Research Papers: Design Automation

Product Family Design With Solution Spaces

[+] Author and Article Information
Markus Eichstetter

Vehicle Dynamics, Preliminary Design,
München 80788, Germany
e-mail: markus.eichstetter@bmw.de

Steffen Müller

Institute for Motor Vehicles,
Technical University of Berlin,
Berlin 13355, Germany
e-mail: steffen.mueller@tu-berlin.de

Markus Zimmermann

Vehicle Dynamics, Preliminary Design,
München 80788, Germany
e-mail: markusz@alum.mit.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received December 28, 2014; final manuscript received September 8, 2015; published online October 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Massimiliano Gobbi.

J. Mech. Des 137(12), 121401 (Oct 16, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1839; doi: 10.1115/1.4031637 History: Received December 28, 2014; Revised September 08, 2015

Design for optimal commonality in product families is different from design for optimal performance. While optimal performance may be achieved by the choice of appropriate design parameter values for all system components, optimal commonality requires a particular scheme of sharing components among systems. The number of possibilities to share components can be quantified by Bell's number and becomes large quickly, thus making optimization extremely expensive. This paper presents an approach to identify components that may be shared in order to optimize commonality for a product family of arbitrary high-dimensional nonlinear systems. Solution spaces are computed for each system using iterative Monte Carlo sampling. On these solution spaces, all design goals are reached. They are expressed as sets of permissible intervals for all design parameters. When parameter intervals from different systems overlap, they may assume the same value and components may be shared. The approach is applied to vehicle chassis design. A set of common components is computed for 13 vehicles with ten design parameters each, such that all design goals are satisfied and the number of different component designs is small.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Simpson, T. W. , 2004, “ Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise,” AI EDAM: Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal. Manuf., 18(1), pp. 3–20.
de Weck, O. L. , Suh, E. S. , and Chang, D. , 2003, “ Product Family and Platform Portfolio Optimization,” ASME Paper No. DETC2003/DAC-48721.
Jose, A. , and Tollenaere, M. , 2005, “ Modular and Platform Methods for Product Family Design: Literature Analysis,” J. Intell. Manuf., 16(3), pp. 371–390. [CrossRef]
Jiao, J. R. , Simpson, T. W. , and Siddique, Z. , 2007, “ Product Family Design and Platform-Based Product Development: A State-of-the-Art Review,” J. Intell. Manuf., 18(1), pp. 5–29. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T. W. , Maier, J. R. , and Mistree, F. , 2001, “ Product Platform Design: Method and Application,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(1), pp. 2–22. [CrossRef]
Du, X. , Jiao, J. , and Tseng, M. M. , 2001, “ Architecture of Product Family: Fundamentals and Methodology,” Concurrent Eng., 9(4), pp. 309–325. [CrossRef]
Fellini, R. , Kokkolaras, M. , Michelena, N. , Papalambros, P. , Perez-Duarte, A. , Saitou, K. , and Fenyes, P. , 2004, “ A Sensitivity-Based Commonality Strategy for Family Products of Mild Variation, With Application to Automotive Body Structures,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 27(1–2), pp. 89–96. [CrossRef]
Dai, Z. , and Scott, M. J. , 2007, “ Product Platform Design Through Sensitivity Analysis and Cluster Analysis,” J. Intell. Manuf., 18(1), pp. 97–113. [CrossRef]
Hölttä-Otto, K. , and de Weck, O. , 2007, “ Degree of Modularity in Engineering Systems and Products With Technical and Business Constraints,” Concurrent Eng., 15(2), pp. 113–126. [CrossRef]
Turner, C. , Ferguson, S. , and Donndelinger, J. , 2012, “ Targeted Initial Populations for Multiobjective Product Line Optimization,” AIAA Paper No. 2012-5443.
Nelson, S. A., II , Parkinson, M. B. , and Papalambros, P. Y. , 2001, “ Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(2), pp. 199–204. [CrossRef]
Fellini, R. , Kokkolaras, M. , Papalambros, P. , and Perez-Duarte, A. , 2005, “ Platform Selection Under Performance Bounds in Optimal Design of Product Families,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(4), pp. 524–535. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T. W. , and D'Souza, B. S. , 2004, “ Assessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality Within a Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm,” Concurrent Eng., 12(2), pp. 119–129. [CrossRef]
Khajavirad, A. , Michalek, J. J. , and Simpson, T. W. , 2009, “ An Efficient Decomposed Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Joint Product Platform Selection and Product Family Design Problem With Generalized Commonality,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 39(2), pp. 187–201. [CrossRef]
Chowdhury, S. , Messac, A. , and Khire, R. A. , 2011, “ Comprehensive Product Platform Planning (CP3) Framework,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(10), p. 101004. [CrossRef]
Zimmermann, M. , and von Hoessle, J. E. , 2013, “ Computing Solution Spaces for Robust Design,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 94(3), pp. 290–307. [CrossRef]
Lottaz, C. , Clément, D. E. , Faltings, B. V. , and Smith, I. F. , 1999, “ Constraint-Based Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction,” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 13(1), pp. 23–35. [CrossRef]
Lottaz, C. , Smith, I. F. , Robert-Nicoud, Y. , and Faltings, B. , 2000, “ Constraint-Based Support for Negotiation in Collaborative Design,” Artif. Intell. Eng., 14(3), pp. 261–280. [CrossRef]
Yannou, B. , Moreno, F. , Thevenot, H. J. , and Simpson, T. W. , 2005, “ Faster Generation of Feasible Design Points,” ASME Paper No. DETC2005-85449.
de Weck, O. L. , and Jones, M. B. , 2006, “ Isoperformance: Analysis and Design of Complex Systems With Desired Outcomes,” Syst. Eng., 9(1), pp. 45–61. [CrossRef]
Mattson, C. A. , and Messac, A. , 2003, “ Concept Selection Using s-Pareto Frontiers,” AIAA J., 41(6), pp. 1190–1198. [CrossRef]
Avigad, G. , and Moshaiov, A. , 2009, “ Interactive Evolutionary Multiobjective Search and Optimization of Set-Based Concepts,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Part B, 39(4), pp. 1013–1027. [CrossRef]
Zimmermann, M. , 2013, “ Vehicle Front Crash Design Accounting for Uncertainties,” FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress, Beijing, China, Nov. 27–30, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 83–89.
Zimmermann, M. , Wölfle, F. , Duddeck, F. , Schäfer., M. , and Zimmer, H. , 2012, “ Optimierung von subsystemen der fahrzeugstruktur für den front-crash,” VDI-Berichte, SimVec 2012, Baden-Baden, Germany.
Fender, J. , Graff, L. , Harbrecht, H. , and Zimmermann, M. , 2014, “ Identifying Key Parameters for Design Improvement in High-Dimensional Systems With Uncertainty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(4), p. 041007. [CrossRef]
Eichstetter, M. , Redeker, C. , Müller, S. , Kvasnicka, P. , and Zimmermann, M. , 2014, “ Solution Spaces for Damper Design in Vehicle Dynamics,” 5th International Munich Chassis Symposium, Munich, Germany, June 24–25, pp. 107–132.
Lehar, M. , and Zimmermann, M. , 2012, “ An Inexpensive Estimate of Failure Probability for High-Dimensional Systems With Uncertainty,” Struct. Saf., 36–37, pp. 32–38. [CrossRef]
Graff, L. , Harbrecht, H. , and Zimmermann, M. , 2012, “ On the Computation of Solution Spaces in High Dimensions,” DFG Priority 656 Program 1253, DFG 2012, Erlangen, Germany.
ISO 4138, 2004, Passenger Cars—Steady-State Circular Driving Behaviour—Open-Loop Test Procedure, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 7401, 2003, Road Vehicles—Lateral Transient Response Test Methods—Open-Loop Test Methods, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 3888-2, 2011, Test Track for a Severe Lane-Change Manoeuvre—Part 2: Obstacle Avoidance, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kvasnicka, P. , Prokop, G. , Dörle, M. , Rettinger, A. , and Stahl, H. , 2006, “ Durchgängige simulationsumgebung zur entwicklung und absicherung von fahrdynamischen regelsystemen,” VDI 13. Internationaler Kongress, Berechnung und Simulation im Fahrzeugbau, pp. 387–404.
Mitschke, M. , and Wallentowitz, H. , 2004, Dynamik der Kraftfahrzeuge, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Brualdi, R. A. , 2004, Introductory Combinatorics, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Khire, R. , Wang, J. , Bailey, T. , Lin, Y. , and Simpson, T. W. , 2008, “ Product Family Commonality Selection Through Interactive Visualization,” ASME Paper No. DETC2008-49335.
Simpson, T. W. , Siddique, Z. , and Jiao, J. , 2005, Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Trigg, G. L. , 2006, Mathematical Tools for Physicists, Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Vehicle response for particular driving maneuvers: (a) roll angle via lateral acceleration, (b) roll moment ratio via lateral acceleration, (c) side-slip angle via time, (d) vertical tire force via time, and (e) roll velocity via frequency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Front axle assembly of a midsize vehicle with (1) bump stop, (2) rebound stop, and (3) anti-roll bar

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Solution spaces for the front (x-axis) and rear (y-axis) anti-roll bar stiffness. Designs are excluded by requirements from roll behavior, rollover, lateral stability, and self-steering behavior.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Solution spaces (lines), common designs (big dots), and performance optima from Sec. 3.2 (small dots) are shown inthe space of anti-roll bar stiffness values of the front (x-axis) and rear (y-axis) axle. Lines actually indicate boundaries of solution spaces.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Box-shaped solution space for a general design problem. Design points of the good region fulfill the inequality constraint f(x) ≤ fc.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Overlapping solution space and box-shaped solution space for a general design problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Performance variation in a design space sample for vehicle 1. Shown are objective quantities (y-axis) and anti-roll bar stiffness ca,f (x-axis) of each sample point. All design variables are randomly chosen from the design space. Gray regions indicate design goal violation. The permissible interval of ca,f with respect to requirements on vehicle 1 is marked by dashed lines.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Solution spaces for (a) vehicles 1–3 and (b) all 13 vehicles shown as upper and lower limits for each design parameter. The units of stiffness values c and free lengths s are N/mm and mm, respectively. The connecting lines between limits of different parameters are only for the purpose of visualization.



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