On the treatment of requirements in DfAM: Three industrial use cases
Editor: Kevin Otto, Boris Eisenbart, Claudia Eckert, Benoit Eynard, Dieter Krause, Josef Oehmen, Nad
Author: Endress, Felix; Rieser, Jasper; Zimmermann, Markus
Institution: Laboratory for Product Development and Lightweight Design, TUM School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Section: Design Methods
DOI number: https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.282
Optimization-driven design offers advantages over traditional experience-based mechanical design. As an example, topology optimization can be a powerful tool to generate body shapes for Additive Manufacturing (AM). This is helpful, when (1) load paths are non-intuitive due to complex design domains or boundary conditions, or (2) the design process is to be automated to minimize effort associated with experience-based design. However, practically relevant boundary conditions are often difficult to put into a formal mathematical language to, for example, either feed it into a topology optimization algorithm, or provide precise quantitative criteria for CAE-supported manual design. This paper presents a survey of three industry use cases and identifies three types of requirements: the first can be directly cast into parts of an optimization problem statement (∼ 40%), the second is considered indirectly by adapting the optimization problem without explicit reference to the requirement (∼ 20%), and the third is only assessed after the design is finalized (∼ 40%). For categories 2 and 3 we propose directions of improvement to support formulating complex design tasks as unambiguous design problems.