A model-based approach to associate complexity and robustness in engineering systems
Name
163_2016_236_ReferencePDF.pdf
Size
1.14 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
ddf832fb3e7e83f9681f5782b090ade2
Author(s)
Göhler, Simon Moritz
Howard, Thomas J.
Frey, Daniel
Date Issued
August 2016
Journal
Research in Engineering Design
Publisher
Springer London
Citation
Göhler, Simon Moritz, Daniel D. Frey, and Thomas J. Howard. “A Model-Based Approach to Associate Complexity and Robustness in Engineering Systems.” Research in Engineering Design 28, no. 2 (August 27, 2016): 223–234.
Version
Author's final manuscript
Abstract
Ever increasing functionality and complexity of products and systems challenge development companies in achieving high and consistent quality. A model-based approach is used to investigate the relationship between system complexity and system robustness. The measure for complexity is based on the degree of functional coupling and the level of contradiction in the couplings. Whilst Suh’s independence axiom states that functional independence (uncoupled designs) produces more robust designs, this study proves this not to be the case for max-/min-is-best requirements, and only to be true in the general sense for nominal-is-best requirements. In specific cases, the independence axiom has exceptions as illustrated with a machining example, showing how a coupled solution is more robust than its uncoupled counterpart. This study also shows with statistical significance, that for max- and min-is-best requirements, the robustness is most affected by the level of contradiction between coupled functional requirements (p = 1.4e−36). In practice, the results imply that if the main influencing factors for each function in a system are known in the concept phase, an evaluation of the contradiction level can be used to evaluate concept robustness.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0236-1
