No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
IDENTIFYING SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES DURING TESTING ACTIVITIES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
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.
Testing activities to gain specific design knowledge play an essential role in engineering design, when a structure needs to be developed, for which knowledge from analytical models or documentation is missing. As research into these testing activities is difficult, few insights into successful approaches exist.
In this contribution, we investigate testing activities to gain specific design knowledge through a laboratory task, where 10 engineering students optimize a system using a web-based process chain including rapid prototyping and testing. Design and testing data are acquired from 110 prototypes in 3 hours. A differentiation of performance is conducted and approaches of high- and low-performers are investigated to identify patterns.
Based on these patterns, hypotheses, and metrics indicating successful and non-successful approaches are derived as basis for development of metrics for testing to gain specific design knowledge. A successful approach was overstep the limit, where participants accept destruction of their system to identify boundaries. An unsuccessful approach was the change of many parameters in later tests. These hypotheses and their metrics can then be used in development and validation of support for testing.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Barhoush, Y.A.M., Erichsen, J.F., Sjöman, H., Georgiev, G.V. and Steinert, M. (2019), “Capturing Prototype Progress in Digital Fabrication Education”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 469–478.Google Scholar
Batliner, M., Boës, S., Heck, J. and Meboldt, M. (2022), “Linking Testing Activities with Success in Agile Development of Physical Products”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 109, pp. 146–154.Google Scholar
Cash, Philip; Stanković, Tino; Štorga, Mario (2016): Experimental Design Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M. (2007), Modelling iteration in engineering design, 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, A. (2010), Verification, validation, and testing of engineered systems, Wiley series in systems engineering and management, J. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erichsen, J.F., Wulvik, A., Steinert, M. and Welo, T. (2019), “Efforts on Capturing Prototyping and Design Activity in Engineering Design Research”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 84, pp. 566–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function–behaviour–structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauberger, P., Voß, K. and Matthiesen, S. (2019), “Functional Analysis in Embodiment Design - An Investigation of Embodiment Function Relations in Testing Activities”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1503–1512.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (1990), “Design Knowledge: Theory in Support of Practice”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IEEE (1990), IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology No. IEEE-Std-610.12–1990, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
Kroll, E. and Weisbrod, G. (2020), “Testing and evaluating the applicability and effectiveness of the new idea-configuration-evaluation (ICE) method of conceptual design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2021), “Gestaltung – Prozess und Methoden”, in Bender, B. and Gericke, K. (Eds.), Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 397–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meboldt, M., Matthiesen, S. and Lohmeyer, Q. (2013), The Dilemma of Managing Iteration in Time-to-market Development Processes, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Modelling and Management Engineering Processes, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
Shabi, J., Reich, Y. and Diamant, R. (2017), “Planning the verification, validation, and testing process: a case study demonstrating a decision support model”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 171–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebertz, K., van Bebber, D. and Hochkirchen, T. (2017), Statistische Versuchsplanung, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahera, K., Wynn, D.C., Earl, C. and Eckert, C.M. (2019), “Testing in the incremental design and development of complex products”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A correction has been issued for this article:
You have
Access
Open access
Linked content
Please note a has been issued for this article.