This article presents an engineering method based on the collaborative optimization
consistency constraint function for selecting shared components in modular platforms; the
method allows the operator to minimize the differences in design variables across various
models simultaneously. A case study using the body-in-white information on three vehicles
serves as an example. Static bending conditions and static torsion conditions are
comprehensively considered with the mass and the maximum displacement as the optimization
objectives in Isight and Hyperworks (both of which are commercially available software
applications commonly used by automotive engineers.) The results suggest that this method
can be easily and effectively utilized in the conceptual phase of car design.
LiuYKiangMBruscoM. A unified framework for market segmentation and its
applications. Expert Systems Applic2012; 39(11): 10 292.10-302.
2.
MeyerMHLehnerdAP. The power of product platforms. New
York: Free Press, 1997, p.
288.
3.
BecherCMZirpoliF. Organizing new product development: knowledge
hollowing-out and knowledge integration – the FIAT auto case.
Int J Ops Prod Managmt2003; 23(9):
1033–1061.
4.
LampónJFCabanelasPGonzález BenitoJ. The impact of implementation of a modular platform
strategy in automobile manufacturing networks. Governance and
Economics Research Network Working Paper B 2015–2, Universidade
de Vigo, Ourense, Spain,
2015.
5.
MessacAMartinezMPSimpsonTW. Effective product family design using physical programming
and the product platform concept exploration method. Engng
Optimization2002; 34:
245–261.
BuigaA. Investigating the role of MQB platform in Volkswagen
Group’s strategy and automobile industry. Int J Acad Res
Business Social Sci2012; 2(9):
391–399.
8.
SehgalBGoraiP. Platform strategy will shape future of
OEMs. White paper, Evalueserve, Schaffhausen,
Switzerland, 2012.
9.
UlrichKT. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing
firm. Res Policy1995; 24(3):
419–440.
10.
ChowdhurySMaldonadoVTongWMessacA. New modular product platform planning approach to design
macroscale reconfigurable unmanned aerial vehicles. J
Aircr2016; 53(2):
309–322.
11.
SimpsonTWMaierJRAWeckO. Platform-based design and development: current trends and
needs in industry. In: ASME 2006 international design
engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering
conference, Vol 1, 32nd design automation
conference, Parts A and B, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
USA, 10–13 September 2006, paper DETC2006-99229, pp.
801–810. New York:
ASME.
12.
PakkanenJJuutiTLehtonenT. Brownfield process: a method for modular product family
development aiming for product configuration. Des Stud2016; 45:
210–241.
NayakRUChenWAllenJK. A variation-based methodology for product platform
design. In: ASME 2000 design engineering technical
conferences and computers and information in engineering conference,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 10–13 September
2000, paper DETC00/DAC-14264, pp. 1–10.
New York:
ASME.
15.
NelsonSAParkinsonMBPapalambrosPY. Multicriteria optimization in product platform
design. Trans ASME, J Mech Des2001; 123,
199–204.
16.
KokkolarasMFelliniRKimHM. Extension of the target cascading formulation to the
design of product families. Struct Multidisciplinary
Optimization2002; 24:
293–301.
17.
FelliniRKokkolarasMPapalambrosP. Platform selection under performance bounds in optimal
design of product families. Trans ASME, J Mech Des2005, 127:
524–535.
18.
FelliniRKokkolarasMPapalambrosP. Quantitative platform selection in optimal design of
product families, with application to automotive engine design.
J Engng Des2006; 17(5):
429–446.
19.
OlewnikALewisK. A decision support framework for flexible system
design. Trans ASME, J Mech Des2006; 17(1):
75–97.
20.
FergusonSKasprzakELewisK. Designing a family of reconfigurable vehicles using
multilevel multidisciplinary design optimization. Struct
Multidisciplinary Optimization2009; 39(2):
171–186.
21.
TorstenfeltBKlarbringA. Conceptual optimal design of modular car product families
using simultaneous size, shape and topology optimization. Finite
Elements Analysis Des2007; 43:
1050–1061.
22.
TorstenfeltBKlarbringA. Structural optimization of modular product families with
application to car space frame structures. Struct
Multidisciplinary Optimization2006; 32:
133–140.
ChowdhurySMessacAKhireR. Investigating the commonality attributes for scaling
product families using comprehensive product platform planning.
Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization2013; 48(6):
1089–1107.
25.
KhajaviradAMichalekJ. A decomposed gradient-based approach for generalized
platform selection and variant design in product family optimization.
Trans ASME, J Mech Des2008; 130(7):
071101.
26.
PateDJPattersonMDGermanBJ. Optimizing families of reconfigurable aircraft for
multiple missions. L’Aerophile2012; 49(6):
1988–2000.
27.
DoranDHillA. A review of modular strategies and architecture within
manufacturing operations. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automoblie
Engineering2009; 223(1):
65–75.
28.
BonvoisinJHalstenbergFBuchertTStarkR. A systematic literature review on modular product
design. J Engng Des2016; 27(7):
488–514.
29.
RebentischESchuhGRudolfSet al. Technology assessment for modular product platforms with
fuzzy numbers. In: 26th CIRP design conference,
Stockholm, Sweden, 15–17 June 2016, pp.
601–606. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
30.
ZouJYaoWXXiaTX. A sensitivity-based coordination method for optimization
of product families. Engng Optimization2016; 48(7):
1145–1163.
31.
McAlindenSPSmithBCSwieckiBF. The future of modular automotive systems: where are the
economic efficiencies in the modular assembly concept? Michigan
Automotive Partnership Research Memorandum 1, Report 2000-24-1, University
of Michigan Transport Research Institute, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA, 2000.
32.
BaldwinCClarkK. Managing in an age of modularity.
Harvard Business Rev1997; 75(5):
84–93.
33.
CamuffoA. Rolling out a ‘world car’: globalization, outsourcing and
modularity in the auto industry, IMVP working paper, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/719
(2002).
34.
SakoMMurrayF. Modules in design, production and use: implications for
the global automotive industry. In: International motor
vehicle program annual sponsors meeting, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
USA, 5–7 October 1999.
35.
LangloisR. Modularity in technology and organization.
J Econ Behav Orgn2002; 49:
19–37.
36.
SanchezRCollinsR. Competing and learning in modular markets.
Long Range Planning2001; 34(6):
645–66.
37.
SeiffertUHermannH. Handbook of automotive engineering.
Warrendale, Pennsylvania: SAE
International, 2005.
38.
HouWBWangFHouDJ. Multi-objective optimization design of body assembly
structure in conceptual design stage. In: Chinese congress of
theoretical and applied mechanics, Shanghai, People’s Republic of
China, 15–18 August 2015, paper
A21-E0995. Beijing:
CAST.
39.
AbidoMA. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for electric power
dispatch problem. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Comput2006; 10(3):
315–329.
40.
WangCQWangDFZhangS. Design and application of lightweight multi-objective
collaborative optimization for a parametric body-in-white structure.
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automoblie Engineering2016; 230(2):
273–288.
41.
BalesdentMBérendNDépincéPChrietteA. A survey of multidisciplinary design optimization methods
in launch vehicle design. Struct Multidisciplinary
Optimization2012; 45(5):
619–642.
42.
KrooIAltusSBraunR. Multidisciplinary optimization methods for aircraft
preliminary design. In: 5th symposium on multidisciplinary
analysis and optimization, Panama City Beach, Florida,
USA, 7–9 September 1994, pp.
697–707. Reston, Virginia:
AIAA.
43.
BraunRGagePKrooI. Implementation and performance issues in collaborative
optimization. In: 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on
multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Bellevue, Washington,
USA, 4–6 September 1996, pp.
295–305. Reston, Virginia:
AIAA.
HouWBShanCLZhangHZ. Multi-level optimization method for vehicle body in
conceptual design. In: ASME 2015 international design
engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering
conference, Vol 3, 17th international conference on advanced vehicle technologies; 12th
international conference on design education; 8th frontiers in biomedical
devices, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2–5
August 2015, paper DETC2015-48034. New York:
ASME.
46.
ZuoWJ. Bi-level optimization for the cross-sectional shape of a
thin-walled car body frame with static stiffness and dynamic frequency stiffness
constraints. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automoblie
Engineering2015; 229(8):
1046–1059.
47.
RoebuckRLOdhamsAMCCebonD. An automatically reconfigurable software-based safety
system for rear-steering multi-unit vehicles. Proc IMechE Part
D: J Automoblie Engineering2015; 229(2):
143–162.
