Mean value-based collaborative method for structural optimization of aircraft family

Abstract

In order to improve the efficiency of the general platform optimization, a new mean value-based collaborative method (MVCM) for structural optimization of general platform is proposed. The key idea of this method is to decompose the general platform optimization problem into a system-level optimization problem and several independent subsystem-level optimization problems by introducing coordination variables. While meeting the design requirements and performance requirements, the subsystem optimizes each aircraft so that the design variables of each aircraft are as close as possible to coordination variables. The system-level coordination adjusts the coordination variables according to the results of each subsystem. With the continuous iteration between the system and the subsystems, the coordination variables that can maximize the generality of the product family are finally found. The numerical test results show that the MVCM can greatly improve the efficiency of the general platform optimization.

Keywords

aircraft family optimization general platform optimization efficiency structural optimization collaborative optimization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Simpson

. A Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design. Midtown, NY: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1998.

Muffatto

. Introducing a platform strategy in product development. Int J Prod Econ 1999: 60145–61153. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00173-X.

Simpson

Jiao

Siddique

, et al. Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design. New York, NY: Springer, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6.

Simpson

Siddique

Jiao

. Product Platform and Product Family Design. New York, NY: Springer, 2006.

Jiao

Simpson

Siddique

. Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 2007; 18(1): 5–29. DOI: 10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2.

Simpson

. Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Aiedam 2004; 18(1): 3–20. DOI: 10.1017/S0890060404040028.

Fellini

Kokkolaras

Papalambros

. Quantitative platform selection in optimal design of product families, with application to automotive engine design. J Eng Des 2006; 17(5): 429–446. DOI: 10.1080/09544820500287797.

Ulrich

Eppinger

. Product Design and Development. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2004.

Nayak

Chen

Simpson

. A variation-based method for product family design. Eng Optimization 2002; 34(1): 65–81. DOI: 10.1080/03052150210910.

10.

Cetin

Saitou

. Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Maximum Structural Strength and Modularity. J Mechanical Design 2004; 126(2): 244–253. DOI: 10.1115/1.1666890.

11.

Fellini

Papalambros

Weber

. Application of a product platform design process to automotive powertrains. In: Proc 8th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symp Multidisciplinary Anal Optimization, Long Beach, CA, 6–8 September2000 2000. DOI: 10.2514/6.2000-4849.

12.

Öman

Nilsson

. An improved critical constraint method for structural optimization of product families. Struct Multidisc Optim 2012; 45(2): 235–246. DOI: 10.1007/s00158-011-0689-9.

13.

Messac

Martinez

Simpson

. Effective product family design using physical programming. Eng Optimization 2002a; 34(3): 245–261. DOI: 10.1080/03052150211746.

14.

Fellini

Kokkolaras

Papalambros

, et al. Platform Selection under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families//ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 2002, pp. 613–621. DOI: 10.1115/DETC2002/DAC-34099.

15.

De Weck

. Determining Product Platform Extent//Simpson T W, Siddique Z, Jiao J R Product Platform and Product Family Design. Berlin, Germany: Springer US, 2006, pp. 241–301. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-29197-0_12.

16.

Pate

Patterson

German

. Optimizing Families of Reconfigurable Aircraft for Multiple Missions. J Aircraft 2012; 49(6): 1988–2000. DOI: 10.2514/1.C031667.

17.

Gonzalez-Zugasti

Otto

Baker

. A method for architecting product platforms. Res Eng Des 2000; 12(2): 61–72. DOI: 10.1007/s001630050024.

18.

Messac

Martinez

Simpson

. Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming. J Mech Des 2002b; 124(2): 164–172. DOI: 10.1115/1.1467602.

19.

Fellini

Kokkolaras

Michelena

, et al. A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for family products of mild variation, with application to automotive body structures. Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization 2004; 27(1–2): 89–96. DOI: 10.1007/s00158-003-0356-x.

20.

Braun

Kroo

. Development and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary design environment. In: Multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM; 1995, pp. 98–116.