Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:06:59.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE APPLICATION OF ENHANCED FUNCTION-MEANS MODELLING

Part of: Design Innovation, Information and Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

J. R. Müller ,
M. D. I. Siiskonen  and
J. Malmqvist
J. R. Müller*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
M. D. I. Siiskonen
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
J. Malmqvist
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although well researched and praised in academic publications, function modelling (FM) does not have gained much traction in industrial application. To investigate into possible reasons for this, this publication researches literature of nine different projects where enhanced function-means modelling has been applied. The projects are analysed for their purpose of FM-use, applied benefits and discovered challenges of the FM approach. From this, the main challenges for FM application are the abstraction level of the modelling language as well as the lack of an interface to CAD modelling.

Keywords

functional modellingengineering designconcurrent engineering (CE)design knowledgeconceptual design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1325 - 1334
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Borgue, O. et al. (2018), “Function modelling and constraints replacement for additive manufacturing in satellite component design”, Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, No. August.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M. et al. (2012), “Variations in functional decomposition for an existing product: Experimental results”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), Cambridge University Press, Vol. 26 No. 02, pp. 107–128.Google Scholar
Eisenbart, B., Gericke, K. and Blessing, L. (2015), “DSM for modeling and analyzing functionality: Views of practitioners”, Modeling and Managing Complex Systems - Proceedings of the 17th International DSM Conference, No. November. available at: https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446447264.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gedell, S. and Johannesson, H. (2012), “Design rationale and system description aspects in product platform design: Focusing reuse in the design lifecycle phase”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 21, pp. 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function-behaviour-structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtz, J. et al. (2002), “A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (1988), Theory of Technical Systems, Springer-Verlag, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52121-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, H. and Claesson, A. (2005), “Systematic product platform design: A combined function-means and parametric modeling approach”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, E., Jackson, E.K. and Schulte, W. (2011), “An Approach for Effective Design Space Exploration”, Foundations of Computer Software. Modeling, Development, and Verification of Adaptive Systems: 16th Monterey Workshop 2010, Redmond, WA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, J. et al. (2017), “Mediating Constraints Across Design and Manufacturing Using Platform- Based Manufacturing Operations”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2017.Google Scholar
Levandowski, C.E., Michaelis, M.T. and Johannesson, H. (2014), “Set-based development using an integrated product and manufacturing system platform”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmqvist, J. (1997), “Improved function-means trees by inclusion of design history information”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, M.T., Johannesson, H. and Elmaraghy, H.A. (2015), “Function and process modeling for integrated product and manufacturing system platforms”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, The Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Vol. 36, pp. 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J.R., Panarotto, M. and Isaksson, O. (2019), “Connecting functional and geometrical representations to support the evaluation of design alternatives for aerospace components”, ICED19: 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2003), Konstruktionslehre: Grundlagen Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung. Methoden Und Anwendung, Chemistry, Springer-Verlag. available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2Google Scholar
Raja, V. and Isaksson, O. (2015), “Generic Functional Decomposition of an Integrated Jet Engine Mechanical Sub System Using a Configurable Component Approach”, In Transdisciplinary Lifecycle Analysis of Systems Proceedings of the 22nd ISPE Inc. International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, July 20-23, 2015, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
Raudberget, D. et al. (2015), “Modelling and assessing platform architectures in pre-embodiment phases through set-based evaluation and change propagation”, Journal of Aerospace Operations, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachinger, P. and Johannesson, H. (2000), “Computer modelling of design specifications”, Journal of Engineering Design, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siiskonen, M., Folestad, S. and Malmqvist, J. (2018), “Applying function-means tree modelling to personalized medicines”, Proceedings of NordDesign: Design in the Era of Digitalization, NordDesign 2018.Google Scholar
Sobek, D.K., Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. (1999), “Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990), The Principles of Design, Vol. 990, Oxford University Press New York, available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Principles+of+Design#0.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T. et al. (2013), “Making function modeling practically usable”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 301–309.Google Scholar