Automation Code Change Integration With Rule-Based Design Checks

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Designing industrial automation systems is inefficient and prone to errors due to the lack of automated compliance with system rules, manual code updates, and limited troubleshooting capabilities, leading to resource-intensive and time-consuming issues.

Innovation Solution

Implementing AI and machine learning to enforce design rules, suggest compatible component interactions, provide troubleshooting suggestions, and enable minor adjustments through a light engineering client environment, while using component libraries and automated naming conventions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If manual code updates and design methods are used, then designers have flexibility in creating custom solutions, but design efficiency is low and human error increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedesign efficiencyVSAvoidhuman error

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs automated compliance checking, code generation, and naming convention updates without requiring manual designer intervention. The design environment automatically services itself by detecting design actions, checking rule compliance, and generating updated code, thereby improving efficiency while maintaining reliability through automated validation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Manual mechanical processes of code editing and compliance checking are replaced with automated computational systems. The design environment uses algorithms to automatically check design rules, generate compliant code, and update component names, substituting manual designer actions with automated mechanical processes that reduce errors and improve productivity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Manufacturing precision

If designers manually update component names according to naming conventions, then naming consistency is maintained, but time consumption increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvenaming consistencyVSAvoidtime consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by automatically updating component names to comply with naming conventions before the designer completes their design work. When a design action is detected, the system proactively checks naming convention compliance and updates names in advance, eliminating the need for separate manual name updating steps.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback by continuously monitoring design actions and automatically responding with name updates. When the designer modifies components or adds new ones, the system detects these changes and provides immediate feedback by updating names to maintain consistency, creating a closed-loop system that maintains naming precision without manual intervention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Ease of operation

If designers troubleshoot code without automated guidance, then complete control over the system is maintained, but troubleshooting capability is limited and resource intensive

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetroubleshooting capabilityVSAvoidresource intensity

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The design environment acts as an intermediary between the designer and the codebase. It provides automated troubleshooting capabilities by monitoring design actions, detecting compliance issues, and suggesting corrections. This intermediary layer enhances troubleshooting capability by providing guidance while maintaining designer control, and reduces resource intensity by automating routine diagnostic tasks.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Adaptability or versatility

If design rules are not automatically enforced, then design flexibility is maintained, but compliance with best practices deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedesign flexibilityVSAvoidcompliance with best practices

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by preventing non-compliant design actions before they can be executed. When a designer attempts an action that would violate design rules, the system detects the potential compliance issue in advance and either prevents the action or provides warnings, thereby maintaining best practice compliance while allowing legitimate design flexibility through override capabilities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Data Source

PatentUS12380348B2Industrial automation control code change management and multiple edit integration

Publication Date: 2025.08.05 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECH INC

AI summary

A (GUI) for designing an industrial automation system includes a design window and a first accessory window. The GUI presents a library visualization representative of a plurality of objects within the first accessory window, each object is represented by an icon and corresponds to a respective industrial automation device. The GUI receives inputs indicative of a selection of one or more objects of the plurality of objects from the library, presents the one or more objects in the design window, determines that the one or more inputs do not comply with a set of industrial automation system rules comprising one or more relationships between a plurality of industrial automation devices, and displays a warning message that the one or more inputs do not comply with the set of industrial automation system rules.