DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING:DESIGN AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

By -

1. DESIGN AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The essence of design is that it is a plan to achieve a purpose or to satisfy a need. In mechanical design, the plan is a representation, such as a set of drawings defining the configuration (geometry and material) of physical elements.

The immediate purpose of a specific set of physical elements or a specific design is the functional requirement. The design process, at this level, is to start with the known functional requirement to plan or search for the design configurations.

The design solution is almost always not unique. Conceptually, the design process can be con- sidered a mapping process between the ‘‘purpose space’’ and the ‘‘functional space’’ and between the ‘‘functional space’’ and ‘‘configuration space.’’ The ability to develop alternative physical designs is of fundamental importance to design for manufacturability.

Alternative physical designs may be developed by knowing the functional requirement. A design, in general, can be decomposed into subfunctional requirements for each of its subsystems. Each subfunctional requirement, again, can be used to characterize and develop the design alternatives of each subsystem. By repeating this process, a functional design hierarchy can be developed with the possible design alternatives at various levels of functional requirements, for the product (the assem- bly), the subassembly, and parts. This design hierarchy is shown in Figure 4 (Liu and Trappey 1989).

The properties of the design hierarchy are as follows:

SNAG-0005

1. All the subfunctions are required to form a design, and only one among all the physical design alternatives is needed to satisfy a specific functional requirement.

2. Each and every possible physical design, for a system or a subsystem, has place in the hier- archy. Therefore, the hierarchy serves as a guide for design knowledge acquisition, as a struc- ture for design knowledge storage, and as an indexing system for design knowledge retrieval. This has important application in serving as a software tool for concurrent engineering.

3. Upstream reasoning from the physical design can be conducted by answering the question ‘‘What is the design for?’’ Then the higher level functional requirement may be reached.

4. Downstream reasoning from functional requirement can be done by answering the question ‘‘How can the functional requirement be satisfied?’’ Then the physical design alternatives may be generated.

5. Upstream–downstream reasoning forces the designer to analyze the functional requirements and higher purposes. Thus, it can be used for managing the design process and yet, in the meantime, allow for the individual designer’s creativity (see Figure 2).

6. The hierarchical system can serve as structured blackboard for design communication, con- sultation, and retrieval.

The application of the design hierarchy by one of the authors (Liu) has led to very significant product innovation. When the same method was applied by the students in his classes, general improvement in design creativity was observed. However, the results varied tremendously among the individuals.

More discussions and elaboration of the proposed functional–physical design hierarchy were done in Liu and Trappey (1989) and Trappey and Liu (1990).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DUALITY THEORY:THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY

By -
Image
THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY Given our standard form for the primal problem at the left (perhaps after conversion from another form), its dual problem has the form shown to the right. Thus, with the primal problem in maximizatio n form, the dual problem is in minimization form instead. Furthermore, the dual problem uses exactly the same pa r amete r s as the primal problem, but in different locations, as summarized below. 1. The coefficients in the objective function of the primal problem are the right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the dual problem. 2. The right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the primal problem are the coef- ficients in the objective function of the dual problem. 3. The coefficients of a variable in the functional constraints of the primal problem are the coefficients in a functional constraint of the dual problem. To highlight the comparison, now look at these same two problems in matrix notation (as introduced at the beginn...
Read more

NETWORK OPTIMIZATION MODELS:THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM

By -
Image
THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM The minimum spanning tree problem bears some similarities to the main version of the shortest-path problem presented in the preceding section. In both cases, an undi r ecte d and connected network is being considered, where the given information includes some mea- sure of the positive length (distance, cost, time, etc.) associated with each link. Both problems also involve choosing a set of links that have the shortest total length among all sets of links that satisfy a certain property. For the shortest-path problem, this property is that the chosen links must provide a path between the origin and the destination. For the minimum spanning tree problem, the required property is that the chosen links must provide a path between ea c h pair of nodes. The minimum spanning tree problem can be summarized as follows: 1. You are given the nodes of a network but not the links. Instead, you are given the po- tential links and the positive length for each ...
Read more

INTEGER PROGRAMMING:THE BRANCH-AND-CUT APPROACH TO SOLVING BIP PROBLEMS

By -
TH E BRANCH-AND-CUT APPROACH TO SOLVING BIP PROBLEMS Integer programming has been an especially exciting area of OR since the mid-1980s be- cause of the dramatic progress being made in its solution methodology. Background To place this progress into perspective, consider the historical background. One big break- through had come in the 1960s and early 1970s with the development and refinement of the branch-and-bound approach. But then the state of the art seemed to hit a plateau. Rel- atively small problems (well under 100 variables) could be solved very efficiently, but even a modest increase in problem size might cause an explosion in computation time be- yond feasible limits. Little progress was being made in overcoming this exponential growth in computation time as the problem size was increased. Many important problems arising in practice could not be solved. Then came the next breakthrough in the mid-1980s, with the introduction of the b r an c h- and-cu t approach to sol...
Read more