Analysis of Axiomatic Design Influence on Aircraft Design Process

Document Type : Research Article

Author

Department of Aerospace, Malek-e-Ashtar University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Today, product design has experienced fundamental changes. Design criteria have changed from focusing on product performance to sustainable criteria. This has increased the contrast between traditional and new requirements and consequently increases the design complexity. In this regard, traditional methods are incapable of solving the problems of product design. Therefore, many efforts have been made to solve these challenges to improve the design process. As a result of these efforts, various design methodologies such as multidisciplinary design optimization and knowledge-based engineering were developed. These approaches could support the evolutionary improvement of current product designs or the study of the novel complex product or could reduce the coupling between various FRs and design parameters (DPs). In this article, the authors discuss the effect of using the Axiomatic Design approach in the aircraft conceptual design process. The results obtained in this study indicate the high efficiency of this method in reducing the coupling between the FRs defined for the aircraft, as well as in reducing repetitive activities, thus optimizing the time and cost of the aircraft design process.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] W. Hsu and I. M. Woon, Current and Future Research in the Conceptual Design of Mechanical Products, Comput. Des., 30 (1998) 377-389.
[2] J. Sobieszczanski Sobieski, A. Morris, M. J. L. van Tooren, and W. Yao, Multidisciplinary design optimization supported by knowledge based engineering. John Wiley & Sons, (2015).
[3] A. Hosseinpour, Integration of Axiomatic Design with Quality Function Deployment for Sustainable Modular Design, M.S Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Manitoba, (2013).
[4] Nam.P.Suh, “Complexity in Engineering,” CIRP. - Manuf. Technol., 54(2) (2005) 46-63.
[5] A. Molina-Cristobal, M. Guenov, and A. Riaz, “Enabling Exploration in the Conceptual Design and Optimisation of Complex Systems,” J. Eng. Des., (2012).
[6] G. La Rocca, “Knowledge based engineering to support aircraft design and optimization,” (2011).
[7] G. La Rocca and M. Van Tooren, “Enabling distributed multi-disciplinary design of complex products: a knowledge based engineering approach,” J Des. Res., (2007).
[8] D. P. Raymer, “Enhancing aircraft conceptual design using multidisciplinary optimization (Doctoral dissertation, Institutionen för flygteknik).,” (2002).
[9] G. La Rocca and  van T. M.J.L., “Enabling distributed multidisciplinary design of complex products: a knowledge based engineering approach,” J. Des. Res., 5(3) (2007) 333–353.
[10] M. Fioriti, L. Boggero, P. S. Prakasha, A. Mirzoyan, B. Aigner, and K. Anisimov, “Multidisciplinary aircraft integration within a collaborative and distributed design framework using the AGILE paradigm,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 119 (2020) 100648.
[11] I. van Gent, B. Aigner, B. Beijer, J. Jepsen, and G. La Rocca, “Knowledge architecture supporting the next generation of MDO in the AGILE paradigm,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 119 (2022) 100642.
[12] A. Papageorgiou, M. Tarkian, K. Amadori, and J. Ölvander, “Multidisciplinary design optimization of aerial vehicles: A review of recent advancements,” Int. J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018 (2018).
[13] J. R. R. A. Martins and A. B. Lambe, “Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures,” AIAA J., 51(9) (2013) 2075-2013.
[14] K. Hölttä, E. S. Suh, and O. de Weck, “Tradeoff between Modularity and performance for engineered systems and products,” in Proceedings ICED 05, the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, (2005), 449–450.
[15] M. Ebrahimi, J. Jeddi, and J. Roshanian, Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 1st ed. K.N.Toosi University Press, (2019).
[16] W. Ganglin, “Key Parameters and Conceptual Configuration of Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Concept,” Chinese J. Aeronaut., 22 (2009) 393-400.
[17] E. Sepulveda, H. Smith, and D. Sziroczak, “Multidisciplinary analysis of subsonic stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicles,” CEAS Aeronaut. J., 18 (2018).
[18] T. J. M. Hendrich, “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization in the Conceptual Design Phase Creating a Conceptual Design of the Blended Wing-Body with the BLISS Optimization Strategy,” Delft University of Technology, (2011).
[19] E. J. Schut, “Conceptual Design Automation: Abstraction complexity reduction by feasilisation and knowledge engineering,” (2010).
[20] D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics(AIAA), (1992).
[21] D. Schrage, T. Beltracchi, L. Berke, A. Dodd, L. Niedling, and J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, “AIAA technical committee on multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) white paper on current state of the art,” online Multidiscip. Des. Optim. Tech. Comm. Website], URL http//endo. sandia. gov/AIAA_MDOTC/sponsored/aiaa_paper. html [cited 25 Oct. 2004], (1991).
[22] Wikipedia, “Northrop Grumman X-47B,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (2020).
[23] Jan Roskam, Airplane design Part I. DARcorporation, (1985).
[24] C. L. Barry and E. Zimet, “UCAVs—Technological, Policy, and Operational Challenges,” Report , Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University, (2001).
[25] E. Sepulveda1 and H. Smith, “Technology challenges of stealth Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles,” Aeronaut. J., 121 (2017) 1261-1295.
[26] H. Tianyuan and Y. Xiongqing, “Aerodynamic/Stealthy/Structural Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle,” Chinese J. Aeronaut., 22 (2009) 380-386.
[27] A. De Neve and C. Wasinski, “Looking Beyond the J-UCAS Technological Demonstrator Program’s Demise,” Def. Secur. Anal., (2011) 237–249.
[28] L. R. Gilbert III, M. Omar, and A. . Farid, “An integration QFD and Axiomatic design methodology for the for satisfaction of temporary housing stakeholders.,” 8th Int. Conf. Axiomat. Des., (2014).
[29] A. M. Farid and N. P. Suh, Axiomatic Design in Large Systems. Complex Products, Buildings and Manufacturing Systems. Springer, (2016).
[30] D. D. E. Tate, “A roadmap for decomposition: activities, theories, and tools for system design (Doctoral dissertation, MIT).,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (1999).
[31] E. F. Knott, J. F. Shaeffer, and M. T. Tuley, Radar Cross Section, Second. SciTech, (2004).
[32] R. L. A. de Jonge, “Development of a Knowledge-Based Engineering Application to Support Conceptual Fuselage Sizing and Cabin Configuration,” Delft University of Technology, (2017).
[33] M. D. Guenov and S. G. Barker, “Application of Axiomatic Design and Design Structure Matrix to the Decomposition of Engineering Systems,” Syst. Eng., 8(1) (2004) 29–40.
[34] Q. Dong and D. E. Whitney, “Designing a requirement driven product development process,” (2001).
[35] A. A. Yassine, “An Introduction to Modeling and Analyzing Complex Product Development Processes Using the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Method,” Urbana, 51(9) (2004) 1–17.
[36] J. Roskam, Airplane Design:Part II. Kansas: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, (1985).
[37] Northropgrumman, “www.northropgrumman.com,” (2020).
AUT Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Volume 8, Issue 3
2024
Pages 285-296

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics