Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:10:09.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harnessing the Complexity for Vehicle System Design at the Concept Design Phase of an Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

A. D. Drego
A. D. Drego*
Affiliation:
Saab AB, Sweden
*
adelia.drego@saabgroup.com

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.

Aircraft vehicle systems enable an aircraft to fly safely throughout a mission. Generating feasible vehicle system architectures at the aircraft concept design phase is complex. Aspects from various complex systems theories are used to provide different insights into this complexity. To address this complexity, a framework based on industrial reality that can used recursively is presented. The framework employs various design theories to harness the complexity of vehicle system design at the concept design phase of an aircraft.

Keywords

complex systemsconceptual designcomplexity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 1845 - 1854
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), 2022.

References

Browning, T. (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. doi:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/946528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, E., Cameron, B. and Selva, D. (2015), System architecture: strategy and product development for complex systems, Pearson Education Limited, Essex. doi:https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Crawley-System-Architecture-Strategy-and-Product-Development-for-Complex-Systems/PGM30308.htmlGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005), The business of projects: managing innovation in complex products and systems, Cambridge University Press, New York. doi:https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/business-of-projects/B8701FF628BEF7B5D8378549FDE12092Google Scholar
Dezfuli, H., Stamatelatos, M., Maggio, G., Everett, C., Youngblood, R. et al. (2010), NASA Risk-Informed Decision Making Handbook, Office of Safety and Mission Assurance NASA Headquarters. doi: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20100021361Google Scholar
Eppinger, S. and Browning, T. (2012), Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge. doi:https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/design-structure-matrix-methods-and-applicationsGoogle Scholar
Friedenthal, S., Moore, A. and Steiner, R. (2015), A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language, Morgan Kaufmann-Elsevier Inc., Waltham. doi:https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128002025/a-practical-guide-to-sysmlGoogle Scholar
INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering) (2015), Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for Systems Life Cycle Processes and Activities, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken. doi:https://www.incose.org/products-and-publications/se-handbookGoogle Scholar
Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W. and Peterson, A. (1990), Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. doi:https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=11231Google Scholar
Meinicke, J., Thüm, T., Reimar, S., Benduhn, F., Leich, T. et al. (2017), Mastering Software Variability with FeatureIDE, Springer, Cham. doi:https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-61443-4Google Scholar
GmbH, METOP (2020), FeatureIDE. [online] METOP GmbH. Available at: https://www.featureide.de/index.php (accessed 08.07.2021).Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1984), Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies, Princeton University Press, Princeton. doi:https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691004129/normal-accidentsGoogle Scholar
Prencipe, A. (1997), “Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dyamics: a case study from the aero-engine industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp.1261–1276. doi:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733396009006?via%3DihubGoogle Scholar
Shah, R. K. and Sekulic, D. P. (2003), Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken. doi:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470172605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinkellner, S. (2011), Aircraft vehicle systems modeling and simulation under uncertainty, [Licentiate Dissertation], Linköping University. doi:http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:415979/FULLTEXT01.pdfLINKGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. (2001), Axiomatic Design: Advances and Application, Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. (2007), “Ergonomics, axiomatic design and complexity theory”, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sciences, Vol 8 No. 2, pp. 101–121. doi:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14639220601092509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taxén, L. and Pettersson, U. (2010), “Agile and Incremental Development of Large Systems”, 7th European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC 2010), Stockholm, Sweden, May 23-26, 2010. doi:http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A755592&dswid=-1884Google Scholar