Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:59:20.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing in Engineering Design: What Are We Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

A. R. Patel ,
A. Murphy ,
J. D. Summers  and
K. Tahera
A. R. Patel
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Dallas, United States of America
A. Murphy
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Dallas, United States of America
J. D. Summers
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Dallas, United States of America
K. Tahera*
Affiliation:
The Open University, United Kingdom
*
[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 testing is critical in industries, the general approaches of testing in engineering design are under-represented in academia. This research investigates the current state of testing based on design textbooks. The findings suggest there is no clear definition of testing. Testing appears in different design stages with adjacent concepts such as prototyping, experimentation, verification, and validation. The processes of testing and its role within engineering design are ambiguous. Recommendations to design educators are provided, and the limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords

design educationengineering designproduct development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2363 - 2372
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

Batliner, M., Boës, S., Heinis, T. and Meboldt, M. (2018), “Testing methodology for engineering design education”, DS 93: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2018), , London. 6th-7th September 2018, pp. 375–380.Google Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., et al. . (2017), “Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. Schrage 1993, p. e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (2019), “The drivers of success in new-product development”, Industrial Marketing Management, Elsevier, Vol. 76 No. July 2018, pp. 36–47.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2008), Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, Fourth., John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dieter, G.E.E. and Schmidt, L.C.C. (2021), Engineering Design, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education Boston, New York.Google Scholar
Dym, C.L.L. and Little, P. (2004), Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Eder, W.E. and Hosnedl, S. (2007), Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Erat, S. and Kavadias, S. (2008), “Sequential Testing of Product Designs: Implications for Learning”, Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 956–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, M.J. (1985), Conceptual Design for Engineers, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, available at:10.1007/978-3-662-11364-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, S. and Goldberg, J. (2019), “Engineering capstone design education: Current practices, emerging trends, and successful strategies”, Design Education Today, Springer, pp. 115–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, K.S. (1999), Engineering Design Principles, First., Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Jones, J.C. (1992), Design Methods, Second., Wiley.Google Scholar
Kotys-Schwartz, D., Knight, D. and Steinbrenner, J. (2018), “A Qualitative Investigation of Success and Challenges with Team Roles in Capstone Design”, Capstone Design Conference, Rochester, NY, p. 4.Google Scholar
Marius, S. (2014), “ETH Focus Projects–Successful Approaches for Project-Based Education in Engineering Design”, DS 78: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE14), Design Education and Human Technology Relations, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 04-05.09. 2014, pp. 618–623.Google Scholar
Millitzer, J., Mayer, D., Henke, C., Jersch, T., Tamm, C., Michael, J. and Ranisch, C. (2019), “Recent developments in hardware-in-the-loop testing”, Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3, Springer, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
Ngo, C.C. and Oh, S.J. (2019), “Current Trends of Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Curricula in California”, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Vol. 59421, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V005T07A010.Google Scholar
O'Connor, P. (2002), “Test Engineering – A Concise Guide to Cost-Effective Design, Development and Manufacture”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 74 No. 2, p. aeat.2002.12774bae.004.Google Scholar
Orso, A. and Rothermel, G. (2014), “Software testing: a research travelogue (2000–2014)”, Future of Software Engineering Proceedings, pp. 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K. and Wood, K.L. (2001), Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, 1st ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Blessing, L., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.-H.H. and Wallace, K. (2013), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, edited by Second, 3rd ed., Vol. 11, Springer-Verlag London Limited, London.Google Scholar
Qattawi, A., Alafaghani, A., Ablat, M.A. and Jaman, M.S. (2021), “A multidisciplinary engineering capstone design course: A case study for design-based approach”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 223–241.Google Scholar
Qian, Y., Xie, M., Goh, T.N. and Lin, J. (2010), “Optimal testing strategies in overlapped design process”, European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 206 No. 1, pp. 131–143.Google Scholar
Sudol, A. and Mavris, D.N. (2018), “Framework for reliability growth and rework projections for launch vehicles during testing”, 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Tahera, K., Wynn, D.C., Earl, C. and Eckert, C.M. (2019), “Testing in the incremental design and development of complex products”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer London, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Tahera, K.K. (2014), The Role of Testing in Engineering Product Development Processes, The Open University.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. (2007), “Learning by experimentation: Prototyping and testing”, in Loch, C. and Kavadias, S. (Eds.), Handbook of New Product Development Management, First., Routledge, London, p. 20.Google Scholar
Tolman, S.S. and Jensen, M.J. (2021), “Design Across The Curriculum: An Evaluation Of Design Instruction in a New Mechanical Engineering Program.”, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.Google Scholar
Türk, D., Leutenecker, B. and Meboldt, M. (2014), “Experience the relevance of testing in engineering design education”, Proceedings of the 10th International CDIO Conference.Google Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2018), The Mechanical Design Process, 6th ed., David Ullman LLC, Independence, OR, USA.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2016), Product Design and Development, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, NY.Google Scholar
Zhu, N. (2018), “Effectiveness of involving the industrial and business professions into mechanical engineering capstone course”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar