Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:45:37.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INCORPORATING FIELD EFFECTS INTO THE DESIGN OF MODULAR PRODUCT FAMILIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Jan Kuechenhof ,
Markus C. Berschik ,
Julia Beibl ,
Iñigo Alonso Fernández ,
Kevin Otto ,
Dieter Krause  and
Ola Isaksson
Jan Kuechenhof*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
Markus C. Berschik
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
Julia Beibl
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
Iñigo Alonso Fernández
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology;
Kevin Otto
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology;
Ola Isaksson
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology;
*
Kuechenhof, Jan, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany, [email protected]

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.

With advancing digitalization, new technologies with more and more digital components make it necessary to integrate new components into current and future products. Sensors and actuators, such as motors, emit electromagnetic and thermal fields that can greatly affect product performance. Recent work has considered fields at the functional level using functional structures and at the system level using DSM. In this paper, the effects of fields on product architecture are investigated at the component level. Using an appropriate visualization, the impact of fields on the product structure is considered. Architectural guidelines are then used to develop suitable product structures. The methodological approach is then applied to a product family of vacuum cleaner robots. The overlaid field information helps to gain deeper insights into the product architecture. The approach is useful for representing alternative structures. The new mapping of functional and structural relationships by moving module boundaries against fields can help promote architectural innovation.

Keywords

Product familiesDesign for X (DfX)Design methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2275 - 2284
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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

Bender, B., Gericke, K. (Eds.), 2021. Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57303-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackenfelt, M., 2001. Managing Complexity by Product Modularisation. Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Browning, T.R., 2016. Design Structure Matrix Extensions and Innovations: A Survey and New Opportunities. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 63, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2491283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K., Meerkamm, H., 2013. Integrierte Produktentwicklung Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit, 5th ed. Hanser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, A., Erixon, G., 1999. Controlling design variants: modular product platforms. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, ASME Press.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, N., Bahns, T., Krause, D., 2014. An Example of Visually Supported Design of Modular Product Families. Procedia CIRP 21, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hehenberger, P., Vogel-Heuser, B., Bradley, D., Eynard, B., Tomiyama, T., Achiche, S., 2016. Design, modelling, simulation and integration of cyber physical systems: Methods and applications. Computers in Industry 82, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, D., Gebhardt, N., 2023. Methodical Development of Modular Product Families: Developing High Product Diversity in a Manageable Way. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-662-65680-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küchenhof, J., Schwede, L.-N., Hanna, M., Krause, D., 2019. From Visualizations to Matrices – Methodical support for New Development of Modular Product Families, in: Proceedings of the 21st International DSM Conference. Presented at the The 21st International DSM Conference, The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2019.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küchenhof, J., Seiler, F., Krause, D., 2020. Model Based Early-Stage Assessment for Modular New Product Development, in: DS 103: Proceedings of the 22nd International DSM Conference (DSM 2020), MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 13th - 15th 2020. Presented at the 22nd International Dependency and Structure Modelling Conference, The Design Society. https://doi.org/10.35199/dsm2020.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J.R., Isaksson, O., Landahl, J., Raja, V., Panarotto, M., Levandowski, C., Raudberget, D., 2019. Enhanced function-means modeling supporting design space exploration. AIEDAM 33, 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060419000271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Sanaei, R., Wood, K.L., 2020. Incorporating Field Effects into Functional Product-System Architecting Methods. Journal of Mechanical Design 142. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimmler, T.U., Eppinger, S.D., 1994. Integration Analysis of Product Decompositions, in: 6th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. Presented at the ASME 1994 Design Technical Conferences collocated with the ASME 1994 International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exhibition and the ASME 1994 8th Annual Database Symposium, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp. 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC1994-0034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanaei, R., Otto, K.N., Hölttä-Otto, K., Wood, K.L., 2016. Incorporating Constraints in System Modularization by Interactive Clustering of Design Structure Matrices, in: Volume 2B: 42nd Design Automation Conference. Presented at the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-60510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, R., 1996. Strategic product creation: Managing new interactions of technology, markets, and organizations. European Management Journal 14, 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(95)00056-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachinger, P., Johannesson, H.L., 2000. Computer modelling of design specifications. Journal of Engineering Design 11, 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482001000935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, K., Han, S.-Y., Suh, E.S., 2019. Design structure matrix-based modularization approach for complex systems with.pdf. Systems Engineering 23, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, D.V., 1981. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. EM-28, 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1981.6448589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., 2000. Development of a Functional Basis for Design. ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., Crawford, R.H., 2000. A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00003-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., Crawford, R.H., 1999. Product Architecture Development with Quantitative Functional Models, in: Volume 3: 11th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. Presented at the ASME 1999 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC99/DTM-8764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24, 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenieure, Verein Deutscher, 1993. VDI-Richtlinie 2221 – Methodik zum Entwickeln und Konstruieren technischer Systeme und Produkte.Google Scholar
Williamsson, D., Sellgren, U., 2016. An Approach to Integrated Modularization. Procedia CIRP 50, 613–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamirowski, E., Otto, K.N., 1999. Identifying Product Family Architecture Modularity Using Function and Variety Heuristics. Presented at the 11th Int. Conference on Design Theory and Methodology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar