Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T15:55:11.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential Updating of Quantitative Requirements for Increased Flexibility in Robust Systems Design

Part of: Robust Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Matthias Funk ,
Marcus Jautze ,
Manfred Strohe  and
Markus Zimmermann
Matthias Funk*
Affiliation:
BMW, Department of Preliminary Design for Vehicle Dynamics;
Marcus Jautze
Affiliation:
Hochschule Landshut University of Applied Sciences, Mechanical Engineering;
Manfred Strohe
Affiliation:
Hochschule Landshut University of Applied Sciences, Mechanical Engineering;
Markus Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Technische Universität München, Laboratory for Product Development and Lightweight Design
*
Contact: Funk, Matthias, BMW Group, Department of Preliminary Design for Vehicle Dynamics, Germany, matthias.funk@bmw.de

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.

In early development stages of complex systems, interacting subsystems (including components) are often designed simultaneously by distributed teams with limited information exchange. Distributed development becomes possible by assigning teams independent design goals expressed as quantitative requirements equipped with tolerances to provide flexibility for design: so-called solution-spaces are high-dimensional sets of permissible subsystem properties on which requirements on the system performance are satisfied. Edges of box-shaped solution spaces are permissible intervals serving as decoupled (mutually independent) requirements for subsystem design variables. Unfortunately, decoupling often leads to prohibitively small intervals. In so-called solution-compensation spaces, permissible intervals for early-decision variables are increased by a compensation mechanism using late-decision variables. This paper presents a multi-step development process where groups of design variables successively change role from early-decision to late-decision type in order to maximize flexibility. Applying this to a vehicle chassis design problem demonstrates the effectiveness of the approach.

Keywords

Robust designIntegrated product developmentRequirementsCooperative designSolution-compensation spaces
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3531 - 3540
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

Andersson, P. (1996), A process approach to robust design in early engineering design phases, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund.Google Scholar
Browning, T.R. (2001), “Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 292–306.Google Scholar
Ebro, M. and Howard, T.J. (2016), “Robust design principles for reducing variation in functional performance”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 1-3, pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K. and Meerkamm, H. (2017), Integrierte Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit, 6., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Hanser, München.Google Scholar
Erschen, S., Duddeck, F., Gerdts, M. and Zimmermann, M. (2018), “On the Optimal Decomposition of High-Dimensional Solution Spaces of Complex Systems”, ASCE-ASME J. Risk and Uncert. in Engrg. Sys., Part B: Mech. Engrg., Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 21008.Google Scholar
Freund, T., Würtenberger, J., Lotz, J., Rommel, C. and Kirchner, E. (2017), Design for robustness - Systematic application of design guidelines to control uncertainty, 21.-25.08.2017, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Haberfellner, R., Fricke, E., Weck, O.d. and Vössner, S. (2012), Systems Engineering: Grundlagen und Anwendung, Orell Füssli, Zürich.Google Scholar
Heissing, B., Ersoy, M. and Gies, S. (2011), Fahrwerkhandbuch: Grundlagen, Fahrdynamik, Komponenten, Systeme, Mechatronik, Perspektiven, ATZ-MTZ-Fachbuch, 3., überarbeitete und erw. Aufl., Vieweg + Teubner, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Hendrix, E.M.T., Mecking, C.J. and Hendriks, T.H.B. (1996), “Finding robust solutions for product design problems”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 28–36.Google Scholar
Sobek II, D.K., Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. (1999), “Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1998), “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 189–209.Google Scholar
Vogt, M.E., Duddeck, F., Wahle, M. and Zimmermann, M. (2018), “Optimizing tolerance to uncertainty in systems design with early- and late-decision variables”, IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, Vol. 4, pp. 469.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. and Li, M. (2014), “Advanced Robust Optimization With Interval Uncertainty Using a Single-Looped Structure and Sequential Quadratic Programming”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 21008.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. and Hoessle, J.E.v. (2013), “Computing solution spaces for robust design”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 290–307.Google Scholar