16.810 (16.682) 16.810 (16.682) Engineering Design and Rapid Prototyping Lecture 1 Course Introduction Instructor(s) Prof. Olivier de Weck Dr. Il Yong Kim January 5, 2004 Happy New Year 2004 Mars Rovers MER-A “Spirit” Body Structure (Warm Electronics landed Sat 1/3 11:35pm ET Box WEB). Ref: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov We won’t be designing a Mars Rover this IAP, but ... You will learn about the design process and fundamental building blocks of any complex (aerospace) system 16.810 (16.682) 2 (Image is taken from NASA's Web site: http://www.nasa.gov.) Outline ? Organization of 16.810 ? Motivation, Learning Objectives, Activities ? (Re-) Introduction to Design ? Examples, Requirements, Design Processes (Waterfall vs. Spiral), Basic Steps ? “Design Challenge” - Team Assignment ? Int’l Bicycle Corp., Requirement Sheets, Product Team Assignments ? Facilities Tour 16.810 (16.682) 3 Organization of 16.810 (16.682) 16.810 (16.682) 4 Expectations ? 6 unit course (3-3-0) – 11 sessions ? MWF1-4, must attend all sessions or get permission of instructors to be absent ? This is for-credit, no formal “problem sets”, but expect a set of deliverables ? Have fun, but also take it seriously ? The course is a “prototype” itself and we are hoping for your feedback & contributions ? Officially register under 16.682 (Jan 2004) on WEBSIS 16.810 (16.682) 5 History of this Course December 2002 Undergraduate Survey in Aero/Astro Department. Students expressed wish for CAD/CAE/CAM experience. March 2003 Preliminary discussion among faculty and staff – O. de Weck, I.Y. Kim, D. Wallace, P. Young April 4, 2003 Submission of proposal to Teaching and Education Enhancement Program (“MIT Class Funds") April 22, 2003 Submission of the proposal to CMI (pending) May 6, 2003 Award Letter received from Dean for Undergraduate Education ($17.5k) June 5, 2003 Kickoff Meeting Sept 18, 2003 Approved by the AA undergraduate committee (6 units) Fall 2003 Preparation Jan 5, 2004 First Class 16.810 (16.682) 6 Needs – from students A 2001 survey of undergraduate students (Aero/Astro) – in conjunction with new Dept. head search - There is a perceived lack of understanding and training in modern design methods using state-of-the-art CAD/CAE/CAM technology and design optimization. - Individual students have suggested the addition of a short and intense course of rapid prototyping, combined with design optimization. 16.810 (16.682) 7 Needs – from industry Industry wants/needs (dWo interpretation) Engineers who - are trained in integrated design methods and tools - have personally carried out the design process from conception to implementation at least once. Engineers who have an initial understanding of: - importance of requirements - complementary roles of humans and computers in design - difficulties at the CAD/CAE/CAM domain interfaces - value of optimization - importance of trading off competing objectives - difference between predicted vs actual behavior of the artifacts they design 16.810 (16.682) 8 the SCIENTIST / MATHEMATICIANCIAN vs the ENGINEER CONFOUNDING FACTS ? Engineering requires thorough mathematical & scientific knowledge ? Engineers study science and math extensively ? Engineers may conduct scientific experiments while doing Engineering ? Scientists use engineering methods ? Some great engineers trained as scientists & mathematicians ? Some great scientists trained as engineers ? All require intensity, passion, creativity & intellectual effort BUT, THEY ARE DISTINCT “The scientist seeks to understand what is; the engineer seeks to create what never was” -Von Karman Courtesy of Prof. Chris Magee. Used with permission. 16.810 (16.682) 9 An engineer should be able to ... ? Determine quickly how things work ? Determine what customers want ? Create a concept ? Use abstractions/math models to improve a concept ? Build or create a prototypeprototy version ? Quantitatively and robustly test a prototype to improve concept and to predict ? Determine whether customer value and enterprise value are aligned (business sense) ? Communicate all of the above to various audiences ? Much of this requires “domain-specific knowledge” and experience ? Several require systems thinking and statistical thinking ? All require teamwork, leadership, and societal awareness Courtesy of Prof. Chris Magee. Used with permission. 16.810 (16.682) 10 Boeing List of “Desired Attributes of an Engineer” ? A good understanding of ? Good communication skills engineering science ? Written fundamentals ? Oral ? Graphic ? Mathematics (including statistics) ? Listening ? Physical and life sciences ? Information technology (far more than ? High ethical standards “computer literacy”) ? An ability to think both critically ? A good understanding of design and creatively - independently and manufacturing processes (i.e. and cooperatively understands engineering) ? Flexibility. The ability and self- ? A multi-disciplinary, systems confidence to adapt to rapid or perspective major change ? A basic understanding of the ? Curiosity and a desire to learn for context in which engineering is life practiced ? A profound understanding of the ? Economics (including business importance of teamwork. practice) ? History ? The environment ? Customer and societal needs 16.810 (16.682) ? This is a list, begun in 1994, of basic durable attributes into which can be mapped specific skills reflecting the diversity of the overall engineering environment in which we in professional practice operate. ? This current version of the list can be viewed on the Boeing web site as a basic message to those seeking advice from the company on the topic. Its contents are also included for the most part in ABET EC 2000. 11 Leads to Course Objective Develop a holistic view and initial competency in engineering design by applying a combination of human creativity and modern computational tools to the synthesis of a single structural component 16.810 (16.682) 12 Mind Map “ 16.810 design, manufacturing, Holistic View” - of the “Competency” - can not whole. Think about: only talk about it or - requirements, do calculations, but actually carry out the testing, cost ... process end-to-end “Engineering Design” - what you will likely do after MIT “Rapid Prototyping” - a hot concept in industry today. “Human Creativity and “Structural Components”: Computational Tools”: part of all aerospace systems, design is a constant inter- “easy” to implement in a play of synthesis and analysis short time 16.810 (16.682) 13 Course Concept 16.810 (16.682) 14 Course Flow Diagram // “Training” Produce Part 1 Produce Part 2 Optimization CAD CAM CAE Intro FEM/Solid Mechanics Overview Manufacturing Training Structural Test Design Optimization Hand sketching CAD design FEM analysis Test Problem statement Test Learning/Review Deliverables Design Sketch v1 Analysis output v1 Part v1 Experiment data v1 Design/Analysis output v2 Part v2 Experiment data v2 Drawing v1 Design Intro 16.810 (16.682) Final Review 15 IAP 2004 Schedule 1 Lecture Week L1 – Introduction (de Weck) Monday L2 – Hand Sketching (Wallace) Wednesday L3 – CAD modeling ( Kim, de Weck) Friday Hands-on activities Tour - Design studio - Machine shop - Testing area Sketch Initial design Make a 2-D CAD model (Solidworks) Nadir 2 Lecture Hands-on L4 – Introduction to CAE (Kim) FEM Analysis (Cosmos) L5 – Introduction to CAM (Kim) Water Jet Intro machine shop L6 – Guest Lecture 1 (Bowkett) Rapid Prototyping Make part version 1 3 Lecture activities Hands-on Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday – no class L7 – Structural Testing (Kim, de Weck) Omax (Weiner, Nadir) Test part ver. 1 (Kane) L8 – Design optimization (Kim) Introduction to Structural 4 Lecture activities Hands-on activities Carry out design optimization Manufacture part ver. 2 Test part ver. 2 L9 – Guest Lecture 2 (Sobieski) Multidisciplinary Optimization Optimization Programs Final Review (de Weck, Kim) MWF1-4pm (always meet at 1pm) Last Lecture of IAP: January 30, 2004 16.810 (16.682) 16 Learning Objectives At the end of this class you should be able to … (1) Carry out a systematic design process from conception through design/implementation/verification of a single structural component. (2) Quantify the predictive accuracy of CAE versus actual test results. (3) Explain the relative improvement that computer optimization can yield relative to an initial, manual solution. (4) Discuss the complementary capabilities and limitations of the human mind and the digital computer (synthesis versus analysis). 16.810 (16.682) 17 Grading ? Letter Grading A-F ? Composition ? Design Deliverables 50% ? Sketch v1, Drawing v1, FEM Analysis v1/v2, Test Protocol v1/v2, Final Review Slides (3) ? Parts (v1/v2) 30% ? (Negotiated) Requirements Compliance ? Active Class Participation 20% ? Attendance, Ask Questions, Contribute Suggestions, Fill in Surveys 16.810 (16.682) 18 People Instructors: Prof. Olivier de Weck Dr. Il Yong Kim Postdoctoral Associate Prof. David Wallace - ME Staff: - Software/Design Studio – Fred Donovan - Manufacturing – Don Weiner - Structural Testing – John Kane 16.810 (16.682) 19 (Re-)Introduction to Design 16.810 (16.682) 20 Product Development - Design Improved time-to-climb Performance of F/A-18 in Air-to-Air configuration by ~ 20% Development of Swiss F/A-18 Low Drag Pylon (LDP) 1994-1996 “design” – to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan Merriam-Webster 16.810 (16.682) 21 Design and Objective Space Design Space Objective Space Design Variables Performance Remember Unified …? Wing Area in 2 ] Balsa Glider Aspect Ratio Dihedral Angle 31.5 [ 6.2 0 [deg] Time-of-Flight 5.35 sec Distance Ca. 90ft Cost Assembly Time Fixed Parameters 87 min - air density - properties of balsa wood Material Cost $ 4.50 16.810 (16.682) 22 23 Basic Design Steps ing” “monoplane” “biplane” 3. Perform Design 6. Test Prototype 5. Build Prototype 4. Analyze System 7. Accept Final Design 16.810 (16.682) “flying w “delta dart” 1. Define Requirements 2. Create/Choose Concept Typical Design Phases Requirements Definition Design Preliminary Design Selected Design Production Production ? ? ? l layout ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i Conceptual Conceptual baselines baseline Detailed baseline and support General arrangement and performance Representative configurations General interna Systems specifications Detailed subsystems Internal arrangements Process design Sophisticated Analysis Problem Decomposition Multidisc plinary optimization 16.810 (16.682) 24 PDP Product Development Process “A PDP is the unique sequence of steps or activities, which an enterprise employs to conceive, design, and commercialize a product” Ulrich and Eppinger ? A Marketing lways involves at least: core ?Design functions ? Manufacturing 16.810 (16.682) 25 Semiconductor Development Example  1 6HWFXVWRPHUWDUJHW ? xx ? 2 (VWLPDWHVDOHVYROXPHV x ? xx ? 3 (VWDEOLVKSULFLQJGLUHFWLRQ x ? x ? 4 6FKHGXOHSURMHFWWLPHOLQH ? x 5 'HYHORSPHQWPHWKRGV x ? x xxx 6 0DFURWDUJHWVFRQVWUDLQWV x x ? xxxx 7 )LQDQFLDODQDO\VLV ? 8 'HYHORSSURJUDPPDS x ? x 9 &UHDWHLQLWLDO4)'PDWUL[ x xxx ? 10 6HWWHFKQLFDOUHTXLUHPHQWV xx ? x 11 :ULWHFXVWRPHUVSHFLILFDWLRQ xx xxx ? OOOO O O O O 12 +LJKOHYHOPRGHOLQJ xx xx? xxx 13 :ULWHWDUJHWVSHFLILFDWLRQ x xxxxx? xx 14 'HYHORSWHVWSODQ xx xxx ? x 15 'HYHORSYDOLGDWLRQSODQ xx x x ? 16 %XLOGEDVHSURWRW\SH x x ? 17 )XQFWLRQDOPRGHOLQJ xx x? xxxxxxxx O O O O O OOOO O 18 'HYHORSSURGXFWPRGXOHV x xxxxxx xx? O 19 /D\RXWLQWHJUDWLRQ x xxxxxx x x? 20 ,QWHJUDWLRQPRGHOLQJ x x xxx x x? x 21 5DQGRPWHVWLQJ x x ? x 22 'HYHORSWHVWSDUDPHWHUV x x xxxxx ? xxx 23 )LQDOL]HVFKHPDWLFV x x xxx? xx O O OO O 24 9DOLGDWLRQVLPXODWLRQ x x x xxxx? xx 25 5HOLDELOLW\PRGHOLQJ x xxxx ? x 26 &RPSOHWHSURGXFWOD\RXW xx xxx ? xx 27 &RQWLQXLW\YHULILFDWLRQ xx? 28 'HVLJQUXOHFKHFN xx x ? 29 'HVLJQSDFNDJH x x x x x ? O O O OOO O 30 *HQHUDWHPDVNV x xxx ? xO 31 9HULI\PDVNVLQIDE x x x ? 32 5XQZDIHUV x ? xO 33 6RUWZDIHUV x ? 34 &UHDWHWHVWSURJUDPV x ? 35 'HEXJSURGXFWV x x xxx ? OO O OOO O 36 3DFNDJHSURGXFWV xx x? 37 )XQFWLRQDOLW\WHVWLQJ xx? 38 6HQGVDPSOHVWRFXVWRPHUV xx x x ? 39 )HHGEDFNIURPFXVWRPHUV x ? 40 9HULI\VDPSOHIXQFWLRQDOLW\ x ? 41 $SSURYHSDFNDJHGSURGXFWV x x ? 42 (QYLURQPHQWDOYDOLGDWLRQ xx x x ? 43 &RPSOHWHSURGXFWYDOLGDWLRQ x x xxx ? 44 'HYHORSWHFKSXEOLFDWLRQV xx ? xx 45 'HYHORSVHUYLFHFRXUVHV x x ? x 46 'HWHUPLQHPDUNHWLQJQDPH x ? x 47 /LFHQVLQJVWUDWHJ\ ? 48 &UHDWHGHPRQVWUDWLRQ xx x x ? 49 &RQILUPTXDOLW\JRDOV x x x ? 50 /LIHWHVWLQJ xx x ? xx 51 ,QIDQWPRUWDOLW\WHVWLQJ xx x x? x 52 0IJSURFHVVVWDELOL]DWLRQ x xx ? OO 53 'HYHORSILHOGVXSSRUWSODQ x x ? 54 7KHUPDOWHVWLQJ xxx ? 55 &RQILUPSURFHVVVWDQGDUGV x ? xx 56 &RQILUPSDFNDJHVWDQGDUGV xx xxx? x 57 )LQDOFHUWLILFDWLRQ x xxx xxxxxxx ? 58 9ROXPHSURGXFWLRQ x ? x 59 3UHSDUHGLVWULEXWLRQQHWZRUN xx xxxxx x ? 60 'HOLYHUSURGXFWWRFXVWRPHUV x xxxxx x x x ? x ,QIRUPDWLRQ)ORZV 3ODQQHG,WHUDWLRQV O 8QSODQQHG,WHUDWLRQV ? *HQHUDWLRQDO/HDUQLQJ Concurrent Activity Blocks Potential Iterations Generational Learning Sequential Activities                                                     xxxxx xx xxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxx xx xx xx 16.810 (16.682) 26Ref: Prof. Eppinger Courtesy of Professor Steven Eppinger. Phased vs. Spiral PD Processes Phased, Staged, or Waterfall PD Process Product Planning Product Launch Product and Test (dominant for over 30 years) Definition System- Level Design Detail Design Integrate Spiral PD Process Product Planning Product Launch (primarily used in software development) Define, Design, Build, Test, Integrate Define, Design, Build, Test, Integrate Define, Design, Build, Test, Integrate Process Design Questions: ? How many spirals should be planned? ? Which phases should be in each spiral? ? 16.810 (16.682) When to conduct gate reviews? 27 Stage Gate PD Process Release Planning Concept Design Design Design Test Within-Phase Iterations (planned) Iterations Wi rd System-Level Detailed Integration & Reviews Cross-Phase (unplanned) Refs: Robert Cooper, nning at New Products 3 ed., 2001. 16.810 (16.682) 28 Spiral PD Process Planning Design & Test Design Concept Design Rapid Prototyping Is typically associated 16.810 (16.682) Detailed Integration System-Level (Cumulative Effort) Release With this process Reviews Cost 29 Basic Trade-offs in Product Development Performance RiskSchedule Cost ? Performance - ability to do primary mission ? Cost - development, operation life cycle cost ? Schedule - time to first unit, production rate ? Risk - of technical and or financial failure Ref: Maier, Rechtin, “The Art of Systems Architecting” 16.810 (16.682) 30 Key Differences in PDP’s ? Number of phases (often a superficial difference) ? Phase exit criteria (and degree of formality) ? Requirement “enforcement” ? Reviews ? Prototyping ? Testing and Validation ? Timing for committing capital ? Degree of “customer” selling and interference ? Degree of explicit/implicit iteration (waterfall or not) ? Timing of supplier involvement 16.810 (16.682) 31 Value of a structured PDP A structured PDP … ? increases value added, efficiency and competitiveness (e g. time to market) of the process ? provides something that can be learned and improved ? should be customized to product/market/culture ? should be based on underlying principles 16.810 (16.682) 32 Synthesis versus Anal ysis Synthesis Analysis Problem definition Quantitative answers Desi Computer Graphical Representations Human gner Database - Creativity - Number Crunching - Intuition – Sanity Checks - Interfacing - Controls the Process - Configuration Control 16.810 (1 6.682) 33 Form versus Function Document Concept: Network Digital Xerography Scanner User Interface Xerographic System Electronic Form System Input System Finishing System Paper Path Functions ?Scanning, printing, and faxing from desktop Xerox ?Scan to file Lakes Document ?Network document distribution Processing System ?Remote document and device control 16.810 (16.682) 34 Hierarchy I: Parts Level ? deck components ? Ribbed-bulkheads decks ? Approximate dimensions ? 250mm x 350mm x 30mm ? Wall thickness = 2.54mm frames ? frame components ? Ribbed-bulkheads ? Approximate dimensions ? 430mm x 150mm x 25.4mm ? Wall thickness = 2mm ? keel ? Ribbed-bulkhead ? Approximate dimensions ? 430mm x 660mm x 25.4mm ? Wall thickness = 2.54mm keel 16.810 (16.682) 36 ? Boeing (sample) parts ? A/C structural assembly ? 2 decks ? 3 frames ? Keel ? Loft included to show interface/stayout zone to A/C ? All Boeing parts in Catia file format ? Files imported into SolidWorks by converting to IGES format 16.810 (16.682) 37 Product Complexity Assume 7-tree levels = a ? ORJ parts o How many levels in drawing tree? ? ORJ   ? ? ~ #parts #levels ? Screwdriver (B&D) 3 1 ? Roller Blades (Bauer) 30 2 ? Inkjet Printer (HP) 300 3 ? Copy Machine (Xerox) 2,000 4 ? Automobile (GM) 10,000 5 ? Airliner (Boeing) 100,000 6 simple 16.810 (16.682) complex 39 “Design Challenge” and Team Assignments 16.810 (16.682) 40 Design of a Structural Part Forbidden Given holes zone Design domain Displacement measure (δ) Loading Fixed Boundary Condition Problem PLQLPL]H PDVV statement: 6XEMHFWWR δδ ≤ C 16.810 (16.682) 41 Setting: “Int’l Bicycle Corp.” We, the class, are collectively the staff of the “International Bicycle Corporation”. In the past we produced a “one-size fits all” product (Mass Production) Recently there has been increased Market competition. We need to start offering tailored products for different market segments (Mass Customization) Y. M. Huang and J. C. Pan, “Topology Optimization and Dynamic Performance of a Bike Frame with Dampers,” Proceedings of DETC’03, ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago, Illinois, USA, September 2-6, 2003. 16.810 (16.682) 42 Organization Chart ivision i CEO – de Weck Consumer Division Specialty D Motor Division 1 – Family Economy 2 – Family Deluxe 3 - Crossover 4 – C ty Bike 5 - Racing 6 - Mountain 7 – BMX Sports 8 - Acrobatics 9 – Motor Bike Chief Engineer – Il Yong Kim Design – Bill Nadir IT – Fred Donovan Mfg – Don Weiner Test – John Kane 16.810 (16.682) 43 Requirements (I): Geometry 44  δ  δ 1 F  F  F Applied loads Material: Al 6061-T6 Thickness ?” Scale ca. 1:5 16.810 (16.682) Fixed Fixed Laser displacement sensors Mass Manufacturing cost Measured displacements Forbidden zone Configuration Requirements (II): “Family Economy” 1. Market Description This bicycle is to be designed for the mass consumer market. The expected sales volume is 100,000 per year. Affordability, excellent performance/cost ratio and light weight are most important to be successful in this market. 2. Requirements Manufacturing Cost (C): C ≤ $3.50/part Performance (δ1, δ2, f1, m): Displacement δ1 ≤ 0.060 mm Displacement δ2 ≤ 0.009 mm First natural frequency f1 ≥ 200 Hz Mass: ≤ 0.110 lbs Surface Quality: 2 Load Case: F1 = 50 lbs / F2 = 50 lbs / F3 = 100 lbs 3. Priorities “Ishii-Matrix” pp Mass pp pp 16.810 (16.682) Modifications to these requirements have to be negotiated with Management. Cost Performance Accept OptimizeConstrain Attribute 45 Spiral Development (DSM) 1 – Requirements Analysis 2 – Concept/Sketching 3 – CAD Modeling (.prt) 4 – FEM Analysis 5 – Design Optimization 6 – Make Drawing (.dxf) 7 – CAM Layout (.ord) 8 – Manufacture (Omax) 9 – Structural Testing 10 – Accept Part 12345678910 1 1X X 2 X2 X X 3 X3X X 4 X4X X 5 X 5 6 X6 7 X7 8 X8 9 X9 10 XX X 10 16.810 (16.682) 46 Facilities Tour 16.810 (16.682) 47 Facilities Tour * Design Studio * Machine Shop -Water Jet cutter - 14 networked CAD/CAE workstations that are used for complex systems design and optimization. * Testing Lab -Static and Dynamic Testing Will carry out testing with a customized setup. * Software to be used: - MATLAB - Omax - Solidworks - web-based topology - Cosmos optimizer: 16.810 (16.682) 48 Next Steps ? Study 2 Page Requirements Sheets ? Think about your team’s concept ? Product Name? ? Look at CAD/CAE/CAM manual ? Register on WEBSIS if not already done ? Complete Attendance Sheet ? Next Lecture ? Wed 1/7/2004 at 1pm – “Hand Sketching” 16.810 (16.682) 49