysis, Analysis  Analysis u Focus: Capture analysis template knowledge for modular, regular design usage u Approach: Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) using Constrained Objects (COBs)

18 X-Analysis Integration Techniques for CAD-CAE Interoperability a. Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)b. Explicit Design-Analysis Associativity c. Analysis Module Creation Methodology

19 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 (Boeing) »Circuit Board Thermomechanical Analysis (DoD: ProAM; JPL/NASA) »Chip Package Thermal Analysis (Shinko) –Summary Part 4: Advanced Topics & Current Research

20 Multi-Representation Architecture for Design-Analysis Integration O(100) tools

21 Analyzable Product Models (APMs) Solid Modeler Materials Database Fasteners Database Design ApplicationsAnalysis Applications FEA-Based Analysis Formula- Based Analysis Combine information Add reusable multifidelity idealizations Analyzable Product Model (APM)... Provide advanced access to design data needed by diverse analyses. Support multi-directionality

22 Multi-Fidelity Idealizations Same Behavior; Idealized Geometries of Varying Dimension inboard beam Design Model (MCAD)Analysis Models (MCAE) 1D Beam/Stick Model 3D Continuum/Brick Model flap support assembly Behavior = Deformation

23 Flap Link Geometric Model (with idealizations) 28b

24 Flap Linkage Example Manufacturable Product Model (MPM) = Design Description Product Attribute RiRi Product Relation Extended Constraint Graph Constrained Object (COB) Structure (template)

25 Flap Linkage Example Analyzable Product Model (APM) = MPM Subset + Idealizations flap_link critical_section critical_simple t2f wf tw hw t1f area effective_length critical_detailed stress_strain_modellinear_elastic E cte area wf tw hw tf R 3 R 2 R 1 R 8 R 9 R 10 6 R R7R7 R R 1 R R R R R Product Attribute Idealized Attribute RiRi Idealization Relation RiRi Product Relation Extended Constraint Graph Partial COB Structure (COS) effective_length, Leff == inter_axis_length - (sleeve1.hole.cross_section.radius + sleeve2.hole.cross_section.radius)

26 Concurrent Multi-Fidelity Cross-Section Representations MULTI_LEVEL_COB cross_section; design : filleted_tapered_I_section; tapered : tapered_I_section; basic : basic_I_section; RELATIONS PRODUCT_IDEALIZATION_RELATIONS pir8 : " == "; pir9 : " == "; pir10 : " == "; pir11 : " == "; pir12 : " == "; pir13 : " == "; pir14 : " == "; pir15 : " == "; pir16 : " == "; pir17 : " == "; END_MULTI_LEVEL_COB; Detailed Design Cross-Section Idealized Cross-Sections Associativity Relations between Cross-Section Fidelities

27 Design Model Idealized Model Design-Idealization Relation Flap Link APM Implementation in CATIA v5

28 Multi-Representation Architecture for Design-Analysis Integration O(100) types

29 Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs) Analysis Primitives Beam q(x) Distributed Load Rigid Support Cantilever Beam System Analysis Systems - Primitive building blocks- Containers of ABB "assemblies" Material Models     Specialized General - Predefined templates - User-defined systems Analysis VariablesDiscrete Elements Interconnections Continua Plane Strain Body Linear- Elastic Bilinear Plastic Plate Low Cycle Fatigue  N MassSpringDamper x y q(x) Beam Distributed Load Rigid Support No-Slip body 1 body 2 Temperature, Stress, Strain,   T Geometry Object representation of product-independent analytical engineering concepts

30 Common Structures Workstation (CSW) Request for Information June 2000, The Boeing Company. Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods Available at ~110 generic template groupings

31 Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods (continued)

32 COB-based Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs) Material Model and Continuum ABBs - Constraint Schematic-S Material Model ABB Continuum ABBs modular re-usage Torsional Rod Extensional Rod 1D Linear Elastic Model

33 COB-based Libraries of Analysis Building Blocks (ABBs) Material Model and Continuum ABBs - COB Structure-S COB one_D_linear_elastic_model SUBTYPE_OF elastic_model; youngs_modulus, E : REAL; poissons_ratio, : REAL; cte,  : REAL; shear_modulus, G : REAL; strain,  : REAL; stress,  : REAL; shear_stress,  : REAL; shear_strain,  : REAL; thermal_strain,  t : REAL; elastic_strain,  e : REAL; temperature_change,  T : REAL; RELATIONS r1 : " * ( 2 * (1 + ) ) == "; r2 : " == + "; r3 : " == / "; r4 : " == * "; r5 : " == / "; END_COB; COB one_D_linear_elastic_model_isothermal SUBTYPE_OF one_D_linear_elastic_model; RELATIONS r6 : " == 0"; END_COB; COB slender_body SUBTYPE_OF deformable_body; undeformed_length, L 0 : REAL; reference_temperature, T 0 : REAL; temperature, T : REAL; RELATIONS sb1 : " == - "; END_COB; COB extensional_rod SUBTYPE_OF slender_body; start, x 1 : REAL; end, x 2 : REAL; length, L : REAL; total_elongation, ΔL : REAL; force, F : REAL; area, A : REAL; material_model : one_D_linear_elastic_model_noShear; RELATIONS er1 : " == - "; er2 : " == - "; er3 : " == / "; er4 : " == / "; END_COB;

34 Appendix B: Required Standard Analysis Methods (continued)

35 Multi-Representation Architecture for Design-Analysis Integration O(10,000)

36 COB-based Constraint Schematic for Multi-Fidelity CAD-CAE Interoperability Flap Link Benchmark Example

37 (1a) Analysis Template: Flap Link Extensional Model Tutorial Example: Flap Link Analysis Template (CBAM) Solution Tool Interaction Boundary Condition Objects (links to other analyses)* CAD-CAE Associativity (idealization usage) Material ModelsGeometry Requirements & Objectives APM ABB CBAM SMM

38 FEA-based Analysis Subsystem Used in Linkage Plane Stress Model (2D Analysis Problem) Higher fidelity version vs. Linkage Extensional Model ABB  SMM SMM Template

39 Flap Link Extensional Model (CBAM) Example COB Instance in XaiTools (object-oriented spreadsheet) Detailed CAD data from CATIA Idealized analysis features in APM Explicit multi-directional associativity between design & analysis Modular generic analysis templates (ABBs) Library data for materials Focus Point of CAD-CAE Integration example 1, state 1

40 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

41 Quantity estimates by MRA representation type O(100) tools O(100) types O(10,000)

42 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

43 CAD-CAE associativity relations are represented as APM-ABB relations (in CBAMs) O(1,000,000) relations An associativity gap is a computer-insensible relation

44 e se tr P f 0 2   2 1 e be ht P Cf  ),,( 13 hbrfK  Channel Fitting Analysis Associativity Gaps between CAD and CAE Models Analysis Model (with Idealized Features) Detailed Design Model Idealizations   1 : b = cavity3.inner_width + rib8.thickness/2 + rib9.thickness/2  “It is no secret that CAD models are driving more of today’s product development processes... With the growing number of design tools on the market, however, the interoperability gap with downstream applications, such as finite element analysis, is a very real problem. As a result, CAD models are being recreated at unprecedented levels.” Ansys/ITI press Release, July No explicit fine-grained CAD-CAE associativity

45 Analysis Tools Flexible High Diversity Design-Analysis Integration Phases 1-3 Airframe Examples: “Bike Frame” / Flap Support Inboard Beam Analysis Modules (CBAMs) of Diverse Feature:Mode, & Fidelity Design Tools Materials DB FEA Elfini* MATDB-like Analyzable Product Model XaiTools Fitting: Bending/Shear 3D 1.5D Modular, Reusable Template Libraries MCAD Tools CATIA v4, v5 Lug: Axial/Oblique; Ultimate/Shear 1.5D Assembly: Ultimate/ FailSafe/Fatigue* * = Item not yet available in toolkit (all others have working examples) Fasteners DB FASTDB-like General Math Mathematica In-House Codes Image API (CATGEO); VBScript

46 “Bike Frame” Bulkhead Fitting Analysis Template Using Constrained Object (COB) Knowledge/Info Representation e se tr P f 0 2   2 1 e be ht P Cf  ),,( 13 hbrfK  18 CAD-CAE associativity relations

47 Cost of Associativity Gaps Reference: Categories of Gap Costs Associativity time & labor - Manual maintenance - Little re-use - Lost knowledge Inconsistencies Limited analysis usage - Fewer parts analyzed - Fewer iterations per part “Wrong” values - Too conservative: Extra part costs and performance inefficiencies - Too loose: Re-work, failures, law suits Initial Cost Estimate per Complex Product (only for manual maintenance costs of structural analysis problems)

48 Cost Estimate per Complex Product p.1/2 Manual Maintenance of Associativity Gaps in Structural Analysis Problems Reference:

49 Cost Estimate per Complex Product p.2/2 Manual Maintenance of Associativity Gaps in Structural Analysis Problems Reference:

50 “Bike Frame” Bulkhead Fitting Analysis Template Using Constrained Object (COB) Knowledge/Info Representation e se tr P f 0 2   2 1 e be ht P Cf  ),,( 13 hbrfK  18 associativity relations

51 Contents u Background –Example Airframe Structural Analysis Needs (Boeing) –Example CAD/E/X Toolset (JPL) –Multi-Representation Architecture »Conceptual framework for complex model interoperability »Quantity estimates by representation type u Characterization of CAD-CAE Associativity Gaps u Summary

52 Complex System Representation & Simulation Interoperability Building Emergency Response Scenarios (Homeland Security)

53 Characterizing Complex Model Interoperability Using the Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA) u MRA: Similar to “software design patterns” for CAD-CAE domain –Identifies patterns between CAD and CAE (including new types of objects) –Captures multi-fidelity explicit associativity u Provides hybrid top-down & bottom-up methodology for characterizing problems & solutions –O(1,000,000) CAD-CAE gap estimate

54 For Further Information... u Contact: u Web site: –Publications, project overviews, tools, etc. –See: X-Analysis Integration (XAI) Central u XaiTools ™ home page: u Pilot commercial ESB: –Internet-based self-serve analysis –Analysis module catalog for electronic packaging –Highly automated front-ends to general FEA & math tools

Backup Slides

56 Short Course: Using Standards-based Engineering Frameworks for Electronics Product Design and Life Cycle Support

57 Constrained Object (COB) Representation Current Technical Capabilities - Generation 2 u Capabilities & features: –Various forms: computable lexical forms, graphical forms, etc. »Enables both computer automation and human comprehension –Sub/supertypes, basic aggregates, multi-fidelity objects –Multi-directionality (I/O changes) –Reuses external programs as white box relations –Advanced associativity added to COTS frameworks & wrappers u Analysis module/template applications (XAI/MRA): –Analysis template languages –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)

58 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) –Unified views of diverse capabilities (tool-independent) –Capture of reusable knowledge –Enhanced development of complex analysis models u Toolkit status (XaiTools v0.4) –Basic framework, single user-oriented, file-based See Advanced Topics for Gen.3 Extensions

59 Convergence of Representations Database Techniques (data structure, storage …) Software Development (algorithms …) Artificial Intelligence & Knowledge-Based Techniques (structure combined with algorithms/relations/behavior) EER STEP Express ER UML Flow Charts OMT Objects Rules Constraint graphs Constrained Object - like Representations COBs, OCL,...

60 Technique Summary u Tool independent model interoperability –Application focus: analysis template methodology u Multi-representation architecture (MRA) & constrained objects (COBs): –Addresses fundamental gaps: »Idealizations & CAD-CAE associativity: multi-fidelity, multi-directional, fine-grained –Based on information & knowledge theory –Structured, flexible, and extensible u Improved quality, cost, time: –Capture engineering knowledge in a reusable form –Reduce information inconsistencies –Increase analysis intensity & effectiveness »Reducing modeling cycle time by 75% (production usage)