Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:07:00.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UTILIZING THE EMBODIMENT FUNCTION RELATION AND TOLERANCE MODEL FOR ROBUST CONCEPT DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Jiahang Li ,
Dennis Horber ,
Christoph Keller ,
Patric Grauberger ,
Stefan Goetz ,
Sandro Wartzack  and
Sven Matthiesen
Jiahang Li*
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT);
Dennis Horber
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Christoph Keller
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT);
Patric Grauberger
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT);
Stefan Goetz
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Sandro Wartzack
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Sven Matthiesen
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT);
*
Li, Jiahang, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 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.

The early use of Robust Design (RD) supports the development of product concepts with low sensitivity to variation, which offers advantages for reducing the risk of costly iterations. Due to the lack of approaches for early evaluation of product robustness, the embodiment-function-relation and tolerance (EFRT-) model was developed, which combines the contact and channel approach and tolerance graphs. The information exchange of both approaches offers a high potential for reliable robustness evaluation results. However, that potential currently relies unused, since the link between applicable robustness criteria and the extended information is missing. To solve this problem, four research steps were determined: (1) understanding of robustness, (2) collection of RD principles, (3) identification of EFRT-model information and (4) mapping of RD principles and information. The results show nine adapted RD principles, the identified model information for the robustness evaluation, the evaluation criteria as well as their mapping. Utilizing the mapping and the proposed criteria in this contribution, a more comprehensive robustness evaluation in early stages is enabled.

Keywords

Robust designConceptual designProduct modelling / modelsVariation ManagementContact and Channel Approach
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3771 - 3780
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

Andersson, P. (1997), “On Robust Design in the Conceptual Design Phase. A Qualitative Approach”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvidsson, M. and Gremyr, I. (2008), “Principles of robust design methodology”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballu, A., Falgarone, H., Chevassus, N. and Mathieu, L. (2006), “A new Design Method based on Functions and Tolerance Specifications for Product Modelling”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. and Fung, C. (1994), “Quality Quandaries∗ Is Your Robust Design Procedure Robust?”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D.M. and Taguchi, G. (1987), “The Taguchi Approach to Parameter Design”, Quality Progress, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
Davidson, J.K. (2007), Models for Computer Aided Tolerancing in Design and Manufacturing, Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Ebro, M., Howard, T. and Rasmussen, J. (2012), “The foundation for robust design: Enabling robustness through kinematic design and design clarity”, in 12th International Design Conference, DESIGN, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Eifler, T., Ebro, M. and Howard, T.J. (2013), “A classification of the industrial relevance of robust design methods”. In 19th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED 13, Seoul, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
Goetz, S., Hartung, J., Schleich, B. and Wartzack, S. (2019), “Robustness Evaluation of Product Concepts based on Function Structures”, in 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design ICED19, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Goetz, S., Schleich, B. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “A new approach to first tolerance evaluations in the conceptual design stage based on tolerance graphs”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 75, pp. 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauberger, P., Goetz, S., Schleich, B., Gwosch, T., Matthiesen, S. and Wartzack, S. (2020), “A Conceptual Model Combination for the Unification of Design and Tolerancing in Robust Design”, in 16th International Design Conference DESIGN, Dubrovnik, Croatia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauberger, P., Wessels, H., Gladysz, B., Bursac, N., Matthiesen, S. and Albers, A. (2019), “The contact and channel approach – 20 years of application experience in product engineering”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Gremyr, I. and Hasenkamp, T. (2011), “Practices of robust design methodology in practice”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenkamp, T., Arvidsson, M. and Gremyr, I. (2009), “A review of practices for robust design methodology”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horber, D., Li, J., Grauberger, P., Schleich, B., Matthiesen, S. and Wartzack, S. (2022), “A model-based approach for early robustness evaluation – Combination of Contact and Channel Approach with tolerance graphs in SysML”, in 33. DFX Symposium, Hamburg, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, H. and Söderberg, R. (2000), “Structure and Matrix Models for Tolerance Analysis from Configuration to Detail Design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2011), “Seven Years of Product Development in Industry - Experiences and Requirements for Supporting Engineering Design with 'Thinking Tools'”, in 18th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED11, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. and Ruckpaul, A. (2012), “New Insights on the Contact&Channel-Approach - Modelling of Systems with Several Logical States”, in 12th International Design Conference, DESIGN12, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Third Edition, Springer, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phadke, M.S. (1989), “Quality Engineering using Design of Experiments”, in Dehnad, K. (Ed.), Quality Control, Robust Design, and the Taguchi Method, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1998), “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S., Wu, Y., Taguchi, S. and Yano, H. (2005), Taguchi's quality engineering handbook, John Wiley & Sons; ASI Consulting Group, Hoboken, N.J., Livonia, Mich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tröster, P.M., Klotz, T., Rapp, S., Wessels, H., Ott, S. and Albers, A. (2021), “Modeling of a single-disc dry clutch using the C&C2 approach to identify critical shape-function relationships related to the vibration phenomenon of forced clutch judder”, Engineering Research, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 881–894.Google Scholar
Tsui, K.-L. (1996), “A critical look at Taguchi's modelling approach for robust design”, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2010), The mechanical design process, McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York.Google Scholar
Weber, C. (2014), “Modelling Products and Product Development Based on Characteristics and Properties”, in Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, Springer, London, UK, pp. 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar