Conference PaperPDF Available

Model Based Systems Engineering in Construction Kit Development – Two Case Studies

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

To offer a large variety of end products with a limited number of components, more and more companies take advantage of the modular design, platform and type series principles resulting in a construction kit development. These standardization methods make the product development processes more complex. This can be encountered with the help of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). In order to support construction kit development with the help of MBSE in a long term, definitions of such terms as module, platform, type series and construction kit are analyzed and defined in the context of MBSE. As a result, some implications of these definitions are presented in this paper. In addition, first findings out of two research studies conducted at an automotive manufacturer are presented and put into the context of MBSE. The studies indicate the potential of MBSE supporting construction kit development.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
2212-8271 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of “24th CIRP Design Conference” in the person of the Conference
Chairs Giovanni Moroni and Tullio Tolio.
24th CIRP Design Conference
Model Based Systems Engineering in Construction Kit Development
Two Case Studies
Albert Albersa, Helmut Scherera, Nikola Bursaca*, Galina Rachenkovaa
aIPEK Institute of Product Engineering,at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
Kaiserstr. 10, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 721 608 46472; fax: +49 721 608 46051. E-mail address: Nikola.Bursac@kit.edu
Abstract
To offer a large variety of end products with a limited number of components, more and more companies take advantage of the modular design,
platform and type series principles resulting in a construction kit development. These standardization methods make the product development
processes more complex. This can be encountered with the help of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). In order to support
construction kit development with the help of MBSE in a long term, definitions of such terms as module, platform, type series and construction
kit are analyzed and defined in the context of MBSE. As a result, some implications of these definitions are presented in this paper. In addition,
first findings out of two research studies conducted at Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG are presented and put into the context of MBSE. The studies
indicate the potential of MBSE supporting construction kit development.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of “24th CIRP Design Conference” in the person of
the Conference Chairs Giovanni Moroni and Tullio Tolio.
"Keywords: Modular Design; MBSE; Systems Engineering; SysML"
1. Introduction
The immense diversity of creatures, art, human beings and
man-made products in our universe is based on merely few
basic components: electrons, protons and neutrons. The same
principle can be applied in the development of technical
systems. To meet increasing product individualization, more
and more manufacturers develop their products according to
construction kit principles: the desired variety of an end
product should be based on a limited number of elements.
Product costs are, thus, reduced by means of scale effects.
However, construction kit development becomes increasingly
complex, since separate products share the same modules [1,
2]. Thereby, interrelationships between products arise while
developing a module. Additionally, the requirements for a
module for different products are not always sufficiently
known throughout their development, since these products are
developed at different times. The complexity of construction
kit development can be mastered with the Model Based
Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach.
2. State of the Art
In this chapter, MBSE and subsequently the construction
kit development are introduced. Central definitions related to
construction kit development are analyzed based on the
existing literature and adapted for the application in MBSE.
2.1. Model Based Systems Engineering
MBSE is based on a system-theoretical model
understanding, in which a technical product can be regarded
as a system, which on the one hand is a component of a
superior system and on the other hand can be divided into
subsystems [3]. Thus, an approach which is valid at the
system level can likewise be applied on a subsystem level.
This phenomenon can be called the fractal character of
Systems Engineering [4].
With MBSE interdisciplinary development teams can
consistently and continuously capture and manage the
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000
occurring data throughout the product development in
computer-based product models [5], instead of usually
working with a large number of documents. To build these
product models, Systems Modeling Language (SysML) can
be purposefully used in the development of the modular-built
products from the early stages of product development until
series production [6]. In particular, SysML supports
requirements engineering, function development as well as
systematic derivation of validating activities. Since the
knowledge about modules is captured by means of bundling
of product data in SysML models, their interactions and
uncertainties in the development are thus more transparent
[7].
However, the current research in the area of systems
engineering reveals lacking acceptance of MBSE in industrial
applications [8]. One possible explanation for this is that
models have a high degree of abstraction and appear to be too
abstract for practical applications. In addition, modeling
usually requires a lot of effort, since most of the time models
have to be created newly from scratch. To avoid this and to
create product models in a more efficient way, information
from previous generations of products should be used [9]. For
this purpose, the approach originally designated for process
modeling [10] has been transferred to product modeling. This
way, a modeling framework, which is presented in figure 1,
was derived in order to support the developers at different
degrees of abstraction throughout the product modeling [11].
Fig. 1. Degrees of abstraction in product modeling [11]
With the help of this approach product models can be
inductively derived based on real products. In the context of
product generation development, individual innovations are
developed throughout generations, in which the core structure
remains the same, which can be described as a reference
product model. Thus, project-specific product models can be
deductively derived out of the reference product models.
Additionally, several views at different degrees of abstraction
are applicable: generic (by means of multidisciplinary),
domain-specific (e.g. a specific industrial sector, area of
activity or product design type) and system-specific (with
focus on a specific product), which has to be developed. The
system-specific and domain-specific level can be further
specified depending on the purpose of the product model [11].
This framework hasn’t been regarded in the context of the
development of modular products so far.
2.2. Definitions related to construction kit development
In this section some key terms in construction kit
development are compiled from different authors and are then
applied to definitions in the context of MBSE. These
definitions are meant to be applied to the interdisciplinary
development of technical systems.
In order to determine the existing design type of a technical
system, the system’s architecture and the architecture of its
neighboring systems as well as its subsystems have to be
analyzed. Here, product architecture of a system is defined as
the functional and physical structure as well as their cross-
linkage [12, 13].
First of all, the term module has to be defined, which
according to LINDEMANN and MAURER designates functional
and logical units, which are completely exchangeable between
each other (similar definitions can be found in [14, 15]). The
module‘s relatedness with other design types (platform or
type series design types) are emphasized, since a module is a
foundation for other design types [16]. Many authors point
out the significant role of the interfaces between modules: one
characteristic feature of modules is that they have very few
interfaces [17, 18 1]. Those interfaces are required for
exchangeability of modules and thus should be clearly defined
and unified. Other authors define modules as subsystems with
functional and physical independency, while their boundaries
are specified by manufacturing and functional aspects [19, 20,
21, 22].
In the context of MBSE the following definition is
suggested by the authors for modular design: a system is of
modular design if its main functionality can be modified by
replacing one of the subsystems with a different subsystem.
Thus, a module is a subsystem which can easily be replaced
by a different one. Special cases of such substitutions are
addition or exclusion of a subsystem. As a result, modules are
suitable for the application within a single product or
throughout a product range.
The exchangeability of modules is a direct consequence of
pursuing a larger external product variety while reducing
internal systems variety within an organization as a goal in
product development. As a result of the required
exchangeability, modules possess functional and physical
independence as well as only few standardized interfaces.
A product built according to the platform design type
consists of a version-neutral product platform and product
specific extensions [23] (similar to [24]). Thus, a product
platform can be paraphrased as the “greatest common
denominator” of a product family [25]. It is also described as
an interface carrier [25, 26], especially if it contains a
standardized carrier structure [16, 27]. Furthermore, other
authors define a platform as a set of systems and interfaces,
which build a common structure, from which product variants
can be derived [28, 18] (similar to [2]).
All subsystems that are not located in the platform are
combined into the so-called “hat” section [16, 27], which is
also designated as the varying share in a platform-based
product [1].
In the context of MBSE a system is built according to the
platform design type when its subsystems can be
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000 3
differentiated into the platform and the hat section. Thereby, a
platform includes all subsystems that are used in several,
different systems. In this way, a platform is a collection of
repeatedly used yet unchanged subsystems. These subsystems
do not necessarily have to be directly connected to each other
in the system’s product architecture. However, since this is
often the case, a platform is often referred to in literature as an
interface carrier. The hat section covers the remaining
subsystems, which differ from system to system. Different hat
sections have the same kind of interfaces connecting them to
the platform section. They don’t necessarily need to have any
further similarities.
A type series, according to PAHL and BEITZ, can be defined
as follows: it is a technical construct (machine, assemblies
and individual parts), which fulfill the same function using the
same technical solution and (if possible) manufacturing
scheme, yet in different size fractions for a wide application
area [25] (similar definitions in [2], [16], [29], [30]). Thus,
application of similarity laws here is compulsory. The product
architecture of all the members within one type series is
similar despite the scaling effects.
The definition of a type series within MBSE is very similar
to the rather consistent existing definitions: A type series
denotes several technical systems, which have similar product
architectures and whose dimensions, power outputs etc. can
be varied (under consideration of similarity laws) by scaling
of certain parameters.
The term “construction kit” is defined by KOLLER as
follows: A construction kit consists of components
(assemblies or parts) of identical or differing functionality and
build, which can be differently combined into more complex
systems with different functionality and build [31] (similar to
[25, 16, 32]). In other sources a construction kit is described
as a reservoir of elements [33] or as an organizing principle
which contains a collection of standardized units [34].
Additionally, a construction kit provides a set of rules, which
allows for the configuration of a system out of the elements
[32].
The following definition of construction kits is proposed
for the context of MBSE: A construction kit is an abstract
construct, which contains all those subsystems, with which
various systems can be configured. Most importantly, a
construction kit comprises a set of rules which dictate the
product subsystems’ architecture (especially their interfaces),
which in turn ensures compatibility of these subsystems.
Within construction kit development, subsystems are
developed and combined into finished products. In addition,
the construction kit rule set is developed and adherence of it is
supervised. Very often, a construction kit development
implies the development of modular systems. In this case,
especially in the industrial context, the term modular
construction kit is used. This indicates that such construction
kit contains modules for the most part.
3. Methodology
Based on the state of the art, the MBSE approach is used in
this paper for construction kit development. Therefore, the
following research question has to be answered:
How can the framework be used to support the research of
construction kit development using SysML as an example?
Hence, at first some implications of the above mentioned
definitions are discussed and afterwards two case studies are
presented. The studies were carried out in cooperation with
the automotive manufacturer Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG: one
study depicts the complete modular product in early
development stages and the other portrays the series
development of a single module. Both the complete car and
the single module development examples are suitable
examples for this study, since they are developed throughout
several product generations and thus comply with the
approach of product generation development [9]. Different
stages in the development process are used to investigate
different depths of detail and the possibility of a continuous
applicability of the models.
4. Results
In order to support the development of modular products
using the above mentioned framework, the domain level is
defined as the construction kit level and the system level as
the product level (see fig. 2). Thus, different products can be
mapped to the construction kit. Reference models describe the
construction kit structure (2) or product structure (6). In the
following it will be presented with the help of the two
research studies how the MBSE-approach can contribute to
overcoming of challenges in the construction kit development.
Fig. 2. Application of the framework in construction kit development
Based on the definitions presented in chapter 2, a fractal
description of design types is made possible. This is
demonstrated using the modeling framework. Furthermore, it
is shown in two research studies how SysML models can
practically support construction kit development.
4.1. Implications on design types in the context of MBSE
If the definitions presented in chapter 2.2 are considered in
the context of system levels within systems engineering (see
chapter 2.1), the following observation can be made: The
identification of the design type (modular, platform, or type
series design) of a system is only dependent on the properties
of its subsystems. A system can be described, for instance, as
modular when its subsystems are modules. Determining the
platform design type works the same way: Here, as soon as
the subsystems can be divided into the platform- and hat
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000
sections, the system is of the platform design type. To sum it
up, in order to determine the design type of a system, the
following relationships have to be analyzed: system -
subsystem and subsystem - subsystem. However, at that point
no conclusions can be made about the internal structure of a
subsystem (which is in turn dependent on its sub-subsystems).
The subsystems themselves can therefore be designed with
either the modular, platform or type series design type,
regardless of the considered system. Thus, it is possible to
come across any combination of the mentioned design types
at different system levels of a product. This characteristic is
described as the fractal character of the design types.
Implications are illustrated in figure 3 with an example. A
product (7 in figure 2) is developed based on a construction
kit (3) which has a reference structure (2). This construction
kit reference model contains all relevant construction kit rules.
Fig. 3. Fractal character of design types
When regarding the product on the “system” level, one
might notice that some of its subsystems are exchangeable
(here: subsystems α-1 & γ-4 by α-2, respectively by γ-5 & γ-
6). According to the above mentioned definition these
subsystems can be regarded as modules. All other subsystems,
which are not exchangeable, are not referred to as modules (in
this example β-3 & δ-7). After analyzing the sub-subsystems
of, for instance, subsystem γ-4, one might discover that they
can be classified into platform and hat section, which
constitute the subsystem γ-4 built according to the platform
design type.
Analysis of literature reveals single aspects of the fractal
character of design types. However, a holistic description
using system levels of MBSE hasn’t been published yet.
HOFFMANN and VIETOR, for instance, describe the internal
structure of a module containing a basic section
(unchangeable) and a variable section (differing from module
to module) [27]. In addition, SCHUH describes a platform (i.e.
subsystem) that consists of modules (i.e. subsubsystems),
which are then referred to as base modules [24]. Other
literature examples implicitly indicate the fractal character of
the system design implying that a module can at the same
time be a member of a type series. KIESER and BLESSING
introduce such example, in which an electric motor type series
can be combined with different other powertrain modules in
order to configure different drive systems for hybrid and
electric vehicles [35]. AL GEDDAWY and ELMARAGHY
describe a similar case and use the term “scalable modularity”
whenever modules are scalable [36].
Beyond that, a construction kit is presented in figure 3,
which contains various subsystems. These subsystems are part
of the construction kit because their product architectures
follow the construction rules. Thus, it is permissible that the
construction kit contains not only modules but also non-
modules, as long as they are designed according to the
construction kit rules.
Furthermore, figure 3 demonstrates that a product can be
built by combining construction kit subsystems -1, β-3 &
γ-4) and subsystems not belonging to the construction kit -
7). Hence, if the construction kit is completely described, all
products built out of this construction kit are fully described
as well.
The construction kit rules as well as compliance with them
are of a great importance: the construction kit can be extended
any time by adding new subsystems, as long as they follow
the construction kit rules. Moreover, construction kit
subsystems, which are initially applied in only one product,
can later be used for the configuration of new products, since
their compatibility is ensured by the construction kit rules.
4.2. Early stages of the complete vehicle development
In this case study early stages of vehicle development are
examined. Since vehicle development pursues the product
generation development approach, it likewise possesses a
reference model (6 in fig. 2). Based on an analysis in the early
stages of the product development there were various
document-centered reference product models identified: a
component-based product structure, a characteristics
catalogue, a technical system of objectives and a functions’
catalogue. These documents were transferred into a single
reference product model (6) based on SysML (1/5). The
content of the construction kit models can be understood as
aggregation of the system models. Thus, caused by the variety
within a construction kit, parameters which are single values
in the system’s model (e.g. the system’s weight) are
transferred to a band width from a minimum to a maximum
value in the construction kit model. Hereby, a construction kit
model can show the user, in which different products a single
module is at use as well as what different modules are used to
build a single product. This way a common understanding of
the construction kit conception can be facilitated with the
involved developers (3).
A dependency matrix is one of the ways of visualizing
dependency criteria in the SysML tool MagicDraw, which has
been used in this case study. It provides two kinds of
perspectives on the same information. This can be easily
explained in an example. Figure 4 shows the unfolded and
folded view of the MSB (Modular standard construction kit)-
based vehicles in the columns. There are arrow symbols in the
cells representing the dependencies between vehicles and
different kinds of engines. On the one hand, individual
dependencies can be seen and managed so it is immediately
apparent what engines are assigned to which vehicles in the
unfolded state. On the other hand, the number of usages of a
particular engine and other relationships of this engine can be
seen in the folded state. The given example includes elements
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000 5
of the reference model (6) and particular vehicles (7); contents
of other technical documents are structured and linked in the
matrix in a similar manner.
Fig. 4. Reference and project-specific product models
As a functionality of SysML, user specific views of the
models can be generated, which are adapted for the
developer’s field of expertise and responsibility. These views
can be generated of the entire construction kit model as well
as of single product models. This way it is visualized which
components are assigned to which products, which of those
requirements have an influence on its directly related parts.
4.3. Series development of drivetrain components
The second case study contains initial important findings
regarding the application of SysML models in series
development. In the course of this investigation, modular
drivetrain components are regarded as systems, which are
modeled alongside their subsystems. An analysis has shown
that prior to introduction of SysML models the following
product models have been in use:
CAD systems for the depiction of the system’s physical
structure
Tools for Requirements Engineering
Tools for Simulation and Computation
The SysML product model adds a functional architecture
of a product to these different model types. The functional
architecture model supports developers particularly in
recognizing complex interactions between different modules.
The modeling method of ZINGEL [37] is used for the creation
of the model and has been adapted to the specific needs of the
developers. The C&C² approach [38, 39] is used to model the
linkage between the functional and the physical architecture
within the models.
Fig. 5. SysML models of drive train modules
In figure 5 the results of this case study are reflected with
the help of the modeling framework, which is shown in figure
2. With the enhanced modeling technique of ZINGEL at hand,
a meta model (1) is created with which a SysML user can
build the actual product models (7), construction kit models
(3) and their respective reference models (6, respectively 2).
A meta model was used to create the product model (7) of a
real module (8). The initial creation of the functional and
physical architecture has already been completed, and all
major functions are implemented.
This model is currently being validated in an empirical
study in the area of the development of drive train modules.
Feedback from developers about the use of the SysML models
is recorded by means of interviews and questionnaires, while
the model is being permanently extended with minor
subfunctions.
If, as expected, the experience of the currently ongoing
series development is integrated into the model it will result in
a product reference model (6). This reference model can then
be used as a database for knowledge management in
upcoming product generations. Moreover, starting with the
product model (7), the construction kit model (3) can be
derived by enriching the product model with additional
construction kit data. This way all modules of the entire
drivetrain construction kit can be modeled. Based on the
construction kit model (3), a modular reference model (2) can
be derived which captures all the lessons learned during
construction kit development and makes them available for
future developments.
5. Conclusion and Outlook
To conclude, the research results presented in this paper
show some potential of SysML’s ability to support the
construction kit development. With the help of the reference
models in the first case study, products can be modeled more
efficiently, since existing models of subsystems out of the
construction kits can be attached to the reference product
models. Furthermore specific views of the construction kit as
well as of individual products are made possible. The second
case study shows that a comprehensive overview over hardly
recognizable interactions can be visualized, especially
between separate products using the same modules. This way
modeled product functions in SysML help developers to
understand the system’s structure and behavior.
At the same time, the findings of this paper provide
numerous references which indicate future and worthwhile
areas of research. Some essential investigations of the second
case study have already been completed (e.g. the initial
modeling). Further empirical studies are currently being
carried out. Outcomes of these investigations should shed
light on the capability of the SysML models to be extended by
a higher degree of model detail. Furthermore valuable data is
collected for an evaluation of efforts (creation and handling of
models) and benefits (knowledge gain and data bank for
knowledge management) of such models.
In another research project of the authors that goes beyond
the scope of this paper will apply the presented modeling
framework in the area of Requirements Engineering for
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2014) 000000
construction kits. Another worthwhile research area appears
to be the investigation of embedding SysML models into the
already existing tool chain of product development: If the
SysML models could e.g. be coupled with existing 3D
engineering design software, the effort for modeling the
physical structure of a system could be greatly reduced. To
sum it up, every single step ahead in MBSE research projects
can lead to helpful and well-integrated supports in future
construction kit developments.
References
[1] Wallentowitz H, Freialdenhoven A, Olschewski I. Strategien in der
Automobilindustrie. Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner; 2009.
[2] Piller FT, Mass Customization - Ein wettbewerbsstrategisches Konzept im
Informationszeitalter. Deutscher Universitätsverlag Wiesbaden. 2.
Auflage; 2006.
[3] Ropohl G. Allgemeine Technologie - Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. 3rd
edition. Karlsruhe: Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe; 2009.
[4] Albers A, Braun A, Muschik S. Uniqueness and the Multiple Fractal
Character of Product Engineering Processes. In: Heisig, P, Clarkson, PJ,
Vajna S, editors. Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes.
London: Springer; 2010. p. 14-26.
[5] Gausemeier J, Dumitrescu R, Steffen D, Czaja A, Wiederkehr O,
Tschirner C. Systems Engineering: in der industriellen Praxis. Paderborn;
2013.
[6] Object Management Group (OMG). OMG Systems Modeling Language
(OMG SysML), Specification of Version 1.3; 2012.
[7] Lohmeyer Q. Human-centered modeling of product developement
systems in consideration of the synthesis and analysis of dynamic systems
of objectives. In: IPEKForschungsberichte 59; 2013.
[8] Albers A, Zingel C. Challenges of Model-Based Systems Engineering: A
Study towards Unified Term Understanding and the State of Usage of
SysML. In: Smart Product Engineering: Proceedings of the 23rd CIRP
Design Conference. Springer; 2013.
[9] Albers A, Bursac N, Urbanec J; Lüdcke R, Rachenkova G. Knowledge
Management in Product Generation Development. In: Beiträge zum 25.
DfX-Symposium; 2014. p. 13-24.
[10] Albers A, Muschik S. The role and application of activities in the
integrated product engineering model. In: Proceedings of international
Design Conference; 2010.
[11] Albers A, Matthiesen S, Bursac N; Moeser G, Schmidt S, Lüdcke R.
Abstraktionsgrade der Systemmodellierung von der Sprache zur
Anwendung. In: Proceedings of the TdSE; 2014.
[12] Cornet A. Plattformkonzepte in der Automobilindustrie. Wiesbaden:
Deutscher Universitätsverlag, 2002.
[13] Ulrich K. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. In:
Research Policy 24; 1995. p. 410-440.
[14] Ponn J, Lindemann U. Konzeptentwicklung und Gestaltung technischer
Produkte : Optimierte Produkte - Systematisch von Anforderungen zu
Konzepten. 1. Aufl. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008.
[15] Renner I. Methodische Unterstützung funktionsorientierter
Baukastenentwicklung am Beispiel Automobil. Dissertation Techniche
Universität München; 2007.
[16] Lindemann U, Maurer M. Entwicklung und Strukturplanung
individualisierter Produkte. In: Lindemann U, Reichwald R, Zäh M,
editors. Individualisierte Produkte: Komplexität beherrschen in
Entwicklung und Produktion. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 4162.
[17] Koppenhagen F. Systematische Ableitung modularer
Produktarchitekturen. Dissertation Technische Universität Hamburg-
Harburg Aachen. Shaker Verlag; 2004.
[18] Blees C. Eine Methode zur Entwicklung modularer Produktfamilien.
Dissertation Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg; 2011.
[19] Feldhusen J, Gebhardt B, Baumgart I. Modularisierung von Produkten
im Anlagenbau. Dissertation Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische
Hochschule Aachen, 2004.
[20] Sedchaicharn K. A computer-aided method for defining the product
architecture with consideration of function and geometry. Disstertation
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe; 2010.
[21] Göpfert J. Modulare Produktentwicklung. Zur gemeinsamen Gestaltung
von Technik und Organisation. Wiesbaden: Gabler; 1999.
[22] Lasch R, Gießmann M. Qualitäts- und Komplexitätsmanagement:
Parallelitäten und Interaktionen zweier Managementdisziplinen. In:
Hünerberg R, Mann A, editors. Ganzheitliche Unternehmensführung in
dynamischen Märkten; 2009. p. 93124.
[23] Haf H. Plattformbildung als Strategie zur Kostensenkung. VDI Berichte
1645; 2001. p. 121137.
[24] Schuh G. Produktkomplexität managen. München: Hanser Verlag; 2005.
[25] Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH. Konstruktionslehre. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer; 2007.
[26] Feldhusen J, Gebhardt B. Product Lifecycle Management für die Praxis:
Ein Leitfaden zur modularen Einführung, Umsetzung und Anwendung. 1.
Aufl. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2008.
[27] Hoffmann CA, Vietor T. Erklärungsmodell der modularen
Baukastensystematik in der Automobilindustrie. In: Konstruktion; 2014.
[28] Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The Power of Product Platforms: Building
Value and Cost Leadership. New York: The Free Press; 1997.
[29] Ehrlenspiel K, Kiewert A, Lindemann U, Mörtl M. Kostengünstig
Entwickeln und Konstruieren: Kostenmanagement bei der integrierten
Produktentwicklung. 6. Aufl. Heidelberg; 2007.
[30] Feldhusen J, Orloff M. Grundlagen technischer Systeme und des
methodischen Vorgehens. In: Grote KH, Feldhusen J, editors. Dubbel:
Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau. 23. Aufl. Heidelberg: Springer;
2012. p. F1-F38.
[31] Koller R. Konstruktionslehre für den Maschinenbau. Berlin: Springer;
1994.
[32] Alt O. Modellbasierte Systementwicklung mit SysML. München: Carl
Hanser Verlag; 2012.
[33] Nasvytis A. Die Gesetzmäßigkeiten kombinatorischer Technik. Berlin:
Springer; 1953.
[34] Borowski KH. Das Baukastensystem in der Technik. Berlin: Springer;
1961.
[35] Kieser J, Blessing U. From Concept to Democar the GETRAG
BOSCH Hybrid Cooperation. Getrag Drivetrain Forum.
Untergruppenbach; 2010.
[36] AlGeddawy T, ElMaraghy H. Reactive design methodology for product
family platforms, modularity and parts integration. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology 6; 2013, p. 34-43.
[37] Zingel JC. Basis definition of a common language of product
engineering in the context of modeling of technical systems and a
modeling technique for the systems of objectives and objects of technical
systems on the basis of the ZHO-principle. In: IPEK Forschungsberichte.
Karlsruhe, 2013.
[38] Matthiesen S. A contribution to the basis definition of the element model
“Working Surface Pairs & Channel and Support Structures” about the
correlation between layout and function of technical systems. In: IPEK
Forschungsberichte, Band 6. Karlsruhe; 2002.
[39] Albers A, Sadowski E. The Contact and Channel Approach (C&C2-A):
Relatinga system’s physical structure to its functionality. In: An
Anthology of Theories and Models of Design. Blessing LTM, Chakrabarti
A, editors. Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.
... Individual system modules are defined on the basis of the assumed functional structure of the fuel cell system. According to [38] a module is understood to be a technical system that can be removed from the overall system or replaced by another technical system. therefore, the first task is to identify module interfaces that are suitable for the use of individual modules in various applications. ...
Conference Paper
To enable emission-free and resource-saving mobility, drives are increasingly being electrified, leading to a diversification of drive technologies. The addition of a fuel cell to the battery-electric drive system is intended to compensate for the disadvantages, particularly in terms of range and charging time. Like the battery, the fuel cell does not yet represent a cost-effective solution. An analysis of existing fuel cell drive systems on the market shows that the drive systems have been poorly modularized so far. The authors therefore devote themselves to the creation of a modularization concept for a fuel cell system and see this as a potential for the creation of customer-perceivable product characteristics and reduction of manufacturing costs. The focus of the modularization approach is the use of the fuel cell system in different applications by the end customer. The concept should enable the user to use the fuel cell system both in his vehicle as a complete system and for leisure applications in the form of individual modules. Since the development of a modular fuel cell system for use in several applications is not a trivial development task, a systematic method for supporting the development activities of products for different applications is developed and demonstrated on the basis of the development process. In addition to the questions of mechanical modularization of the fuel cell system, direct requirements for the tank, auxiliary units and control system are derived and requirements resulting from the coupling of cross-system scenarios are determined.
... As a basis for this publication, a literature review was conducted in various databases, such as Scopus and Web of Science, on the defined main topics. The result of this review revealed that only a few publications could be found on the combination of the above-mentioned aspects, e.g., (Marshall and Leaney, 1999;Albers et al., 2015b;Bursac et al., 2016;Scherer et al., 2017;Drave et al., 2020). In a further co-occurrence analysis of the results, it could be deduced that these publications show rather weak links (less than 2) between the given keywords. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper considers the orientation of product development structures towards interdisciplinary system architectures using the example of a tool machine manufacturer. Due to the change from simple mechanical products to extensively designed systems, whose successful development requires the integration of all disciplines involved, it is analyzed which requirements there are for these interdisciplinary system architectures in today's development environment. In addition, it is validated on the basis of the investigation environment that interdisciplinary system structures are necessary for the development on the different levels of the system view. In doing so, the investigation environment addresses the concept of extracting customer-relevant features (systems) from a physical-tailored modular system (supersystem) in order to develop and test them autonomously, as well as to transfer them to the entire product range in a standardized manner. The elaboration identifies basic requirements for the development of a knowledge base in interdisciplinary system structures and places them into the context of an agile modular kit development.
... In addition to the modules and their variants, the construction kit also includes an associated set of rules that describes the nature of the subsystemswith particular attention to the interfacesand thus ensures compatibility between the systems. 33 In order to ensure the exchange of individual module variants (e.g., different module geometries), clearly defined and standardized interfaces are absolutely essential, especially for complex systems. ...
Article
Full-text available
Building in heavy rain is seldom beneficial, but common practice on site. It promotes inaccuracies and impairs the use of modern but sensible high-performance materials and costs time, since disruption in construction frequently causes complicated returns to the planning process. Nevertheless, a handcrafted production process is still considered the one and only alternative since all buildings are unique and thus must be manually constructed on site. Indeed? The priority program entitled “Adaptive modularized constructions made in a flux” funded by the German Research Foundation follows a completely new approach. Buildings are divided into similar modular precast concrete elements, prefabricated in flow production, quality assured, and just-in-time assembled on site. Comparable to puzzles with many pieces, the uniqueness of the structure is maintained. The motto is: “Individuality on a large scale - similarity on a small scale”. The contribution presents approaches of modularization, production concepts, and linking digital models. Serial, stationary prefabrication enables short production times and resource-efficient modules that are assembled to load-bearing structures with low geometrical deviations. Stringent digitalization ensures high quality of all intermediate steps. These comprise fabrication, assembly, and the whole service life of the structure. The result is a lean production process. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... The activities of system understanding (problem understanding), understanding the modelling method (C&C 2 -Approach), tool operation (tool-specific expenditure), and core modelling time (synthesis of the facts) were necessary. Due to the reusability of the models in terms of the PGE, a predominantly positive expenditure-to-benefit ratio can be achieved (Albers et al. 2015). Figure 17 shows an example of a built-up C&C 2 -Model in the Cameo Systems Modeller. ...
Article
The Contact and Channel Approach (C&C²-Approach) integrates the relation of function and embodiment in a model and aims to support design engineers in activities of analysis and synthesis. Since its definition, this approach has been applied in different research and development projects. In order to provide links for further research work, this article will summarise the findings of the last 20 years of research on the C&C²-Approach. Based on categorised cases of application, future challenges and research needs are derived and discussed.
... The measures of modularisation, the platform construction method or the series construction method belong to the current state of the art in the literature as well as in development practice [22]. A modular system, which only contains all modules with a corresponding set of rules for the configuration of the technical systems, cannot use the advantages of the different combination possibilities of the modules on different system levels due to the fractal character of the standardization methods [23]. In order to make optimum use of these advantages, a great deal of information about the products to be developed must be available, which in turn influences the development of the modular kit. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Modular kits make it possible to reuse components across different products, thereby exploiting synergy potential. On the other hand, they lead to an increase in complexity in development, as more subsystems interrelate and are to be used over longer periods of time. This causes a higher communication effort between different development teams, which is typically addressed in the context of systems engineering. At the same time, agile approaches show potentials in the development of information technology systems. These are also increasingly being piloted in mechatronic systems. The approach ASD-Agile Systems Design offers an adequate possibility to design processes according to situation and need with methods to support the developer in his activities. It is based on nine basic principles and can be operationalized by specific practices. Using the case TRUMPF Werkzeug-maschinen GmbH + Co. KG, this contribution introduces an approach that enables the transformation to an agile cross-platform modular kit development by using chosen ASD-principles. The concrete implementation of the approach is carried out with the task planning tool JIRA. The results were evaluated by a methodical evaluation in the form of expert interviews in order to derive potentials of the developed approach.
... The measures of modularisation, the platform construction method or the series construction method belong to the current state of the art in the literature as well as in development practice [22]. A modular system, which only contains all modules with a corresponding set of rules for the configuration of the technical systems, cannot use the advantages of the different combination possibilities of the modules on different system levels due to the fractal character of the standardization methods [23]. In order to make optimum use of these advantages, a great deal of information about the products to be developed must be available, which in turn influences the development of the modular kit. ...
Conference Paper
Modular kits make it possible to reuse components across different products, thereby exploiting synergy potential. On the other hand, they lead to an increase in complexity in development, as more subsystems interrelate and are to be used over longer periods of time. This causes a higher communication effort between different development teams, which is typically addressed in the context of systems engineering. At the same time, agile approaches show potentials in the development of information technology systems. These are also increasingly being piloted in mechatronic systems. The approach ASD-Agile Systems Design offers an adequate possibility to design processes according to situation and need with methods to support the developer in his activities. It is based on nine basic principles and can be operationalized by specific practices. Using the case TRUMPF Werkzeug-maschinen GmbH + Co. KG, this contribution introduces an approach that enables the transformation to an agile cross-platform modular kit development by using chosen ASD-principles. The concrete implementation of the approach is carried out with the task planning tool JIRA. The results were evaluated by a methodical evaluation in the form of expert interviews in order to derive potentials of the developed approach.
Article
de Viele Bauwerke wie Brücken, Hochbauten oder Industrieanlagen sind aktuell durch neue zu ersetzen. Ihre (planmäßige) Nutzungszeit ist vorüber. Zudem besteht großer Bedarf an Wohnraum in den wachsenden Städten. Beide Bauarten, Ersatz wie Neubau, finden in engen Verkehrsnetzen statt, die durch Güter-, Waren- und Personenverkehr bereits weitgehend ausgelastet sind. Schnelles Bauen – gemeint ist hier die Ausführung vor Ort – motiviert sich daraus in den Zielen, die Verkehrsnetze möglichst gering zusätzlich zu belasten und kurzfristig neue Bauwerke für die jeweilige Nutzung zur Verfügung zu stellen. Die Qualität bleibt erhalten. Der Beitrag stellt als Übersichtsartikel zum Sonderheft den Rahmen des Schnellbaus vor. Dies sind seine Motivation in Deutschland und Europa, seine historische Einordnung in die Bautätigkeit der letzten Jahrzehnte bzw. Jahrhunderte inkl. aktueller Forschungsansätze und Grundsätze, die für schnelle Bauausführungen wichtig sind. Abstract en Fast-track construction – motivation, history & concepts Many structures such as bridges, building constructions or industrial facilities are currently being replaced by new ones. Their (scheduled) service life is over. In addition, there is a great demand for living space in growing cities. Both, replacements and new constructions, take place in tight traffic systems that are already largely utilized by freight, goods and passenger traffic. Fast-track construction – meaning on-site execution here – is motivated by the goals of minimizing additional impact on the traffic systems and making new structures available for their respective usages at short notice. The quality is maintained. The contribution presents the framework of fast-track construction as an overview article of the special issue. Included are its motivation in Germany and Europe, its historical context with respect to the construction activity of the last decades or centuries, respectively, including current research approaches and principles that are important for fast-track construction on-site.
Thesis
Full-text available
Gegenstand der vorliegenden Arbeit ist die Entwicklung neuer Systeme und deren Beschreibung durch das Modell der PGE – Produktgenerationsentwicklung nach ALBERS (Albers, Bursac & Wintergerst, 2015) als Variationen auf Basis eines Referenzsystems. In einer Potenzialanalyse verschiedener Ansätze wird die Auswahl des Modells der PGE als Grundlage für die vorliegende Arbeit begründet. Anschließend wird im ersten Schritt eine Formalisierung als Beitrag zum Modell vorgeschlagen, mit der Variationen und Charakteristika von Elementen des Referenzsystems messbar und empirisch untersuchbar werden. Weiterhin werden Ziele, die Variationen und Charakteristika gewählter Referenzsystemelemente zu Grunde liegen sowie die Auswirkungen von Variationen und Charakteristika gewählter Referenzsystem-elemente beschrieben. Dadurch werden Variationen sowie Referenzsystemelement-Charakteristika mit Innovationspotenzial und Entwicklungskosten, -aktivitäten und -risiken verknüpft. Grundlage für dieses formalisierte Modell sind Beobachtungen aus Fallbeispielen verschiedener Branchen. Darauf aufbauend wird ein Rahmenwerk entwickelt, um gewählte Referenzsystemelemente und geplante Variationen zur Realisierung eines Innovationspotenzials in Form von Kunden-, Anbieter- und Anwendernutzen hinsichtlich möglicher Entwicklungsrisiken zu bewerten. Das Rahmenwerk wird in Form von drei Bausteinen in Fallstudien exemplarisch implementiert und evaluiert. Es wird zunächst ein Vorgehen zur Ableitung potenziell zielführender Variationen bei gegebenen Anforderungen und Referenzsystemelementen gezeigt. Anschließend wird ein Ansatz zu initialen Risikobewertung anhand von Variationsarten und Charakteristika von Referenzsystemelementen als Schlüsselfaktoren entwickelt. Im letzten Baustein werden Zusammenhänge zwischen Innovationspotenzial, Variationen, Charakteristika von Referenzsystemelementen und Entwicklungsrisiken übergreifend modelliert und zur Entscheidungsunterstützung durch bedarfsgerechte Informationsdarstellung in einer VR-Umgebung visualisiert. Im letzten Teil der Arbeit wird anhand von fünf ausgewählten Fallbeispielen untersucht, wie Entwicklungsaktivitäten in Abhängigkeit von gewählten Variationsarten und Referenzsystemelementen methodisch unterstützt werden können.
Article
Supervisory control synthesis is a method to automatically generate a correct-by-construction supervisory controller. Validation of the synthesized controller is an important step to guarantee correct and safe system behavior. Especially requirement validation for systems with numerous components can be a difficult and time-consuming task. This paper proposes a method that reduces the required validation time and effort of systems through symmetry reduction, and is based on the concept of isomorphism. Isomorphism of component models and requirement models means that these models are equivalent in behavior, and therefore only part of the system needs to be validated. This method is used in an industrial case study, in which a supervisory controller is synthesized for a road tunnel (the Koning Willem-Alexandertunnel, the Netherlands). In this case study, the modeling of the plant and the requirements, supervisor synthesis, simulation, and validation are described.
Article
Bauen im Regen, eine katastrophale Vorstellung, doch Praxis auf Baustellen. Es bringt Ungenauigkeit, behindert den Einsatz moderner Hochleistungswerkstoffe und kostet Zeit, da Störungen im Bauprozess oft umständliche Rückläufe in den Planungsprozess bedeuten. Dennoch gilt der handwerklich geprägte Bauprozess als unvermeidlich, da jedes Bauwerk individuell und in Handarbeit vor Ort zu erstellen ist. Tatsächlich? Das von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft eingerichtete Schwerpunktprogramm „Adaptive Modulbauweisen mit Fließfertigungsmethoden“ setzt auf einen gänzlich neuen Ansatz. Baustrukturen werden in ähnliche modulare Betonfertigteile zerlegt, in Serienfertigung mit Fließprinzip vorgefertigt, in ihrer Qualität gesichert und auf der Baustelle nur noch zusammengefügt. Die Bauzeiten reduzieren sich auf wenige Tage oder Wochen. Vergleichbar einem Puzzle aus vielen Teilen, bleibt die Einzigartigkeit des Tragwerks erhalten. Es gilt: „Individualität im Großen – Ähnlichkeit im Kleinen“. Der Beitrag zeigt Ansätze zur Modularisierung, Produktionskonzepte und verknüpfende, digitale Modelle. Durch die ortsfeste Vorfertigung in Serie entstehen hohe Produktionsgeschwindigkeiten und schlanke, ressourceneffiziente Module, die zu Tragwerken mit geringen Maßabweichungen assembliert werden. Eine durchgängige Digitalisierung sichert die Qualität aller Einzelschritte. Sie reicht von der Fertigung über den Zusammenbau bis in die Nutzungszeit des Tragwerks. Es entsteht ein verschwendungsarmer, ressourceneffizienter Gesamtprozess.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Model-Based Systems Engineering is on everyone's lips as innovative approach to overcome traditional, error-prone document-based product development. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) is the most popular tool for model-based development of multidisciplinary systems. Several research works and industrial pilot projects have applied the OMG-standardized language in the last years, but it has still not become widely accepted. Previous experiences of the authors from several research projects with industry underline this statement and have shown that engineers still have trouble in applying SysML. This paper investigates possible reasons for this issue and presents results of a survey regarding term understanding of engineers as well as acceptance of SysML. 1 Model-Based Systems Engineering – Potentials and Challenges Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is on everyone's lips as an innovative approach to overcome traditional, error-prone, document-based product development. The advantages of using formal models to specify a complex technical system are manifold: fewer inconsistencies, less redundancies and concurrently the basis for clear communication and sustainable documentation. Furthermore, models can help to force systemic thinking, which is often expressed as holistic and function-based thinking [1]. Over the last years, several modeling languages and approaches have been presented. They all promised to enable their users to model multidisciplinary and complex technical systems. The most popular modeling language is SysML, which is based on UML, a widely accepted, object-oriented graphical software modeling language. Observations of the authors have shown that software engineers and electronics engineers cope well with the provided diagrams for modeling several system aspects like structures, sequences or states. Emerging graphical modeling languages for
Chapter
Aufgrund des gestiegenen Wettbewerbsdrucks sowie des Überangebotes an substituierbaren Produkten und Dienstleistungen sahen sich Unternehmen in der Vergangenheit dazu gezwungen, ihre Strukturen und Prozesse in besonderem Maße auf die Kundenwünsche und -bedürfnisse auszurichten, um am Markt bestehen und sich nachhaltig von ihren Konkurrenten absetzen zu können. Nicht zuletzt durch die gestiegenen Kundenanforderungen und verfügbaren technischen Möglichkeiten kommt der Produktqualität hierbei eine besondere Bedeutung zu. Diese kann allerdings nur durch eine hohe Prozessqualität erreicht und gewährleistet werden, sodass neben der Funktionsfähigkeit der Produkte in der Vergangenheit zunehmend die Prozessstabilität sowie Aspekte der Lieferzuverlässigkeit, -flexibilität und -qualität in den Fokus des Interesses rückten. Durch das Vorhalten von Sicherheitsbeständen oder die Beschaffung bei mehreren Lieferanten soll beispielsweise die Lieferfähigkeit und -flexibilität sichergestellt werden. Derartige Strategien helfen zwar, die gewünschten Qualitäts- und Leistungsziele zu erreichen, wirken allerdings gleichzeitig kostensteigernd und komplexitätstreibend.