Design Support System by Combination of 3D-CAD and CAE with Preference Set-based Design Method

Abstract

Various computer-based simulation tools such as 3D-CAD systems and CAE are widely used to design products at the early phase of design. Designers must search the optimal solution that satisfies a number of performance requirements by repeating analysis and modification of the CAD models. They need to confirm the results of CAE analysis until they can obtain a better design solution. These works impose a heavy burden on designers and analysts. Therefore, design works can be more efficient if we can automate these iterative processes. Moreover, the early phase of design contains multiple sources of uncertainty in describing design, and nevertheless the decision-making process at this phase exerts a critical effect upon drawing a successful design. Therefore, handling the uncertainties in the early phase of design has great importance especially for concurrent engineering (CE). The previous series of our studies have proposed a preference set-based design (PSD) method that enables the flexible and robust design while incorporating designer’s preference structure. In contrast to conventional optimization techniques, this method generates a ranged set of design solutions that satisfy sets of performance requirements. The combination of 3D-CAD and CAE with PSD method can be more powerful design support system. In this study, a system based on PSD method is implemented by combination of 3D-CAD and CAE, and a design example of a swing arm is demonstrated to show the effectiveness of the proposed system for obtaining the multi-objective satisfactory solutions reflecting the designers’ intentions.

Keywords

set-based design preference flexible and robust design early phase of design 3D-CAD CAE.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Motro, A. and P. Smets. ( 1997). Imperfect Information: Imprecision-Uncertainty, Uncertainty Management in Information Systems, From Needs to Solutions, pp. 225-254 Massachusetts , USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Antonsson, E.K. and K.N. Otto. (1995). Imprecision in Engineering Design, Transaction of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design , 117(B): 25-32.

Agarwal, H. , Renaud, J.E. , Preston, E.L. and Padmanabham, D. ( 2004). Uncertainty Quantification Using Evidence Theory in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Reliability Engineering and System Safety , 85(1-3): 281-294.

Kara, S. , Kayis, B. and Kaebernick, H. ( 1999). Modelling Concurrent Engineering Projects Under Uncertainty , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 7(3): 269-274.

Chu, X.Z. , Gao, L. , Li, W.D. , Qiu, H.B. and Shao, X.Y. (2009). An Uncertainty Analysis Approach to Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 17(2): 121-128.

Wang, G.G. and Shan, S. ( 2007). Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization, Transaction of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(4): 370-380.

Lu, S.C.Y. , Bukkapatnam, S.T.S. , Ge, P. and Wang, N. ( 1999). Backward Mapping Methodology for Design Synthesis, In: DETC’99: ASME 1999 Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Simpson, T.W. , Peplinski, J. , Koch, P.N. and Allen, J.K. (2001). Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations, Engineering with Computers, 17(2): 129-150.

Chen, W. , Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. ( 1997). A Robust Concept Exploration Method for Enhancing Productivity in Concurrent System Design, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 5(3): 203-217.

10.

Sam-Haroud, D. and Faltings, B. (1996). Consistency Techniques for Continuous Constraints, Constraints, 1(1-2): 85-118.

11.

Devanathan, S. and Ramani, K. (2009). Creating Polytope Representation of Design Spaces for Visual Exploration Using Consistency Technique, In: DETC’09: ASME 2009 Design Engineering Technical Conference, San Diego, CA.

12.

Yannou, B. , Simpson, T.W. and Barton, R.R. ( 2003). Towards a Conceptual Design Explorer Using Metamodeling Approaches and Constraint Programming, In: DETC’03: ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conference, Chicago, IL.

13.

Parmee, I.C. and Abraham, J.A.R. ( 2004). Supprting Implict Leaning Via The Visualisation of COGA Multi-objective Data, In: Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Portland, pp. 395-402.

14.

Shan, S. and Wang, G.G. ( 2005). An Efficient Pareto Set Identification Approach for Multi-objective Optimization on Black-box Functions, Transaction of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 127(5): 866-874.

15.

Ward, A.C. , Liker, J.K. , Cristiano, J.J. and Sobek II , D.K. (1995). The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decision Can Make Better Cars Faster, Sloan Management Review, 32(3): 43-61.

16.

Sobek II , D.K., Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. ( 1999). Toyota’s Principles of Set-based Concurrent Engineering , Sloan Management Review, 40(2): 67-83.

17.

Nahm, Y.-E. and Ishikawa, H. (2005). Representing and Aggregating Engineering Quantities for Set-based Concurrent Engineering, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 13(2): 123-133.

18.

Nahm, Y.-E. and Ishikawa, H. (2006). Novel Space-Based Design Methodology for Preliminary Engineering Design, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 28: 1056-1070.

19.

Nahm, Y.-E. and Ishikawa, H. (2006). A New 3D-CAD System for Set-Based Parametric Design, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29: 137-150.

20.

Nahm, Y.-E. and Ishikawa, H. (2007). A Flexible and Robust Approach for Preliminary Engineering Design Based on Designer’s Preference , Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 15(1): 53-62.

21.

Finch, W.W. and Ward, A.C. ( 1996). Quantified Relations: A Class of Predicate Logic Design Constraint among Sets of Manufacturing, Operating and Other Variations, In: DETC’96: ASME 1996 Design Engineering Technical Conference, Irvine, CA.

22.

Finch, W.W. and Ward, A.C. ( 1997). A Set-based System for Eliminating Infeasible Design in Engineering Dominated by Uncertainty, In: DETC’97: ASME 1997 Design Engineering Technical Conference, Sacramento, CA.

23.

Scott, M.J. and Antonsson, E.K. (1998). Aggregation Functions for Engineering Design Tradeoffs, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 99(3): 253-264.