An engineering product usually consists of multiple subsystems or modules that determine its overall functionality and performance. In the forward design process, the overall product design specifications must be systematically decomposed into subsystem and component specifications. Traditional design specification decomposition methods focus on optimizing individual products but often overlook interactions among specifications during product system (family) evolution, leading to inaccurate results. This study introduces a novel methodology for decomposing product design specifications through product evolution. First, we conceptualize a product system and its component specifications as technologies and use a relationship matrix to qualitatively characterize their interactions. Then, these interactions are modeled using Lotka-Volterra equations, with coefficients optimized by Runge-Kutta integration and least squares estimation. The finite difference method is used to transform the design specification decomposition into a technology evolution prediction problem. The prediction results quantitatively reveal the evolution of design specifications and the influence of component specifications on system performance, enabling designers to better understand the interaction relationships between component specifications and system performance, accurately decompose design specifications of engineering products, control manufacturing costs, and improve product design efficiency. The methodology’s validity is empirically verified through a case study analyzing energy consumption specification decomposition for high-speed trains. Comparative analysis demonstrated its superior accuracy, with specification deviations of 0.13%, 2.8%, and 13.2% from actual next-generation train values, outperforming existing methods.
OsterasTMurthyDNPRausandM.Product performance and specification in new product development. J Eng Des2006; 17(2): 177–192.
2.
ZhangKSLiWJWeiHY.A new method for optimum allocation of design requirements in aircraft conceptual design. Chin J Aeronaut2006; 19(3): 203–211.
3.
PahlGBeitzW.Engineering design: a systematic approach. London: Springer, 2013.
4.
ZhangJSimeoneAPengQ, et al. Dependency and correlation analysis of specifications and parameters of products for supporting design decisions. CIRP Ann2020; 69(1): 133–136.
5.
ZhangHHanXLiR, et al. A new conceptual design method to support rapid and effective mapping from product design specification to concept design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2016; 87: 2375–2389.
6.
KimHMMichelenaNFPapalambrosPY, et al. Target cascading in optimal system design. J Mech Des2003; 125(3): 474–480.
7.
PedersenSNChristensenMEHowardTJ.Robust design requirements specification: a quantitative method for requirements development using quality loss functions. J Eng Des2016; 27(8): 544–567.
8.
ChenYRanYWangZ, et al. Meta-action-oriented collaborative allocation optimization for accuracy-related key quality characteristics of CNC machine tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2023; 124(11): 4365–4383.
9.
GePLuSCYSuhNP.An axiomatic approach for “target cascading” of parametric design of engineering systems. CIRP Ann2002; 51(1): 111–114.
10.
ParkSYoonJAnH, et al. Integration of axiomatic design and design structure matrix for the modular design of automobile parts. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2022; 236(3): 296–306. ASME.
11.
ZhangJDingGZhouY, et al. Identification of key design parameters of high-speed train for optimal design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2014; 73(1): 251–265.
12.
QuartoMBocchiSD’UrsoG, et al. Multiresponse optimization of friction stir welding by an integrated ANN-PSO approach. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2023; 237(12): 1858–1868.
13.
ChenXShenLHuX, et al. Suspension parameter optimal design to enhance stability and wheel wear in high-speed trains. Veh Syst Dyn2024; 62(5): 1230–1252.
14.
YaoYChenXLiH, et al. Suspension parameters design for robust and adaptive lateral stability of high-speed train. Veh Syst Dyn2023; 61(4): 943–967.
15.
ChaouchFBen KhalifaAZitouneR, et al. Modeling and multi-objective optimization of abrasive water jet machining process of composite laminates using a hybrid approach based on neural networks and metaheuristic algorithm. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2024; 238(9): 1351–1361.
16.
KimHMChenWWiecekMM.Lagrangian coordination for enhancing the convergence of analytical target cascading. AIAA J2006; 44(10): 2197–2207.
17.
LeeYKLeeUKangN.Multi-scale design optimization of electric vehicles by analytical target cascading: from battery cell level to marketing level. J Clean Prod2022; 368: 133235.
18.
XuAGaoJChenK.Excavation of critical resource node for quality control of multi-variety mixed production shopfloor based on complex network property. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2016; 230(1): 169–177.
19.
LoureiroGBFerreiraJCEMesserschmidtPHZ. Design structure network (DSN): a method to make explicit the product design specification process for mass customization. Res Eng Des2020; 31: 197–220.
20.
FathianathanMPanchalJH.Modelling an ongoing design process utilizing top-down and bottom-up design strategies. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2009; 223(5): 547–560.
TangDZhuRTangJ, et al. Product design knowledge management based on design structure matrix. Adv Eng Inform2010; 24(2): 159–166.
23.
ShinJHKiritsisDRousakisP.Design modification supporting method based on product usage data in closed-loop PLM. Int J Comput Integr Manuf2015; 28(6): 551–568.
24.
PengXLiuZTanJ, et al. Multivariable correlative model decomposition for complex product design based on clustering with multiple couplings. J Mech Eng2013; 49(3): 111–121.
25.
HuangJLiYChuX, et al. An integrated top-down design process evaluation approach of complex products and systems based on hierarchical design structure matrix. Int J Comput Integr Manuf2015; 28(10): 1015–1029.
26.
ZhangHQinSLiR, et al. Progressive modelling of feature-centred product family development. Int J Prod Res2020; 58(12): 3701–3723.
27.
ZhangJXieGPengQ, et al. Product evolution analysis for design adaptation using big sales data. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2023; 237(8): 1241–1253.
28.
WangQHouLWangH.Innovative evolution process model of product platform based on evolutionary design. Adv Mater Res2011; 201: 1447–1450.
29.
ChenYFengPLinZ.A genetics-based approach for the principle conceptual design of mechanical products. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2005; 27: 225–233.
30.
FuZGuoWWangL, et al. Ecological network evolution analysis in collective intelligence design ecosystem. Adv Eng Inform2023; 58: 102150.
31.
WuKMenLHuX.Viewing the concept of creation and genetic map of the traditional weaving process from the perspective of utensils–taking the flat barrel cage as an example. Adv Des Res2023; 1(2): 87–93.
32.
ZhaoXZhaoTWeiX. An implement approach for optimized variant design based on product gene. In: International conference on machine learning and cybernetics, Kunming, China, 12–15 July 2008, vol. 2, pp.909–914. New York: IEEE.
33.
VellendM.Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q Rev Biol2010; 85(2): 183–206.
34.
NaimAMLewisK. Modeling the dynamics of innovation in engineered systems. In: ASME 2017 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Cleveland, OH, 6–9 August, 2017, pp.1–13. ASME.
35.
HeloPHaoYToshevR, et al. Cloud manufacturing ecosystem analysis and design. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2021; 67: 102050.
36.
ZhangCLiangCZhangC, et al. Symbiosis evolution model and behavior of multiple resource agents in the smart elderly care service ecosystem. Symmetry2021,;13(4): 570.
37.
ZhengQGuoWDingG, et al. Quantitative evaluation of crowd intelligence innovation system health: an ecosystem perspective. Adv Eng Inform2024; 60: 102423.
38.
ZhangGMorrisEAllaireD, et al. Research opportunities and challenges in engineering system evolution. J Mech Des2020; 142(8): 1–14.
39.
ZhangGMcAdamsDShankarV, et al. Technology evolution prediction using Lotka-Volterra equations. J Mech Des2018; 140(6): 061101.
40.
SandénBHillmanK.A framework for analysis of multi-mode interaction among technologies with examples from the history of alternative transport fuels in Sweden. Res Policy2011; 40(3): 403–414.
41.
ZhangGAllaireDMcAdamsDA, et al. System evolution prediction and manipulation using a Lotka–Volterra ecosystem model. Des Stud2019; 60: 103–138.
42.
ZhangGMcAdamsDShankarV, et al. Modeling the evolution of system technology performance when component and system technology performances interact: commensalism and amensalism. Technol Forecast Soc Change2017; 125: 116–124.
43.
YuYLiuTXiaY, et al. Development and prospect of aerodynamic drag-reduction technologies for trains at higher speed (400+ km/h). Acta Aerodyn Sin2021; 39(5): 83–94.
