MITESD 33SUM10 Lec06

ESD.
33 Systems Engineering
Lecture 6
Requirements Driven Systems
Design
Qi Van Eikema Hommes
Course Layout
Lecture 4 ✔
Stakeholder Analysis and Lecture 2 ✔ Lecture 13
Design VerificaKon
Requirements DefiniKon Systems Engineering and
As Human AcKvity ValidaKon, Lifecycle
Management
Lecture 5 innovaKon in
✔
Systems Engineering
Lecture 6 AxiomaKc
Design and DM‐DSM
Method
Lecture 7 CPM and DFSS
Lecture 8
Trade Space ExploraKon
Concept SelecKon
Lecture 10: Experiments
Lecture 11: Robust Design I
Lecture 12: Robust Design II
6/24/10 Qi Van Eikema Hommes 2
Lecture Outline
  IntroducKon to AxiomaKc Design
  Four domains
  Axiom 1—Independence Axiom
  Design Matrix
  Zigzagging
  Constraints
  Axiom 2—InformaKon Axiom
  Design Structure Matrix for Technical
Systems
  DM—DSM Method
6/24/10 3
The Founder of AxiomaKc Design Theory
• Nam Pyo Suh—MIT Professor Emeritus.
• B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1959, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1961, MIT
.
• Ph.D, Mechanical Engineering, 1964, Carnegie Mellon University.
• From 1965‐1969, Suh served as a professor at the University of South Carolina. In 1970
he began his professional career at MIT‐‐ serving as director of the MIT‐Industry
Polymer Processing Program from 1973‐1984; director of the Laboratory for
Manufacturing and ProducKvity from 1977‐1984; and Mechanical Engineering
Department Head from 1991 to 2001. Although sKll keeping the Ktle of Ralph E.
Cross Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, Suh is now president of KAIST.
6/24/10 4
The Goals of AxiomaKc Design
•  Establish a scienGfic basis for design
•  Improve design acKviKes by providing the
designer with a theoreKcal foundaKon based on
logical and raGonal thought processes and tools.
•  Make human designers more creaGve
•  Reduce the random search process
•  Minimize the iteraKve trial and error process
•  Determine the best designs among those
proposed
Suh, Axiomatic Design, 2000, page 5
6/24/10 5

• an interplay between what we want
achieve and how we will achieve it.
What
6/24/10
Qi Van Eikema Hommes 5
The Four Domains of Design
Mapping Mapping Mapping
{CAs} {FRs} {DPs} {PVs}
Customer domain Functional domain Physical domain Process domain
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
6/24/10 7
DefiniKons
•  Customer AOribute (CA)—what customer desire
from a product
•  FuncGonal Requirement (FR)—minimum set of
independent requirements that completely
characterize the funcKonal needs of the product in
the funcKonal domain.
•  Design Parameter (DP)—Key physical variables in the
physical domain that characterize the design that
saKsfies the specified FRs.
•  Process Variables (PV)—key variables in the process
domain that characterize the process that can
generate the specified DPs.
6/24/10 8
Benefits of the Domains
•  Customer Needs are stated in the customer’s
language
•  FuncKonal Requirements and Constraints are
determined to saKsfy Customer Needs
•  “The FRs must be determined in a soluKon neutral
environment” (or, in other words, say “what” not
“how”)
–  BAD = the adhesive should not peel
–  BETTER = the amachment should hold under the
following loading condiKons
•  Provide Requirements Traceability
6/24/10 9
Lecture Outline
  Four domains
  Design Matrix
  Zigzagging
Systems
6/24/10 10
Axiom
•  Axioms are truths that cannot be derived but
for which there are no counter examples or
excepKons.
•  Examples of Axioms:
–  First and second law of thermodynamics
–  Newton’s three law of mechanics
6/24/10 11
How were the Design Axioms
Created?
•  IdenKfying the common elements that are
present in all good designs:
–  How did I make such a big improvement in a
process?
–  How did I create the process?
–  What are the common elements in good designs?
•  Use logical reasoning process to reduce the
observaKons to two Axioms.
6/24/10 12
The Two Axioms
•  Axiom 1: Independence Axiom—maintain the
independence of funcKonal requirements
(FRs).
•  Axiom 2: The InformaGon Axiom—minimize
the informaKon content of the design.
6/24/10 13

Mapping Mapping Mapping
{CAs} {FRs} {DPs} {PVs}

Customer domain Functional domain Physical domain Process domain

Design Matrix
{FR} = [A] {DP}
 FR1   A11 A12 A13   DP1 

     
 FR2  =  A21 A22 A23  •  DP2 
 FR   A A32 
A33   DP3 
 3   31
6/24/10 15
Design Matrix Example
•  FR1 = Provide access to the items
stored in the refrigerator
•  FR2 = Minimize energy loss
•  DP1 = VerKcally hung door
•  DP2 = Thermal insulaKon material in
the door
 FR1  x 0  DP1 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
 =  
 FR2  x x  DP2
Suh, Axiomatic Design, 2000
6/24/10 16
A Different Design
•  FR1 = Provide access to the items
stored in the refrigerator
•  FR2 = Minimize energy loss
•  DP1 = Horizontal door
•  DP2 = Thermal insulaKon material
in the door
 FR1  x 0  DP1
 =  
 FR2  0 x  DP2 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
6/24/10 17

FR DP
Uncoupled
A11 0 0 1 1

Design 0 A22 0 2 2
0 0 A33 3 3
Decoupled A11 0 0 1 1
2 2
Design A21 A22 0
3 3
A31 A32 A33
1 1
Coupled A11 A12 A13

Design A21 A22 A23 2 2
A31 A32 A33 3 3
6/24/10 18
Axiom 1: Independence Axiom
•  To saKsfy the Independence Axiom, the design
matrix must be either diagonal or triangular.
A11 0 0  A11 0 0
   
0 A22 0 A21 A22 0
 0 0 A33  A31 A32 A33 
Uncoupled Decoupled
Design Design
€ €
6/24/10 19
Water Faucet Example
•  FuncKonal Requirements:
–  FR1: Adjust the water temperature (T)
–  FR2: Adjust the water volume (Q)
6/24/10 20
What is the Design Matrix?

6/24/10 21

6/24/10 22
6/24/10 23
FuncKonal Coupling vs Physical
Coupling
# of parts ≠ # of DPs
6/24/10 24
Why MeeKng Axiom 1 is
Desirable?
6/24/10 25
Lecture Outline
  Four domains
  Design Matrix
  Zigzagging
  Constraints
Systems
6/24/10 26
Zig Zagging
Functional domain Physical domain
FR DP
FR1 FR2 DP1 DP2
FR11 FR12 DP11 DP12
FR121 FR122 FR123 DP121 DP122 DP123
FR1231 FR1232 DP1231 DP1232
6/24/10 27
Refrigerator Design Example
•  FR1 = Freeze food for long‐term
preservaKon
•  FR2 = Maintain food at cold temp for
short‐term preservaKon
•  DP1 = the freezer secKon
•  DP2 = the chiller (refrigerator) secKon
 FR1  x 0  DP1 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
 =  
 FR2  0 x  DP2
6/24/10 28
Decompose the System
FR1 = Freeze food for long term preservaKon
FR11 = Control freezer temp
FR12 = Maintain uniform freezer temp
FR13 = Control freezer humidity
FR2 = Maintain food at cold temp for short term preservaKon
FR21 = Control chiller temp
FR22 = Maintain uniform chiller temp
DP1 = The freezer secKon
DP11 = Sensor/compressor system for freezer secKon
DP12 = Air circulaKon system for freezer secKon
DP13 = Condenser that condenses the moisture in the air when dew
point is exceeded
DP1 = The chiller secKon
DP21 = Sensor/compressor for chiller secKon
DP22 = Air circulaKon system for chiller secKon
6/24/10 29
What Does The Design Matrix Look Like?

Freezer fan Fridge fan
Two cooling fan type
Capillary F-Fan
tube Freezing room
Cold air
Condenser Evaporator Cold air flow
R-Fan Refrigerating
room
Compressor
New Cooling System Refrigerator
A schematic drawing of a new refrigerator design. A cold-air circulation system with many vents.
Qi Van Eikema Hommes Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

30
6/24/10

DP1 DP2
DP12 DP11 DP13 DP22 DP21
FR12 0 0 0 0
FR1 0
FR11 0 0
FR13 0 0 0
FR2 FR22 0 0 0 0
FR21 0 0 0
6/24/10
Can We Save the Cost of a Fan?
Freezer and fridge fan

One cooling fan type
Capillary
tube Fan Freezing room
Cold air
Evaporator
Condenser Cold air flow
Damper
Refrigerating
room
Compressor
Conventional Refrigerator
Schematic drawing of a conventional refrigerator. Cold-air circulation in a conventional
refrigerator..
6/24/10
32
DP1 DP2
DP12 DP11 DP13 DP22 DP21
FR1 FR12 x 0 0 0
X 0
FR11 x x 0 0
X 0
FR13 x 0 x 0 0
FR2 FR22 0 0 0 x 0
FR21 0
X 0
X 0 x x
Coupled design!
6/24/10 33
Benefits So Far from Axiom 1
•  Reduce system coupling early on.
•  Start the design with requirements first.
•  Think about the design concept first before
applying robust engineering or opKmizaKon
blindly.
•  Zig‐zagging instead of staying in one domain.
•  Requirements traceability and raKonale.
6/24/10 34
Class Discussions
•  How does Zig‐zagging help design synthesis?
•  How does your organizaKon decompose
systems and requirements?
•  Does this help with requirements traceability
throughout the design?
•  How does AxiomaKc Design differ from QFD?
6/24/10 35
Lecture Outline
  Four domains
  Zigzagging
  Constraints
Systems
6/24/10 36
Constraints in AxiomaKc Design
•  Constrant (C)—are bounds on acceptable
soluKons. Input constraints are imposed as
part of the design specificaKon. System
constraints are constraints imposed by the
system in which the design soluKon must
funcKon.
6/24/10 37
Constraints
•  Two types of constraints:
–  Input constraints—specific to the overall design
goals (all design proposed must saKsfy these).
•  Example: cost
–  System constraints—specific to a given design
(they are the result of design decisions made).
•  Example: Diesel engine tailpipe emission standards
for diesel engines
•  What kind of constraint is Safety?
6/24/10 38
What AxiomaKc Design Says about
Constraints
•  “Constraints provide bounds on the
acceptable design soluKons and differ from
the FRs in that they do not have to be
independent.”
6/24/10 39
Lecture Outline
  Four domains
  Axiom 1—Independence Axiom
  Zigzagging
Systems
6/24/10 40
InformaKon Content
•  InformaKon Content Ii for a given FRi is defined in
terms of the probability Pi of saKsfying FRi:
Ii = log2(1/Pi)=‐ log2(Pi) Probability density
Target
•  When there are m FRs, Bias
Design range System pdf
m
Isys = −log 2 (Pm ) = −∑ log 2 Pi Area within
common
i=1 Pi range (Acr)
System range FR
€ 6/24/10 41
Axiom 2 InformaKon Content
•  The InformaKon Axiom—Minimize
informaKon content I.
•  Maximize the probability of meeKng FRs.
m
Isys = −log 2 (Pm ) = −∑ log 2 Pi
i=1
6/24/10 42
Example of Buying a House
Suh, AxiomaKc Design, 2001
•  FR1: Commute Kme 15 – 30 minutes
•  FR2: Quality of School (65% or more highschool graduates go
to colleges)
•  FR3: Quality of air is good over 340 days a year
•  FR4: price of house (4 BR, 3000 x^2, less than 650K)
Town FR1 = FR2=Quality FR3=Quality FR4=Price($)
commute of schools (%) of air (days)
Kme (min)
A 20‐40 50‐70 300‐320 450‐550k
B 20‐30 50‐75 340‐350 450‐650k
C 25‐45 50‐80 350+ 600‐800k

43
6/24/10
InformaKon Content CalculaKon Suh, AximaKc Design, 2001
Town I1 [bits] I2 [bits] I3 [bits] I4 [bits] Sum (I)

[bits]
A 1.0 2 infinite 0 Infinite
B 0 1.32 0 0 1.32
C 2.0 1.0 0 2 5
Design Range
System Range
15 20 30 40
I1 = -log2[(30-20) / (40-20)] = -log2(0.5) = 1

6/24/10 44
Axiom 2 and Robust Design
•  “The InformaKon Axiom provides a theoreKcal
foundaKon for robust design.”
–  EliminaKon of bias
–  ReducKon of Variance
•  Reduce sensiKvity to variaKon
•  MeeKng the Independence Axiom
•  Minimize random variaKon
•  Increase design range
–  Integrate DP in a single physical part
6/24/10 45
Comparison of AxiomaKc Design
with Other Methods (Suh, 2001)
•  Robust design cannot be accomplished by
applying the Taguchi method if the design
violates the Independence Axiom.
•  OpKmizaKon of a bad design may lead to an
opKmized bad design or minor improvements.
•  How is AxiomaKc Design similar/different from
QFD?
6/24/10 46
QuesKons about the Axioms
•  Too good to be true? What about constraints?
•  Are interacKons so bad? That’s what makes a
system great!
–  DefiniKon of System‐‐A combinaKon of interacKng
elements organized to achieve one more stated
purposes.
6/24/10 47
Lecture Outline
  IntroducKon to AxiomaKc Design
  Four domains
  Zigzagging
  Constraints
  Axiom 2—InformaKon Axiom
Systems
6/24/10 48
Matrix Representation of a Network
--The Design Structure Matrix (DSM)
DSM is the adjacency matrix of a network graph
Above Diagonal Marks ___ downstream

A B C D E F G H I J K
task feeds information
A 1 1 to upstream tasks.
B 1 Potential rework.
C 1 1 1 K provides inputs to A
D
K
E 1 F J
F 1 1
G 1 1 H
A
H
B
I 1 1 1 1 G E
J
K 1 1 C D
Below Diagonal Marks ___ upstream

task feeds information I
to downstream tasks

49
ParKKoning a DSM
Before Partition After Partition
A B C D E F G H I J K J H D F E G C I B K A
A A x x J J
B B x H H Level 1
C C x x x D D
D D F x x F
E E x E E x
F F x x G x G x
G x x G C x x C x Level 2
H H I x x x x I
I x x x x I B x B
J J K x x K Level 3
K x x K A x x A Level 4
K
F J H D
J Level 1
E
A H
F I C
B
B
E G Level 2
C D
G Level 3
K
I A Level 4
Partitioning identifies truly coupled elements.

6/24/10 50
Car Door System Design
Moveable Glass System Header seals Halo (sections) Halo corner
5
10 B pillar
Glass runs
3 2 Glass
A
A pillar 9 Belt seals joint with glass
1 Belt seals
Mirror sail Regulator arms
6 Below belt retainer
Sheet Metal
Access hole
7
8 Equalizer channel
Motor
Electrical System
6/24/10 51
Car Door System Engineering Process (Before
ParKKoning DSM)
Sheet Metal
Subsystem
50+ people system

Moveable Glass interface engineering
Subsystem
meetings
Electrical
Subsystem
6/24/10 52
Car Door System Engineering Process
(Axer ParKKoning)
Belt and Above Belt Frame
Glass and Track
Power and Motion
Electrical Packaging
6/24/10 53
The Control Soxware System
•  1 production-level software
•  117 software modules (red dots)
•  1423 binary interactions (black lines)
•  39 such production
software releases
per year
•  <2 weeks
per release
•  What can I do about this web of interacKons?
•  How can I convince management that changes are needed?
•  How do I know I actually improved the architecture?
4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 54

DSM of the Control System Soxware
•  What can I do about this web of interactions?

•  How do I know I actually improved the architecture?

Comparison of Various Modularity Metrics
Use Whitney Index and Use network centrality

Change Cost to measure indices to identify system
modularity improvements. elements for improvement.
DETC2008-DTM-49140
Whitney Index Comparison
Embedded Software
System B
Embedded
Software
System A

Change Cost Comparison
Observation: Embedded control software
systems are more like hardware systems,
less like pure software products.

Network Centrality—Degree Centrality
(Sosa, Eppinger, Rowles 2007, Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman, 2002, UCINET)
Freeman
Freeman Freeman
Freeman Freeman
Freeman Freeman
Freeman
Centrality Centrality Centrality Centrality
Matrix 4 Centrality
inindegree
Centrality
out
Centrality Centrality
degree outdegree
degree Overall
Overallinin Overall
Overallout
out
In degree—how many others pass AA
AA BB CC
11 11 11
DD EE FF GG HH
11 33 33
BB 11 11 11 11 33 33
information to the element of CC 11 11 11 11 33 33
DD 11 11 11 11 33 33 0% 0%
interest. EE 11 11 11 11 33 33
0% 0%
FF 11 11 11 11 33 33
Out degree—how many others GG 11 11 11 11 33 33
HH 11 11 11 11 33 33
depend on the element of interest Matrix 5
for information. AA
AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 71 71
BB 11 11 11 11
CC 11 11 11 11
Degree Centrality identifies which DD

EE 11
11 11
11
11
11
11
11
85.70%
85.70% 85.70%
85.70%
few elements, if any, in the system FF 11

GG 1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
have a central effect on the rest of HH 11 11 11 11
the systems. AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH
AA 11 11 11 22 22
BB 11 11 11 22 22
CC 11 11 11 22 22
However, the metrics values don’t DD 11 11 11 22 22 0%
0% 0%
0%
EE 11 11 11 22 22
correlate well with components FF 11 11 11 22 22
GG 11 11 11 22 22
modularity. HH 11 11 11 22 22
Matrix 8

Network Centrality
(Sosa, Eppinger, Rowles 2007, Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman, 2002, UCINET)
•  Network centrality metrics can idenKfy the few
elements that have the largest impact on the
system.
•  If the network has central players, the network
may be bus‐modular.
•  If the network does not have central player, the
network system is either not connected, or highly
integral.
•  Central players can be the priority for system
complexity reducKon strategy.
DSM Method
•  Capture system interacKons
•  Analyze and improve system architecture and
system interfaces.
6/24/10 61
Lecture Outline
  Four domains
  Zigzagging
  Constraints
  Design Structure Matrix for Technical
Systems
6/24/10 62
ExisKng Methods Concerning System
InteracKons
Design Axiomatic Requireme What
Structu Design’s nts We
re Design Manageme Want
Matrix Matrix nt
(DSM) (DM)
Provide analytical Yes Yes
system analysis
Allow iterations and Yes Yes
feedback loops
Relate the Yes Yes
requirements to the
system design
Can be applied in the Yes Yes Yes
early design phases
Provide complete Yes Yes
understanding of all
requirements
6/24/10
Solving System of Linear EquaKons
Question: 3 * x1 + 5 * x2 = 6 (1)
2 * x1 - x2 = 4 (2)
What is x1 and x2?
Solving by substitution:
Select x1 as the output variable in (1):
x1 = (6 – 5 * x2 ) / 3
Select x2 as the output variable in (2):
x2 = 2 * x1 – 4 = 2 * (6-5*x2)/3 - 4
x1=2 x2=0
6/24/10 64
ConverKng a DM into a DSM
DP1 DP2 DP3
1.  Construct an Axiomatic
FR1 X 0 X
Design’s Design Matrix.
FR2 X X 0
FR3 0 X X
2.  Select Output Variables.
DP3 = f (FR1, DP1) DP1 DP2 DP3
DP1 = f (FR2, DP2)
DP2 = f (FR3, DP3) FR1 X 0 X
FR2 X X 0
FR3 0 X X
3.  Permute the matrix by row
so that the output variables DP1 DP2 DP3
are on the diagonal. We
get a precedence matrix DP1 X X 0
(DSM) of the Design DP2 0 X X
Parameters. DP3 X 0 X
6/24/10 65
SelecKng Output Variables
DP2 DP3
DP4
DP2 DP3
DP4
6/24/10 66
CVC Cluster Machines
Central
Wafer
Handler
Wafer
Processing
Module
6/24/10 67
Courtesy of KDF electronics. Used with permission.
CVC Electro‐staKc Chuck (ESC)
Process Chamber
Wafer
Backside gas channel
Electro-statically charged
plate
Cooling Plate ESC

Plate for interface with
various process
modules
Standard interface on all

process modules
Backside Gas,
Cooling Water,
Electricity
6/24/10 68
System View of ESC
Wafer Processing
Cluster Machine
Process Process
Module Module 3
2 ESC Wafer ESC
Transport
Robot
Process Process
Module Module
ESC 4 ESC
Control
and
Logistics
6/24/10 69
Design Structure Matrix Built from
Design Matrix
Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer
Package the ESC into the
Packaging
Existing Processinto the
Modules
Modules
Control
ControlCircuit
Circuit
Design
6/24/10 70
The SelecKon of Output Variables
Choosing non-diagonal elements in

the DM as output variable set is like
designing components not for their
main functional purposes, but for their
side effects. The resulting DSM is a
non-executable design process.
6/24/10 71
The SelecKon of Output Variables
DP1 DP2 DP1 DP2

FR1 0.75 0.2 FR1 0.75 0.2
FR2 0.2 0.9 FR2 0.2 0.9
Δ DP1 = 1/0.75 * ! FR1 - 0.2/0.75* Δ DP2 Δ DP1 = 1/0.2 * ! FR1 Ð 0.75/0.2*
Δ DP2 = 1/0.9 * ! FR2 - 0.2/0.9 * Δ DP1 Δ DP2
Δ DP2 = 1/0.2 * ! FR2 - 0.9/0.2* Δ DP1
Δ DP1 Δ DP2 Δ DP1 Δ DP2

Δ DP1 0 0.2/0.75 Δ DP1 0 0.75/0.2
Δ DP2 0.2/0.9 0 Δ DP2 0.9/0.2 0
Eigen Value = 0.243 Eigen Value = 4.1

This process converges. This process does NOT converge.
6/24/10
The Interchangeability of DM and DSM
DM
DSM
The diagonal elements in the DM are the

dominant elements in their corresponding
rows. Qi Van Eikema Hommes
6/24/10 73
Johnson and Johnson Ortho‐Clinical
DiagnosKcs OASIS Analyzer
Image of Vitros 5.1 cluster removed due to copyright restrictions.
6/24/10 74
OASIS Major Subsystems
Primary Slide
Sample Aliquot Sample
Incubator Integrity
Frame and Metering Buffer Cuvette
(SLIN) (SAIN)
Cabinetry (SRME) (ALBU) Incubator
(STRU) (CUIN)
Secondary
Sample Sample
Handling Metering
(SAHA) (SRME)
Reagent
Supply
Power
(RGSU)
Distributio
n (POWR)
Machine Control
(MACO) Slide
Vitros Tips
Application Supply Photometer Microtip
(PHMT) Loader
Services (APPS) (SLSU) Loading (VTLD)
(MTLD)
6/24/10 75
Case Study ObjecKves
1.  Build a DSM from requirements using the DM‐
DSM conversion method;
2.  Compare the resulKng DSM with the DSM
experts built using tradiKonal DSM construcKon
method.
3.  Understand which types of requirements can be
used to predict system interacKons. Judge
whether the predicKon DSM is complete.
4.  Aid the system integraKon manager’s work on
planning and managing OASIS subsystem
interfaces.
6/24/10 76
DSM Constructed from Requirements
6/24/10 77
Compare Requirements DSM with Expert DSM
System Interactions Predicted by DSM from requirements.

System Interactions Predicted by JNJ engineers.
System Interactions Predicted by both the requirements and JNJ engineers.
6/24/10 78
How Many Marks Match
The experts did not The requirements
capture 75 interfaces prediction DSM
predicted by the missed 118
requirements. interactions captured
by the experts.
There are 54 marks captured by

both the experts DSM and the
DSM from requirements.
6/24/10 79
Analyzing the Unmatched Marks
6/24/10 80
The Achievable PotenKal
JNJ experts miss DSM from
6 marks. requirements misses
215 26 marks.
Providing:
•  JNJ engineers involve soxware engineers in the
DSM building exercise
•  Chemists write assay requirements
•  JNJ updates the trace‐ability between product
level requirements and subsystem level
requirements
6/24/10 81
LimitaKon of the Method
Requirements DM DSM
Can all requirements be decomposed to

predict system interactions?
6/24/10 82
Requirements DecomposiKon

Can predict system Cannot predict
interactions system interactions
Can be decomposed Functional, None

in the same way as Maintainability,
Operational,
the FR’s in the Environment
Axiomatic Design Expandability,
Appearance
Can be decomposed Reliability (budgeting)
but not in the same Performance
(Modeling) Size (budgeting)
way as
decomposing the Packaging (DFC, DSM) Weight (budgeting)
FR’s in the Design Constraints Cost (budgeting)
Axiomatic Design (DSM)
None Installation
Difficult to Standards
decompose Safety
DFMAS
Component Reuse
Operability
Shipping
Disposal
No strong evidence
Distribution
in this case study
Training
Budget and Timing
Patents
6/24/10 83
Comparison of the Three Methods
AxiomaKc Design DSM DM - DSM
Matrix (DM) J
H
J
J
H D F
H
E G C I B K A
Reduce the amount of

coupling through
D D
F x x F
E E x
X X G
C x
x G
x
x
C x
good design.
X X X I
B
x x
x
x x I
B Manage the inevitable
K K
coupling when a
x x
A x x A
Uncoupled Decoupled Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. coupled design

Design Design
Accepts coupling and makes more
Avoids coupling by manage it by business sense.
smart engineering streamlining the DSM shows the
design. process, or bottleneck in systems
modularizing the and ultimately drive
system architecture. people toward
Axiomatic Design
preferred results.
6/24/10 84
Summary of DM‐DSM Method
•  We can get a DSM from a DM
•  The diagonal elements are the output
variables in matrix conversion
•  Not all system interacKons can be predicted
from DM
•  Coupled design can be managed and
improved using DSM.
•  Do think about reducing system coupling by
exploring alternaKve design concepts first.
6/24/10 85
Lecture Summary
  Four domains
  Zigzagging
  Design Structure Matrix for Technical
Systems
  DM—DSM Method
6/24/10 86
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
ESD.33 Systems Engineering

Summer 2010
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

MITESD 33SUM10 Lec06

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MITESD 33SUM10 Lec06

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ESD.

Mapping Mapping Mapping

{CAs} {FRs} {DPs} {PVs}

Customer domain Functional domain Physical domain Process domain

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Mapping Mapping Mapping

{CAs} {FRs} {DPs} {PVs}

      

Customer domain Functional domain Physical domain Process domain

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 FR1   A11 A12 A13   DP1 

 FR1  x 0  DP1 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

A31 A32 A33  3 3

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

FR1 FR2 DP1 DP2

FR11 FR12 DP11 DP12

FR121 FR122 FR123 DP121 DP122 DP123

FR1231 FR1232 DP1231 DP1232

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Condenser Evaporator Cold air flow

Qi Van Eikema Hommes Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Freezer and fridge fan

Design range System pdf

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

B 20‐30 50‐75 340‐350 450‐650k

C 25‐45 50‐80 350+ 600‐800k

Town I1 [bits] I2 [bits] I3 [bits] I4 [bits] Sum (I)

I1 = -log2[(30-20) / (40-20)] = -log2(0.5) = 1

Above Diagonal Marks ___ downstream

Below Diagonal Marks ___ upstream

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Partitioning identifies truly coupled elements.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

50+ people system

Belt and Above Belt Frame

Glass and Track

Power and Motion

4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 54

• What can I do about this web of interactions?

4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 55

Use Whitney Index and Use network centrality

4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 57

4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 58

Degree Centrality identifies which DD

few elements, if any, in the system FF 11

have a central effect on the rest of HH 11 11 11 11

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

4/8/2010 Copyright Qi D. Van Eikema Hommes 59

(DSM) of the Design DP2 0 X X

Cooling Plate ESC

Standard interface on all

Choosing non-diagonal elements in

DP1 DP2 DP1 DP2

Δ DP1 Δ DP2 Δ DP1 Δ DP2

Eigen Value = 0.243 Eigen Value = 4.1

The diagonal elements in the DM are the

Image of Vitros 5.1 cluster removed due to copyright restrictions.

System Interactions Predicted by DSM from requirements.

There are 54 marks captured by

A31 A32 A33 3 3

•  What can I do about this web of interactions?