Real-time planner for design

Details Real-time planner for design Real-time planner for design

1999-06-30

2001-02-27

Grant, William (Department: 2786)

Data processing: generic control systems or specific application

Specific application, apparatus or process

Product assembly or manufacturing

C703S002000

Reexamination Certificate

active

06195594

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is in the field of methodologies for engineering design activities, and more particularly in the field of methodologies for computationally intensive signal processing design or control system design.
2. Background Information
Design of new products is becoming an increasingly complex activity because of reliance on high performance features requiring signal processing and feedback control. Many industries today also rely on complex processes to produce a product. For example, the semiconductor industry uses extremely complicated processes to produce products that typically have very narrow tolerances for final product characteristics. Another example is the disk drive industry. The disk drive industry pushes the limit on data storage and tries to store a large amount of information in relatively small area requiring very tight control over writing to and reading from the disk. Such situations present a challenge for those designing products and control systems, in part because design processes and control processes are very computationally intensive. Similar challenges exist in any area where a complex product must be designed or complex processes must be controlled.
In the areas of control of manufacturing processes or control of product behavior standard control and design methods are currently used. However, many modern products and manufacturing processes are too complex for such standard control and design methods to satisfactorily control and design them. Typical prior design and control methods are linear plans that do not provide alternatives required by the uncertainty of outcomes of computations and tests, and then permit planning based on resource utilization. Additionally, such prior methods do not incorporate actual experienced results of process execution and product design in order to adjust projections accordingly. It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve satisfactory results using prior methods. There are many problems in applying such methods to complicated manufacturing processes and to the control of the behavior of high performance products.
For example, prior design tools typically automate fragments of the design activity in a linear fashion. Thus, results of design steps are unknown or uncertain before the steps are actually carried out. For instance, compute time, computational errors and exceptions, and results of physical tests cannot be known in advance to aid in decision making. These prior tools require a user to make a large number of complex decisions that depend upon many previous steps. This is a disadvantage because the user must usually possess specific knowledge or skills in order to properly use the information gained from the previous steps. It is a further disadvantage because intelligent decisions can only be made and incorporated after waiting for execution of design steps. No problem-specific guidance is available from prior tools for projecting with any accuracy what the results of design steps will be.
Prior design steps can become infeasible or highly suboptimal because of a user decision made many steps back. Prior design tools cannot help the user see future implications of current decisions. For these reasons, with prior tools, the user must learn by problem-specific experience, over a long period of time, to resolve unknowns and dependencies across design steps.
The problem of adequate control of complex processes is further exacerbated by a current division and separation of skill sets among those involved in the design process. For instance, control experts often do not have an in-depth knowledge of the process they are seeking to control. In addition, the proprietary nature of the processes often does not allow for acquisition of an in-depth knowledge of the process. On the other hand, process experts may know conventional control methods but do not know advanced control methods. Existing control design tools are designed for control experts, but are not suitable for process experts or those with just a basic knowledge in control.
Experienced control scientists have found ways to sidestep or solve these problems in specific cases. Significant shortcomings still surface, however, when less experienced control designers or team members from other disciplines apply existing software tools to manufacturing problems and high performance products. Consequently, current tools are inadequate for widespread use.
Most existing software design tools simply automate fragments of standard design methods and lower performance products. In general, the tools are ineffective when applied to control of manufacturing processes and high performance products for the reasons discussed above.
FIG. 1
illustrates a convention design process paradigm.
FIG. 1
is a specific example of a design of a controller for a thermally activated process. In the conventional paradigm of
FIG. 1
, scientists
102
, process experts
108
, and control experts
114
work within different domains with different tools. Scientists
102
typically operate in the domain of thermal models
104
using tools such as Fortran TWOPNT
106
(Grcar, J.,
The TWOPNT Program for Boundary Value Problems
, Sandia National Laboratories, SAND
91
-
8230
, April, 1992). Process experts
108
typically deal with the domain of process monitoring
110
using a tool such as Lab View®
112
(available from National Instruments, Austin Tex.). Control experts
114
are typically concerned with the domain of temperature control
116
and use tools such as MATRIX
X
®
118
(available from Integrated Systems, Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.), or MATLAB®
118
(available from Mathworks, Inc., Natick, Mass.). Efficient control requires an integration of information from each of domains
104
,
110
, and
116
in an easily usable format, which typically does not occur in current design tools.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
A method for computer aided design of a product or process. The method includes the steps of representing a computer-aided design activity as a design cycle. The design cycle is then converted into individual iterations of decisions to be made within the design cycle. The individual iterations of decisions are then mapped into an influence diagram. The decision making process of the influence diagrams are performed and data is collected from the decision process that has been performed. The remaining unexecuted decisions and their posterior probabilities are updated based upon the data collected from the decision process that was most recently performed.
Additional features and benefits of the present invention will become apparent from the detailed description, figures, and claims set forth below.


REFERENCES:
patent: 5880959 (1999-03-01), Shah et al.
patent: 6000833 (1999-12-01), Gershenfeld et al.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Real-time planner for design does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Real-time planner for design, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Real-time planner for design will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2591590