Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:47:59.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY IN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF MATHEMATICAL FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN PARAMETERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Giovanni Formentini ,
Claudio Favi ,
Claude Cuiller ,
Pierre-Eric Dereux ,
Francois Bouissiere  and
Cédric Jurbert
Giovanni Formentini*
Affiliation:
University of Parma
Claudio Favi
Affiliation:
University of Parma
Claude Cuiller
Affiliation:
Airbus S.A.S.
Pierre-Eric Dereux
Affiliation:
Airbus S.A.S.
Francois Bouissiere
Affiliation:
Airbus S.A.S.
Cédric Jurbert
Affiliation:
Airbus S.A.S.
*
Formentini, Giovanni, University of Parma, DIA (Engineering and Architecture Department), Italy, [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.

One of the most challenging activity in the engineering design process is the definition of a framework (model and parameters) for the characterization of specific processes such as installation and assembly. Aircraft system architectures are complex structures used to understand relation among elements (modules) inside an aircraft and its evaluation is one of the first activity since the conceptual design. The assessment of aircraft architectures, from the assembly perspective, requires parameter identification as well as the definition of the overall analysis framework (i.e., mathematical models, equations).

The paper aims at the analysis of a mathematical framework (structure, equations and parameters) developed to assess the fit for assembly performances of aircraft system architectures by the mean of sensitivity analysis (One-Factor-At-Time method). The sensitivity analysis was performed on a complex engineering framework, i.e. the Conceptual Design for Assembly (CDfA) methodology, which is characterized by level, domains and attributes (parameters). A commercial aircraft cabin system was used as a case study to understand the use of different mathematical operators as well as the way to cluster attributes.

Keywords

Product architectureProduct modelling / modelsConceptual designAicraft systemsDesign for Assembly (DFA)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 731 - 740
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

AlGeddawy, T. & ElMaraghy, H. 2013, “Reactive design methodology for product family platforms, modularity and parts integration”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylis, K., Zhang, G. & McAdams, D.A. 2018, “Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity”, Research in Engineering Design, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. & Stark, R. 2016, “A systematic literature review on modular product design”, Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 488–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. & Knight, W. A. 2011, “Product design for manufacture and assembly”, CRC PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouissiere, F., Cuiller, C., Dereux, P.-., Malchair, C., Favi, C. & Formentini, G. 2019, “Conceptual design for assembly in aerospace industry: A method to assess manufacturing and assembly aspects of product architectures”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, pp. 2961.Google Scholar
Bullen, G.N. 1999, “Assembly automation and implementation issues”, SAE Technical PapersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J. & Saltelli, A. 2007, “An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models”, Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1509–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Peng, Q. & Gu, P. 2018, “Methods and tools for the optimal adaptable design of open-architecture products”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 94, no. 1-4, pp. 991–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czitrom, V. 1999, “One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments”, American Statistician, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 126–131.Google Scholar
Favi, C. & Germani, M. 2012, “A method to optimize assemblability of industrial product in early design phase: From product architecture to assembly sequence”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favi, C., Formentini, G., Bouissiere, F., Cuiller, C., Dereux, P.-. & Malchair, C. 2020, “Design for Assembly in the Conceptual Development of Aircraft Systems”. Proceedings of the International Conference on Design, Simulation, Manufacturing: The Innovation Exchange ADM 2019: Design Tools and Methods in Industrial Engineering pp 268–278.Google Scholar
Favi, C., Germani, M. & Mandolini, M. 2016, “Design for Manufacturing and Assembly vs. Design to Cost: Toward a Multi-Objective Approach for Decision-making Strategies during Conceptual Design of Complex Products”, Procedia CIRP, pp. 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favi, C., Germani, M. & Mandolini, M. 2018, “Development of complex products and production strategies using a multi-objective conceptual design approach”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 95, no. 1-4, pp. 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formentini, G., Favi, C., Bouissiere, F., Cuiller, C., Dereux, P.-E., Guillaume, R. and Malchair, C. 2020 “Extrapolation of Design Guidelines During the Conceptual Design Phase: A Method to Support Product Architecture Design,”. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference. Cambridge University Press, 1, pp. 857–866.Google Scholar
Hamby, D.M. 1994, “A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models”, Environmental monitoring and assessment, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 135–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krishnan, V. & Ulrich, K.T. 2001, “Product development decisions: A review of the literature”, Management Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, S., Hogue, I.B., Ray, C.J. & Kirschner, D.E. 2008, “A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology”, Journal of theoretical biology, vol. 254, no. 1, pp. 178–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. & Grote, K.-. 2007, “Engineering design: A systematic approach” in Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, pp. 1–617.Google Scholar
Pianosi, F., Beven, K., Freer, J., Hall, J.W., Rougier, J., Stephenson, D.B. & Wagener, T. 2016, “Sensitivity analysis of environmental models: A systematic review with practical workflow”, Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 79, pp. 214–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravalico, J.K., Maier, H.R., Dandy, G.C., Norton, J.P. & Croke, B.F.W. 2005, “A comparison of sensitivity analysis techniques for complex models for environmental management”, MODSIM05 - International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Advances and Applications for Management and Decision Making, Proceedings, pp. 2533.Google Scholar
Saltelli, A. & Annoni, P. 2010, “How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis”, Environmental Modelling and Software, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1508–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvaraj, P., Radhakrishnan, P. & Adithan, M. 2009, “An integrated approach to design for manufacturing and assembly based on reduction of product development time and cost”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 42, pp. 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A. & Kayyalethekkel, V.J. 2004, “A product architecture-based conceptual DFA technique”, Design Studies, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, T., Ohashi, T., & Asano, M. 2003, “Assembly reliability evaluation method (AREM)”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 52(1), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S., Yang, Q., Tao, J., Tian, X. & Yin, F. 2011, “Product modular design incorporating life cycle issues - Group Genetic Algorithm (GGA) based method”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 9-10, pp. 1016–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S. & Campolongo, F. 2006, “Sensitivity analysis practices: Strategies for model-based inference”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 91, no. 10-11, pp. 1109–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar