Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:26:10.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ROBUST DESIGN FOR IOT – ON THE RELEVANCE OF MECHANICAL DESIGN FOR ROBUST SENSOR INTEGRATION IN CONNECTED DEVICESH.

Part of: Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

H. B. Juul-Nyholm ,
T. Eifler  and
M. Ebro
H. B. Juul-Nyholm*
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
T. Eifler
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
M. Ebro
Affiliation:
Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark
*
*hbaju@mek.dtu.dk

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.

The terms IoT and Industry 4.0 are promising increasingly sophisticated solutions, but the realisation will depend on the inclusion of robust and reliable sensors. If the gathered data is flawed or inaccurate the performance of the whole system will be compromised. By reviewing research on robustness indicators, mechatronics and sensor properties as well as listing mechanical noise factors and providing an electromechanical trade-off example, the paper highlights the importance of considering both mechanical and electrical noise factors and robustness in early development of connected devices.

Keywords

robust designdesign trade-offsmechatronicsposition sensorsinternet of things (IoT)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 235 - 244
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Alyaqout, S.F., Papalambros, P.Y. and Ulsoy, A.G. (2010), “Combined robust design and robust control of an electric DC motor”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akbarzadeh, A., Kouravand, S. and Imani, B.M. (2012), “Robust design of a bimetallic micro thermal sensor using Taguchi method”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 157 No. 1, pp. 188–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anadkat, N. and Rangachar, M. (2015), “Simulation based analysis of capacitive pressure sensor with COMSOL multiphysics”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 848–852.Google Scholar
Arvidsson, M. and Gremyr, I. (2007), “Principles of robust design methodology”, Quality and Reliability International, Vol. 24, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.864Google Scholar
Bilel, N. et al. (2017), “Multi-objective robust design optimization of a mechatronic system with uncertain parameters, using a polynomial chaos expansion method”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, Vol. 231 No. 9, pp. 729–739.Google Scholar
Carr, J. et al. (2008), “Miniaturised optical encoder”, Proc. SPIE 7068, Optical System Alignment and Tolerancing II, 70680M (2 September 2008), https://doi.org/10.1117/12.793254Google Scholar
Carr, J.J. (1993), Sensors and circuits: sensors, transducers, and supporting circuits for electronic instrumentation, measurement, and control, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. et al. (2011), A tool for automated synthesis and side-effects detection in sensor designs. Research Publishing, ISBN: 978-981-08-7721-7.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, R. et al. (2012), “Computer Support for the Identification of Solution Patterns for the Conceptual Design of Advanced Mechatronic Systems”, In ASME 2012 11th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, pp. 665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egel, T. (2009), “Robust Design of Control Systems with Physical System Variances (No. 2009-01-1041)”, SAE Technical Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eifler, T. and Howard, T.J. (2018), “The importance of robust design methodology – case study of the infamous GM ignition switch recall”, In Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 29, pp. 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0251-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellin, A. and Dolsak, G. (2008), “The design and application of rotary encoders”, Sensor Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 150–158, https://doi.org/10.1108/02602280810856723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. and Ulrich, K. (2015), Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
Ernst, A. (1988), “Precise positioning with linear encoders”, Machine Design, Vol. 60 No. 17, pp. 77–83.Google Scholar
Forslund, A. and Galvez, A.V. (2011), “Virtual robustness evaluation of turbine structure assemblies using 3d scanner data”, In ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, pp. 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, H.C. and Patil, S.R. (2002), “Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 3.Google ScholarPubMed
Göhler, S.M. and Howard, T.J. (2015), “The Contradiction Index (CI): A New Metric Combining System Complexity and Robustness for Early Design Stages”, In Proceedings of the ASME 2015 IDETC/CIE 2015. [DETC2015-47255] American Society of Mechanical Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göhler, S.M., Eifler, T. and Howard, T.J. (2016), “Robustness metrics: consolidating the multiple approaches to quantify robustness”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138, [111407], https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034112Google Scholar
Jugulum, R. and Frey, D.D. (2007), “Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Königseder, C. and Shea, K. (2014), “Systematic rule analysis of generative design grammars”, AI EDAM, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 227–238.Google Scholar
Kuzdrall, J.A. (1992), “Build an error-free encoder interface”, Electronic Design, Vol. 40 No. 19, pp. 81–87.Google Scholar
Lei, G. et al. (2017), “A review of design optimization methods for electrical machines”, Energies, Vol. 10 No. 12, p. 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lequesne, B. and Schroeder, T. (1999), “High-accuracy magnetic position encoder concept”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 568–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancini, D. et al. (1998), “Encoder system design: strategies for error compensation”, Proc. SPIE 3351, Telescope Control Systems III, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.308835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerenst, T.B. et al. (2019), “Barriers for virtual assessment of structural robustness”, Proc. ASME 2019, IMECE2019, Salt Lake City, USA.Google Scholar
Nyce, D.S. (2016), Position Sensors, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119069164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitney, K.E. and J.M. Ney Company (1973), Ney contact manual, J.M. Ney Company, Bloomfield, Conn., USA.Google Scholar
Qin, S., Huang, Z. and Wang, X. (2009), “Optical angular encoder installation error measurement and calibration by ring laser gyroscope”, IEEE Transactions on instrumentation and measurement, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 506–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saitoh, Y. et al. (2007), “Dependency of contact resistance on load”, In Electrical Contacts-2007 Proceedings of the 53rd IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts, IEEE, pp. 70–75.10.1109/HOLM.2007.4318197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, B. Chakrabarti, A. and Ananthasuresh, G.K. (2015), “A new approach to conceptual design synthesis of sensors”, In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference design creativity, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, pp. 192–199.Google Scholar
Sarkar, B., Chakrabarti, A. and Ananthasuresh, G.K. (2017), “Synthesis of feedback-based design concepts for sensors”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J.D. (1991), “Practical rotary encoder accuracy limits for transmission error measurement”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 205 No. 6, pp. 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, A. (2007), “Addressing encoder error”, Motion Systems Design, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Wu, Y. (2005), Taguchi's Quality Engineering Handbook, Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Torry-Smith, J.M., Mortensen, N.H. and Achiche, A. (2013a), “A proposal for a classification of product-related dependencies in development of mechatronic products”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torry-Smith, J.M. et al. (2013b), “Challenges in designing mechatronic systems”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135 No. 1, p. 011005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villarreal-Cervantes, M.G. et al. (2012), “Robust structure-control design approach for mechatronic systems”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1592–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar