0
Research Papers: Design Automation

Robustness Metrics: Consolidating the Multiple Approaches to Quantify Robustness

[+] Author and Article Information
Simon Moritz Göhler

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark,
Produktionstorvet,
Building 426,
Kongens Lyngby 2800, Denmark
e-mail: simogo@mek.dtu.dk

Tobias Eifler

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark,
Produktionstorvet,
Building 426,
Kongens Lyngby 2800, Denmark
e-mail: tobeif@mek.dtu.dk

Thomas J. Howard

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark,
Produktionstorvet, Building 426,
Kongens Lyngby 2800, Denmark
e-mail: thow@mek.dtu.dk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received February 29, 2016; final manuscript received July 7, 2016; published online September 12, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Zissimos P. Mourelatos.

J. Mech. Des 138(11), 111407 (Sep 12, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1166; doi: 10.1115/1.4034112 History: Received February 29, 2016; Revised July 07, 2016

The robustness of a design has a major influence on how much the product's performance will vary and is of great concern to design, quality, and production engineers. While variability is always central to the definition of robustness, the concept does contain ambiguity, and although subtle, this ambiguity can have significant influence on the strategies used to combat variability, the way it is quantified and ultimately, the quality of the final design. In this contribution, the literature for robustness metrics was systematically reviewed. From the 108 relevant publications found, 38 metrics were determined to be conceptually different from one another. The metrics were classified by their meaning and interpretation based on the types of the information necessary to calculate the metrics. Four different classes were identified: (1) sensitivity robustness metrics; (2) size of feasible design space robustness metrics; (3) functional expectancy and dispersion robustness metrics; and (4) probability of compliance robustness metrics. The goal was to give a comprehensive overview of robustness metrics and guidance to scholars and practitioners to understand the different types of robustness metrics and to remove the ambiguities of the term robustness. By applying an exemplar metric from each class to a case study, the differences between the classes were further highlighted. These classes form the basis for the definition of four specific subdefinitions of robustness, namely the “robust concept,” “robust design,” “robust function,” and “robust product.”

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Topics: Robustness , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Robust Design framework

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of the Toyota gas pedal [28] (Courtesy of Guardian News & Media, Ltd.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Size of feasible design space robustness measure (1D)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example for a feasible design space in 2D

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