Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:05:20.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MANAGING FUNCTIONAL TRADE-OFFS IN THE MECHANICAL DESIGN OF INTEGRATED PRODUCTS USING MULTIOBJECTIVE MONOTONICITY ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Nokkvi S. Sigurdarson ,
Panos Y. Papalambros  and
Tobias Eifler
Nokkvi S. Sigurdarson
Affiliation:
Device Delivery Systems, Novo Nordisk A/S;
Panos Y. Papalambros
Affiliation:
University of Michigan;
Tobias Eifler*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark
*
Eifler, Tobias, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, [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 the continuously increasing integration of (mechanical) products, the identification and management of trade-offs becomes a major task in product synthesis, with substantial effect on optimality and robustness of the final solution. At the same time, a rigorous and comprehensive study of trade-offs through mathematical design optimisation is often impractical in design, as efforts spent on modeling and optimizing are likely wasted if a chosen design is changed. Extending research on configuration redesign based on a multiobjective monotonicty analysis (MOMA), this paper presents three levels of evaluation for early design or redesign: (I) informal evaluation, (II) opportunistic evaluation, and (III) exhaustive evaluation. The chosen level depends on what knowledge the designer wants to gain, and the higher the level, the larger the analysis effort, the lesser the re-use of the information gained from the initial MOMA analysis respectively. The approach is illustrated using a novel drug delivery device, the Self-Orienting Millimeter-Scale Applicator (SOMA), for the oral delivery of protein compounds such as insulin.

Keywords

Embodiment designOptimisationEvaluationConfiguration design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2535 - 2544
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

Abramson, A., Caffarel-Salvador, E., Khang, M., Dellal, D., Silverstein, D., Gao, Y., Frederiksen, M.R., Vegge, A., Hubalek, F., Water, J.J., Friderichsen, A.V., Fels, J., Kirk, R.K., Cleveland, C., Collins, J., Tamang, S., Hayward, A., Landh, T., Buckley, S.T., Roxhed, N., Rahbek, U., Langer, R. and Traverso, G. (2019), “An ingestible self-orienting system for oral delivery of macromolecules”, Science, Vol. 363 No. 6427, http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altshuller, G. (1984), Creativity As an Exact Science, Gordon and Breach, http://doi.org/10.1201/9781466593442.Google Scholar
FDA-CDER (2013), “Guidance for Industry: Size, Shape and Other Physical Attributes of Generic Tablets and Capsules”, Pharmaceutical Quality/CMC, No. December, pp. 1–11. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htmGoogle Scholar
Finger, S. and Dixon, J.R. (1989), “A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51–67, http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988), “The house of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. May-June.Google Scholar
Marler, R.T. and Arora, J.S. (2004), “Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 369–395, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-003-0368-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papalambros, P.Y. and Wilde, D.J. (2017), Principles of Optimal Design, Cambridge University Press, http://doi.org/10.1017/9781316451038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurdarson, N.S., Eifler, T. and Ebro, M. (2019), “Functional trade-offs in the mechanical design of integrated products - Impact on robustness and optimisability”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 2019-Augus No. August, pp. 3491–3500, http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurdarson, N.S., Eifler, T., Ebro, M. and Papalambros, P.Y. (2022a), “A Novel Approach to Configuration Redesign: Using Multiobjective Monotonicity Analysis to Alter the Pareto-set”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 144 No. 6, pp. 1–19, http://doi.org/10.1115/L4053524.Google Scholar
Sigurdarson, N.S., Eifler, T., Ebro, M. and Papalambros, P.Y. (2022b), “Multiobjective Monotonicity Analysis: Pareto Set Dependency and Trade-Offs Causality in Configuration Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 144 No. 3, http://doi.org/10.1115/L4052444.Google Scholar
Sigurdarson, N.S., Papalambros, P.Y. and Eifler, T. (2023), “Exploring barriers for the use of fea-based variation simulation in industrial development practice”, Design Science, p. submitted for review.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1998), “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems”, Research in Engineering Design - Theory, Applications, and Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 189–209, http://doi.org/10.1007/s001639870001.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K., Eppinger, S.D. and Yang, M.C. (2020), Product Design and Development, McGraw Hill, 7 edition.Google Scholar