235

Compatibility issues for mechanical system modelling

with standard components

B J Hicks* and S J Culley

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Design, University of Bath, UK

Abstract: The success of a product and ultimately the associated company are largely dependent on the
ability of the company to generate eVective, high-quality and economical design solutions within
shortened development times. To achieve increased quality and considerable time savings, standard
components can be utilized. In order to establish a suitable solution the designer must evaluate
various component types, sizes and combinations until the desired performance capabilities for the
design are achieved. However, further improvements in economy and performance can be obtained
by the eVective utilization of various con®gurations of standard components. During this phase of
evaluation, the designer must consider not only system performance but also component issues such
as reliability, suppliers, cost, maintenance and internal practices. The pressure for reduced time to
market does not leave room for time-consuming trial-and-error approaches. Today, experimentally
validated computer modelling has become the preferred choice for rapidly carrying out the
assessment of performance and the evaluation of design alternatives. In using such techniques the
designer also demands the capability to assess whether the connected components are suitable both
quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative issues relate to whether the components are
physically connectible and matched in terms of their performance capabilities, while the qualitative
issues relate to the utilization of the component or a sequence of components. These may include
preferences for suppliers, cost considerations, reliability issues, recommended component
combinations and internal practices. These two aspects of the embodiment process are de®ned as
compatibility analysis in this work.
This paper outlines the process for the embodiment of mechanical systems with standard
components and identi®es the key aspects of compatibility analysis. Following this, the importance
of and the requirements for compatibility analysis in modelling mechanical systems are discussed
and a strategy to support compatibility analysis within a modelling environment is proposed. This
strategy is implemented into an existing system modelling tool and an example study is included to
illustrate the bene®ts to the designer.

Keywords: standard components, component selection, compatibility analysis, system modelling

1 INTRODUCTION One approach to achieve high-quality cost eVective

In today’s aggressive global markets, competitive
advantage accrues to those companies that can produce
competitive products. For a product to be truly
competitive it must be of similar quality, must deliver
comparable performance and functionality and must be
of favourabl e cost. This demands that designers produce
high-quality well-performing design solutions, with both
low production and development costs.
The MS was received on 20 November 2000 and was accepted after
revision for publication on 14 August 2001.
*Correspondin g author: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering and Design, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
B12400 IMechE 2002
engineering is to utilize standard components. Standard
components provide increased quality and performance
at decreased unit cost. The reasons for this have been
discussed by Ulrich and Eppinger [1], who state that
‘the third-party producer can manufacture high volumes,
thus reducing unit cost, and invest in learning and
improvement of the component’s design and production
process, thereby improving quality and performance’.
The use of standard components also yields some
indirect bene®ts such as improved availability, global
acceptance, established maintenance procedures as well
as assured long-term concurrency of components [2].
The eVective identi®cation and utilization of standard
components can therefore signi®cantly improve the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
236
quality and performance of a design solution. In fact,
studies undertaken in the ®eld of machine systems
design and in particular power transmission have
shown that standard components can provide between
50 and 80 per cent of the components in an assembly
[3]. As global competition continues to rise, the utiliza-
tion of standard components in machine systems is
likely to increase, because of the many advantages
previously discussed. The development of methods that
deal with the incorporation of standard components
during systems design is therefore an important area,
which is overlooked by many researchers. The majority
of current research deals with the selection of individual
components in isolation [4±6], rather than considering
the system and each of its elements as a whole. The
incorporation of selection issues into a systems approach
is necessary because of the highly coupled nature of
mechanical components, which must be considered
together with qualitative selection issues, in order to
develop an optimum solution [7, 8].
1.1 Standard components and embodiment design
During the transformation of a concept to an embodied
solution the designer must take decisions regarding the
type and combination of mechanical elements that are
necessary in order to perform the desired function of
the system. The relative selection of these components
and their corresponding sizes will determine the overall
performance capabilities and physical characteristics of
the system. These physical characteristics include
measures such as spatial occupancy, reliability, working
range capabilities, transmission stiVness and importantly
cost, all of which determine the commercial success of the
machine. As a consequence, the designer must consider
all these aspects while embodying a solution and must
select various component types, sizes and con®gurations
to best achieve all the desired characteristics.
Pressures for reduced time to market do not leave
room for time-consuming trial-and-error approaches.
Today, experimentally validated computer modelling
has become the preferred choice for rapidly carrying
out the assessment of performance and the evaluation
of design alternatives. The application of these modelling
techniques are essential where standard components are
to be considered. This is because of the large number of
manufacturers and suppliers, each providing many
diVerent types of component which are available over a
large number of discrete sizes. This makes for an
exponential number of possible con®gurations for
component types, sizes and combinations, which must
be investigated by the designer in order to determine
the best-performing solution.
For the purpose of this work a component type
represents a speci®c range of mechanical elements from
a particular manufacturer, while component sizes relate
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY
to the range of discrete element sizes available for a
particular componen t type. In order to embody fully a
conceptual schema the designer must iteratively select
component types and/or sizes in order to ful®l the
requirements for the design. In addition to ful®lling
performance and physical requirements, the designer
must also consider other aspects of the design such as
preferred suppliers, recommended practices, reliability,
component standardization, scalability and rationaliza-
tion of designs within the company. These aspects are
not meant to be exhaustive but merely to illustrate
some of the other qualitative considerations that a
designer must evaluate. The common approach of the
designer, when embodying a concept, is to select a
con®guration of components and then to eVect changes
in individual component types and sizes, evaluating the
system performance after each change. This is performed
iteratively in order to achieve an optimum solution not
just in terms of performanc e capabilities but also against
aspects of the design previously described. Because of the
inherently time-consuming nature of these tasks and the
desire to reduce development time a designer may elect to
disregard changing component type in preference of the
pursuit of a single design solution. As a consequence an
optimized solution may only be optimum for the speci®c
con®guration. In addition to this, the designer team may
also attempt to reduce time and eVort by undertaking
this activity in cooperation with a particular supplier
with whom they have a relationship, although under-
standable this may further reduce the likelihood of
developing an optimum solution.
1.2 Computer-based support for selecting systems of
standard components
A computer-base d support tool to aid the embodiment
of systems, however de®ned, needs to address a
number of issues. In particular the ability to consider
many alternatives within shortened activity times as
well as the ability to evaluate achievable component
con®gurations. To address these issues, provision for
the identi®cation of incompatible component types and
the suggestion of alternative component types must be
incorporated. In addition to this, the recognition of
acceptable or unacceptabl e component combinations
or chains is demanded, in order to reduce search space
and search time. For example a novice designer may
attempt to connect incompatible components together,
while a more experienced designer may utilize chains of
components that are compatible but not practised for
reasons such as reliability, stiVness or cost. Therefore,
designers need to know whether elements are compatible
and whether the combination of elements that they have
chosen are best-practised or acceptable alternatives. For
the purpose of this work, the term ‘best practised’ may
relate to either internal or corporate practices as well as
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
accepted or documented design practices. For the task of
identifying compatible elements, various levels of
compatibility analysis have been practised for some
time in both electrical and ¯uid power design tools.
These techniques are discussed in later sections with
respect to the generation of a similar support tool for
mechanical systems.
The work described in this paper deals with the
embodiment of mechanical systems with standard
components. The paper develops the key aspects of the
system embodiment process and in particular discusses
the areas of compatibility analysis and component
matching. A review of supportive methods for each
phase of the process highlights the lack of support tools
and approaches in this important area. To address this,
the requirements of compatibility analysis for mechanical
systems design with standard components are established
and an approach is created and subsequently incorpo-
rated into an existing system modelling tool [9].
2 SELECTION ISSUES FOR SYSTEMS OF
STANDARD MECHANICAL COMPONENTS
For today’s engineer the selection of standard compo-
nents involves the consideration of many more factors
than solely ‘does this component deliver the required
performance?’. Because of global markets and global
distribution networks, combined with the vast number
of diVerent suppliers and component types, the design
team must now consider issues covering not only perfor-
mance but also aspects such as suppliers, costs, delivery,
reliability, compatibility and managed services to name
but a few. Figure 1 illustrates the key activities identi®ed
by the research work and depicts the individual tasks for
the design of a mechanical system with standard compo-
nents. These activities are discussed in the following
sections and are categorized from studies by the present
authors into machine systems design. The activities can
be separated into four phases: identi®cation and selection
of components, component matching and compatibility
analysis, optimization of sizes and con®guration and
detailed design. These phases are separated in the process
overview in Fig. 1; however, there is a high level of
dependence and recursion between each phase and
their included activities. The core tasks or activities in
each of the phases are now discussed and research
methods which support each phase are described.
2.1 Identi®cation and selection of components
During phase 1 of the proposed process the designer is
concerned with identifying suitable component types
and associated manufacturers . To undertake this, a
number of workers have discussed methods for the
mapping of function to types of mechanical component
B12400 IMechE 2002
237
[10, 11], termed functional decomposition; this approach
is also a key feature of the TRIZ (theory of solving
problems inventively) methodology [12]. For the identi®-
cation of preferred suppliers or particular manufacturers,
Ellram [13] discussed methods for the evaluation of
relationships with suppliers, while Culley and Allen [14]
described an approach to capture informal information
regarding the eVectiveness and performance of suppliers
and particular component types.
2.2 Component matching and compatibility analysis
Phase 2 of the process covers many diVerent tasks, which
are highly dependent on each other and must be consid-
ered concurrently in order for the successful completion
of this phase. This dependence is represented in Fig. 1 by
the interconnections between each task. These individual
tasks can be further grouped into four activities: system
topology or layout, system performance, connectivity and
performance matching and complementary assessment of
coupled components, depicted in Fig. 1. For the ®rst of
these activities there are many tools which consider
geometric relations between parts, these include the
computer aided design (CAD) packages WAVE (part
of Unigraphics) [15] and Pro Engineer [15, 16], both of
which possess parametric modelling capabilities for
assemblies.
To support the undertaking of the second activity of
the process, a number of approache s for performance
modelling and simulation are becoming available,
which allow the modelling and analysis of systems
based on standard components [17, 18]. These
approaches support the conceptual and embodiment
phases of the traditional design process and assist the
designer in rapidly embodying a design solution. This
embodiment is frequently computer based and attempts
to populate the conceptual con®guration with a set of
real mechanical components that meet the desired over-
all performanc e characteristics. The automation of the
embodiment process enables many more component
con®gurations and combinations to be evaluated by the
designer in a relatively short time period.
For the third and fourth tasks in this phase of the
proposed process, namely connectivity and performance
matching and compatibility analysis, there is little docu-
mented work, where systems of standard components are
considered. To summarize these tasks, their primary
function is to ensure that geometric interfaces are com-
patible (e.g. this may include evaluation of ®ts and ability
to accommodate de¯ections), that the magnitudes of
energy transfer are acceptable and that, where possible,
preferred component types and combination are used.
Current practice requires the designer to perform such
evaluations by hand, which is inherently time consuming
and frustrates the ability to determine an optimum solu-
tion, for reasons previously discussed. The development
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
238 B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY

Fig. 1 Design process for the incorporation of standard components

of methods which deal with this aspect of the embodi-
ment process are therefore essential for the generation
of the most eVective overall solution.
2.3 Optimization of sizes and con®guration
Phase 3 of the process involves the optimization of a
particular con®guration of components, where the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
con®guration represents the types of component, their
arrangement and their preliminary sizes. The optimiza-
tion strategies applied to such problems typically vary
component attributes, evaluating system properties
after each iteration, in order to converge on a solution
which best achieves the desired attributes for the
considered system. The examples of optimization goals
detailed in the lower portion of Fig. 1 merely represent
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
some typical objectives [7, 19, 20]. The actual goal
functions must be generated by the designer and will
depend on the original design speci®cation. Extensive
research has been undertaken into developing optimiza-
tion strategies for searching both continuous and discrete
solution spaces [21±23] and, although these have not
been used extensively in these applications, they are
considered suitable for problems involving standard
components which produce discrete solution spaces.
2.4 Detailed design
The ®nal phase of the process, phase 4, includes many of
the typical tasks for detailed design [24]. These may
include the speci®cation of the intricacies for, say,
component housings, mountings and ®xtures. This
phase may also include design for X-type activities [25]
although, if diVerent component sizes are considered,
the designer may need to re-enter phases 2 and 3 of the
process. Traditional CAD systems [26±28] have been
developed for this phase of the design process. The
majority of these systems enable the geometry of
standard components in the form of two-dimensional
and three-dimensional models to be imported from
libraries, often supplied by manufacturer s or included
in electronic catalogues [29]. These libraries also include
mountings and standard ®xings, removing much of the
detailed work.
2.5 Overview
The previous sections discuss the individual phases of the
proposed ‘design process’ for embodying mechanical
systems with standard components. These sections also
provide a brief overview of current technologies and soft-
ware tools which support the various activities. This
review highlights the fact that there is a lack of suppor-
tive methods for phase 2 of the process and in particular
what the present authors have identi®ed as compatibility
analysis. Furthermore, the overall process depicted in
Fig. 1 shows that there is a high dependence between
each of the phases. This demands that the various activ-
ities are considered concurrently in order to undertake
the process eVectively. To address these important
issues the following sections discuss and develop the
requirements for compatibility analysis in mechanical
systems and review similar approaches adopted in
other engineering domains, namely ¯uid power and
electrical circuit design. The developed approach is
then integrated into an existing system modelling envir-
onment for the design of mechanical systems from
standard components. The incorporation of compatibil-
ity analysis into a modelling approach enables all the
four phases of the embodiment process to be undertaken
in a single environment. The collective consideration of
system performance, geometry and component selection
B12400 IMechE 2002
239
issues are essential for the eVective and successful
selection and speci®cation of a system of standard
components.
3 REVIEW OF COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS IN
ENGINEERING
As has been stated, the desire to reduce development
times and the commitment of ®nal cost obligated at the
conceptual phase of the design process and the ability
to test for ‘achievable designs’ as early as possible
becomes increasingly more important. Consequently,
the integration of compatibility analysis routines into
software based design environments is beginning to
evolve. Such environments range from the con®guration
of personal computer hardware [30] to the compatibility
of information systems [31]. For all these various
applications, compatible elements are de®ned as ‘those
elements which can be used together without modi®ca-
tion or adaptation’ [32] and do not produce any physical
eVects that may adversely aVect the performance of the
system considered. In the domains of ¯uid power systems
design and electrical circuit design, compatibility analy-
sis techniques have been successfully incorporated into
a number of support tools. In the electrical domain
[33], compatibility analysis deals with electromagneti c
compatibility utilizing complex numerical methods to
model the behaviour of ®elds. In contrast with this,
work in the design of ¯uid power systems focuses on
the compatibility of component models, with respect to
the matching of input and output parameters as well as
the continuity of units of measurement [34].
In machine systems design, the present authors con-
sider compatible designs to be those that are ‘achievable’
and consist of ‘preferred’ or ‘best practiced’ con®gura-
tions of components. ‘Achievable designs’ in this context
are those that are fundamentally based on existing
technology and principles. Such designs incorporate
standard components or standard designed components
and are con®gured so that components are physically
connectible and mutually complement each other, in
terms of the type(s) and magnitudes of their outputs
and inputs. As the number of elements that violate
these conditions increases, so the con®dence in the
achievability of the design reduces. ‘Preferred designs’
utilize con®gurations and combinations of components
that are deemed to be suitable or better performing for
the particular application. Reasons for this ‘perceived
better performance’ range from cost concessions
provided by certain suppliers, a drive to use existing
stocks and the use of well-tested and reliable component
combinations, an important consideration in aero-
nautical disciplines [35]. As the number of preferred
components are reduced, the subjective or qualitative
attributes, such as reliability or e ciency, become less
certain and empirical testing and experimental validation
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
240 B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY
must be undertaken, especially where performance is
critical to safety.
For the purpose of machine systems design the
objectives of compatibility analysis as de®ned above
are concerned with the assessment of connected compo-
nents rather than system eVects, such as the ®elds
produced by electrical circuits. Hence an elemental
approach is all that is required. This elemental approach
evaluates connected components and sequences of
coupled components throughout the system. This is
similar to the approach adopted in the ¯uid power
domain, where attributes between coupled components
are evaluated. However, modelling environments in the
¯uid power domain deal only with ¯owrate, pressure
and consistency of units. In order to develop an elemen-
tal approach for compatibility analysis of machine
system models a number of issues must be addressed.
These are discussed in the next sections.
4 COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS IN
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
For the purpose of this work, compatible elements are
de®ned as those which are capable of being used in com-
bination and are ‘well suited’. This latter aspect ensures
that coupled components are matched in terms of their
capabilities and do not impose any adverse eVects on
to each other. In order to evaluate the compatibility of
a system of mechanical elements the present authors pro-
pose three activities: connectivity analysis, performance
matching and complementary assessment, illustrated in
Fig. 2.
1. Connectivity analysis ensures that the geometric
interfaces are matched and that energy interfaces
are compatible [27]. This ensures that coupled
components ®t together and that energy can be trans-
mitted in the desired manner across their interface.
An example of the importance of this latter condition
is for the selection of a bearing on a shaft. If the shaft
transmits an axial load and a radial load, then, while
Fig. 2 The proposed functions of compatibility analysis in mechanical systems
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
many bearings may be geometrically compatible, only
bearings that support both loading conditions are
suitable for the particular design.
2. Performance matching ensures that the magnitudes of
energy transfer are acceptable output and input levels
for coupled components. This matching may not be
exact; the designer may wish to include safety factors
or additional capacity for variations in performance
conditions. In addition to this, performance matching
encompasses component attributes that are not
exchanged at the interface. These may include lubri-
cation type, material properties, working tempera-
ture, life and reliability.
3. Complementary assessment provides for the quali-
tative considerations which the designer must
undertake. These may include cost, reliability, manu-
facturer and supplier issues and recommended or
standard practices. The objective of complementary
assessment is to identify particular components or
combinations which are preferred for one or more
of the reasons previously discussed. An example of
complementary components is in the case of the
attachment of a gear to a lay shaft. It may be that
the manufacturer recommends the attachment of
the gear with a bush rather than a keyway. While a
keyway is a compatible element, it would not be
considered complementary or preferred.
As previously discussed in Section 2, there is a high
level of dependence and recursion between the various
stages of phases 2 and 3 of the proposed design process
(Fig. 1). Because of this dependence, supportive methods
and tools for each of the respective tasks within these
phases (geometric and performance considerations,
component matching, complementary evaluation and
optimization) must be considered collectively. This
really can only be achieved within a single modelling
environment or by linking a range of computer-based
design tools. Research into an integrated modelling
environment for mechanical systems has been under-
taken by the present authors [9, 36]. This approach
provides the representation, performance modelling
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
and optimization of mechanical systems from compo-
nent-based models. These component-base d models are
the electronic procedures that either select or specify a
particular mechanical component, ranging from bearing
and electric motor catalogues to parametric models for
gear pairs and for shafts. The following sections describe
an approach for incorporating the three phases of
compatibility analysis into an integrated modelling
environment.
5 COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS IN AN
INTEGRATED MODELLING ENVIRONMENT
In order to provide for veri®cation of compatible ele-
ments as de®ned above, the approach of modelling
tools in the ¯uid power domain is to inspect the input
and output parameter ®elds of connected component
models. This inspection ensures that there is an exhaus-
tive and exact match of output parameters to input
parameters for the coupled components. The introduc-
tion of such a scheme into a mechanical systems support
tool is problematic, because components may demand a
range of design parameters that can be fully met by all or
only some of the available output parameters from other
compatible components. An example of this is in the case
of a shaft and bearing. Here the design data referring to
the power and torque transmitted by the shaft are
redundant, i.e. they are not required for execution of
the bearing model, in this case an electronic catalogue.
Consequently, the design parameters or input param-
eters for a bearing are fully met by only some of the
possible output parameters from the shaft. Hence,
there is not an exact and exhaustive match of output to
input design parameters between two compatible
Fig. 3 Order of resolution and data propagation during system resolution
B12400 IMechE 2002
241
components in machine systems design. Therefore,
compatibility cannot be determined through exact
matching of design parameters between two mechanical
components, or indeed partial matching, which would
be adequate in the case previously described. However,
if the partial matching approach were adopted and a
bearing was considered compatible with a shaft on the
basis that all the bearing’s input parameters can be met
by only a proportion of the shaft’s output parameters,
then as a consequence the bearing would be unable to
distinguish between a shaft and a gear which output
essentially the same parameter ®elds [36].
The fact that the compatibility of two connected ele-
ments in the mechanical domain cannot be determined
by purely whether they have exact, similar or partial
correlation between parameter input and output require-
ments is one of the challenges addressed by the work. In
order to distinguish between compatible and incompati-
ble elements, permissible component combinations must
be explicitly de®ned within the modelling environment.
This approach is further frustrated by the inherent com-
plexity of a mechanical systems representation [37]. The
representation for a mechanical system is a complex
network of component chains linked together by core
elements such as a shaft, shown in Fig. 3. This form of
representation has been developed for the integrated
modelling environment in order to capture system
connectivity and to propagate information throughout
the system model.
The requirements for compatibility analysis described
in earlier sections discuss the need for support during the
con®guration and construction of a design solution and
explicit evaluation of the system for compatibility and
matching once constructed. In order to provide for the
latter, requirement analysis routines must be executed
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
242
during the system resolution process. To develop the
requirements for this, it is ®rst necessary to understand
the protocol for resolution, which entails the propaga-
tion of design parameters between models and the
execution of these models.
5.1 Data propagatio n in the integrated modelling
environment
The integrated modeller used for this work adopts an
elemental approach, where each element is a constituent
of the system model. These elements can represent
mechanical components, parts such as mounts and
system inputs±outputs. The data propagation cycle
implemented in the modelling environment has two
distinct phases: ®rstly, data are propagated inwards
from the outlying elements, referred to as unitary ele-
ments, to the core elements; following this the outward
resolution phase propagates data from the core elements
to the unitary elements. Unitary elements possess only a
single connection and are the outlying system elements
such as inputs, outputs and ground points. Core ele-
ments possess more than two connections and are the
principal elements through which all other components
or component chains are connected, such as a shaft.
These elements demand full data propagation from all
the connected elements in order that all the inputs are
available prior to the model execution. The two-stage
propagation cycle is therefore necessary in order for
component data ®elds to be fully populated and for the
system model to be successfully resolved. However, the
bidirectional nature of this cycle also complicates
the application of compatibility analysis to the system
model order of resolution, as shown in Fig. 4. During
the inward phase of resolution the bearing is coupled
to the shaft, while during the outward phase the shaft
is coupled to the bearing. Permitting a bearing to
shaft coupling or vice versa would satisfy both these
Fig. 4 Order of resolution through a possible component sequence
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY
conditions. However, such a condition would also be
satis®ed in the case of the component con®guration
shown in Fig. 4c, where the bearing is connected in
between two shafts, which is incompatible. Consequently
the explicit de®nition or speci®cation of permissible
component combinations for both the inward and the
outward resolution phases is necessary. To provide for
the speci®cation of compatible components a ‘knowledge
base’ is implemented within the modelling environment.
This knowledge base can be interrogated during the
model construction phase as well as being explicitly
searched during resolution. The architecture for this
knowledge base and its functionality are discussed in
detail in the next section.
6 COMPATIBILITY KNOWLEDGE BASE
The requirements for the compatibility analysis of
mechanical components within an integrated modelling
environment were introduced in the previous sections.
In order to ful®l these requirements a knowledge base
of some form is required. A knowledge base is de®ned
as a formal and explicit representation of the knowledge
pertaining to a given domain [38]. In this work the
knowledge needs to describe the compatibility of compo-
nent combinations. The structure developed for the
knowledge base is a multi-dimensional matrix, depicted
in Fig. 5. This matrix provides for compatibility analysis
during the bidirectional phases of system resolution, as
well as providing for the distinction between compatible,
incompatible and complementary component combina-
tions. This distinction is achieved through the adoption
of a weighted compatibility identi®er which can assume
a value of 0, 1 or 2. An identi®er is speci®ed for each
possible component combination. A value of 0 denotes
an incompatible pair while a value of 1 indicates a
compatible pair and 2 denotes a component pairing
that is both compatible and complimentary.
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
Fig. 5 A two-dimensional compatibility matrix
6.1 A two-dimensional matrix for compatibility analysis
In order to provide for compatibility analysis during the
two phases of resolution a two-dimensional compatibil-
ity matrix can be incorporated into the architecture of
the modelling environment. The incorporation of the
knowledge base enables the customization of compatibil-
ity matrices by the designer to accommodate their indivi-
dual preferences for manufacturers or suppliers. During
each phase of resolution the matrix can be concurrently
referred to in order to evaluate component combina-
tions. To account for the change in order of data
propagation and resolution, the search order for the
matrix is transposed for each phase of resolution. For
the inward phase of the resolution cycle the search
order evaluates the i±j dimensions respectively; this is
inverted for the outward phase to the j±i dimensions,
shown in Fig. 5. This example matrix contains seven
component types and demonstrate s the use of the com-
plementary weighting between various types of generic
component, such as bearings. In the case of a bearing
on a shaft, bearing 2 is the preferred choice for reasons
previously discussed, although bearing 1 is still a
compatible alternative. The matrix system therefore
provides for the inclusion of this preference, although
the system does not capture the reasons (intent) for this
precedence. Possible reasons for this may be associated
with reliability, cost or favoured suppliers and aVords
an area for future work.
6.2 A three-dimensional matrix for compatibility
analysis
The two-dimensional matrix described above addresses
compatibility issues between component pairs; however,
B12400 IMechE 2002
243
it does not suggest compatible structures, although it will
evaluate structures by inspecting consecutive component
pairings. The ability to suggest component structures is a
desirable feature for any design support tool. Such a
feature enables a designer who does not possess any
knowledge of preferred components or suppliers to
con®gure a system that consists of preferred or
recommended components. By adding a virtual third
dimension to the matrix, permissible chains or structures
may be represented and displayed to the designer. This
third dimension is achieved by searching consecutive
instances of the compatibility matrix, illustrated in
Fig. 6. If the designer selects component type A from
instance (i) of the matrix then evaluation of instance
(i ‡ 1) for component type A will generate a list of all
possible compatible components. This approach can be
extended to inspect instance (i ‡ 2) for each component
derived form instance (i ‡ 1). In this manner, all possible
component sequences can be displayed to the designer as
a hierarchical tree structure, shown in Fig. 6 and for the
case example shown later in Fig. 9. As the designer pro-
ceeds through the design space committing to particular
components, so the number of feasible combinations is
reduced. This approach can be used to identify all
compatible components or limited to complementary
(preferred) components only, thereby ensuring an
achievable design solution that takes account of the
preferences of the respective design team or company.
6.3 Dynamic manipulation of the compatibility
knowledge base
The incorporation of a two-dimensional matrix and an
extended three-dimensional matrix provide for the
evaluation of compatible and preferred components as
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
244
Fig. 6 A virtual three-dimensional compatibility matrix
well as allowing the identi®cation and suggestion of
achievable components sequences. This approach is
adequate for compatibility decisions undertaken at a
component level and explicitly de®ned in the matrix;
however, as discussed previously in Section 3, decisions
on compatibility and matching may depend on the
inspection of individual component parameters. This
parameter or attribute dependence means that certain
components may only be compatible given acceptable
coupling conditions, in terms of both types and magni-
tudes of coupling parameters. An example of such a
coupling parameter is between a shaft and a roller bear-
ing. In this case, all types of roller bearing from diVerent
manufacturers and suppliers are compatible elements for
a shaft. However, some may not support axial loads or
shaft de¯ections beyond a certain value. Consequently,
components may only be considered to be well matched
if corresponding parameters between them are within
certain ranges or exactly matched. These exact matches
may be numerical values as well as textual properties,
such as lubrication type or material.
The provision for both the speci®cation and the
inclusion of compatibility conditions is achieved by
manipulation of the compatibility matrix. The procedure
for this manipulation is shown in Fig. 7. The designers’
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY
input to the process is to construct conditions or equal-
ities between attributes for related components or
between a prede®ned value and a particular attribute.
These conditions are evaluated and the matrix elements
are updated to re¯ect the change in condition. This
evaluation and manipulation of the matrix occur after
the system has been resolved, at which stage all com-
ponent models have been interrogated and complete
speci®cations for components determined. This enables
the evaluation of parameters for individual components
or between component groups against the prede®ned
conditions set by the designer to be made. In this
manner, any component(s) that does (do) not satisfy
the matching conditions is (are) identi®ed and the
designer is prompted to take the appropriate action.
7 AN INTEGRATED MODELLING
ENVIRONMENT WITH COMPATIBILITY
ANALYSIS
The integrated modelling environment used as a basis for
this work has been discussed in detail elsewhere [9, 36,
37]. The environment allows the representation of
engineering systems for their embodiment with standard
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
Fig. 7 Dynamic matrix manipulation by inspection of component parameters
components. The approach expedites the concept to
embodiment phase of the design process, enabling a
solution principle, termed a conceptual schema in this
work, to be entered into the system. This schema
describes the class of mechanical component, such as a
gear, a shaft or a bearing, and their arrangement in
terms of connectivity, similar to a concept sketch. For
the example considered, the conceptual sketch and the
associated schema are depicted in Figs 8a and b respec-
tively. In addition to describing the class of mechanical
component, each icon also has an electronic representa-
tion assigned to it. This representation is assigned by
the designer and may be any one of the available
models for the particular class of component. The elec-
tronic representations range from electronic catalogues,
numerical codes, spreadsheets and database s to models
constructed in CAD systems. In the case of a bearing
this electronic representation may be an electronic
catalogue from any of the included manufacturers or
suppliers. It is at this stage that the designer commits
to a particular supplier or component type, where this
component type represents a speci®c range of mechanical
elements from a particular manufacturer. It is during
the construction of the schema that the ®rst level of
compatibility analysis can be invoked. This supports
the selection of component types, sequences and impor-
tantly component manufacturers or suppliers. To
achieve this, the virtual three-dimensional matrix is
utilized. This provides a mapping of the possible compo-
nents sequences, which can be coupled to a particular
component and suggests compatible elements and/or
preferred elements. For the example considered in
Fig. 8, the compatibility matrix is invoked during
B12400 IMechE 2002
245
model construction for the shaft and the keyway. This
process automatically references the compatibility
matrix and produces a dendritic structure, which
describes the various component sequences that are
capable of being coupled to each element. For the case
of the shaft and the keyway, the possible component
arrangements are shown in Figs 9a and b respectively.
The second level of compatibility analysis occurs after
the system has been resolved. This resolution considers
the performance of the system and interrogates the
various electronic representations to determine a
system of components that are capable of delivering
the required performanc e for the design (see Fig. 1)
and the activity of performance modelling for the
system. This level of compatibility analysis involves the
dynamic manipulation of the matrix. During this
process, certain attributes between related components
are evaluated. If conditions are not satis®ed, then
the component pairing is deemed incompatible and the
designer is noti®ed. An example of this might be the
shaft de¯ection and the maximum allowable angle of
misalignment for a bearing. The angle of misalignment
for a given bearing tends to be range speci®c; i.e. the
value of the attribute is constant across the given
range. Consequently, static attributes such as these are
evaluated after the system resolution phase, at which
stage initial values for the various components and
their attributes are available for comparative assessment.
These conditions will have been speci®ed in advance
by the designer by virtue of the ‘constraint speci®er’,
depicted in Fig. 10. Constraints between elements are
speci®ed as logical conditions (<, > and ˆ), which are
evaluated post-resolution. These conditions are generally
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
246 B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY

Fig. 8 A connectivity model of a concept principle in the integrated modeller

expressed as numerical equalities, although string
comparisons can be evaluated, but this is restricted to
exact matching only. This feature can be set to ensure
that attributes such as lubrication types or materials
are consistent throughout a design. If the constraints
are not satis®ed, the designer is noti®ed and prompted
to take the appropriate action, in order to resolve the
con¯ict and to satisfy the constraint.
8 CONCLUSION
This paper discusses a design process for the embodiment
of systems with standard mechanical components. This
process is developed from studies of designing systems
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
from standard components and separates the overall
process into three activities: selection of component
types, performance modelling, component matching and
compatibility analysis and detailed design. The issues
associated with this embodiment process are described
and the lack of supportive methods and tools currently
available for the important area of performance model-
ling, compatibility analysis and matching of standard
components during the early stages of machine design
is highlighted. The work also emphasizes the importance
of considering all the various aspects of embodiment
design within a single modelling environment. The
work describes an integrated modelling environment
for the performance modelling of mechanical systems
and discusses the requirements for the incorporation of
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING 247

Fig. 9 Compatibility analysis during model construction

B12400 IMechE 2002 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
248
Fig. 10 Speci®cation of compatibility constraints between related attributes
compatibility analysis in the analysis of such systems.
These requirements cover three aspects: connectivity
analysis, performance matching and complementary
assessment. A review of compatibility analysis techniques
in other engineering domains is also undertaken and the
associated issues for the generation of compatibility
analysis in mechanical systems are discussed.
A strategy for compatibility analysis within an inte-
grated modelling environment is then developed. This
strategy provides for the distinction of compatible and
incompatible components as well as for the utilization
of preferred combinations of components, such as
shafts and particular bearings or gears and keyways.
The incorporation of compatibility analysis ensures
that ‘achievable’ designs are con®gured and through
complementary evaluation makes certain that ‘preferred’
components are utilized where possible. Achievable
designs are those which are con®gured from components
that can be procured exactly as speci®ed; usually these
will be standard components and are matched such
that all components are physically connectible and
mutually complement each other in terms of the type(s)
and magnitudes of their inputs and outputs. This ensures
that the design can be produced and that it will operate
within the performanc e capabilities for which it was
designed. The ability to con®gure achievable systems
within a modelling environment is invaluable for the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
B J HICKS AND S J CULLEY
early stages of system design and for rapid development.
Furthermore, for complex large systems consisting of
hundreds of components, this type of assessment is
essential.
REFERENCES
1 Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. Product Design and
Development, 2nd edition, 2000 (Irwin McGraw-Hill, New
York).
2 Wallace, A. P. The modelling of engineering assemblies
based on standard catalogue components. MPhil thesis,
University of Bath, 1995.
3 Theobald, G. Modelling standard components for engineer-
ing systems. PhD thesis, University of Bath, 1995.
4 Webber, S. J. Techniques for the analysis of search results
in computer aided selection systems. PhD thesis, University
of Bath, 1994.
5 Reinemuth, J. Designing with computer-based component
catalogues using hypermedia. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Engineering Design, The Hague,
August 1993, Vol. 3, pp. 1700 ±1707.
6 Harmer, Q. J., Weaver, P. M. and Wallace, K. M. Design-
led component selection. Computer Aided Des., 1998, 30(5),
391± 405.
7 Papalambros, P. Y. and Wilde, D. J. Principles of Optimal
Design, 1988 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
B12400 IMechE 2002
 COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEM MODELLING
8 Flood, R. L. and Carson, E. R. Dealing with Complexity: An
Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems
Science, 1988 (Plenum, New York).
9 Hicks, B. J. and Culley, S. J. An integrated modelling
environment for the design and synthesis of mechanical
systems. J. Computer Aided Des., 2000 (accepted).
10 Counsell, J., Porter, I., Dawson, D. and DuVy, M. Scheme-
builder: computer aided knowledge based design of mecha-
tronic systems. Assembly Automn, 1999, 19(2), 129 ±138.
11 Hundal, M. S. and Langholtz, L. D. Conceptual design by
computer-aided creation of function structures and the
search for solutions. J. Eng. Des., 1992, 3(2).
12 The TRIZ Journal. http://www.triz-journal.com, 2000.
13 Ellram, L. S. The supplier selection decision in strategic
partnerships. J. Purchasing Mater. Managmnt, 1990,
32(18), 8±14.
14 Culley, S. J. and Allen, R. D. Informal informationÐ
de®nitions and examples with reference to the electronic
catalogue. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Engineering Design (ICED 99), Munich, Germany,
1999, pp. 1961 ±1964.
15 UG WAVE. http://www.ugsolutions.com/products/
unigraphics/cad/wave/wavecontrol, 2000.
16 Pro/ENGINEER solutions. http://www.ptc.com/products/
proe/index.htm, 2000.
17 AMESIM. http://www.amesim.com/amesim.htm, 2000.
18 MSC software, working model. http://www.workingmodel.
com, 2001.
19 Adeli, H. Advances in Design Optimization, 1994 (Chapman
and Hall, London).
20 Samuel, A. and Weir, J. Introduction to Engineering Design:
Modelling, Synthesis and Problem Solving Strategies, 1999
(Butterworth±Heinemann, Oxford).
21 Walsh, G. R. Methods of Optimization, 1975 (John Wiley,
London).
22 Sen, P. and Yang, J. Multiple Criteria Decision Support in
Engineering Design, 1998 (Springer-Verlag, New York).
23 Hajela, P. Nongradient methods in multidisciplinary design
optimizationÐstatus and potential. J. Aircr. Des., January
1999, 36(1), 255±265.
24 Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. Engineering Design: A Systematic
Approach (Transl. K. Wallace), 2nd edition, 1996
(Springer-Verlag, London).
B12400 IMechE 2002
249
25 Ullman, D. G. The Mechanical Design Process, 1992
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
26 AutoCAD 14 User’s Guide, 1997 (Autodesk, USA).
27 Solidworks 98 Plus User’s Guide, 1998 (SolidWorks
Corporation, Concord, USA).
28 Introducing I-DEAS. http://sdrc.com/ideas/index.htm,
2000.
29 Culley, S. J. and Webber, S. J. Implementation require-
ments for electronic standard component catalogues.
Procs Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B, Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 1992, 206(B4), 253 ±260.
30 Coleman, J. M., McGuV, P. C. and Koederitz, W. L. PC
compatibilityÐis there such a thing anymore? In Proceed-
ings of the Petroleum Computer Conference, 1996, pp.
129± 134.
31 Mailoi, C., Penzo, W., Sola, S. and Vitali, F. Using a
reference model for information system compatibility. In
Proceedings of the Hawaii Conference on Systems Science,
1994, Vol. 3.
32 Collins Concise Dictionary, 1990 (Collins, Glasgow).
33 Parry, J., Bailey, C. and Aldham, C. Multiphysics
modelling for electronic design. In Proceedings of the
Seventh Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermo-
mechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (Itherm
2000), 2000.
34 Sidders, J. A., Tilley, D. G. and Chapple, P. J. Thermal±
hydraulic performance prediction in ¯uid power systems.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part I, Journal of Systems and
Control Engineering, 1996, 210(I4), 231±242.
35 Keynote lecture. In Aerospace Transmission SystemsÐ
Concurrent Design and Manufacture, IMechE Seminar
Publication, 1998.
36 Hicks, B. J. and Culley, S. J. A protocol for communica-
tion in a component based modelling infrastructure. Proc.
Instn Mech. Engrs, Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufac-
ture, 2001, 215(B4), 453±464.
37 Hicks, B. J. and Culley, S. J. Understanding engineering
assemblies and their individual elements for an integrated
modelling environment. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 99), Munich,
Germany, 1999, pp. 1113 ±1116.
38 McMahon, C. and Browne, J. CAD/CAM form principles to
practice, 1993 (Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, Surrey).
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part B: J Engineering Manufacture