Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:58:56.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Methodical Approach for the Model-Based Development of Aircraft Cabin Product Families Under Consideration of Lightweight and Cost-Based Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

M. Hanna*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
J. Schwenke
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
L. Schwan
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
D. Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany

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.

Aircraft cabin monuments must be optimized in terms of lightweight design, cost structure and variance. Model-based approaches support the aircraft data and help to modify them consistently during further development. In this paper, a holistic methodological approach for product families of aircraft cabin development is shown, which integrates lightweight and cost-efficient aspects, in addition to the variance focus. For this purpose, the development of cost-efficient and ligthweight optimized cabin modules is supported in a model-based way.

Type
Article
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), 2022.

References

Albers, A., Bursac, N., Scherer, H., Birk, C., Powelske, J. et al. . (2019): “Model-based systems engineering in modular design”, Design Science, Vol. 5, No. 17. 10.1017/dsj.2019.15Google Scholar
Bitzer, T. (1997): “Honeycomb technology - Materials, design, manufacturing, applications and testing”, Chapman & Hall, London, New York. 10.1007/978-94-011-5856-5Google Scholar
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, W.A. (2001): “Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly”, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998): “Modular function deployment: a method for product modularization”, Dissertation, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.Google Scholar
ESA (2011): “Space engineering Insert Design Handbook”.Google Scholar
Friedenthal, S., Steiner, R. and Moore, A. (2009): “A Practical Guide to SysML - The Systems Modeling Language”, Morgan Kaufmann Pub, San Francisco. 10.1016/C2010-0-66331-0Google Scholar
Hanna, M., Ripperda, S. and Krause, D. (2017): “Cost Based Design of Modular Product Families using the Example of Test Rigs”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vol. 3: Product, Services and Systems Design, Vancouver, Canada, August 21-25, 2017, pp. 241250.Google Scholar
Hanna, M., Schwenke, J. and Krause, D. (2019): “Modularer Leichtbau – Chancen und Herausforderungen im digitalisierten Entwicklungsprozess”, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX 2019), Jesteburg, Germany, September 18-19, 2019, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 7384. 10.35199/dfx2019.7Google Scholar
Hanna, M., Schwede, L.-N., Schwenke, J., Laukotka, F and Krause, D. (2021): “Methodical modeling of product and process data of design methods using the example of modular lightweight design”, Proceedings of the ASME 2021 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition / IMECE2021, Virtual, Online, November 1-5, 2021, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York City. 10.1115/IMECE2021-71259Google Scholar
Heyden, E., Hartwich, T. S., Schwenke, J. and Krause, D. (2019): “Transferability of Boundary Conditions and Validation of Lightweight Structures”, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX2019), Jesteburg, Germany, September 18-19, 2019, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 8596. 10.35199/dfx2019.8Google Scholar
Holt, J., Perry, S.A. and Brownsword, M. (2012): “Model-based requirements engineering”, IET professional applications of computing series, Vol. 9, Institution of Engineering and Technology, London.Google Scholar
Klein, B. (2013): “FEM: Grundlagen und Anwendungen der Finite-Elemente-Methode”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. S. and Anderson, S. R. (2007) “Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. A simpler and more powerful path to higher profits”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Krause, D. and Gebhardt, N. (2018a): “Methodische Entwicklung modularer Produktfamilien - Hohe Produktvielfalt beherrschbar entwickeln”, Springer-Verlag, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Krause, D., Schwenke, J., Gumpinger, T. and Plaumann, B. (2018b): “Leichtbau”, In: Rieg, F. and Steinhilper, R. (Ed.), Handbuch Konstruktion, Carl Hanser Verlag, München, pp. 487507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, U, Maurer, M, Braun, T (2009) “Structural complexity management: an approach for the field of product design”, Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimmler, T., Eppinger, S. (1994), “Integration analysis of product decompositions”, in Proceedings of the 6th design theory and methodology conference, New York, pp 343351.Google Scholar
Porter, M. (2014): “Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance”, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ripperda, S. and Krause, D. (2017): “Cost Effects of Modular Product Family Structures: Methods and Quantification of Impacts to Support Decision Making”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139, No. 2.Google Scholar
Ripperda, S. (2019): “Methodische Unterstützung zur kostenbasierten Auswahl modularer Produktstrukturen”, Dissertation, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Salvador, F. and Salvador, F. (2007): “Toward a Product System Modularity Construct: Literature Review and Reconceptualization”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54, Madrid.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwan, L., Hüttich, P., Wegner, M. and Krause, D. (2021): “Procedure for the transferability of application-specific boundary conditions for the testing of components and products”, Proceedings of the 32th Symposium Design for X (DFX2021), Tutzing, Germany, September 27-28, 2021, The Design Society, Glasgow. 10.35199/dfx2021.04Google Scholar
Schwede, L.-N., Hanna, M., Wortmann, N. and Krause, D. (2019): “Consistent Modelling of the Impact Model of Modular Product Structures with Linking Boundary Conditions in SysML”, in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands, 5-8 August 2019. 10.1017/dsi.2019.367Google Scholar
Schwenke, J. and Krause, D. (2020): “Optimization of load introduction points in sandwich structures with additively manufactured cores”, Design Science, Vol. 6, No. 13. 10.1017/dsj.2020.10Google Scholar
Seemann, R. and Krause, D. (2018): “Numerical modelling of partially potted inserts in honeycomb sandwich panels under pull-out loading”, Composite Structures, No. 203, pp. 101109.Google Scholar
Walden, D.D., Roedler, G.J., Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R.D. and Shortell, T.M. (Ed.) (2015): “Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities”, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04, 4. edition, Wiley, Hoboken.Google Scholar
Weilkiens, T. (2007): “Systems engineering with SysML UML: Modeling, analysis, design”, The OMG press, Morgan Kaufmann OMG Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, J. (2007): “Leichtbau. Elemente und Konstruktion”, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 3. Ed.Google Scholar
Zenkert, D. (1997): “The handbook of sandwich construction”, Engineering Materials Advisory Services, Cradley Heath, West Midlands.Google Scholar