0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Structural Modularity

[+] Author and Article Information
O. L. Cetin, K. Saitou

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

J. Mech. Des 126(2), 234-243 (May 05, 2004) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1666890 History: Received July 01, 2002; Revised July 01, 2003; Online May 05, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Blackenfelt, M., and Stake, R. B., 1998, “Modularity in the Context of Product Structuring-A Survey,” Proceedings of the 2nd NordDesign Seminar, 26–28 Aug, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kota,  S., Sethuraman,  K., and Miller,  R., 2000, “A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 403–410.
Muffatto,  M., and Roveda,  M., 2000, “Developing Product Platforms: Analysis of the Development Process,” Technovation, 20, pp. 617–630.
Sundgren,  N., 1999, “Introducing Interface Management in New Product Family Development,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16 (1), pp. 40–51.
Gupta,  S., Das,  D., Regli,  W. C., and Nau,  D. S., 1997, “Automated Manufacturability: A Survey,” Res. Eng. Des., 9(3), pp. 168–190.
Yu,  J. C., Krizan,  S., and Ishii,  K., 1993, “Computer-aided Design for Manufacturing Process Selection,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 4 , pp. 199–208.
Yetis,  A., and Saitou,  K., 2001, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis Based on Structural Considerations,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124, pp. 593–601.
Cetin, O. L., and Saitou, K., 2001, “Decomposition-based Assembly Synthesis for Maximum Structural Strength and Modularity,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 9–12, DETC2001/DAC-21121. An extended version accepted to ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.
Cetin, O. L., Saitou, K., Nishigaki, H., Nishiwaki, S., Amago, T. and Kikuchi, N., 2001, “Modular Structural Component Design Using the First Order Analysis and Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 11–16, New York, New York.
Fujita, K., and Yoshida, H., 2001, “Product Variety Optimization: Simultaneous Optimization of Module Combination and Module Attributes,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC01/DAC-21058, September 9–12, Pittsburgh, PA.
Zugasti,  J. P. G., Otto,  K. N., and Baker,  J. D., 2001, “Assessing Value in Platformed Product Family Design,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(1), pp. 30–41.
Nelson,  S., Parkinson,  M. B., and Papalambros,  P. Y., 2001, “Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(2), pp. 199–204.
Simpson,  T. W., Maier,  J. R. A., and Mistree,  F., 2001, “Product Platform Design: Method and Application,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(1), pp. 2–22.
Simpson, T. W., and D’Souza, B., “Assessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality within a Product Family using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm,” Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA 2002–5427, Atlanta, Georgia, September 4–6, 2002.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Perez-Duarte, A., and Papalambros, P. Y., “Platform Selection under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families,” Proceedings of ASME DETC’02 Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2002/DAC-34099, Montreal, Canada, September 29–October 2, 2002.
Messac,  A., Martinez,  M. P., and Simpson,  T. W., 2002, “Introduction of a Product Family Penalty Function Using Physical Programming,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124(2), pp. 164–172.
Bosák, J., 1990, Decompositions of Graphs, Kluwer Academic Publications, Boston.
Brown, J., Robertson, J., and Serpento, S., 2002, Motor Vehicle Structures, Concepts and Fundamentals, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE International) Publications.
Hahn,  O., Gieske,  D., Klasfauseweh,  U., and Rohde,  A., 1997, “Fatigue Resistance of Spot Welds under Multiaxial Loads,” Weld. World, 37(5), pp. 15–22.
Radaj,  D., 2000, “Fatigue Assessment of Spot Welds based on Local Stress Parameters,” Weld. Res. Supplement, February pp. 52–53.
Davidson, J. A., “Design-Related Methodology to Determine the Fatigue Life and Related Failure Mode of Spot-Welded Sheet Steels,” SAE Technical Papers, No. 8306–022, pp. 539–551.
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, W., 1994, Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Skiena, S. S., 1998, The Algorithm Design Manual, TELOS/Springer-Verlag, New York.
Hopcroft J. E., and Wong J. K., 1974, “Linear Time Algorithm for Isomorphism of Planar Graphs,” Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 172–184.
Srinivas,  N., and Deb,  K., 1994, “Multi-Objective Function Optimization using Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms,” Evol. Comput., 3(2), pp. 221–248.
Deb. K., Agrawal, S., Pratab, A., and Meyarivan, T., 2000, “A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II,” Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI Conference, Paris, France, pp. 849–858. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1917.
Lyu, N., and Saitou, K., 2003, “Topology Optimization of Multi-Component Structures via Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis,” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago, Illinois, September 2–6, DETC2003/DAC-48730.
Globus,  A., Lawton,  J., and Wipke,  T., 1999, “Automatic Molecular Design using Evolutionary Techniques,” Nanotechnology, 10(3), pp. 290–299.
Hobbs, M. H. W., and Rodgers, P. J., 1998, “Representing Space: A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Aesthetic Graph Layout,” FEA 1998, Frontiers in Evolutionary Algorithms, Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Information Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, Vol. 2, pp. 415–418.
Fanjoy,  D. W., and Crossley,  W. A., 2002, “Topology Design of Planar Cross-Sections With a Genetic Algorithm: Part 1–Overcoming the Obstacles,” Eng. Optimiz., 34(1), pp. 1–22.
Kane,  C., and Schoenauer,  M., 1996, “Genetic Operators for Two-Dimensional Shape Optimization,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1063, pp. 355–369.
Cross,  A. D. J., Wilson,  R. C., and Hancock,  E. R., 1997, “Inexact Graph Matching using Genetic Search,” Pattern Recogn., 30(6), pp. 953–970.
Malen, D., and Kikuchi, N., 2002, Automotive Body Structure-A GM Sponsored Course in the University of Michigan, ME599 Coursepack, University of Michigan.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Example of two product variants 9: (a) design domain and boundary conditions, and (b) two topologically optimal structures to be decomposed. Note that the product, variants do not have to be topologically optimal.
Grahic Jump Location
Product topology graphs of (a) the structure on the left, and (b) the structure on the right in Fig. 1(b)
Grahic Jump Location
Four types of joints that connects two beams A and B. (a) butt joint of A onto B (type 1), (b) butt joint of B onto A (type 2), (c) lap joint of A onto B from top (type 3), and (d) lap joint of B onto A from bottom (type 4).
Grahic Jump Location
A detailed illustration of type 1 joint in Fig. 3(a) 18. Beams A and B are also made of sheet metals joined by spot welds.
Grahic Jump Location
Example components that are (a) non-flat (not manufacturable), and (b) flat (manufacturable) via stamping processes
Grahic Jump Location
Local, right-handed coordinate system ξ-ψ-ζ located at joint i, where the origin is at the intersection of the neutral axes of beams A and B, and x axis is inline with vector va of beam A. Note ζ axis is pointing out of the paper.
Grahic Jump Location
Basic manufacturing points Mp vs. die complexity index Xp21
Grahic Jump Location
Example decomposition of the 2D structures in Figure 1(b). The identified modules are annotated with “s.”
Grahic Jump Location
Decomposed product topology graphs of (a) the structure on the left, and (b) the structure on the right in Fig. 8. Dashed lines indicate the edges with welds annotated with the joint types in Fig. 3. Subgraphs with thicker lines with “s” represent the identified modules. The direction of the arrow on the dashed line shows which beam is welded onto another, i.e., which beam corresponds to beam A or B, according to the definition in Fig. 3.
Grahic Jump Location
Design variables x1,x2,y1 and y2 encoded as a “double strand” linear chromosome
Grahic Jump Location
Simplified beam-based body structures of (a) sedan and (b) wagon. Both structures are approximately 4.6 [m] in length (x direction), 1.5 [m] in width (y direction), and 1.3 [m] in height (z direction).
Grahic Jump Location
Product topology graphs of a half-body with respect to x-z plane of (a) the sedan structure and (b) the wagon structure in Fig. 11.
Grahic Jump Location
Optimization history of a typical GA run. The values are the average of the elite population for each generation, normalized between 0 and 1.
Grahic Jump Location
Global bending condition on (a) sedan model and (b) wagon model. A downward force of 8.0 [kN] is applied at the location indicated by an arrow.
Grahic Jump Location
Objective function values of the ten Pareto optimal solutions for global bending. (a) number of modules and force on welds, and (b) number of welds and manufacturing cost.
Grahic Jump Location
Graphical representation of (a) a lap weld and (b) a butt weld in the decomposition results.
Grahic Jump Location
Decomposition results for solution 2 in the global bending condition.
Grahic Jump Location
Decomposition results for solution 10 in the global bending condition. Identified modules are annotated with “s.”
Grahic Jump Location
Global torsion condition on (a) sedan model and (b) wagon model. Upward and downward forces of 4000 [N] each are applied at the locations indicated by two arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Objective function values of the ten Pareto optimal solutions for global torsion. (a) number of modules and force on welds, and (b) number of welds and manufacturing cost.
Grahic Jump Location
Decomposition results for solution 1 in the global torsion condition. Identified modules are annotated with “s.”
Grahic Jump Location
Decomposition results for solution 10 in the global torsion condition. Identified modules are annotated with “s.”

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In