In this paper, a systematic approach to the design of industrial evaporator platforms is presented. Two popular design methodologies, the robust design and the compromise decision support problem (Compromise-DSP) procedures, are integrated into one unique design system. Design variables are first identified and then categorized into two groups: common platform parameters and non-platform variables. Multiple objectives are formed to evaluate the evaporator platform, including minimization of cost, maximization of fin efficiency, and minimization of the deviation. The methodology is demonstrated with a real industrial case in which a family of evaporators are to be designed.
MistreeF.HughesO.BrasB., ‘The compromise decision support problem and the adaptive linear programming algorithm’ In Proceedings of Structural optimization: Status and promise, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 247–286.
8.
SeepersadC.MistreeF.AllenJ., ‘A quantitative approach for designing multiple product platforms for an evolving portfolio of products’ In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Conferences, Montreal, Canada, 2002, pp. 579–592.
9.
SeepersadC.MistreeF.AllenJ., ‘Designing evolving families of products using the utility-based compromise decision support problem’Int. J. Mass Customization1 (1) (2005): 37–64.
10.
StewartS. W.SheltonS. V., ‘Design study comparison of plain finned versus louvered finned-tube condenser heat exchangers’ In Proceedings of the ASME Summer Heat Transfer Conference, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 703–710.
11.
SopadangA.Rae ChoByungLeonardM., ‘Development of a scaling factor identification method using design of experiments for product family based product and process design’Quality Engng14 (2) (2002): 319–329.
12.
SopadangA.Rae ChoByungLeonardM., ‘Development of the hybrid weight assessment system for multiple quality attributes’Quality Engng15 (1) (2003): 75–89.
13.
NayakaR.ChenW.SimsonT., ‘A variation-based method for product family design’Engng Optimization34 (1) (2001): 65–81.
14.
MessacA.MartinezM.SimpsonT., ‘Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming’J. Mech. Des.124 (2) (2002): 164–172.
15.
KokkolarasM.FelliniR.KimH.MichelenaN.PapalambrosP., ‘Extension of the target cascading formulation to the design of product families’Struct. Multidisciplinary Optimization24 (2002): 293–301.
16.
SimpsonT.SeepersadC.MistreeF., ‘Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family’Concurrent Engng Res. and Applic.9 (3) (2001): 177–190.
17.
SimpsonT., ‘Product platform design and optimization: Status and promise’ ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago, Illinois.
18.
SimpsonT., ‘Product platform design and customization: Status and promise’AI-EDAM Special Issue: Platform Prod. Dev. for Mass Customization18 (1) (2004): 3–20.
