Advertisement

A performance-based design framework for enhancing decision-making at the conceptual phase of a motorcycle rear suspension development

  • Sergio Corbera CaraballoEmail author
  • Roberto Alvarez Fernandez
Research Article

Abstract

The functional design of a motorcycle rear suspension has become a complex process which involves different engineering disciplines such as computer aided design, structural analysis or multibody simulations. As a consequence of this multidiciplinarity, its development process is surrounded by multiple inter-related aspects and uncertainties which can compromise the feasibility of the solutions and hence making it difficult to foresees a priori the most appropriated design directions. This paper proposes an integrated methodology that supports early stage design decision-making for motorcycle rear suspensions by providing a rapid generative mechanism of feasible solutions with performance feedback for multiple requirements. The proposed framework integrates an object-oriented representation of the rear suspension with an adaptative design space approach for enhancing the capability to generate a variety of feasible solutions. A generative system coupled with the NSGA-II algorithm is proposed as responsible for exploring and managing the optimal functional design. The workflow has been structured in such a way all the design actions are conducted automatically. A case study of a Premoto3 rear suspension design is included in order to illustrated the effectiveness of the presented framework.

Keywords

Functional design Generative grammars Evolutionary algorithms Motorcycle design Computational design synthesis 

Notes

References

  1. Abraham A, Jain L (2005) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Abrahan A, Jain L, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Theoretical advances and applications. Springer, London, pp 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbagallo R, Sequenzia G, Cammarata A, Oliveri SM, Fatuzzo G (2018) Redesign and multibody simulation of a motorcycle rear suspension with eccentric mechanism. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM) 12:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendsoe MP, Sigmund O (1999) Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 69:635–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brailsford SC, Potts CN, Smith BM (1999) Constraint satisfaction problems: algorithms and applications. Eur J Oper Res 119:557–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budynas RG, Nisbett JK (2008) Shigley’s mechanical engineering design, vol 8. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraballo SC, Rodrguez JO, Ruiz JL, Fernndez R (2017) Optimization of a butterfly valve disc using 3D topology and genetic algorithms. Struct Multidiscip Optim 56:941–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caraballo SC, Fernndez R, Ruiz JL (2018) Integration of cutting time into the structural optimization process: application to a spreader bar design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58:2269–2289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castillo JJ, Giner P, Simn A, Cabrera JA (2013) Optimal design of motorcycle rear suspension systems using genetic algorithms. In: Viadero F, Ceccarelli M (eds) New trends in mechanism and machine science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christiansen AN, Brentzen JA, Nobel-Jrgensen M, Aage N, Sigmund O (2015) Combined shape and topology optimization of 3D structures. Comput Graph 46:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coello CAC, Lamont GB (2004) Applications of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, vol 1. World Scientific, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbera S, Olazagoitia JL, Lozano JA (2016) Multi-objective global optimization of a butterfly valve using genetic algorithms. ISA Trans 63:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cossalter V (2006) Motorcycle dynamics. Lulu.comGoogle Scholar
  13. Cossalter V, Lot R (2002) A motorcycle multi-body model for real time simulations based on the natural coordinates approach. Veh Syst Dyn 37:423–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cossalter V, Doria A, Lot R (2000) Optimum suspension design for motorcycle braking. Veh Syst Dyn 34:175–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Jalon JG, Bayo E (2012) Kinematic and dynamic simulation of multibody systems: the real-time challenge. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TAMT (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 6:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckert C, Kelly I, Stacey M (1999) Interactive generative systems for conceptual design: an empirical perspective. AI EDAM 13:303–320Google Scholar
  18. El Amine M, Pailhes J, Perry N (2017) Integration of concept maturity in decision-making for engineering design: an application to a solar collector development. Res Eng Des 28:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fossati GG, Miguel LFF, Casas WJP (2019) Multi-objective optimization of the suspension system parameters of a full vehicle model. Optim Eng 20:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giner DM (2016) Symbolic-numeric tools for the analysis of motorcycle dynamics. Development of a virtual rider for motorcycles based on model predictive control. Dissertation, Universidad Miguel Hernndez de ElcheGoogle Scholar
  21. Giner DM, Manka M (2009) Motorcycle dynamic models for virtual rider design and cornering analysis. In: ASME 2009 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers pp 869–878Google Scholar
  22. Hassani B, Hinton E (1998) A review of homogenization and topology optimization IIItopology optimization using optimality criteria. Comput Struct 69:739–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hien NT, Hoai NX (2006) A brief overview of population diversity measures in genetic programming. In: Proceedings of 3rd Asian-Pacific workshop on genetic programming. Hanoi, Vietnam pp 128–139Google Scholar
  24. Howard TJ, Dekoninck EA, Culley SJ (2010) The use of creative stimuli at early stages of industrial product innovation. Res Eng Des 21:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jang IG, Kwak BM (2008) Design space optimization using design space adjustment and refinement. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35:41–54MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim IY, Kwak BM (2002) Design space optimization using a numerical design continuation method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 53:1979–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiusalaas J (2013) Numerical methods in engineering with Python 3. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knigseder C, Shea K (2016) Comparing strategies for topologic and parametric rule application in automated computational design synthesis. J Mech Des 138:011102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krish S (2011) A practical generative design method. Comput Aided Des 43:88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu K, Tovar A (2014) An efficient 3D topology optimization code written in Matlab. Struct Multidiscip Optim 50:1175–1196MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maggio F (2009) Multi-body simulation and multi-objective optimization applied to vehicle dynamics. Int J Simul Multidiscip Des Optim 3:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison RW, De Jong KA (2001) Measurement of population diversity. In: International conference on artificial evolution (Evolution Artificielle). Springer, Berlin, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  33. Patel NM, Tillotson D, Renaud JE, Tovar A, Izui K (2008) Comparative study of topology optimization techniques. AIAA J 46:1963–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pugliese MJ, Cagan J (2002) Capturing a rebel: modeling the Harley-Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Res Eng Des 13:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharp RS, Evangelou S, Limebeer DJ (2004) Advances in the modelling of motorcycle dynamics. Multibody Syst Dyn 12:251–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shea K, Aish R, Gourtovaia M (2005) Towards integrated performance-driven generative design tools. Autom Constr 14:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sigmund O (2001) A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:1031–1055MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stan C (2008) Development trends of motorcycles: with 10 tables, page numbers. Expert-Verlag, RenningenGoogle Scholar
  40. Stiny G, Gips J (1971) Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. In: IFIP Congress 2(3)Google Scholar
  41. Tang PS, Chang KH (2001) Integration of topology and shape optimization for design of structural components. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 22:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Uicker JJ, Ravani B, Sheth PN (2013) Matrix methods in the design analysis of mechanisms and multibody systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2018) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Des 29:161–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang D, Dong M (2013) Applying constraint satisfaction approach to solve product configuration problems with cardinality-based configuration rules. J Intell Manuf 24:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yan J, Li C, Wang Z, Deng L, Sun D (2007) Diversity metrics in multi-objective optimization: review and perspective. In: 2007 IEEE international conference on integration technology, IEEE pp 553–557Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Corbera Caraballo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto Alvarez Fernandez
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad NebrijaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations