html5-img
1 / 51

Elevator Pitch

Elevator Pitch. The Gap: Potential in materials design for concept generation. Methods and tools to increase a designer’s concept flexibility in multi-domain design Methods and tools to extend existing conceptual design to the materials level. Research Questions

tamera
Télécharger la présentation

Elevator Pitch

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elevator Pitch • The Gap: • Potential in materials design for concept generation. • Methods and tools to increase a designer’s concept flexibility in multi-domain design • Methods and tools to extend existing conceptual design to the materials level. • Research Questions • How can a designer generate material concepts that supplement product design concepts? • How should solution principles and problem formulations used in the mechanical product domain be made applicable to multi-scale materials design? • How should function structures and problem formulations be connected to solution triggers for materials design? Research Hypothesis Supplementing materials selection with materials design and integrating experiential knowledge based problem solving and solution triggering tools. Allowing TRIZ problem modeling used alongside functional modeling. Mapping abstracted problem formulations and solution trigger mappings to functions and length scales.

  2. Outline • Opening • Motivation/Complex engineering systems • Fundamentals of systematic design • Gap • Research Issues • Background • Hypothesis/Introduction of proposed approach • Structural validity • Knowledge transfer • Illustrative Example • Performance validity Reactive material containment system example • Integrated design of product and material concepts • Closure • Contributions

  3. Motivation - Trends • Complex engineering systems requiring advanced multifunctional materials. • Dynamic and seemingly unquenchable demands on limited resources. • Focus on conceptual and early embodiment design. • Demand for innovation due to increased competitiveness and globalization.

  4. Systematic Conceptual Design Systematic problem solving: Discursive Approach Intuitive Approach “Design is one of the sciences of the artificial that exists in a unique and singular position at the bound between art and science.” (Muster, D. and F. Mistree, 1988) Clarified Problem Clarified Problem Info.-Transf. 1 State 1 It has been shown that a systematic design methodology, involving strategically and tactically ordered successive steps of information transformations, supports designers to solve problems more efficiently and effectively than others (Pahl, G. and W. Beitz, 1996) Info.-Transf. n Concept Concept Systematic design = intuitive AND discursive approach

  5. Experts’ experience, insight and knowledge base (Repositories and TRIZ) [Hierarchical materials design framework, Olson, 1997] Systematic Conceptual Materials Design Advantages of systematic conceptual design: • Encouraging a problem directed approach • Fostering inventiveness in multiple disciplines • Guiding the ability of designersthrough a broad solution space • Ensuring that nothing essential has been overlooked or ignored • Not relying on coming up with a good idea at the right moment • Making early design activitiesmore transparent, open to correction and logical Systematic materials design:

  6. Gap - Integrated Conceptual Design • There is a need to design at both the product and material level in the early design phases, through an integrated approach. System scope at increasing level of detail (Messer 2008)

  7. Motivation – Problem • Research Question: How can a designer generate material concepts that supplement product design concepts? • Matthias Messer Hypothesis: Suggests integrated design of product and material concepts from a systems perspective, essentially through the use of function-based design repositories. Function->Phenomenon-> (designer discretion)->Concept Variants

  8. Hypothesis • Matthias Messer’s work is based on the use of function to transfer from product to material domain, leading to pre-formulated concrete concepts. • There is a need for transfer between domains at a higher level to promote innovative concepts in the multi-domain design. • New Hypothesis: Use of functionandgeneralized problem formulation and problem solving tools to create a systematic and domain-independent method. Allows the problem itself to reside in both domains. • Graphic on next slide…

  9. Hypothesis – Cont’d Requirements Multi-level Function Structure Lower Abstraction • Legend • End points • Vehicle, or key • Core • Transformation: Concept Generalized Problem Higher Abstraction

  10. (Domain Independent) Theoretical Structural Validity (Domain Independent)Theoretical Performance Validity (Domain Specific)Empirical Structural Validity (Domain Specific)Empirical Performance Validity Validation Square • Ch 1. Motivation • Motivation and Frame of Reference • Research Questions and Hypotheses • Validation Approach • Theoretical Structural Validity (TSV) • Validity of the constructs of the method • Literature review • Flow charts to check internal consistency • Analytical reasoning on applicability of constructs • Theoretical Performance Validity (TPV) • Usefulness of the method beyond • examples • Arguing the validity of approach to be developed beyond the examples used in different domains • Ch 6. Closure • Building confidence of the utility of the method and tools in general design scenarios • Justification that comprehensive example is representative of potential future design problems • Ch 3. Method • Combination of multiple aspects of design method: P&B & TRIZ • Explanation of method using simple example • Theoretical structural validation • Ch 2. Literature Review • Methods and constructs within P&B and TRIZ • Theoretical structural validation Theoretical Structural Validity Theoretical Performance Validity Empirical Structural Validity Empirical Performance Validity • Ch 4. Design Tools • Development of tools interfaced with method: Design catalogs by Mathias Messer, Design repository by MST, Analogy based augmentations to above catalogs • Explanation of S-Field-Model-CAD • Theoretical structural validation • Ch 5. Hypothesis Testing • Development of example problem to validate method • Document that the comprehensive example validates the hypotheses • Empirical performance validation • Empirical Performance Validity (EPV) • Usefulness of the method in examples • Systematic conceptual design using spring and RMCS • Empirical Structural Validity (ESV) • Appropriateness of the examples • chosen to verify the method • Spring design example • Reactive material containment system example (RMCS) • Ch 5. Validating example • Development of example problem to validate method • Document that the comprehensive example is appropriate to validate the hypotheses • Empirical structural validation Seepersad, C. C., K. J. Pedersen, J. Emblemsvåg, R. Bailey, J. K. Allen and F. Mistree, 2006, “The Validation Square: How Does One Verify and Validate a Design Method?“ in Decision Making in Engineering Design, K. E. Lewis, W. Chen and L. C. Schmidt, Editors. ASME Press: New York, NY, pp.303-314.

  11. Example Problems - Reactive Material Containment System & Spring Ensure satisfactory performance of a reactive material to be transported as well as its safe handling, while minimizing overall system weight. • Spring re-design • Currently a helical compression spring made of 0.207 in diameter music wire (ASTM A228) with a spring index C=7, Fmin = 60 lb, Fmax-150, Δx=1.0 in. • Must be improved by providing a stronger maximum resistive force of 160 lb. without overly changing the product.

  12. Concept Analysis Without Method: Redesign new spring to meet higher weight loads. Using Method: Assistance in generating multiple alternative concepts. Magnetized Spring Coated Spring Required magnetic moment of 2.484 x10-4 Am2 for each coil. Considering volume, required magnetization is 990 A/m. Achievable because iron can support a magnetization of up to 1 million A/m. Assuming a coating of bronze, with shear modulus of 5.90E+06 psi and ultimate stress of 100000 psi, the required thickness is 0.0105” for k=10 lb/in. Both of these concepts are a material solutions augmenting the existing product solution

  13. Design Catalog with TRIZ 5.1.1.1: “Emptiness” instead of substance. 4.3 - 2.2.6 7.1 - 5.1.1.1 7.4 - 5.1.2 Guidance, attention direction, and solution triggers within materials design.

  14. Satisfied Gaps - Contributions • Gaps and Contribution: • Potential in materials design for concept generation. • Supplementing materials selection with materials design through the use of design repositories developed by Matthias Messer and improved with solution triggers and attention direction. • Methods and tools to increase a designer’s concept flexibility in multi-domain design • Use of TRIZ Problem modeling alongside of functional modeling • Methods and tools to extend existing conceptual design to the materials level. • Mapping abstracted problem formulations and domain transfer aids to functions and length scales within design repositories.

  15. Problem Problem Analysis Technical Contradiction Resources and Problem Structure Resources IFR & Physical Contradiction Synthesis of Problem Su-Field and Separation Principles Task Task Clarification Possible Concept Requirements List Conceptual Design Information Application Concept Possible Concept Embodiment Design Product Layout Modify Problem Detail Design Product Documentation Possible Concept Function Based Design Repositories TRIZ Tool Integration Solution Contradiction Removal Analysis Solution Quality Check Solution Extension Additional Applications Concept Generalized Problem • The generalized problem formulation (mainly conflict/contradiction) is the key to transfer, so: • It is used in core transformations that introduce and address the generalized problems. • The proposed framework is TRIZ, organized through ARIZ, replacing/interacting with Pahl & Beitz ‘conceptual design’: • Pahl & Beitz modified core transformation: • Requirements  Conceptual Design Concept

  16. Problem Problem Analysis Technical Contradiction Resources and Problem Structure Resources IFR & Physical Contradiction Synthesis of Problem Su-Field and Separation Principles Possible Concept Information Application Possible Concept Modify Problem Possible Concept Function Based Design Repositories TRIZ Tool Integration Contradiction Removal Analysis Solution Quality Check Solution Extension Additional Applications Concept Algorithm for the Solution of Inventive Problems The use of TRIZ aids in transferring to the materials domain, though certain modifications increase its potential.

  17. Details of Method Addressing only Conceptual Design

  18. Details of Method - Continued

  19. Illustrative Example • Spring re-design • Simple • Possibility for product and material solution • Currently a helical compression spring made of 0.207 in diameter music wire (ASTM A228) with a spring index C=7, Fmin = 60 lb, Fmax-150, Δx=1.0 in. • Must be improved by providing a stronger maximum resistive force of 160 lb. without overly changing the product. • Outcome of this phase is the requirements list.

  20. Problem Formulation 3.1: Problem Formulation – paramount to TRIZ. 3.1.1: Abstract to identify essential problems: prescribed by P&B; performed through TRIZ. 3.1.2: Establish Function Structures: 3.1.3: Describe minimal-problem: System remains physically, yet force is increased. Core transformation: Requirements listAbstractionEssential Problem

  21. Problem Formulation – Cont’d 3.1.4: Formulate System Conflict (Technical Contradiction):“Improving the force of a spring worsens the ease of manufacture/device complexity.” + steps to further develop conflict. 3.1.5: Analyze the conflict zone and available resources: Substance, Field, Time, Space resources: Metal, allowance, etc. 3.1.6: Formulate the Ideal Final Result: The spring is improved to specifications without using any material resources. Core transformation: Essential Problem  Abstraction  Generalized Problem

  22. Problem Formulation – Cont’d 3.1.7: Formulate the Physical Contradiction: “The spring must thicker, longer or exhibit a different geometry to make the spring stronger or more resistive yet not be thicker, longer, or changed in the geometry so that it is not more complex or harder to implement the change.” 3.1.8: Formulate the Su-Field model: Core transformation: Essential Problem  Abstraction Generalized Problem

  23. Problem Formulation – Cont’d Problem Synthesis: All previous information completes problem definition, and generalizes the problem so that it can be applied to multiple domains: • Market • Task • Requirements List • Function Structure • Minimal Problem • Technical Conflict • Resources • Ideal Final Result • Physical Contradiction • Su-Field Model

  24. Solution Search 3.2: Solution Search – The purpose of conceptual design and TRIZ. Addresses the generalized problem. 3.2.1: Interface with design repository that includes solution principles:

  25. Solution Search – Repository Scan 3.2.1: Interface with design repository that includes solution principles:

  26. Solution Search – Cont’d 3.2.2: Separation Principles:Separate physical states in: time, space, the system, or coexistence i.e. Separate the opposite physical states in Time. Can the spring be thick at one instant and thin at another? Or can it be strong at one time and weak at another? 3.2.3: Standards (From Su-Field):Standards of Su-Field (previously shown model, apply algorithm). 3.2.4: Effects & Phenomena:Shown after algorithm

  27. Solution Search – Cont’d • 3.2.3: Standards (From Su-Field):Standards of Su-Field (previously shown model, apply principles). Found ferromagnetic force as an option.

  28. Solution Search – Cont’d • 3.2.3: Standards (From Su-Field):Step through algorithm, and arrive at: 17) “Check if Su-M_Field is dynamic.” No: apply standards: 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 4.4.2 • 2.4.2: Making Su-M_Field • 2.4.3: Magnetic liquids • 2.4.4: Capillary-porous Su-M_Field • 2.4.7: Usage of Physical Effects • 2.4.8: Su-M_Field dynamization • 4.4.2: Measureable Su-M_Field • The two relevant standards for this problem are the standards in bold, 2.4.2: Making Su-Magnetic_Field, or 2.4.7: Usage of Physical Effects.

  29. Solution Search – Cont’d Adding effect of magnetic field to material.

  30. Solution Search – Cont’d 3.2.5: Apply 40 Principles: For “Improving force worsens shape.” TRIZ suggests: Composite materials • Change from uniform to composite (multiple) materials. • What if the spring is coated with a material to make it stiffer? 3.2.6: Iterations: Repeat process if no suitable solution has been found.

  31. Solution Search – Cont’d

  32. Assessment of Concept Variants

  33. Concept Analysis 3.4: Evaluation of concept variants: Magnetized Spring Coated Spring Required magnetic moment of 2.484 x10-4 Am2 for each coil. Considering volume, required magnetization is 990 A/m. Achievable because iron can support a magnetization of up to 1 million A/m. Assuming a coating of bronze, with shear modulus of 5.90E+06 psi and ultimate stress of 100000 psi, the required thickness is 0.0105” for k=10 lb/in. Both of these concepts are a material solutions augmenting the existing product solution

  34. Concept Analysis Qualitative analysis of solution: • Does your solution meet the requirement of the IFR? • Which Physical Contradiction has been eliminated by the solution? • Is the solution suitable for real manufacturing or one-time production? • If you can’t use the solution for satisfying the entire problem, can you use the solution for part of the system or cycles of the system? • Are there any other problems as a result of your solution? And other questions… *The solution does in fact satisfy the Ideal Final Result because “the spring is improved to specifications (very nearly) without using any material resources”

  35. Reactive Material Containment System Ensure satisfactory performance of a reactive material to be transported as well as its safe handling, while minimizing overall system weight. Conflicting requirements: - minimization of reaction probability during transport, - maximization of reaction probability during usage, - maximization of blast energy dissipation, - maximization of system strength, and - minimization of system weight. 14/40

  36. RMCS – Problem Formulation Function Structure System Conflict TC: Improving the Strength/Durability of the RMCS worsens the Weight. PC: The walls must be thicker/more massive to make the container stronger, yet the walls must not be thicker/more massive to reduce the weight/increase ease of use. IFR: The container is improved to specifications without using any material resources. Harmful 

  37. Energy Based Functional Catalog + TRIZ Principles 20/40

  38. Concepts From Catalog Possible solutions found from scanning design catalog fitting the function “energy storage” Sandwich plate (honeycomb, foam, … cores) Fiber composite panel Plate Stiffened plate

  39. RMCS – Su-Field Model Two ways of representing the problem with Su-Field. Key: Arrow: directed action Curved line: harmful action Double line: transformation

  40. Su-Field Standard Solution Algorithm

  41. Su-Field Standard Solution Algorithm

  42. Design Catalog with TRIZ 4.3 - 2.2.6 7.1 - 5.1.1.1 7.4 - 5.1.2 5.1.1.1: “Emptiness” instead of substance.

  43. Example Solutions From Catalog: Sandwich plate (honeycomb, foam, … cores) Fiber composite panel Plate Stiffened plate 5.1.1.1: “Emptiness” instead of substance. Micro-Truss Structures Hollow materials used for crushing Granular Materials 24/40

  44. Example Solutions Application of “40 Principles” From TC: Improving the Strength/ Durability of the RMCS worsens the Weight. • Composite Materials • Previous solutions • Copying • Cheap Short-living object • Container made of foam core instead of honey-comb • Segmentation • Sandwich plate structure • Universality • Make the container out of the actual reactive material—use a stronger binder on the outside. Combine this with foam exterior. Foam 24/40

  45. Concept Preliminary Assessment

  46. Satisfied Gaps - Contributions • Gaps and Contribution: • Potential in materials design for concept generation. • Supplementing materials selection with materials design through the use of design repositories developed by Matthias Messer and improved with solution triggers and attention direction. • Methods and tools to increase a designer’s concept flexibility in multi-domain design • Use of TRIZ Problem modeling alongside of functional modeling • Methods and tools to extend existing conceptual design to the materials level. • Mapping abstracted problem formulations and domain transfer aids to functions and length scales within design repositories.

  47. Closure • The conceptual design phase is where problems can be transferred between domains by using the TRIZ generalized problem formulations that abstract the problems, and address them by suggesting general solution principles that can be applied in a new domain. • This cross-over was the product-materials domain, however this is simply a type of transfer. There is a possibility to apply the same concept between mechanical, electrical, biological etc. domains; that is, the ability to generate concepts across domain boundaries.

  48. Acknowledgements Advisor: • Farrokh Mistree • Committee: • Janet K. Allen • Seung-KyumChoi • David McDowell • SRL Faculty: • Dirk Schaefer, David Rosen, Bert Bras, Chris Peredis, Roger Jiao Colleagues : • Markus, Alfredo, Jiten, Alex, Andrew, Chenjie • GT Savannah Staff: • Ashlee, Barbara, Bobby, Jessica, Lane, Pat, Natalie Funding: • Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Tech, Savannah

  49. Thank you! Questions and comments?

More Related