No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
TRACING THE EMERGENCE OF DESIGN PROBLEMS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON THE COMPLEXITY OF ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2021
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The design of ITER, a large-scale nuclear fusion reactor, is intertwined with profound research and development efforts. Tough problems call for novel solutions, but the low maturity of those solutions can lead to unexpected problems. If designers keep solving such emergent problems in iterative design cycles, the complexity of the resulting design is bound to increase. Instead, we want to show designers the sources of emergent design problems, so they may be dealt with more effectively. We propose to model the interplay between multiple problems and solutions in a problem network. Each problem and solution is then connected to a dynamically changing engineering model, a graph of physical components. By analysing the problem network and the engineering model, we can (1) derive which problem has emerged from which solution and (2) compute the contribution of each design effort to the complexity of the evolving engineering model. The method is demonstrated for a sequence of problems and solutions that characterized the early design stage of an optical subsystem of ITER.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Burge, S. 2006. Function Means Analysis (FMA): Alias Morphological Analysis. In: The Systems Engineering Tool Box.Google Scholar
Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., & Bodner, G. M. 2012. What Does it Mean to Design? A Qualitative Investigation of Design Professionals’ Experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. 2012. Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications. 1 edn. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, R., Zhai, Y., Johnson, D., Zolfaghari, A., Wood, R., Reichle, R., DeBok, M., Graves, V., Klepper, C., Biewer, T., Rowan, B., & Phillips, P. 2015. Engineering challenges for ITER diagnostic systems. Pages 1–7 of: 2015 IEEE 26th Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE). Austin, TX, USA: IEEE.Google Scholar
Forsberg, K., Mooz, H., & Cotterman, H. 2005. Visualizing Project Management. 3 edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Giota, P., Alex, D., Caroline, V., & Malcolm, R. 2017. System Architectures Assessment Based On Network Metrics. 11.Google Scholar
Høyland, K., & Wallace, S. 2001. Generating Scenario Trees for Multistage Decision Problems. Management Science, 47(2), 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. 2006. Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litnovsky, A., Voitsenya, V.S., Reichle, R., Walsh, M., Razdobarin, A., Dmitriev, A., Babinov, N., Marot, L., Moser, L., Yan, R., Rubel, M., Widdowson, A., Moon, S., Oh, S.G., An, Y., Shigin, P., Orlovskiy, I., Vukolov, K.Yu., Andreenko, E., Krimmer, A., Kotov, V., Mertens, Ph., & Specialists Working Group on First Mirrors of the ITPA Topical Group on Diagnostics. 2019. Diagnostic mirrors for ITER: research in the frame of International Tokamak Physics Activity. Nuclear Fusion, 59(6), 066029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. 2007. Engineering design: a systematic approach. 3 edn. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raja, V., Kokkolaras, M., & Isaksson, O. 2019. A simulation-assisted complexity metric for design optimization of integrated architecture aero-engine structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 60(1), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, T. W., Rosen, D., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. 1998. Metrics for Assessing Design Freedom and Information Certainty in the Early Stages of Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(4), 628–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, K., & de Weck, O. L. 2013. A network-based structural complexity metric for engineered complex systems. Pages 426–430 of: 2013 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon). Orlando, FL: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, J. D., & Shah, J. J. 2010. Mechanical Engineering Design Complexity Metrics: Size, Coupling, and Solvability. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(2), 021004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ushakov, A., Verlaan, A., Stephan, U., Steinke, O., de Bock, M., Maniscalco, M. P., & Verhoeff, P. 2020. ITER visible spectroscopy reference system first mirror plasma cleaning in radio-frequency gas discharge – circuit design and plasma effects. Fusion Engineering and Design, 154(May), 111546.Google Scholar
Wilschut, T., Etman, L. F. P., Rooda, J. E., & Vogel, J. A. 2017. Multi-level function specification and architecture analysis using ESL: A lock renovation pilot study. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access