Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T23:24:39.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodical Support for the New Development of Cyber-Physical Product Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

J. Küchenhof ,
M. C. Berschik ,
E. Heyden  and
D. Krause
J. Küchenhof*
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
M. C. Berschik
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
E. Heyden
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
D. Krause
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
*
jan.kuechenhof@tuhh.de

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.

The new development of cyber-physical product families currently lacks a methodically supported modularisation approach. This paper provides an approach for module-based mechatronic development, which provides design for future product variety. The state of the art in terms of mechatronic system design and modular product architecture design is presented. A modified V-model is then shown that integrates initial product architecture design and life phase modularisation. The method is applied and evaluated for the development of product family generations of robot units in a teaching course.

Keywords

product familiesmodularisationmechatronicscyber-physical systemsdesign for x (DfX)
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 495 - 504
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

Askhøj, C., Christensen, C. K. F. and Mortensen, N. H. (2021). Cross domain modularization tool: Mechanics, electronics, and software. Concurrent Engineering, 221-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, G., Fantuzzi, C., & Borsari, R. (2014). A model-based design methodology for the development of mechatronic systems. Mechatronics, 24(7), 833–843.Google Scholar
Eigner, Martin, Dickopf, Thomas, and Apostolov, Hristo. (2017) “The evolution of the V-model: From VDI 2206 to a system engineering based approach for developing cybertronic systems.” IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Erens, F. J., & Verhulst, K. (1995). Designing mechatronic product families. In Proceedings of the WDK workshop on Product Structuring, Tichem M., Storm T., Andreasen MM, and MacCallum KJ (editors), Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Erens, F., & Verhulst, K. (1997). Architectures for product families. Computers in industry, 33(2-3), 165–178.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, N.; Bahns, T., Krause, D. (2014): An example of visually supported design of modular product families. Procedia CIRP, 21, 75–80.Google Scholar
Hehenberger, P., Vogel-Heuser, B., Bradley, D., Eynard, B., Tomiyama, T., & Achiche, S. (2016). Design, modelling, simulation and integration of cyber physical systems: Methods and applications. Computers in Industry, 82, 273–289.Google Scholar
Heyden, E., Hartwich, T. S., Schwenke, J., & Krause, D. (2019). Transferability of Boundary Conditions in Testing and Validation of Lightweight Structures. In DS 98: Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX 2019), 18-19 September 2019, Jesteburg, Germany, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyden, E., Küchenhof, J., Greve, E., & Krause, D. (2020). Development of a Design Education Platform for an Interdisciplinary Teaching Concept. Procedia CIRP, 91, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, D., & Gebhardt, N. (2018). Methodische Entwicklung modularer Produktfamilien: Hohe Produktvielfalt beherrschbar entwickeln. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küchenhof, J., & Krause, D. (2019). Entwicklung eines Produktarchitekturmodells zur Ableitung modularer Produktstrukturen. In DS 98: Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX 2019), 18-19 September 2019, Jesteburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Küchenhof, J., Schwede, L. N., Hanna, M., & Krause, D. (2019). From Visualizations to Matrices–Methodical support for New Development of Modular Product Families. In DS 97: Proceedings of the 21st International DSM Conference, Monterey, California, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küchenhof, Jan, Schwede, Lea-Nadine, and Krause, Dieter. (2020). Planning & Tracking the Changes-Matrix Mapping of Modular Product Family Generations. DS 101: Proceedings of NordDesign 2020, Lyngby, Denmark, 12th-14th August 2020: 1–11.Google Scholar
Martin, M. V., & Ishii, K. (2002). Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Research in engineering design, 13(4), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattermann, R., & Anderl, R. (2010). Approach for a Data-Management-System and a Proceeding-Model for the Development of Adaptronic Systems. In ASME Int. MEC and Exposition Vol. 44274, 379–387.Google Scholar
Neumann, Frank. (2015). Analyzing and Modeling Interdisciplinary Product Development: A Framework for the Analysis of Knowledge Characteristics and Design Support. Springer.Google Scholar
Schuh, G., Rudolf, S., & Breunig, S. (2016). Modular platform design for mechatronic systems using axiomatic design and mechatronic function modules. Procedia CIRP, 50, 701–706.Google Scholar
Steward, D. (1981). The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems, in IEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, T. W., Bobuk, A., Slingerland, L. A., Brennan, S., Logan, D., & Reichard, K. (2012). From user requirements to commonality specifications: an integrated approach to product family design. Research in Engineering Design, 23(2), 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R. B. (1997). Towards a Theory of Modular Design. University of Texas. Austin.Google Scholar
Verein, Deutscher Ingenieure, . (2004). Entwicklungsmethodik für mechatronische Systeme. Beuth Verlag GmBH.Google Scholar
Youtube, . (2019). CAE Teamprojekt 2019 - Rennen der Siegerfahrzeuge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7tsRhVUiQ.Google Scholar
Youtube, . (2021). Abschlussrennen CAE-Teamprojekt 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-8p7Qw7ejw.Google Scholar
Zheng, C., Hehenberger, P., Le Duigou, J., Bricogne, M., & Eynard, B. (2017). Multidisciplinary design methodology for mechatronic systems based on interface model. Res. in Eng. Des., 28(3), 333–356.Google Scholar