Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 17–52 | Cite as

Supporting product architecture design using computational design synthesis with network structure constraints

  • David F. Wyatt
  • David C. Wynn
  • Jerome P. Jarrett
  • P. John Clarkson
Original Paper

Abstract

A product’s architecture can affect many aspects of product and process quality, from technical performance to the design effort required, production costs and satisfaction of later lifecycle requirements. This paper explores how computational tools can augment creative methods in product architecture design. Based on an empirical study aiming to understand the context of product architecture design, a new computational method is proposed to support this activity. In the method, product architectures—networks of components linked by connections—can be synthesised using constraints on the structure of the network to define the set of ‘realisable’ architectures for a product. An example illustrates how the method might be used on a real design problem, including the construction of an appropriate set of network structure constraints and the identification of promising architectures from the synthesis results. Preliminary evaluation of the method’s usability, assessed through a laboratory experiment, and its utility, assessed through application to a real historical design problem, supported by initial validation by an engineer from the case study company, suggests that the method has value for engineering design practice.

Keywords

Product architecture Conceptual design Design support method Computational design synthesis Network structure constraints Cambridge advanced modeller (CAM) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the engineers at the case study company and Claudia Eckert of the Open University for her assistance with carrying out the interviews. They also thank the members of the Cambridge Engineering Design Centre who took part in the usability evaluation described in Sect. 6.1, and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Figure 2 is reproduced from Starling and Shea (2005), originally published by ASME, and the images of bicycle lights in Fig. 19b–d are reproduced by kind permission of Pedalite International Ltd (http://www.pedalite.com), Reelight ApS (http://www.reelight.com) and Brando WorkShop (http://www.gadget.brando.com). This research was funded by the George and Lilian Schiff Studentship and the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant reference EP/E001777/1).

References

  1. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Allwood JM (2007) A structured search for novel manufacturing processes leading to a periodic table of ring rolling machines. J Mech Des 129:502–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasen MM (1992) Designing on a ‘designer’s workbench’ (DWB). In: Proceedings of the 9th WDK workshop. Rigi, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonsson EK, Cagan J (2001) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berliner C, Brimson JA (1988) Cost management for today’s advanced manufacturing: the CAM-I conceptual design. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bermell-García P, Fan I (2002) A KBE System for the design of wind tunnel models using reusable knowledge components. In: Proceedings of the VI Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería de Proyectos. Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. Blessing LT, Chakrabarti A (2009) DRM, a design research methodology. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley DA, Bracewell RH, Chaplin RV (1992) Engineering design and mechatronics: the Schemebuilder project. Res Eng Des 4:241–248. doi: 10.1007/BF02032467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brimble R, Sellini F (2000) The MOKA modelling language. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW2000). Juan-les-Pins, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. British Standards Institute (1986) Cycles–specification for photometric and physical requirements of lighting equipment. British Standard 6102–3:1986Google Scholar
  11. Cagan J, Campbell MI, Finger S, Tomiyama T (2005) A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. J Comput Info Sci Eng 5:171–181. doi: 10.1115/1.2013289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell MI, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2000) Agent-based synthesis of electromechanical design configurations. J Mech Des 122:61–69. doi: 10.1115/1.533546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakrabarti A (2002) Engineering design synthesis: understanding, approaches and tools. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakrabarti A, Bligh TP (1996) An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and emerging research issues. AIEDAM 10:313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky N (2002) Syntactic structures. Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarkson PJ, Simons CS, Eckert CM (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. J Mech Des 126:788–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corallo A, Laubacher R, Margherita A, Turrisi G (2009) Enhancing product development through knowledge-based engineering (KBE): a case study in the aerospace industry. J Manuf Tech Manag 20:1070–1083. doi: 10.1108/17410380910997218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawley EF, de Weck OL, Eppinger SD, Magee C, Moses J, Seering WP, Schindall J, Wallace D, Whitney DE (2004) The influence of architecture in engineering systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Division monographGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross NG (1994) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. de Weck OL, Suh ES, Chang D (2007) Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. Res Eng Des 18:67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dyson J (1986) Vacuum cleaning appliance. Patent number 4593429, United States Patent OfficeGoogle Scholar
  22. Eades P (1984) A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numerantium 42:149–160MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ, Zanker W (2004) Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res Eng Des 15:1–21. doi: 10.1007/s00163-003-0031-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fricke G (1992) Experimental investigation of individual processes in engineering design. In: Cross N, Doorst K, Roozenburg N (eds) Research in design thinking. Delft University Press, The Netherlands, pp 105–109Google Scholar
  25. Fricke E, Schulz AP (2005) Design for changeability (DfC): principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Sys Eng 8:342–359. doi: 10.1002/sys.20039 Google Scholar
  26. Giffin ML, de Weck OL, Bounova G, Keller R, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2009) Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. J Mech Des 131:081001.1–081001.14. doi: 10.1115/1.3149847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golkar AA, Keller R, Robinson B, de Weck OL, Crawley EF (2009) A methodology for system architecting of offshore oil production systems. In: Proceedings of the international design structure matrix conference (DSM’09). Greenville, South Carolina, USA, pp 343–356Google Scholar
  28. Gordon WJJ (1961) Synectics. Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  29. Heer J (2007) The prefuse information visualisation toolkit. http://www.prefuse.org
  30. Hellenbrand D, Lindemann U (2008) Using the DSM to support the selection of product concepts. In: Proceedings of the international design structure matrix conference (DSM’08). Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  31. Helms B, Shea K, Hoisl F (2009) A framework for computational design synthesis based on graph-grammars and function-behaviour-structure. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2009). San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirtz J, Stone R, McAdams D, Szykman S, Wood K (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 13:65–82Google Scholar
  33. Huang GQ (1996) Design for X—concurrent engineering imperatives, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson D (2006) Software abstractions: logic, language and analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Jarratt TA, Eckert CM, Weeks R, Clarkson PJ (2003) Environmental legislation as a driver of design. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED ‘03). Stockholm, Sweden, pp 231–232Google Scholar
  36. Jiao J, Tseng MM (1999) A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization. J Intell Manuf 10:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller R, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2006) Heuristics for change prediction. In: Proceedings of the international design conference (DESIGN 2006). Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp 873–880Google Scholar
  38. Kerzhner AA, Paredis CJ (2009) Using domain specific languages to capture design synthesis knowledge for model-based systems engineering. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2009). San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Knuth D (1998) The art of computer programming, volume 3: sorting and searching, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI (2009) Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. J Eng Des 20:83–104. doi: 10.1080/09544820701546165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Langdon PM, Chakrabarti A (2001) Improving access to design solution spaces using visualisation and data reduction techniques. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED ‘01). Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindemann U, Maurer MS, Braun T (2008) Structural complexity management: an approach for the field of product design. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipson H, Pollack JB (2000) Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406:974–978. doi: 10.1038/35023115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maiden NA (1998) CREWS-SAVRE: scenarios for acquiring and validating requirements. J Autom Softw Eng 5:419–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maier MW, Rechtin E (2000) The art of systems architecting, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  46. McDermott J (1980) R1: an expert in the computer systems domain. In: Proceedings of the first national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-80). Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  47. Mckay BD (1981) Practical graph isomorphism. Congressus Numerantium 30:45–87MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Medjdoub B, Yannou B (2000) Separating topology and geometry in space planning. Comput-Aided Des 32:39–61. doi: 10.1016/S0010-4485(99)00084-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mesihovic S, Malmqvist J (2000) PDM system based support for the sales-delivery process of engineer-to-order products. In: Proceedings of product models. Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  50. Mintel (2008) Vacuum cleaners. Consumer report, Mintel International GroupGoogle Scholar
  51. Mullineux G, Hicks B, Medland A (2005) Constraint-aided product design. Acta Polytechnica 45:31–36Google Scholar
  52. Murdoch TN, Wallace KM (1992) An approach to configuration optimization. J Eng Des 3:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Object Management Group (2006) Meta object facility (MOF) Core Specification v2.0Google Scholar
  54. Ogawa A (1984) Separation of particles from air and gases. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  55. Osborn A (1957) Applied imagination. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Paredis CJJ, Diaz-Calderon A, Sinha R, Khosla PK (2001) Composable models for simulation-based design. Eng Comput 17:112–128CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Port O, Schiller Z (1990) A smarter way to manufacture. BusinessWeek 110–117Google Scholar
  59. Pugh S (1990) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison, WesleyGoogle Scholar
  60. Purcell AT, Gero JS (1996) Design and other types of fixation. Des Stud 17:363–383. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00023-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ranta M, Mantyla M, Umeda Y, Tomiyama T (1996) Integration of functional and feature-based product modelling—the IMS/GNOSIS experience. Comput-Aided Des 28:371–381. doi: 10.1016/0010-4485(95)00056-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rohrbach B (1969) Kreativ nach Regeln–Methode 635, eine neue Technik zum Lösen von Problemen. Absatzwirtschaft 12:73–75Google Scholar
  63. Russell SJ, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt LC, Cagan J (1997) GGREADA: a graph grammar-based machine design algorithm. Res Eng Des 9:195–213. doi: 10.1007/BF01589682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shapiro A (2002) TouchGraph version 1.22. http://www.touchgraph.com
  66. Shea K, Cagan J, Fenves SJ (1997) A shape annealing approach to optimal truss design with dynamic grouping of members. J Mech Des 119:388–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2007) A network approach to define modularity of components in complex products. J Mech Des 129:1118–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stanković T, Shea K, Štorga M, Marjanović D (2009) Grammatical evolution of technical processes. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2009). San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  70. Starling AC, Shea K (2005) A parallel grammar for simulation-driven mechanical design synthesis. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2005). Long Beach, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  71. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Stone RB, Wood KL, Crawford RH (2000) A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Des Stud 21:5–31. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00003-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stumptner M, Friedrich GE, Haselböck A (1998) Generative constraint-based configuration of large technical systems. AIEDAM 12:307–320. doi: 10.1017/S0890060498124046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Suh ES, Furst MR, Mihalyov KJ, de Weck OL (2008) Technology infusion: an assessment framework and case study. In: Proceedings of the ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2008). Brooklyn, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  75. Summers JD, Shah JJ (2010) Mechanical engineering design complexity metrics: size, coupling, and solvability. J Mech Des 132:021004.1–02100411. doi: 10.1115/1.4000759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sun Microsystems (2006) Java SE version 6. http://java.sun.com
  77. Ulrich KT (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res Policy 24:419–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ulrich KT, Seering WP (1989) Synthesis of schematic descriptions in mechanical design. Res Eng Des 1:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Umeda Y, Ishii M, Yoshioka M, Shimomura Y, Tomiyama T (1996) Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. AIEDAM 10:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wood KL, Greer JL (2001) Function-based synthesis methods in engineering design. In: Antonsson EK, Cagan J (eds) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 170–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wyatt DF, Eckert CM, Clarkson PJ (2009a) Design of product architectures in incrementally developed complex products. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED ‘09). Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  82. Wyatt DF, Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2009b) Exploring spaces of system architectures using constraint-based classification and Euler diagrams. In: Proceedings of the international design structure matrix conference (DSM’09). Greenville, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  83. Wynn DC, Nair SM, Clarkson PJ (2009) The P3 platform: an approach and software system for developing diagrammatic model-based methods in design research. In: Norell Bergendahl M, Grimheden M, Leifer L, Skogstad P, Lindemann U (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design (ICED ‘09). Palo Alto, California, USA, pp 559–570Google Scholar
  84. Xie YM, Steven GP (1997) Evolutionary structural optimisation. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. XML Schema Working Group (2004) XML Schema. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1
  86. Yang MC (2008) Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Res Eng Des 20:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s00163-008-0055-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yassine AA, Wissmann LA (2007) The implications of product architecture on the firm. Sys Eng 10:118–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ziv-Av A, Reich Y (2005) SOS–subjective objective system for generating optimal product concepts. Des Stud 26:509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zwicky F (1969) Discovery, invention, research–through the morphological approach. Macmillian, TorontoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. Wyatt
    • 1
  • David C. Wynn
    • 1
  • Jerome P. Jarrett
    • 1
  • P. John Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations