Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T03:53:17.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Axiomatic Categorisation Framework for the Dynamic Alignment of Disparate Functions in Cyber-physical Systems

Part of: Systems Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Thomas J Byrne ,
Aleksandr Doikin ,
Felician Campean  and
Daniel Neagu
Thomas J Byrne*
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, Faculty of Engineering and Informatics; Advanced Automotive Analytics Research Centre
Aleksandr Doikin
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, Faculty of Engineering and Informatics; Advanced Automotive Analytics Research Centre
Felician Campean
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, Faculty of Engineering and Informatics; Advanced Automotive Analytics Research Centre
Daniel Neagu
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, Faculty of Engineering and Informatics; Advanced Automotive Analytics Research Centre
*
Contact: Byrne, Thomas J, University of Bradford, Engineering and Informatics, United Kingdom, t.j.byrne@bradford.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Advancing Industry 4.0 concepts by mapping the product of the automotive industry on the spectrum of Cyber Physical Systems, we immediately recognise the convoluted processes involved in the design of new generation vehicles. New technologies developed around the communication core (IoT) enable novel interactions with data. Our framework employs previously untapped data from vehicles in the field for intelligent vehicle health management and knowledge integration into design. Firstly, the concept of an inter-disciplinary artefact is introduced to support the dynamic alignment of disparate functions, so that cyber variables change when physical variables change. Secondly, the axiomatic categorisation (AC) framework simulates functional transformations from artefact to artefact, to monitor and control automotive systems rather than components. Herein, an artefact is defined as a triad of the physical and engineered component, the information processing entity, and communication devices at their interface. Variable changes are modelled using AC, in conjunction with the artefacts, to aggregate functional transformations within the conceptual boundary of a physical system of systems.

Keywords

Cyber-Physical SystemBig dataInformation managementIntegrated product developmentKnowledge management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3581 - 3590
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Ally, A.F. and Ning, Z. (2015), “What the current system development trends tell us about systems development methodologies: toward explaining SSDAM, agile and IDER() methodologies”, Journal of Applied Computer Science & Mathematics, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
Breiner, S. and Subrahmanian, E. (2017), “A Category of Design Steps”, 21st ICED 17: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Vancouver, Canada, 21.-25.08.2017.Google Scholar
Bylander, T. (1988), “Qualitative Representation of Behaviour in the Medical Domain”, Computers and Biomedical Research No. 21, pp. 367–380.Google Scholar
Byrne, T.J., Campean, F. and Neagu, D. (2018), “Towards a framework for engineering big data: An automotive systems perspective”, International Design Conference - Design 2018. http://doi/org/10.21278/idc.2018.0490Google Scholar
Dori, D. (2009), Object-Process methodology for Structure-Behaviour Co-Design.Google Scholar
Dori, D. and Sillitto, H. (2017), “What is a System? An Ontological Framework”, Systems Eng, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 207–219.Google Scholar
Eisenbart, B., Mandel, C., Gericke, K. and Blessing, L. (2015), “Integrated function modelling: comparing the IFM framework with SysML”, Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED15), Milan, July 27-30.Google Scholar
Goel, A., Gomez, A., Grue, N., Murdock, W., Recker, M. and Govindaraj, T. (1996), “Towards design learning environments—explaining how devices work”, Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal.Google Scholar
Hehenberger, P., Vogel-Heuser, B., Bradley, D., Eynard, B., Tomiyama, T. and Achiche, S. (2016), “Design, modelling, simulation and integration of cyber physical systems: Methods and applications”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 82, pp. 273–289.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S. and Wood, K.L. (2002), “A functional basis for engineering design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 65–82.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781), “Critique of Pure Reason”. Cosimo Classics, London”, England.Google Scholar
Rajkumar, R.R., Lee, I., Sha, L. and Stankovic, J. (2010), “Cyber-Physical Systems-The Next Computing Revolution”, 47th Design Automation Conference, pp. 731–736.Google Scholar
Recker, J. and Niehaves, B. (2008), “Epistemological Perspectives on Ontology-based Theries for Conceptual Modelling”, Applied Ontology, Vol. 3 No. 1-2, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar
SAE International. Integrated Vehicle Healith Management, Online. Available at: (https://www.sae.org/publications/collections/content/sub-std-00017/. Assessed: 16/12/2016.Google Scholar
Stankovic, J.A. (2014), “Research Directions for the Internet of Things”, IEEE IoT Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Takata, S., Kimura, F., Tomiyama, T., Sutherland, J.W., Kara, S., Herrmann, C. and Duflou, J.R. (2012), “Toward integrated product and process life cycle planning—An environmental perspective”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 681–702.Google Scholar
Umeda, Y. and Tomiyama, T. (2015), “Development of function modelling and its application to self-maintenance machine”, In: Chkrabarti, A. and Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Impact of Design Research on Industrial Practice, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 311–319.Google Scholar
Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (1990), “An ontological model of an information system”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 1282–1292.Google Scholar
Wand, Y., Storey, V.C. and Weber, R. (2000), “An Ontological Analysis of the Relationship Construct in Conceptual Modelling”, CAN Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 494–528.Google Scholar
Wand, Y. and Weber, R. (2004), “Reflection: Ontology in Information Systems”, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
Wollschlaeger, M., Sauter, T. and Jasperneite, J. (2017), “ The future of industry communication: automation networks in the era of the internet of things and industry 4.0”, Industrial Electronics Magazine, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M. and John, C.P. (2007), “Modelling iteration in engineering design”, International Conference on Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Yan, X.Q., Li, Y., Chen, J., Li, W.Q. and Xiong, Y. (2017), “A method of implementing formalised multidisciplinary collaboration in product conceptual design process”, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 23 No. 18, pp. 3342–3357.Google Scholar
Yildirim, U., Campean, F. and Williams, H. (2017), “Function modelling using the system state flow diagram”, Artifial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 31, pp. 413–435.Google Scholar