Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing a family of reconfigurable vehicles using multilevel multidisciplinary design optimization

  • INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Continuous advancements in technology have resulted in customers expecting enhanced performance across multiple operating conditions. In this paper, the desire to meet a variety of objectives after the system has been deployed is accomplished through the design of reconfigurable systems. However, permitting a system to adapt increases both complexity and cost. If this increase is too large, only a subset of design variables can be made adaptable. A multilevel multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) approach is presented to determine the core architecture for a family of three reconfigurable vehicles when accommodating a changing number of adaptable design variables. To illustrate this approach, a case study involving a three-driver racing team is introduced. A common architecture is determined for the three vehicle variants, resulting in lap-time performance increases of 2.08%, 3.27%, and 3.67% when compared to the static, optimized baseline vehicle. The results of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of combining reconfigurability with product platforming and MDO.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bowman J, Weisshaar T, Sanders B (2002) Evaluating the impact of morphing technologies on aircraft performance. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHA/ACS structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference (held in Denver, CO). AIAA Paper AIAA-2002-1631

  • de Weck O, Suh ES (2006) Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. In: ASME IDETC and CIE conference (held in Philadelphia, PA). ASME Paper DETC2006-99163

  • Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros P (2006) Commonality decisions in product family design. In: Simpson TW, Siddique J, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York, pp 157–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson S, Lewis K (2006) Effective development of reconfigurable systems using linear state-feedback control. AIAA J 44(4):868–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson S, Lewis K (2008) Investigating the interaction between reconfigurability and system mass using multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference (held in Schaumburg, IL). AIAA Paper AIAA-2008-1803

  • Ferguson S, Lewis K, Kasprzak E (2007a) Design and optimization of reconfigurable vehicle platforms. In: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference (held in Honolulu, HI). AIAA Paper AIAA-2007-1880

  • Ferguson S, Lewis K, de Weck O, Siddiqi A (2007b) Flexible and reconfigurable systems: nomenclature and review. In: 2007 ASME IDETC (held in Las Vegas, NV). ASME Paper DETC2007/DAC-35745

  • Fujita K (2006) Simultaneous optimization of module combination and module attributes. In: Simpson TW, Siddique J, Jiao J (eds) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York, pp 186–223

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gantois K, Morris AJ (2004) The multi-disciplinary design of a large-scale civil aircraft wing taking account of manufacturing costs. Struct Multidisc Optim 28(1):31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giassi A, Bennis F, Maisonneuve J-J (2004) Multidisciplinary design optimization and robust design approaches applied to concurrent design. Struct Multidisc Optim 28(5):356–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu X, Renaud JE, Ashe LM, Batill SM, Budhiraja AS, Krajewski LJ (2002) Decision-based collaborative optimization. J Mech Des 124(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker K, Kasprzak EM, Lewis K (2000) Racecar optimization and tradeoff analysis in a parallel computing environment. In: SAE motorsports engineering conference & exposition (held in Dearborn, MI). SAE. Paper 2000-01-3564

  • Jiao J, Simpson TW, Siddique Z (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Int Manuf 18(1):5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasprzak E, Lewis K, Milliken D (1999) Steady-state vehicle optimization using Pareto minimum analysis. J Pass Cars 107(6):2624–2631

    Google Scholar 

  • Khire R, Messac A (2006) Selection-integrated optimization (SIO) methodology for optimal design of adaptive systems. In: 2006 ASME DETC and CIE Conference (held in Philadelphia, PA). ASME Paper DETC2006-99322

  • Kodiyalam S, Yang RJ, Gu L, Tho CH (2004) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a vehicle system in a scalable, high performance computing environment. Struct Multidisc Optim 26(3–4):256–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokkolaras M, Fellini R, Kim HM, Michelena NF, Papalambros PY (2002) Extension of the target cascading formulation to the design of product families. Struct Multidisc Optim 24(4):293–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroo I, Manning V (2000) Collaborative optimization: status and directions. In: 8th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization symposium (held in Long Beach, CA). AIAA Paper AIAA-2000-4721

  • Lehnerd AP (1987) Revitalizing the manufacture and design of mature global products. In: Guile BR, Brooks H (eds) Technology and global industry: companies and nations in the world economy. National Academy Press, Washington D. C., pp 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Huyse L, Padula S (2002) Robust airfoil optimization to achieve drag reduction over a range of mach numbers. Struct Multidisc Optim 24(1):38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks P (2003) The next 100 years of flight—part two. NewScientist.com News Service URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4484. Cited 1 June 2008

  • Martin ET, Crossley WA (2002) Multiobjective aircraft design to investigate potential geometric morphing features. In: 2nd AIAA ATIO forum (held in Los Angeles, CA.). AIAA Paper AIAA-2002-5859

  • McAllister CD, Simpson TW (2003) Multidisciplinary robust design optimization of an internal combustion engine. J Mech Des 125(1):124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister CD, Simpson TW, Hacker K, Lewis K, Messac A (2005) Integrating linear physical programming within collaborative optimization for multiobjective multidisciplinary design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 29(3):178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken WF, Milliken DL (1995) Race car vehicle dynamics. SAE International, Warrendale, Chaps., pp 16–18

  • Narayanan S, Azarm S (1999) On improving multiobjective genetic algorithms for design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 18(2–3):146–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak RU, Chen W, Allen JK, Mistree F (1999) A variation-based methodology for product platform design. In: ASME design automation conference (held in Baltimore, MD). ASME Paper DETC2000/DAC-8876

  • Olewnik A, Lewis K (2006) A decision support framework for flexible system design. J Mech Des 17(1):75–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Olewnik A, Brauen T, Ferguson S, Lewis K (2004) A framework for flexible systems and its implementation in multiattribute decision making. J Mech Des 126(3):412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pareto V (1906) Manuale di economica polittica. Societa editrice libraia, Milan, Italy, 1906, translated by Schwier AS (1971) Manual of political economy. Macmillan, New York, pp 259–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Park GJ (2007) Analytic methods in design practice. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters C, Roth B, Crossley WA, Weisshaar TA (2002) Use of design methods to generate and develop missions for morphing aircraft. In: 9th AIAA/ISSMO MAO Conference (held in Atlanta, GA). AIAA Paper AIAA-2002-5468

  • Pierret S, Filomeno Coelho R, Kato H (2007) Multidisciplinary and multiple operating points shape optimization of three-dimensional compressor blades. Struct Multidisc Optim 33(1):61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci S, Terraneo M (2006) Application of MDO techniques to the preliminary design of morphed aircraft. In: 11th AIAA MAO Conference (held in Portsmouth, VA). AIAA Paper AIAA-2006-7018

  • Secanell M, Suleman A, Gamboa P (2006) Design of a morphing airfoil using aerodynamic shape optimization. AIAA J 44(7):1550–1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddiqi A, de Weck OL, Iagnemma K (2006) Reconfigurability in planetary surface vehicles: modeling approaches and case study. J Brit Interp Soc 59(12):450–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW, Maier JRA, Mistree F (2001) Product platform design: method and application. Res Eng Des 13(1):2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson TW, Siddique J, Jiao J (eds) (2006) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non-hierarchic systems: In: 2nd NASA/AIR force symposium on recent advances in MAO (held in Reno, NV) NASA CP 3031, pp 1–27

  • Talley D, Schellpfeffer N, Johnson C, Mavris D (2004) Methodology for the mission requirement determination and conceptual design of a morphing UCAV. In: AIAA 3rd “unmanned unlimited” technical conference, workshop and exhibit (held in Chicago, IL). AIAA Paper AIAA-2004-6597

  • Tappeta RV, Renaud JE (1997) Multiobjective collaborative optimization. J Mech Des 119(3):403–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torstenfelt B, Klarbring A (2006) Structural optimization of modular product families with application to car space frame structures. Struct Multidisc Optim 32(2):133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vale J, Lau F, Suleman A, Gamboa P (2006) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a morphing wing for an experimental UAV. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO MAOC (held in Portsmouth, VA). AIAA Paper AIAA-2006-7173

  • Yi SI, Shin JK, Park GJ (2007) Comparison of MDO methods with mathematical examples. Struct Multidisc Optim 35(5):391–402 (OnlineFirst July 18, 2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Scott Ferguson

  2. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA

    Kemper Lewis

  3. Milliken Research Associates, Incorporated, Williamsville, NY, 14221, USA

    Edward Kasprzak

Authors
  1. Scott Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward Kasprzak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kemper Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kemper Lewis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferguson, S., Kasprzak, E. & Lewis, K. Designing a family of reconfigurable vehicles using multilevel multidisciplinary design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 39, 171–186 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0319-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-008-0319-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation