Nof S.Y. Springer Handbook of Automation

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Large-Scale Complex Systems References 635

•

A promising modern form to coordinate the ac-

tions of the intelligent agents is stigmergy. This is

inspired by the behavior of social insects which

use a form of indirect communication mediated

by an active environment to coordinate their ac-

tions [36.53].

•

Advanced decentralized control strategies for large-

scale complex systems have recently been ex-

tended into new applied areas, such as ﬂex-

ible structures [36.113, 114], Internet conges-

tion control [36.115], aerial vehicles [36.116],

or trafﬁc control [36.117], to mention a few of

them.

•

Recent theoretic achievements in decentralized con-

trol can be progressively extended into the areas

of integrated/embedded control, distributed control

(over communication networks), hybrid/discrete-

event systems and networks, and autonomous sys-

tems to serve as a very efﬁcient tool to solve various

large-scale control problems.

•

Incorporation and combination of newly developed

numeric optimization and simulation models and

symbolic/and connectionist or agent-based will con-

tinue in an effort to reach the uniﬁcation of humans,

numerical models, and AI-based tools.

•

Mobile communications and web technology will

be ever more considered in LSS management and

control applications. In multiparticipant DSS,peo-

ple will make co-decisions in virtual teams,no

matter where they are temporarily located.

References

36.1 R. Tomovic: Control of large systems. In: Simulation

of Control Systems, ed. by I. Troch (North Holland,

Amsterdam 1972) pp. 3–6

36.2 M.S. Mahmoud: Multilevel systems control and ap-

plications, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. SMC–7,

125–143 (1977)

36.3 D.D.

Siljak: Large Scale Dynamical Systems: Sta-

bility and Structure (North Holland, Amsterdam

1978)

36.4 Solver.com: Premium Solver Platform for Excel

www.solver.com (2007)

36.5 M. Athans: Advances and open problems in the

control of large-scale systems, Plenary paper, Proc.

7th IFAC Congr. (Pergamon, Oxford 1978), 871–2382

36.6 M. Jamshidi: Large Scale Systems: Modeling and

Control (North Holland, New York 1983) 2nd edn.

(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River 1997)

36.7 M.D. Mesarovic, D. Macko, Y. Takahara: Theory

of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems (Academic, New

York 1970)

36.8 W. Findeisen: Decentralized and hierarchical con-

trol under consistence or disagreements of inter-

ests, Automatica 18(6), 647–664 (1982)

36.9 S. Takatsu: Coordination principles for two-level

satisfactory decision-making systems, Syst. Sci.

7(3/4), 266–284 (1982)

36.10 F.G. Filip, D.A. Donciulescu: On an online dynamic

coordination method in process industry, IFAC J.

Autom. 19(3), 317–320 (1983)

36.11 L. Mårtenson: Are operators in control of com-

plex systems?, Proc. 13th IFAC World Congr., Vol. B

(Pergamon, Oxford 1990) pp. 259–270

36.12 S.Y. Nof, G. Morel, L. Monostori, A. Molina,

F.G. Filip: From plant and logistics control to multi-

enterprise collaboration, Annu. Rev. Control 30(1),

55–68 (2006)

36.13 A.P. Sage, C.D. Cuppan: On the system engineering

of systems of systems and federations of systems,

Inf. Knowl. Syst. Manage. 2(4), 325–349 (2001)

36.14 A.V. Gheorghe: Risks, vulnerability, maintainabil-

ity and governance: a new landscape for critical

infrastructures, Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 1(1), 118–124

(2004)

36.15 A.V. Gheorghe: Integrated Risk and Vulnerability

Management Assisted by Decision Support Systems.

Relevance and Impact on Governance (Springer,

Dordrecht 2005)

36.16 W.Findeisen,M.Brdys,K.Malinowski,P.Tat-

jewski, A. Wozniak: Control and Coordination in

Hierachical Systems (Wiley, Chichester 1980)

36.17 A. Titli: Commande hierarchisée des systemes com-

plexes (Dunod Automatique, Paris 1975)

36.18 M. Brdys, P. Tatjewski: Iterative Algorithms for

Multilayer Optimizing Control (Imperial College,

London 2001)

36.19 A. Dourado Correia: Optimal scheduling and energy

management in industrial complexes: some new

results and proposals, Preprints CIM Process Man-

ufact. Ind. IFAC Workshop (Pergamon Press, Espoo

1992) pp. 139–145

36.20 F.G. Filip, G. Neagu, D. Donciulescu: Jobshop

scheduling optimization in real-time production

control, Comput. Ind. 4(3), 395–403 (1983)

36.21 F.G. Filip, D. Donciulescu, R. Gaspar, M. Mu-

ratcea, L. Orasanu: Multilevel optimisation algo-

rithms in computer aided production control in

the process industries, Comput. Ind. 6(1), 47–57

(1985)

36.22 M. Guran, F.G. Filip, D.A. Donciulescu, L. Orasanu:

Hierarchical optimisation in computer dispatcher

systems in process industry, Large Scale Syst. 8,

157–167 (1985)

Part D 36

636 Part D Automation Design: Theory and Methods for Integration

36.23 J. Pettersson, U. Persson, T. Lindberg, L. Ledung,

X. Zhang: Online pulp mill production optimiza-

tion, Proc. 16th IFAC World Congr. (Prague 2005),

on CD ROM

36.24 H. Tamura: Decentralised optimization for distrib-

uted-lag models of discrete systems, Automatica

11, 593–602 (1975)

36.25 A. Aybar, A. Iftar, H. Apaydin-

Ozkan: Centralized

and decentralized supervisory controller design to

enforce boundedness, liveness, and reversibility in

Petri nets, Int. J. Control 78, 537–553 (2005)

36.26 L. Bakule: Stabilization of uncertain switched sym-

metric composite systems, Nonlinear Anal.: Hybrid

Syst. 1, 188–197 (2007)

36.27 F. Borrelli, T. Keviczky, G.J. Balas, G. Stew-

ard, K. Fregene, D. Godbole: Hybrid Decentralized

Control of Large Scale Systems, Hybrid Systems:

Computation and Control (Springer, Heidelberg

2005) pp. 168–183

36.28 G. Inalham, J. How: Decentralized inventory con-

trol for large-scale supply chains, Proc. Am. Control

Conf. (Minneapolis 2006) pp. 568–575

36.29 P. Krishnamurthy, F. Khorrami, D. Schoenwald:

Computationally tractable inventory control for

large-scale reverse supply chains, Proc. Am. Con-

trol Conf. (Minneapolis 2006) pp. 550–555

36.30 C. Langbort, V. Gupta, R.M. Murray: Distributed

control over falling channels. In: Networked Em-

bedded Sensing and Control, ed. by P. Antsaklis,

P. Tabuada (Springer, Berlin 2006) pp. 325–342

36.31 D.D.

Siljak, A.I. Ze

cevi

c: Control of large-scale sys-

tems: beyond decentralized feedback, Annu. Rev.

Control 29, 169–179 (2005)

36.32 D.D.

Siljak: Dynamic Graphs. Plenary paper. The

International Conference on Hybrid Systems and

Applications (University of Louisiana, Lafayette

2006)

36.33 A. Arisha, P. Young: Intelligent simulation-based

lot scheduling of photolithography toolsets in

a wafer fabrication facility, Proc. 2004 Winter

Simul. Conf. (Washington 2004) pp. 1935–1942

36.34 C.S. Chong, A.I. Sivakumar, R. Gay: Simulation

based scheduling using a two-pass approach,

Proc. 2003 Winter Simul. Conf. (New Orleans 2003)

pp. 1433–1439

36.35 A.K. Gupta, A.I. Sivakumar, S. Sarawgi: Shopﬂoor

scheduling with simulation based proactive deci-

sion support, Proc. Winter Simul. Conf. (San Diego

2002) pp. 1897–1902

36.36 S. Julia, R. Valette: Real-time scheduling of batch

systems, Simul. Pract. Theory 8, 307–319 (2000)

36.37 S. Lee, S. Ramakrishnan, R.A. Wysk: A federation

object coordinator for simulation based control

and analysis, Proc. Winter Simul. Conf. (San Diego

2002) pp. 1986–1994

36.38 K. Leiviskä, P. Uronen, H. Komokallio, H. Auras-

maa: Heuristic algorithm for production control of

an integrated pulp and paper mill, Large Scale Syst.

3, 13–25 (1982)

36.39 K. Leiviskä: Beneﬁts of intelligent produc-

tion scheduling methods in pulp mills, Proc.

CESA’96 IMACS Multiconf. Comput. Eng. Syst. Appl.

Symp. Control Optim. Supervis., Vol. 2 (Lille 1996)

pp. 1246–1251

36.40 Q.L. Liu, W. Wang, H.R. Zhan, D.G. Wang, R.G. Liu:

Optimal scheduling method for a bell-type batch

annealing shop and its application, Control Eng.

Pract. 13, 1315–1325 (2005)

36.41 S. Ramakrishnan, S. Lee, R.A. Wysk: Implementa-

tion of a simulation-based control architecture for

supply chain interactions, Proc. Winter Simul. Conf.

(San Diego 2002) pp. 1667–1674

36.42 S. Ramakrishnan, M. Thakur: An SDS modeling ap-

proach for simulation-based control, Proc. Winter

Simul. Conf. (Orlando 2005) pp. 1473–1482

36.43 G.D. Taylor Jr: A ﬂexible simulation framework for

evaluating multilevel, heuristic-based production

control strategies, Proc. Winter Simul. Conf. (New

Orleans 1990) pp. 567–569

36.44 A. Ichtev, J. Hellendoom, R. Babuska, S. Mollov:

Fault-tolerant model-based predictive control us-

ing multiple Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy models, Proc.

IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy Syst. FUZZ-IEEE’02, Vol. 1 (Ho-

nolulu 2002) pp. 346–351

36.45 K. Leiviskä: Applications of intelligent systems in

electronics manufacturing, Proc. 2nd Conf. Manag.

Control Prod. Logist. MCPL’2000 (Grenoble 2000), on

CD-ROM

36.46 K. Leiviskä, L. Yliniemi: Design of adaptive fuzzy

controllers. In: Do Smart Adaptive Systems Ex-

ist?, ed. by B. Gabrys, K. Leiviskä, J. Strackeljan

(Springer, Berlin 2005) pp. 251–266

36.47 B. Azhar, A.B. Khairuddin, S.S. Ahmed, M.W. Mustafa,

A. Zin, H. Ahmad: A novel method for ATC compu-

tations in a large-scale power system, IEEE Trans.

Power Syst. 19(2), 1150–1158 (2004)

36.48 M.A. Hussain: Review of the applications of neural

networks in chemical process control-simulation

and online implementation, Artif. Intell. Eng. 13,

55–68 (1999)

36.49 W. Liu, J. Sarangapani, G.K. Venayagamoorthy,

D.C. Wunsch, D.A. Cartes: Neural network based

decentralized excitation control of large scale

power systems, Proc. Int. Jt. Conf. Neural Netw.

(Vancouver 2006)

36.50 M. Dehghani, A. Afshar, S.K. Nikravesh: Decen-

tralized stochastic control of power systems using

genetic algorithms for interaction estimation, Proc.

16th IFAC World Congr. (Prague 2005), on CD ROM

36.51 E.E. El Mdbouly, A.A. Ibrahim, G.Z. El-Far, M. El

Nassef: Multilevel optimization control for large-

scale systems using genetic algorithms, Proc. 2004

Int. Conf. Electr., Electron. Comput. Eng. ICEEC ’04

(Cairo 2004) pp. 193–197

Part D 36

Large-Scale Complex Systems References 637

36.52 R. Akkiraju, P. Keskinocak, S. Murthy, F. Wu:

An agent-based approach for scheduling multiple

machines, Appl. Intell. 14(2), 135–144 (2001)

36.53 H. Hadeli, P. Valckenaers, C.B. Zamﬁrescu, H. Van

Brussel, B.S. Germain: Self-organising in multi-

agent coordination and control using stigmergy.

In: Self-Organising Applications: Issues, chal-

lenges and trends. Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial

Intelligence, Vol. 2977, ed. by H. Hadeli (Springer,

Heidelberg 2004) pp. 325–340

36.54 J.S. Heo, K.Y. Lee: A multi-agent system-based

intelligent identiﬁcation system for power plant

control and fault-diagnosis, Proc. IEEE Power Eng.

Soc. Gen. Meet. (Montreal 2006) pp. 1–6

36.55 V. Ma

rík, J. La

zanský: Industrial applications of

agent technologies, Control Eng. Pract. 15(11), 1364–

1380 (2007)

36.56 S.J. Park, J.T. Lim: Modelling and control of agent-

based power protection systems using supervisors,

IEEE Proc. Control Theory Appl. 153, 92–99 (2006)

36.57 H.V.D. Parunak: Practical and Industrial Ap-

plications of Agent-Based Systems (Industrial

Technology Institute, Ann Arbor 1998)

36.58 C.G. Cassandras: Complexity made simple – at

small price, Proc. 9th IFAC Symp. Large Scale

Systems: Theory and Applications 2001, ed. by

F.G. Filip, I. Dumitrache, S. Iliescu (Elsevier, Oxford

2001) pp. 1–5

36.59 P.D. Roberts: An algorithm for steady-state sys-

tem optimization and parameter estimation, Int.

J. Syst. Sci. 10(7), 719–734 (1979)

36.60 P.P. Varaiya: Review of the book Theory of Hi-

erarchical Multilevel Systems, IEEE Trans. Autom.

Control 17, 280–281 (1972)

36.61 D. Wismer: Optimization Methods for Large Scale

Systems (Mc. Graw Gill, New York 1971)

36.62 Y.C. Ho, S.K. Mitter: Directions in Large-Scale Sys-

tems (Plenum, New York 1976)

36.63 A.P. Sage: Methodology for Large Scale Systems

(McGraw Hill, New York 1977)

36.64 D.D.

Siljak: Decentralized Control of Complex Sys-

tems (Academic, Cambridge 1990)

36.65 M.G. Singh: Dynamic Hierarchical Control (North

Holland, Amsterdam 1978)

36.66 J. Lunze: Feedback Control of Large-Scale Systems

(Prentice Hall, New York 1992)

36.67 D. Steward: Systems Analysis and Management:

Structure, Strategy and Design (Petrocelli Book,

New York 1981)

36.68 J. Schoefﬂer: Online multilevel systems. In: Opti-

mization Methods for Large Scale Systems,ed.by

D. Wismer (McGraw Hill, New York 1971) pp. 291–

330

36.69 J. Minsker, S. Piggot, G. Freidson: Hierarchical au-

tomation control systems for large-scale systems

and applications, Proc. 5th IFAC World Congr. (Paris

1972)

36.70 D.P. Eckman, I. Lefkowitz: Principles of model

technique in optimizing control, Proc. 1st IFAC

World Congr. (Moscow 1960) pp. 970–974

36.71 I. Lefkowitz: Multilevel approach to control system

design, Proc. JACC (1965) pp. 100–109

36.72 R. Isermann: Advanced methods of process com-

puter control for industrial, Int. J. Comput. Ind.

2(1), 59–72 (1981)

36.73 V. Havlena, J. Lu: A distributed automation

framework for plant-wide control, optimisa-

tion, scheduling and planning, selected plenaries,

semiplenaries, milestones and surveys, Proc. 16th

IFACWorldCongr.,ed.byP.Horacet,M.Simandl,

P. Zitek (2005) pp. 80–94

36.74 C.B. Brosilow, L. Ladson, J.D. Pearson: Feasible

optimization methods for interconnected systems,

Proc. Joint Autom. Control Conf. – JACC (Rensse-

laer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 1965)

pp. 79–84

36.75 L.S. Lasdon, J.D. Schoeffer: A multilevel technique

for optimization, Proc. JACC (1965) pp. 85–92

36.76 I.D. Wilson: Foundations of hierarchical control,

Int. J. Control 29(6), 899 (1979)

36.77 F.G. Vernadat: Enterprise Modelling and Integra-

tion Principles and Applications (Chapman Hall,

London 1996)

36.78 T.J. Williams: Analysis and Design of Hierarchi-

cal Control Systems with Special Reference to Steel

Plant Operations (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1985)

36.79 T.J. Williams: A Reference Model for Computer

Integrated Manufacturing (Instrument Society of

America, Research Triangle Park 1989)

36.80 Z. Binder: Sur l’organisation et la conduite des sys-

temes complexes, These de Docteur (LAG, Grenoble

1977) in French

36.81 J. Hatvany: Intelligence and cooperation in het-

erarchic manufacturing systems, Robot. Comput.

Integr. Manuf. 2(2), 101–104 (1985)

36.82 A. Koestler: The Ghost in the Machine (Hutchinson,

London 1967)

36.83 M. Hopf, C.F. Schoeffer: Holonic Manufactur-

ing Systems, Information Infrastructure Systems

for Manufacturing (Chapmann Hall, London 1997)

pp. 431–438

36.84 H. Van Brussel, P. Valckenaers, J. Wyns: HMS

– holonic manufacturing system test case (IMS

Project). In: Enterprise Engineering and Inte-

gration: Building International Consensus,ed.

by K. Kosanke, J.G. Nell (Springer, Berlin 1997)

pp. 284–292

36.85 P. Valckenaers, H. Van Brussel, K. Hadeli,

O. Bochmann, B.S. Germain, C. Zamﬁrescu: On the

design of emergent systems an investigation of in-

tegration and interoperability issues, Eng. Appl.

Artif. Intell. 16, 377–393 (2003)

36.86

G. Tecuci: Building Intelligent Agents: An Appren-

ticeship Multistrategy Learning Theory, Methodol-

Part D 36

638 Part D Automation Design: Theory and Methods for Integration

ogy, Tool and Case Studies (Academic, New York

1998)

36.87 L. Bakule: Complexity-reduced guaranteed cost

control design for delayed uncertain symmetrically

connected systems, Proc. 2005 Am. Control Conf.

(Portland 2005) pp. 2500–2505

36.88 P.P. Groumpos: Complex systems and intelligent

control: issues and challenges, Proc. 9th IFAC

Symp. Large Scale Syst.: Theory Appl. 2001, ed. by

F.G. Filip, I. Dumitrache, S. Iliescu (Elsevier, 2001)

pp. 29–36

36.89 A. Kamiya, S.J. Ovaska, R. Roy, S. Kobayashi: Fusion

of soft computing and hard computing for large-

scale plants: a general model, Appl. Soft Comput.

J. 5, 265–279 (2005)

36.90 K. Leiviskä: Control systems. In: Process Control.

Papermaking Science and Technology, Book 14,ed.

by K. Leiviskä (Fapet Oy, Jyväskylä 1999) pp. 13–

36.91 B.M. Åkesson, M.J. Nikus, H.T. Toivonen: Ex-

plicit model predictive control of a hybrid system

using support vector machines, Proc. 1st IFAC

Workshop Appl. Large Scale Ind. Syst. ALSIS ’06

(Helsinki/Stockholm 2006), on CD ROM

36.92 K. Kawai: Knowledge engineering in power-plant

control and operation, Control Eng. Pract. 4, 1199–

1208 (1996)

36.93 G. Stephanopoulos, J. Romagnoli, E.S. Yoon: Online

Fault Detection and Supervision in the Chemical

Process Industries 2001 (Jejudo Island, Korea 2004)

36.94 D.H. Zhang, J.B. Zhang, Y.Z. Zhao, M.M. Wong:

Event-based communications for equipment su-

pervisory control, Proc. 10th IEEE Conf. Emerg.

Technol. Fact. Autom. (Catania 2005) pp. 341–

347

36.95 T. Martin, J. Kivinen, J.E. Rinjdorp, M.G. Rodd,

W.B. Rouse: Appropriate automation integrating

human, organisation and culture factors, Preprints

IFAC 11th World Congr., Vol. 1 (1990) pp. 47–65

36.96 F.G. Filip: Towards more humanized real-time de-

cision support systems. In: Balanced Automation

Systems; Architectures and Design Methods,ed.by

L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh (Chapman

Hall, London 1995) pp. 230–240

36.97 F.G. Filip, D. Donciulescu, C.I. Filip: Towards intelli-

gent real-time decision support systems, Stud. Inf.

Control SIC 11(4), 303–312 (2002)

36.98 H. Simon: The New Science of Management Deci-

sions (Harper & Row, New York 1960)

36.99 S.Y. Nof: Theory and practice in decision support

for manufacturing control. In: Data Base Man-

agement, ed. by C.W. Holsapple, A.B. Whinston

(Reidel, Dordrecht 1981) pp. 325–348

36.100 A. Bosman: Relations between speciﬁc DSS, Decis.

Support Syst. 3, 213–224 (1987)

36.101 A.R. Charturverdi, G.K. Hutchinson, D.L. Nazareth:

Supporting real-time decision-making through

machine learning, Decis. Support Syst. 10,213–233

(1997)

36.102 M. Cioca, L.I. Cioca, S.C. Buraga: Spatial [elements]

decision support system used in disaster manage-

ment, Digit. EcoSyst. Technol. Conf. 2007. DEST ’07.

Inaugural IEEE-IES (Cairn 2006) pp. 607–612

36.103 G. De Michelis: Coordination with cooperative

processes. In: Implementing Systems for Sup-

port Management Decisions, ed. by P. Humphrey,

L. Bannon, A. McCosh, P. Migliarese, J.C. Pomerol

(1996) pp. 108–123

36.104 R.H. Bonczek, C.W. Holsapple, A.B. Whinston:

Foundations of Decision Support Systems (Aca-

demic, New York 1980)

36.105 C.W. Holsapple, A.B. Whinston: Decision Sup-

port System: a Knowledge-Based Approach (West,

Mineapolis 1996)

36.106 A. Kusiak: Intelligent Management Systems (Pren-

tice Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1990)

36.107 A. Dutta: Integrated AI and optimization for de-

cision support: a survey, Decis. Support Syst. 18,

213–226 (1996)

36.108 L. Duta, J.M. Henrioud, F.G. Filip: Applying equal

piles approach to disassembly line balancing prob-

lem, Proc. 16th IFAC World Congr. (Session Industrial

Assembly and Disassembly) (Prague 2005), on CD

ROM

36.109 O. Mäyrä, T. Ahola, K. Leiviskä: Time delay estima-

tion in large data bases, IFAC LSSTA Symp. (Gdansk

2007), on CD ROM

36.110 F.G. Filip: System analysis and expert systems tech-

niques for operative decision making, J. Syst. Anal.

Model. Simul. 8(2), 296–404 (1990)

36.111 I. Lefkowitz: Hierarchical control in large-scale

industrial systems. In: Large Scale Systems,ed.

by D.D. Haimes (North Holland, Amsterdam 1982)

pp. 65–98

36.112 M. Brdys, B. Ulanicki: Operatioal Control of Water

Systems (Prentice Hall, New York 1994)

36.113 L. Bakule, F. Paulet-Crainiceanu, J. Rodellar,

J.M. Rossell: Overlapping reliable control for

acable-stayedbridgebenchmark,IEEETrans.Con-

trol Syst. Technol. 4, 663–669 (2006)

36.114 L. Bakule, J. Rodellar, J.M. Rossell: Robust over-

lapping guaranteed cost control of uncertain

steady-state discrete-time systems, IEEE Trans.

Autom. Control 12,1943–1950(2006)

36.115 R. Srikant: The Mathematics of Internet Congestion

Control (Birkhäuser, Boston 2004)

36.116 D.M. Stipanovic, G. Inalham, R. Teo, C.J. Tomlin:

Decentralized overlapping control of a formation of

unmanned aerial vehicles, Automatica 40(1), 1285–

1296 (2004)

36.117 S.S. Stankovic, M.J. Stanojevic, D.D.

Siljak: De-

centralized overlapping control of a platoon of

vehicles, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 8, 816–

832 (2000)

Part D 36

639

Computer-Aid

37. Computer-Aided Design, Computer-Aided

Engineering, and Visualization

Gary R. Bertoline, Nathan Hartman, Nicoletta Adamo-Villani

This chapter is an overview of computer-aided

design (CAD) and computer-aided engineering

and includes elements of computer graphics,

animation, and visualization. Commercial brands

of three-dimensional (3-D) modeling tools are

dimension driven, parametric, feature based, and

constraint based all at the same time. The term

constraint-based is intended to include all of these

many facets. This means that, when geometry is

created, the user speciﬁes numerical values and

requisite geometric conditions for the elemental

dimensional and geometric constraints that deﬁne

the object. Many of today’s modern CAD tools

also operate on similar interfaces with similar

geometry-creation command sequences [37.1] that

operate interdependently to control the modeling

process. Core modules include the sketcher, the

solid modeling system itself, the dimensional

constraint engine, the feature manager, and the

assembly manager [37.2]. In most cases, there

is also a drawing tool, and other modules that

interface with analysis, manufacturing process

planning, and machining. The 3-D animation

production process can be divided into three main

phases:

37.1 Modern CAD Tools ................................. 639

37.2 Geometry Creation Process .................... 640

37.3 Characteristics

of the Modern CAD Environment ............ 642

37.4 User Characteristics Related

to CAD Systems ..................................... 643

37.5 Visualization ........................................ 644

37.6 3-D Animation Production Process ......... 645

37.6.1 Concept Development

and Preproduction ....................... 645

37.6.2 Production .................................. 646

37.6.3 Postproduction ............................ 650

References .................................................. 651

•

Concept development and preproduction

•

Production

•

Postproduction and delivery.

These processes can begin with the 3-D geome-

try generated by CAD systems in the design process

or 3-D models can be created as a separate pro-

cess. The second half of the chapter explains the

process commonly used to create animations and

visualizations.

37.1 Modern CAD Tools

Today’s commercial brands of 3-D modeling tools es-

sentially contain many of the same types of functions

across the various vendor offerings. They are dimen-

sion driven, parametric, feature based, and constraint

based all at the same time, and these terms have come

to be synonymous when describing modern CAD sys-

tems [37.3]. For the purposes of this chapter, the term

constraint-based will be intended to include all of these

many facets. Generally this means that, when geome-

try is created, the user speciﬁes numerical values and

requisite geometric conditions for the elemental di-

mensional and geometric constraints that deﬁne the

object; for example, a rectangular prism would be de-

ﬁned by parameter dimensions that control its height,

width, and depth. In addition, many of today’s mod-

ern CAD tools also operate on similar interfaces with

similar geometry-creation command sequences [37.1].

Generally, most constraint-based CAD tools consist

of software modules that operate interdependently to

control the 3-D modeling process. They include core

Part D 37

640 Part D Automation Design: Theory and Methods for Integration

modules such as the sketcher, the solid modeling sys-

tem itself, the dimensional constraint engine, the feature

manager, and the assembly manager [37.2]. In most

cases, there is also a drawing tool, and other mod-

ules that interface with analysis, manufacturing process

planning, and machining. The core modules are used in

conjunction with each other (or separately as necessary)

to develop a 3-D model of the desired product. In so do-

ing, most modern CAD systems will produce the same

kinds of geometry, irrespective of the software interface

they possess. Many of the modern 3-D CAD tools com-

bine constructive solid geometry (CSG) and boundary

representation (B-rep) modeling functionality to form

hybrid 3-D modeling packages [37.2,3]. Traditionally,

CSG used mathematical primitives to create 3-D mod-

els. They were efﬁcient for the storage of the database,

but they had difﬁculty with sculpted surfaces and edit-

ing the ﬁnished model. B-rep modelers use surfaces

directly to represent the object three-dimensionally, so

they tend to bevery accurate. However, they alsotend to

have large database structures, hence the development

of hybrids to capture the best characteristics of both

B-rep and CSG.

Constraint-based CAD tools create a solid model as

a series of features that correspond to operations that

wouldbe used tocreate thephysical object.Features can

be created dependently or independently of each other

with respect to the effects of modiﬁcations made to the

geometry. If features are dependent, then an update to

the parent feature will affect the child feature. This is

known as a parent–child reference, and these references

are typically at the heart of most modeling processes

performed by the user [37.2]. The geometry of each fea-

ture is controlled by the use of modiﬁable constraints

that allow for the dynamic update of model geometry

as the design criteria change. When a parent feature is

modiﬁed, it typically creates a ripple effect that yields

changes in the child features. This is one example of

associativity – the fact that design changes propagate

through the geometric database and associated deriva-

tives of the model due to the interrelationships between

model features. This dynamic editing capability is also

reﬂected in assembly models that are used to document

the manner in which components of a product interact

with each other. Modiﬁcations to features contained in

a part will be displayed in the parent part as well as in

the assembly that contains the part. Any working draw-

ings of the part or assembly will also update to reﬂect

the changes. This is another example of associativity.

A critical issue in the use of constraint-based CAD

tools is the planning that happensprior to the creationof

the model [37.3]. This is known as design intent. Much

of the power and utility of constraint-based CAD tools

is derived from the fact that users can edit and redeﬁne

part geometry as opposed to deleting and recreating it.

This requires a certain amount of thought with respect

to the relationships that will be established between and

within features of a part and between components in an

assembly. The ways in which the model will be used

in the future and how it could potentially be manipu-

lated during design changes are both factors to consider

when building the model. The manner in which the user

expects the CAD model to behave under a given set of

circumstances, and the effects of that behavior on other

portions of the same model or on other models within

the assembly, is known as design intent [37.2, 3]. The

eventual use and reuse of the model will have a pro-

found effect on the relationships that are established

within the model as well as the types of features that

are used to create it, and vice versa.

37.2 Geometry Creation Process

Geometry is created in modern constraint-based CAD

systems using the modules and functionality described

above, especially the sketcher, the dimensional con-

straint engine, the solid modeling system, and the

feature manager. Modern CAD systems create many

different kinds of geometry, which generally fall into

one of three categories: wireframe, surface or solid.

Most userswork towardscreating solidgeometry. In do-

ing so, the user often employs the larger functionality

of the CAD system described in the previous section.

To create solid geometry, the user considers their de-

sign intent and proceeds to make the ﬁrst feature of

the model. The most common way to create feature

geometry within a part ﬁle is to sketch the feature’s

cross-section on a datum plane (or ﬂat planar surface

already existing in the part ﬁle), dimension and con-

strain the sketched proﬁle, and then apply a feature

form to the cross-section. Due to the inherent inaccu-

racies of sketching geometric entities on a computer

screen with a mouse, CAD systems typically employ

a constraint solver. This portion of the software is re-

sponsible for resolving the geometric relationships and

Part D 37.2

Computer-Aided Design, Computer-Aided Engineering, and Visualization 37.2 Geometry Creation Process 641

general proportions between the sketched entities and

the dimensions that the user applies to them, which is

another example of automation in the geometric mod-

eling process. The ﬁnal stage of geometry creation is

typically the application of a feature form, which is

what gives a sketch its depth element. This model cre-

ation process is illustrated in Fig.37.1. This automated

process of capturing dimensional and parametric in-

formation as part of the geometry creation process is

what gives modern CAD systems their advantage over

traditional engineering drawing techniques in terms of

return on investment and efﬁciency of work. Without

this level of automation, CAD systems would be noth-

ing more than an electronic drawing board, with the user

being required to recreate a design from scratch each

time.

As the user continues to use the feature creation

functions in the CAD system, the feature list continues

to grow. It lists all of the features used to create a model

in chronological order. The creation of features in a par-

ticular order also captures design intent from the user,

since the order in which geometry is created will have

a ﬁnal bearing on the look (and possibly the function)

of the object. In most cases, the feature tree is also the

location where the user would go to consider modify-

ing the order in which the model’s features were created

(and rebuilt whenever a change is made to the topology

of the model).

As users become more proﬁcient at using a con-

straint-based CAD system to create geometry, they

adopt their own mental model for interfacing with the

software [37.4]. This mental model typically evolves to

match the software interface metaphor of the CAD sys-

tem. Inso doing, they areable to leveragetheir expertise

regarding the operation of the software to devise highly

sophisticated methods for using the CAD systems. This

level of sophistication and automation by the user is

due in some part to the nature of the constraint-based

CAD tools. It is also what enables the user to dissect

geometric models created by others (or themselves at

a prior time) and reuse them to develop new or modi-

ﬁed designs. Effective use of the tools requires that the

user’s own knowledge base comprised of the concep-

tual relationships regarding the capture of design intent

in the geometric model and the speciﬁc software skills

necessary to create geometry be used. This requires the

use of an object–action interface model and metaphor

on the part of the user in order to be effective [37.1].

This interface model correlates the objects and actions

used in the software with thoseused in thephysical con-

struction of the object being modeled. If a person is to

57.15

19.05

Ø34.925

Fig. 37.1 Sketch geometry created ona planeand extrudedfor depth

use the CAD tool effectively, these two sets of models

should be similar. In relation to the object–action inter-

face model is the idea of a user’s mental model of the

software tool [37.1]. This mental model is comprised

of semantic knowledge of how the CAD system op-

erates, the relationships between the different modules

and commands, and syntactic knowledge that is com-

prised of speciﬁc knowledge about commands and the

interface (Fig.37.2).

The process of creating 3-D geometry in this fash-

ion allows the user to automate the capture of their

design intent. Semantic and syntactic knowledge are

combined once in the initial creation of the model to

develop the intended shape of the object being mod-

eled. This encoding of design knowledge allows the

Geometry

creation

Geometry

manipulation

Fig. 37.2 Expert mental model of modern CAD system op-

eration

Part D 37.2

642 Part D Automation Design: Theory and Methods for Integration

labor of creating geometry to be stored and used again

when the model is used in the future. This labor stor-

age is manifested within the CAD system inside the

geometric features themselves, and the script for play-

ing back that knowledge-embedding process is captured

within the feature manager as described in Sect.37.2.It

is generally common knowledge within the modern 3-D

modeling environment that a user will likely work with

models created by other people and vice versa. As such,

having a predictable means to include design intent in

the geometric model is critical for the reuse of existing

CAD models within an organization.

37.3 Characteristics of the Modern CAD Environment

Computer-aideddesign systemsare used in many places

within a product design environment, but each scenario

tends to have a common element: the need to accu-

rately deﬁne the geometry which represents an object.

This could be in the design engineering phase to depict

a product, or during the manufacturing planning stage

for the design if a ﬁxture to hold a workpiece. Recently,

these CAD systems have been coupled with product

data management (PDM) systems to track the ongoing

changes through the lifecycle of a product. By so do-

ing, the inherent use of the CAD system can be tracked,

knowledge about the design can be stored, and permis-

sions can be granted to appropriate users of the system.

While the concept of concurrent engineering is not new,

contemporary depictions of that model typically show

a CAD system (and often a PDM system) at the cen-

ter of the conceptual model, disseminating embedded

information for use by the entire product development

team throughout the product lifecycle [37.3].

Fig. 37.3 User script for automatic geometry generation

To use a modern CAD system effectively, one must

understand the common inputs and outputs of the sys-

tem, typically in light of a concurrent and distributed

design and manufacturing environment. Input usually

takes the form of numerical information regarding size,

shape, and orientation of geometry during the prod-

uct model creation process. This information generally

comes directly from the user responsible for devel-

oping the product; however, it is not uncommon to

get CAD input data from laser scanning devices used

for quality control and inspection, automated scripts

for generating seed geometry, or translated ﬁles from

other systems. As with other types of systems, the

quality of the information put into the system greatly

affects the quality of the data coming out of the system.

In today’s geographically dispersed product develop-

ment environment, CAD geometry is often exported

from the CAD system is a neutral ﬁle format (e.g.,

IGES or STEP) to be shared with other users up

Part D 37.3

Computer-Aided Design, Computer-Aided Engineering, and Visualization 37.4 User Characteristics Related to CAD Systems 643

and down the supply chain. Detailed two-dimensional

drawings are often derived from the 3-D model in

a semi-automated fashion to document the product

and to communicate with suppliers. In addition, 3-D

CAD data is generally shared in an automated way

(due to integration between digital systems) with struc-

tural and manufacturing analysts for testing and process

planning.

Geometry creation within CAD systems is also au-

tomated for certain tasks, especially those of a repetitive

nature. The use of geometry duplication functions of-

ten involves copying, manipulating, or moving selected

entities from one area to another on a model. This

reduces the amount of time that it takes a user to cre-

ate their ﬁnished model. However, it is critical that

the user be mindful of parent–child references as de-

scribed previously. Whilethese references are elemental

to the very nature of modern CAD systems, they can

make the modiﬁcation and reuse of design geometry

tenuous at a later date, thereby negating any positive

effects of a user having copied geometry in an effort

to save time. Geometry automation also exists in the

form of using scripting and programming functionality

in modern CAD systems to generate geometry based on

common templates. This scenario is particularly help-

ful when it is necessary to produce variations of objects

with high degrees of accuracy and around which ex-

ists a fair amount of tribal knowledge and corporate

practice. A set of parameters are created that represents

corporate knowledge to be embedded into the geom-

etry to control its shape and behavior and then the

CAD system generates the desired geometry based on

user inputs (Figs. 37.3 and 37.4). In the example of

the airfoil, aerodynamic data has been captured by an

engineering analyst and input into a CAD system us-

Cap

Leading edge

Suction side

Section splines

Partial flowpath

Pressure side

Trailing edge

Radial spline

Fig. 37.4 Airfoil geometry generated from script (labels

not generated as part of script)

ing a knowledge-capture module of the software. These

types of modules allow a user to conﬁgure the be-

havior of the CAD system when it is supplied with

a certain type of data in the requisite format. This

data represents the work of the analyst, which is then

used to automate the creation of the 3-D geometry

to represent the airfoil. Such techniques are beginning

to replace the manual geometric modeling tasks per-

formed by users on designs that require a direct tie to

engineering analysis data, or on those designs where

a common geometry is shared among various design

options.

37.4 User Characteristics Related to CAD Systems

Contemporary CAD systems require a technological

knowledge base independent of (yet complementary

to) normal engineering fundamentals. An understand-

ing of design intent related to product function and

how that is manifested in the creation of geometry

to represent the product is critical [37.4, 5]. Users re-

quire the knowledge of how the various modules of

a CAD systems work and the impact of their command

choices on the usability of geometry downstream in

the design and manufacturing process. In order to en-

able users to accomplish their tasks when using CAD

tools, training in how to use the system is critical.

Not just at a basic level for understanding the com-

mands themselves, but the developmentof a community

of practice to support the ongoing integration of user

knowledgeinto organizational culture andbest practices

is critical.

Complementary to user training, and one of the rea-

sons for why relevant training is important in the use of

CAD tools, is for users to develop strategic knowledge

in the use of the design systems. Strategic knowledge

is the application of procedural and factual knowledge

Part D 37.4

644 Part D Automation Design: Theory and Methods for Integration

in the use of CAD systems directed towards a goal

within a speciﬁc context [37.6–8]. It is through the de-

velopment of strategic knowledge that users are able to

effectively utilize the myriad functionality within mod-

ern CAD systems. Nearly all commercial CAD systems

have similar user interfaces, similar geometry creation

techniques, and similar required inputs and optional

outputs. Productivity in the use of CAD systems re-

quires thatusers employtheir knowledge ofengineering

fundamentals and the tacit knowledge gathered from

their environment, in conjunction with technological

and strategic knowledge of the CAD system’s capabil-

ities, to generate a solution to the design problem at

hand.

37.5 Visualization

Visualization information can be presented in visual

formats such as text, graphics, charts, etc. This visu-

alization makes applications simpler to understand by

human users. Visualization is useful in automation not

only for supervision, control, and decision support, but

also for training. A variety of visualization methods

and software are available, including geographic in-

formation systems and virtual reality (see examples in

Chaps. 15, 16, 26, 27, 34, 38,and73).

A geographic information system (GIS)isacom-

puter-based system for capturing, manipulating, and

displaying information using digitized maps. Its key

Table 37.1 Examples of visualization applications

Application domain Examples of visualization applications

Manufacturing Virtual prototyping and engineering analysis

Training and experimenting

Ergonomics and virtual simulation

Design Design of buildings

Design of bridges

Design of tools, furniture

Business Advertising and marketing

Presentation in e-Commerce, e-Business

Presentation of ﬁnancial information

Medicine Physical therapy and recovery

Interpretation of medical information and planning surgeries

Training surgeons

Research and development Virtual laboratories

Representation of complex math and statistical models

Spatial conﬁgurations

Learning and entertainment Virtual explorations: art and science

Virtual-reality games

Learning and educational simulators

characteristic is that every digital record has an identi-

ﬁed geographical location. This process, called geocod-

ing, enables automation applications for planning and

decision making by mapping visualized information.

Virtual reality is interactive, computer-generated,

three-dimensional imagery displayed to human users

through a head-mounted display. In virtual reality, the

visualization is artiﬁcially created. Virtual reality can be

a powerful medium for communication and collabora-

tion, as well as entertainment and learning. Table 37.1

lists examples of visualization applications (see also

Chap.15 on Virtual Reality and Automation).

Part D 37.5