Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and characterisation of error functions in design

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As simulation is increasingly used in product development, there is a need to better characterise the errors inherent in simulation techniques by comparing such techniques with evidence from experiment, test and in-service. This is necessary to allow judgement of the adequacy of simulations in place of physical tests and to identify situations where further data collection and experimentation need to be expended. This paper discusses a framework for uncertainty characterisation based on the management of design knowledge leading to the development and characterisation of error functions. A classification is devised in the framework to identify the most appropriate method for the representation of error, including probability theory, interval analysis and Fuzzy set theory. The development is demonstrated with two case studies to justify rationale of the framework. Such formal knowledge management of design simulation processes can facilitate utilisation of cumulated design knowledge as companies migrate from testing to simulation-based design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The support is a real set of all values of a Fuzzy set where the membership is greater than zero.

Abbreviations

CAE:

Computer-aided engineering

CFD:

Computational fluids dynamics

IPD:

Integrated product development

FEA:

Finite element analysis

FS:

Factor of safety

PDF:

Probability distribution function

POF:

Probability of failure

References

  • Apeland S, Aven T, Nilsen T (2002) Quantifying uncertainty under a predictive, epistemic approach to risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayyub BM, de Souza GFM (2000) Reliability-based methodology for life prediction of ship structures. In: Ship Structure Symposium, Washington

  • Barton RR, Limayen F, Meckesheimer M, Yannou B (1999) Using metamodels for modelling propagation of design uncertainties. In: Proceedings of ICE’99, The Hague, Netherlands, pp 521–528

  • Booker JD, Truman CE, Wittig S, Mohammed ZA (2004) A comparison of shrink-fit holding torque using probabilistic, micro-mechanical and experimental approaches. Proc IMechE Part B J Eng Manuf 218:175–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Box G, Draper N (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher C, Bourgund U (1990) A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems. Struct Saf 7:57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bury KV (1999) Statistical distributions in engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke R (2004) The anatomy of the Squizzel: the role of operational definitions in representing uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85(1–3):313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA (1969) A probability-based structural code. J Am Concr Inst 66(12):974–985

    Google Scholar 

  • De Castro PMST, Fernandes AA (2004) Methodologies for failure analysis: a critical survey. Mater Des 25:117–123

    Google Scholar 

  • de Neufville R (2004) Uncertainty management for engineering systems planning and design. MIT Engineering Systems Division, pp 1–18

  • Du X, Chen W (2000) Methodology for managing the effect of uncertainty in simulation-based design. AIAA J 38(8):1471–1478

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Foulloy L, Mauris G, Prade H (2004) Probability–possibility transformations, triangular Fuzzy sets, and probabilistic inequalities. Reliab Comput 10:273–297

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fajdiga M, Jurejevcic T, Kernc J (1996) Reliability prediction in early phases of product design. J Eng Des 7(2):107–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferson S, Kreinovich V, Ginzburg L, Myers D, Sentz K (2002) Constructing probability boxes and Dempster-Shafer Structures. Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico

  • Ferson S, Joslyn CA, Helton JC, Oberkampf WL, Sentz K (2004) Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85:355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost RB (1999) Why does industry ignore design science? J Eng Des 10(4):301–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giachetti RE, Young RE, Roggatz A, Eversheim W, Perrone G (1997) A methodology for the reduction of imprecision in the engineering process. Eur J Oper Res 100(2):277–292

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goh YM, Booker JD, McMahon CA (2005a) A framework for the handling of uncertainty in engineering knowledge management to aid product development. In: Proceedings of ICED, Melbourne, Australia

  • Goh YM, Booker JD, McMahon CA (2005b) Uncertainty modelling of a suspension unit. Proc IMechE Part D J Automob Eng 219(6):755–771

  • Gong S (2006) Discussion of the design philosophy and modified non-expert fuzzy set model for better product design. J Eng Des 17(6):533–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans-Jurgen S (2002) Uncertainty in engineering design. Syst Sci 28(2):5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen EB (1980) Probabilistic mechanical design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Honeywell T (2001) Drive to cut prototyping. Prof Eng 14(23):46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazmer D, Roser C (1999) Evaluation of product and process design robustness. Res Eng Des 11:20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen JPC (1995) Verification and validation of simulation models. Eur J Oper Res 82:145–162

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ, Smith RM (2001) On measuring uncertainty and uncertainty-based information: recent developments. Ann Math Artif Intell 32:5–33

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Langley RS (2000) Unified approach to probabilistic and possibilistic analysis of uncertain systems. J Eng Mech 126:1163–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laskey KB (1996) Model uncertainty: theory and practical implications. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 26(3):340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavris D, deLaurentis D (2000) A probabilistic approach for examining aircraft concept feasibility and viability. Aircr Des 3:79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams DA, Wood KL (2002) A quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. J Mech Des 124(2):173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCalley RB (1957) Nomogram for selection of safety factors. Design News

  • McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mischke CR (1970) A method of relating factor of safety and reliability. J Eng Ind 537–542

  • Mocko G, Malak R, Paredis C, Peak R (2004) A knowledge repository for behavioral models in engineering design. In: Proceedings of ASME DETC’04, Salt Lake City, Utah

  • Modares M, Mullen R, Muhanna R, Zhang H (2004) Buckling analysis of structures with uncertain properties and loads using an interval finite element method. In: The NSF workshop on reliable engineering computing, Savannah, Georgia

  • Moens D, Vandepitte D (2004) Non-probabilistic approaches for non-deterministic dynamic FE analysis of imprecisely defined structures. In: Proceedings of international conference on noise and vibration engineering, Leuven, Belgium

  • Möller B, Graf W, Beer M (2000) Fuzzy structural analysis using α-level optimization. Comput Mech 26:547–565

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Moore RE (1966) Interval analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • NAFEMS (2005) NAFEMS Technical Benchmark

  • Nikolaidis E, Chen S, Cudney H, Haftka R, Rosca R (2004) Comparison of probability and possibility for design against catastrophic failure under uncertainty. Trans ASME 126:386–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsen T, Aven T (2003) Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 79:309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan A (1998) Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. Statistician 47(1):21–35

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ohsuga S (1989) Toward intelligent CAD systems. Comput Aided Des 21(5):317–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Ken Wallace and Lucienne Blessing, Springer Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Parson S, Hunter A (1998) A review of uncertainty handling formalisms. Applications of uncertainty formalisms, pp 8–37

  • Pugsley AG (1966) The safety of structures. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao SS, Berke L (1997) Analysis of uncertain structural systems using interval analysis. AIAA J 35(4):727–735

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rao SS, Cao L (2002) Optimum design of mechanical systems involving interval parameters. J Mech Des 124:465–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raufaste E, da Silva Neves R, Mariné C (2003) Testing the descriptive validity of possibility theory in human judgments of uncertainty. Artif Intell 148(1–2):197–218

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rekuc SJ, Aughenbaugh JM, Bruns M, Paredis CJJ (2006) Eliminating design alternatives based on imprecise information. In: SAE 2006 world congress and exhibition, Detroit, MI

  • Riha D, Thacker B, Enright M, Huyse L, Fitch S (2002) Recent advances of the NESSUS probabilistic analysis software for engineering applications. In: 42nd structures, structural dynamics, and materials (SDM), Denver, Colorado

  • Sandri SA, Dubois D, Kalfsbeek HW (1995) Elicitation, assessment, and pooling of expert judgments using possibility theory. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 3(3):313–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent R (1998) Verification and validation of simulation models. In: 30th winter simulation conference, Washington

  • Shephard M, Beall M, O’Bara R, Webster R (2004) Toward simulation-based design. Finite Elem Anal Des 40:1575–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shigley JE, Mischke CR (1989) Mechanical engineering design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud WJ, Krishnamurthy T, Smith SA (2001) Probabilistic and possibilistic analyses of the strength of a bonded joint. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Seattle, WA: AIAA 2001–1238

  • Suh NP (2001) Axiomatic design advances and applications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzannetakis N, Donders S, van der Peer J, Weal P (2004) A system approach to simulation-based design under uncertainty, through best in class simulation process integration and design optimization. In: DETC’04, Salt Lake City, Utah

  • Ugarte I, Sanchez P (2003) Using modified interval analysis in system verification. In: XVIII conference on design of circuits and integrated circuits DCIS’03, Ciudad Real, Spain

  • Venegas LV, Labib AW (2005) Fuzzy approaches to evaluation in engineering design. Trans ASME 127:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood KL, Antonsson EK, Beck JL (1990) Representing imprecision in engineering design: comparing fuzzy and probability calculus. Res Eng Des 1:187–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu YT, Wirsching PH (1987) New algorithm for structural reliability estimation. J Eng Mech 113:1319–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inf Sci 8:199–249

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Apostolakis GE (1996) Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54:225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper reports research conducted by Dr. Goh while a postgraduate student at the University of Bristol, supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from that University and by the UK Overseas Research Students Award Scheme (ORSAS). This support is gratefully acknowledged, as is assistance from Dr. J. Devlukia and Mr. A. D’Cruz of Land Rover with one of the case studies reported here.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    Y. M. Goh & C. A. McMahon

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK

    J. D. Booker

Authors
  1. Y. M. Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. D. Booker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. A. McMahon.

Appendix A: Literature cases

Appendix A: Literature cases

Table 4 Twenty literature cases to exemplify the proposed classification (Goh et al. 2005a)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goh, Y.M., McMahon, C.A. & Booker, J.D. Development and characterisation of error functions in design. Res Eng Design 18, 129–148 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0034-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0034-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation