Advertisement

International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 969–979 | Cite as

Function Integration for Lightweight Chassis Based on Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix

  • Meng Wang
  • Elmar BeehEmail author
  • Andreas Höfer
  • Horst Friedrich
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Function integration is the way used commonly to achieve the lightweight design system. To realize the design successfully by combing two systems multifaceted issues in need to be considered. The potential functional conflicts between the existing systems are the major unfavorable factors limiting the design. In order to complete the better design, the functional and physical relationships in the systems should be figured out. This paper proposes the approach, by which the function integration process is expressed using the axiomatic design. In the design process, the mutual relationships of design parameters in the systems are investigated by means of design matrices. The design concepts are compared and evaluated by the method combining the axiomatic design and design structure matrix.

Key Words

Lightweight design Design method Logic of design Product design 

Nomenclature

Nomenclature

AD

axiomatic design

FR

function requirement

DP

design parameter

DSM

desgin structure matrix

DM

desgin matrix

FRA

function requirement of system A

FRB

function requirement of system B

DPA

design parameter of system A

DPB

design parameter of system B

FRm

function requirement of motor system

FRs

function requirement of suspension system

DPm

design parameter of motor system

DPs

design parameter of suspension system

Subscripts

x

DP has strong effect on the corresponding FR

0

DP has weak effect on the corresponding FR

x0

output variables has strong effect on FR

DP has normal effect on the corresponding FR

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bae, S. W., Lee, M. J., Choi, J. W., Yun, R. J. and Tak, O. T. (2003). Axiomatic approach to the kinematic design of an automotive suspension system with the McPherson strut type. Int. J. Vehicle Design 31, 1, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeh, E., Kriescher, M., Deißer, O., Kopp, G. and Friedrich, E. H. (2013). Crashsicherheitspotentiale durch leichte, funktionsintegrierte fahrzeugstrukturen. ATZ Live. Springer Vieweg. Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Black, T. A., Charles, H. F. and Sachs, E. M. (1990). A method for system design using precedence relationships: An application to automotive brake systems. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper 3208.Google Scholar
  4. Braess, H. H. (2007). Vieweg Handbuch Kraftfahrzeugtechnik. 5th edn. Springer Vieweg. Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Weck, D. O. (2012). Design Structure Matrix. MIT Lecture 04. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Deo, H. and Suh, N. (2004).Axiomatic design of automobile suspension and steering systems: Proposal for a novel six-bar suspension. SAE Reliability and Robust Design in Automotive Engineering, 189−198.Google Scholar
  7. Dong, Q. and Whitney, D. (2001). Designing a requirement-driven product development process. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Drechsler, K. (2006). Begleitunterlagen zur Vorlesung Leichtbau. Institut für Flugzeugbau. Universität Stuttgart. Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. Eppinger, S. D. and Browning, T. R. (2012). Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Farid, A. M. and Suh, N. P. (2016). Axiomatic Design in Large Systems: Complex Products, Buildings and Manufacturing Systems. Springer. Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Gebala, A. D. and Suh, P. N. (1992). An application of axiomatic design. Research in Engineering Design 3, 3, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guenov, M. D. and Barker, S. (2004). Requirements-driven design decomposition: A method for exploring complex system architecture. ASME Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Helo, P. T. (2006). Product configuration analysis with design structure matrix. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106, 7, 997–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henning, F. and Moeller, E. (2011). Handbuch Leichtbau: Methoden, Werkstoffe, Fertigung. Carl Hanser Verlag. München, Germany.Google Scholar
  15. Hong, E. P. and Park, G. J. (2011). Collaborative design process of large-scale engineering systems using the axiomatic design approach. Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science 225, 9, 2174–2188.Google Scholar
  16. Jeong, T., Lee, S. B. and Yim, H. J. (2017). Shape optimization of a torsion beam axle for improving vehicle handling performance. Int. J. Automotive Technology 18, 5, 813–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, H. J., Kim, S. K. and Kang, J. Y. (2007). Ride comfort evaluation and suspension design using axiomatic design. J. Mechanical Science and Technology 21, 7, 1066–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kusiak, A. and Wang, J. (1993). Decomposition of the design process. J. Mechanical Design 115, 4, 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindemann, U. (2009). Introduction to DSM. http://www.dsmweb.org/en/understand-dsm/technical-dsmtutorial0/introduction-to-dsm.htmlGoogle Scholar
  20. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer. London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Park, G. J. (2007). Analytic Methods for Design Practice. Springer. London, UK.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Park, J. H., Kim, K. J., Lee, J. W. and Yoon, J. K. (2015). Light-weight design of automotive suspension link based on design of experiment. Int. J. Automotive Technology 16, 1, 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qiao, J. W. and Shang, J. H. (2012). Application of axiomatic design method in in-pipe robot design. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 29, 4, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salonen, M. and Perttula, M. (2005). Utilization of concept selection methods: A survey of finnish industry. ASME Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, Long Beach, California, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Sosa, E. M., Browning, T. and Mihm, J. (2007). Studying the dynamics of the architecture of software products. ASME Proc. 19th Int. Conf. Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Google Scholar
  26. Steward, D. V. (1962). On an approach to techniques for the analysis of the structure of large systems of equations. SIAM Review 4, 4, 321–342.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Steward, D. V. (1981). The design structure system: A method for modelling the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Engineering Management 28, 3, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suh, N. P. (1990). The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Suh, N. P. (1995). Design and operation of large systems. J. Manufacturing Systems 14, 3, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suh, N. P. (1997). Design of systems. Annals of the CIRP 46, 1, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suh, N. P. (2005). Complexity Theory and Applications. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Tang, D. B., Zhang, G. J. and Dai, S. (2008). Design as integration of axiomatic design and design structure matrix. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25, 3, 610–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, M., Beeh, E., Krueger, D. and Friedrich, H. E. (2017). Topological optimization of a suspension concept considering the kinematics and compliance performance and the geometric non-linearity. Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering 232, 3, 318–329.Google Scholar
  35. Xiao, A., Park, S. S. and Theo, F. (2007). A comparison of concept selection in concept scoring and axiomatic design methods. Proc. Canadian Engineering Education Association, Manitoba, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Ziebart, R. J. (2012). Ein Konstruktionsmethodischer Ansatz zur Funktionsintegration. Ph. D. Dissertation. Technische Universität Braunschweig. Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meng Wang
    • 1
  • Elmar Beeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Höfer
    • 1
  • Horst Friedrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Vehicle ConceptsGerman Aerospace Center (DLR)StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations