This article is dedicated to the generation of sizing procedures used during the preliminary optimal design of physical parts of mechatronic systems. The knowledge necessary to such design is composed of two layers: mechatronic system layer and component layer. Such knowledge can be represented by algebraic equations directly or by the use of meta-modeling techniques. Constraint networks and graphs theory are used here to represent and order the constraints and the links between those algebraic models in order to obtain a well-posed optimization problem. The selected or developed algorithms are finally illustrated with typical problems of component selection.
AllainL (2003) Capitalisation et traitement des modèles pour la conception en génie électrique. PhD Thesis, INP Grenoble, Grenoble.
2.
AuslanderD (1996) What is mechatronics?IEEE: ASME Transactions on Mechatronics1(1): 5–9.
3.
BuckleyMJFertigKWSmithDE (1992) Design sheet: an environment for facilitating flexible trade studies during conceptual design. In: Aerospace design conference, Irvine, CA, 3–6 February.
4.
BudingerMLiscouetJMaréJ. (2012) Estimation models for the preliminary design of electromechanical actuators. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering226(3): 243–259.
5.
BudingerMPassieuxJ-CGoguC. (2014a) Scaling-law-based metamodels for the sizing of mechatronic systems. Mechatronics. Epub ahead of print 7October. DOI: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.11.012.
6.
BudingerMReyssetAEl HalabiT. (2014b) Optimal preliminary design of electromechanical actuators. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering228(9): 1599–1616.
7.
CellierFGreifenederJ (1991) Continuous System Modeling. New York: Springer.
8.
DuffIWibergT (1988) Remarks on implementations of O(n1/2τ) assignment algorithms. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software14(3): 267–287.
9.
FriedmanGLeondesC (1969) Constraint theory, part I: fundamentals. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics5(1): 48–56.
10.
GelleEFaltingsB (2003) Solving Mixed and Conditional Constraint Satisfaction Problems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 107–141.
11.
HehenbergerPPoltschakFZemanK. (2010) Hierarchical design models in the mechatronic product development process of synchronous machines. Mechatronics20: 864–875.
12.
HelaryJ (2004) Algorithmique des graphes. Rennes: Rennes University Publication.
13.
Liscouet-HankeSHuynhK (2013) A methodology for systems integration in aircraft conceptual design—estimation of required space. SAE technical paper 2013-01-2235.
14.
MalakRJTuckerLParedisC (2009) Compositional modelling of fluid power systems using predictive tradeoff models. International Journal of Fluid Power10(2): 45–56.
PothenAFanC (1990) Computing the block triangular form of a sparse matrix. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software16(4): 303–324.
17.
QiangCGuojungZXinyuS (2012) A product module identification approach based on axiomatic design and design structure matrix. Concurrent Engineering20: 185–194.
18.
ReddySFertigKSmithD (1996) Constraint management methodology for conceptual design tradeoff studies. Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference. August 18–22, Irvine California, ASME publisher.
SerranoD (1987) Constraint management in conceptual design. PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
21.
ShekarBVenkataramRSatishB (2011) Managing complexity in aircraft design using design structure matrix. Concurrent Engineering19: 283–294.
22.
Van der AuweraerHAnthonisJDe BruyneS. (2013) Virtual engineering at work: the challenges for designing mechatronic products. Engineering with Computers29: 389–408.
