Design for Automation within the aeronautical domain

  • André V. S. SilvaEmail author
  • Luís Gonzaga Trabasso


Worldwide air traffic has been increasing through the last years, and recent researches indicate that the demand for new aircraft will continue to rise over next few decades. Even today, aeronautical manufacturing involves a large proportion of manual labour which directly affects the production capacity of the industry. Thus, in order to meet the market demand and reach the dynamism that the industry must have to compensate the changes that are driven by customers, the automation of the production lines has become increasingly necessary to guarantee the competitiveness of the aircraft manufacturing companies. On this context, this work presents the development of a Design for Automation designing tool—DFAut—that aims at clarifying the automation requirements of a product at the conceptual design phase. Through this study, it has been verified that the use of the DFAut method has yielded automation requirements that were not feasible to be accomplished by a competitive product to the market. However, within the Integrated Product Design concept, the DFAut results could be adjusted to render the product automation configuration feasible. The DFAut tool has been successfully applied to the design of a wing box, and the results are fully discussed herein.


Design for Automation Industrial automation Wing box Aircraft assembly Product development 



  1. 1.
    Herrera J (2013) Evaluation of control systems for automated aircraft wing manufacturing. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbosa GF (2007) Aplicação da metodologia DFMA—design for Manufacturing and Assembly no projeto e fabricação de aeronaves. 2007. 165f. Master’s Thesis. Universidade de São Paulo—USP/Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos—EESC, São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elgh F, Cederfeldt M (2008) Cost-based producibility assessment: analysis and synthesis. J Eng Des Jönköping 19(2):113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Westphal C, Heinze W, Horst P (2008) Multidisciplinary integrated preliminary design applied to unconventional aircraft configurations. J Aircr 45(2):581–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Downen TD, Nightingale DJ, Magee C (2005) Multi-attribute value approach to business airplane product assessment. J Aircr 42(6):1387–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes RH, Jaikumar R (1991) Requirements for successgul implementation of new manufacturing technologies. J Eng Technol Manag 7(3–4):169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI (2009) Automated synthesis of electromechanical design configurations from empirical analysis of function to form mapping. J Eng Des Austin Texas USA 20(1):83–104Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagano MS, Stefampvitz JP, Vick TE (2014) Innovation management processes, their internal organizational elements and contextual factors: an investigation in Brazil. J Eng Technol Manag 33:63–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sumi T, Tsuruoka M (2002) Ramp new enterprise information systems in a merger and acquisition environment: a case study. J Eng Technol 19(1):93–104Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mosqueira GL (2012) Towards the Robotic Assembly of Fuselages. Master’s Thesis, Technological Institute of Aeronautics. São José dos Campos, p 138Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindström V, Winroth M (2010) Aligning manufacturing strategy and levels of automaiton: a case study. J Eng Technol Manag Linkop 27(3–4):148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bettini HL, Trabasso LG (2018) Design to center of gravity (DT_CG): a design method applied to robot end-effectors. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jayaweera N, Webb P (2007) Automated assembly of fuselage skin panels. Assemb Autom 27(4):343–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayaweera Nirosh, Webb Phil, Johnson Craig (2010) Measurement assisted robotic assembly of fabricated aero-engine components. Assemb Autom 30(1):56–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furtado LFF et al (2014) DTW: a design method for designing robot end-effectors. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 36(4):871–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Z, Qin X, Bai J, Tan X, Li J (2017) Design and implementation of multifunctional automatic drilling end effector. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 187, No 1. IOP Publishing, p 012032Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Assadi M, Martin C, Siegel E, Mathis D (2013) Body join drilling for one-up-assembly. SAE Int J Aerosp 6(1):188–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devlieg R (2011) High-accuracy robotic drilling/milling of 737 inboard flaps. SAE Int J Aerosp 4(2):1373–1379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Durham BJ (2014) Determining appropiate levels of robotic automation in Commercial Aircraft Nacelle Assembly. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, p 73Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barbosa GF (2012) Desenvolvimento de um modelo de análise para implantação de automação na manufatura aeronáutica, orientado pelos requisitos das metodologias de Projeto para Excelência (DFX—Design for Execellence) e Produção Enxuta (Lean Manufacturing). 2012. 332f. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidade de São Paulo—USP/Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos—EESC, São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andreasen MM, Hein L (1987) Integrated product development. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warfield JN (1994) A science of generic design: managing complexity through systems design, 2nd edn. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pessôa MVP, Trabasso LG (2016) The lean product design and development journey: a practical view, vol 1. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loureiro G (1999) A system engineering and concurrent engineering framework for the integrated development of complex products, Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough, p 349Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cross N (2005) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design, vol 1, 3rd edn. Wiley, MIlton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miyakawa STOAMI (1990) The Hitachi Assemblability Method (AEM) and its applications. In: The international conference on manufacturing systems and environment-looking toward the 21th century, pp 505–520Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boothroyd G (1994) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput Aided Des 26:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Ning SA, Kroo I (2010) Multidisciplinary considerations in the design of wings and wing tips devices. J Aircr 47(2):534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aeronautics Institute of TechnologyITASão José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations