Robust Concurrent Design of Engine Lubricated Components

ROBUST CONCURRENT DESIGN OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINE LUBRICATED COMPONENTS
A Thesis Presented to the Academic Faculty
by
Bharadwaj Rangarajan
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
February, 1998
ii
ROBUST CONCURRENT DESIGN OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINE LUBRICATED COMPONENTS

____________________________ Bharadwaj Rangarajan
Approved:
_________________________________ Farrokh Mistree, Committee Chair Professor Mechanical Engineering _________________________________ Janet K. Allen Senior Research Scientist Mechanical Engineering _________________________________ Bert Bras Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering _________________________________ Tony Hayter Associate Professor Industrial Systems Engineering _________________________________ Jagadish Sorab Senior Technical Specialist Engine and Processes Department Ford Research Laboratories
_________________________________ Ward Winer Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are several people I would like thank for helping me complete this thesis and I am not sure if I would be doing justice their efforts with this write-up. First and foremost, my advisor/orchestrator, Farrokh for his continued enthusiasm and guidance in helping me push my research effort to new frontiers. One many occasions he has put me on the right track when I have strayed and for this, I remain indebted to him. I am also thankful to my other committee members, Janet Allen, for her patience and crucial advice on issues relating to uncertainty and for the fabulous dinners, saving me the trouble of eating self-cooked food. Bert, for the constructive criticism he has provided, both in my ME 6172 project and in my thesis, Dr. Hayter and Dr. Winer, for their comments on my thesis from their respective viewpoints, Dr. Jagadish Sorab, for providing me this wonderful opportunity to collaborate with Ford on this industrial project and also for my summer internship at Ford. I would also like to express my gratitude to Debbie Finney, for the cheerful and helpful person she has been.
The atmosphere in SRL is very congenial for research and for this I would like thank all the members that comprise it and specifically, Tim Simpson and Pat Koch, my academic mentors. They made graduate research life in the USA extremely easy to adjust for this guy from the other end of the world with totally different ideas and perspectives. The advice and guidance
Pat and Tim have provided during my stay here have been truly vital and I am thankful for my association with them. I have learned a lot from my ME 6170 project mates Roberto and Carrie and the times (both fun and frustration) we spent together working on the project was perhaps my first face to face encounter with research.
The help provided by Dr. Jagadish Sorab, Ford Research Laboratories, Dearborn, Michigan, in defining the engine design problem and in using the Engine Friction Anlalysis Software (EnFAS) is greatly appreciated. We also gratefully acknowledge the monetary support from Ford University Research Program and the NSF grant DMI-96-12365.
Finally, I thank God and my parents for giving me the strength, courage and tenacity to sail through without any major problems.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES SUMMARY NOMENCLATURE
XV XXXII XXXII XXI
CHAPTER 1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN DESIGNING LARGE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 1 1.1 PROBLEM SIGNIFICANCE AND MOTIVATION 1.2 OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE 1.2.1 Commitment to Designing Open Engineering Systems 1.2.2 Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM) 1.2.3 Modeling and Synthesizing Large Systems 1.2.4 Decision Making Based on Information Certainty for Designing Along a Time Line 1.3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE ENGINE DESIGN CASE STUDY 23 27 4 8 8 16 22
vii
1.3.1 Problem Statement and Definition of the Case Study
28
1.3.2 Secondary Research Questions and Corresponding Tasks Under Investigation 28 1.3.3 Methodology for Addressing Research Questions and Related Tasks 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS 1.5 THE ROAD AHEAD 35 35 39
CHAPTER 2 MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS USED IN AUTOMOBILE ENGINE DESIGN 2.1 RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 Creating Response Surface Models 2.1.2 Response Surface Model Regression Analysis And Validation 2.2 COMPROMISE DSP 2.2.1 The Compromise DSP: Math and Word Formulations 2.3 TAGUCHIS ROBUST DESIGN TECHNIQUES 2.3.1 Integration with Response Surface Models and the Compromise DSP 2.4 FUZZY SET THEORY 2.4.1 A Brief Description Of Fuzzy Set Theory Principles 41 42 44 46 48 49 55 59 62 63
viii
2.4.2 Abstraction of Fuzzy Set Theory to Decision Based Design: Fuzzy Compromise DSP 2.5 BAYESIAN STATISTICS AND THE BAYESIAN COMPROMISE DSP 2.6 THE ROAD AHEAD... 66 78 82
CHAPTER 3 AN OVERVIEW OF ENGINE FRICTION AND LUBRICATION 3.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF ENGINE TRIBOLOGY 3.2 A COMPUTER MODEL FOR OVERALL ENGINE FRICTION AND LUBRICATION ANALYSIS: (ENFAS) 3.3 FRICTION AND LUBRICATION MODELING FOR THE BEARINGS 3.4 FRICTION AND LUBRICATION MODELING FOR PISTON 3.5 FRICTION AND LUBRICATION MODELING FOR THE VALVE TRAIN 3.5.1 Flat Tappet Follower Valve Train Friction Analysis 3.5.2 Roller Follower Valve-Train Friction Model 3.6 ACCESSORIES FRICTION MODELING 3.8 THE ROAD AHEAD 88 90 95 100 101 103 106 109 83 84
CHAPTER 4
ix
DEVELOPING SYSTEM RESPONSE AND SOLUTION MODELS 4.1 LAYING DOWN THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND FACTORS OF THE DIFFERENT ENGINE COMPONENTS 4.1.1 Design Requirements and Factors for the Bearing Subsystem 4.1.2 Design Requirements and Factors for the Piston Subsystem 4.1.3 Design Requirements and Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem 4.1.4 Design Requirements and Factors for the Oil Pump Subsystem 4.2 IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT DESIGN FACTORS: SCREENING EXPERIMENTS 4.3 ELABORATING SYSTEM RESPONSE MODELS 4.3.1 Developing Response Models for the Bearing Subsystem 4.3.2 Developing Response Models for the Piston Subsystem 4.3.3 Developing Response Models for the Valve Train Subsystem 4.3.4 Developing Response Models for the Oil Pump Subsystem 4.3.5 Validation of Response Surface Models 4.4 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGNING THE ENGINE 4.4.1 Modeling Robustness at the System Level 4.4.2 Modeling Robustness at the Subsystem Level (Bearings)
111
115 116 119 121 123
125 132 137 140 141 143 146
150 150 155
4.5 FORMULATION OF SOLUTION MODELS BASED ON LEVEL OF INFORMATION CERTAINTY, FOR A SYSTEM LEVEL SYNTHESIS 4.5.1 Computer Implementation of the Compromise DSP Using DSIDES 4.5.2 Validation of the Engine Compromise DSP: Solution Convergence 4.6 THE ROAD AHEAD..... 159 177 178 185
CHAPTER 5 GENERATION OF TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS: VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 5.1 INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENT DESIGN SCENARIOS 5 .2 TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS 5.2.1 Results of Crisp Formulation 5.2.2 Results of Fuzzy Formulation 5.2.3 Results of Bayesian Formulation 5.2.4 Developing Ranged Sets of Specifications for Different Compromise DSP Formulations 5.3 EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTY ON ACHIEVING DESIRED PERFORMANCE 213 208 190 192 197 203 INFERENCES, 186 188
xi
5.3.1 Influence of Uncertainty Parameter c on Goal Achievement 5.3.2 Influence of Fuzziness Parameter on Solution Convergence 5.4 INFERENCES BASED ON TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5.4.1 Trade Off between Friction Losses and Lubricant Film Thickness 5.4.2 Trade-Off between Tolerance Design and System Sensitivity to Tolerance 5.4.3 Implication of Robustness in Designing for Different Operating Conditions
216 222 228 229
231
233
5.4.4 Link Between Information Certainty and Design Freedom along a Design Time Line 5.4.5 Comparison of the Use of Taguchi Methods and Design Capability Indices in Satisfying a Ranged Set of Design Requirements 5.6 THE ROAD AHEAD 243 252 236
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF WORK DONE AND RESEARCH EXTENSIONS 6.1 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS PERFORMED 6.1.1 Research Questions Revisited 6.1.2 Relevant Contributions through this Work 254 255 256 262
xii
6.2 RESEARCH EXTENSIONS STEMMING FORM THIS WORK 6.3 CLOSING REMARKS
265 267
APPENDIX A RESULTS OF SCREENING EXPERIMENTS A.1 BEARING SUBSYSTEM A.2 PISTON SUBSYSTEM A.3 VALVE-TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 268 269 270 271
APPENDIX B RESPONSE SURFACE MODELING: RESULTS AND VALIDATION B.1 BEARING RESPONSES B.2 PISTON RESPONSES B.3 VALVE-TRAIN RESPONSES B.4 OIL PUMP RESPONSES 272 274 283 286 292
APPENDIX C COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPROMISE DSP C.1 FILES FOR COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPROMISE DSP 298 298
xiii
C.1.1 FORTRAN File for Engine Compromise DSP C.1.2 Data File for Engine Compromise DSP C.2 CONVERGENCE PLOTS OF DESIGN VARIABLES C.2.1 Convergence History for Bearing Subsystem C.2.2 Convergence History for Piston Subsystem C.2.3 Convergence History for Piston Subsystem C.2.2 Convergence History for Piston Subsystem
299 307 310 311 314 319 322
C.3 BEARING COMPROMISE DSP FOR INVESTIGATING TOLERANCE DESIGN324
REFERENCES
328
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: The Fundamental Differences Between Open And Closed System Paradigms ............................................................................................10 Table 1.2: Table 2.1: Table 2.2: Research Questions and Relevant Chapters...........................................35 Research Questions Addressed in Chapter 2 .........................................42 Compromise DSP for Two Major Types of Robust Design Application (Chen, et al., 1995) ............................................................61 Table 2.3: A Comparison of Different Approaches in the Usage of Fuzzy Sets in Optimization Models.........................................................................74 Table 4.1: Table 4.2: Table 4.3: Table 4.4: Table 4.5: Table 4.6: Table 4.7: Table 4.8: Table 4.9: Research Questions Addressed through Chapter 4 ..............................113 Bearing Subsystem Factors and Ranges...............................................118 Factors and Ranges for the Piston Subsystem......................................121 Factors and Ranges for the Valve Train Subsystem..............................123 Factors and Ranges for the Oil Pump Subsystem.................................124 Most Significant Factors for the Bearing Subsystem.............................129 Held Constant Factors for the Bearing Subsystem................................129 Most Significant Factors for the Piston Subsystem...............................129 Held Constant Factors for the Piston Subsystem..................................130
xv
Table 4.10: Table 4.11: Table 4.12: Table 4.13: Table 4.14: Table 4.15: Table 4.16: Table 4.17: Table 4.18: Table 4.19: Table 5.1: Table 5.2:
Most Significant Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem.......................130 Held Constant Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem..........................130 Details of BPOWLOS Response Model ............................................138 Details of BBFLMTHK Response Model ..........................................139 Details of MBFLMTHK Response Model .........................................140 Details of PPOWLOS Response Model..............................................141 Details of VPOWLOS Response Modeling.........................................142 Details of VFLMTHK Response Modeling .........................................143 Details of PUPOWLOS Response Modeling........................................144 Details of OILFR Response Modeling..................................................145 Different Scenarios for Formulation of the Deviation Function................190 Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................194
Table 5.3:
Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................195
Table 5.4:
Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................195
Table 5.5:
Top Level Specifications for Oil Pump for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................196
xvi
Table 5.6:
Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.05)................................................................199
Table 5.7:
Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.03)...............................................................200
Table 5.8:
Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.05)................................................................200
Table 5.9:
Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.05)................................................................205
Table 5.10:
Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.03)................................................................206
Table 5.11:
Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.05)................................................................206
Table 5.12: Table 5.13: Table 5.14: Table 5.15:
Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Bearing Subsystem......................210 Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Piston Subsystem........................211 Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Valve-train Subsystem.................211 Results for Bearing Subsystem For Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP .......................................................................................217
Table 5.16:
Results for Piston Subsystem for Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP.........................................................................................218
xvii
Table 5.17:
Results for Valve-train Subsystem for Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP ...................................................................................218
Table 5.18:
Results for Bearing Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP ...................................................................................................220
Table 5.19:
Results for Piston Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP ...................................................................................................221
Table 5.20:
Results for Valve Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP.....................................................................................221
Table 5.21: Table 5.22:
Two Design Configurations for Investigation of Robustness...................235 DFI Values of Different Engine Subsystems Based on Formulation.........................................................................................240
Table 5.23: Table 5.24:
Constraint and Target Values for the System Responses .......................246 Ranged Set of Top Level Specifications Using Two Different Models of Robustness.........................................................................249
Table 5.25:
Design Freedom Indices for the Engine Subsystems based on Two Different Robustness Models (Crisp Formulation) ........................251
Table A.1: Table A.2: Table A.3: Table C.1:
Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of BPOWLOS...................269 Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of PPOWLOS ...................270 Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of VPOWLOS...................271 Design Scenarios Investigated For The Bearing Compromise DSP.......326
xviii
Table C.2:
Design Specifications from Bearing Compromise DSP. ........................327
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Figure 1.2: Primary Research Question and Chapter 1 Structure................................4 Typical Energy Distribution in an Automobile Engine (Sorab, 1997)............................................................................5 Figure 1.3: Typical Friction Distribution Among Various Components (Sorab, 1997)...................................................................6 Figure 1.4: Reducing Time-To-Market by Increasing Design Knowledge and Maintaining Design Freedom.........................................................11 Figure 1.5: Figure 1.6: The Robust Concept Exploration Modules ............................................18 Principal Research Question, Key Phrases, and Secondary Research Questions and Tasks: A Mental Model.................................29 Figure 1.7: Hierarchic and Non-hierarchic Representation of Systems (Koch, 1997)......................................................................................30 Figure 1.8: Figure 1.9: Figure 1.10: Figure 1.11: Figure 2.1 Component Level Engine Representation.............................................31 Steps in Using the RCEM for Engine Design Case Study......................36 A Road Map for the Thesis..................................................................38 Running Icon for the Thesis ..................................................................39 Second-Order Response Surface Model..............................................43
xx
Figure 2.2: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4:
Creating Response Surface Models......................................................44 Three Variables Central Composite Design...........................................46 A Single Objective Optimization Problem (a) and the Multi goal Compromise Decision Support Problem (b).........................................51
Figure 2.5: Figure 2.6:
Mathematical Form of a Compromise DSP ..........................................53 A Comparison of Two Types of Robust Design (Chen, et al., 1995).............................................................................57
Figure 2.7: Figure 2.8: Figure 2.9: Figure 2.10: Figure 2.11:
Mapping form the Design Space to the Membership Space.............. 64 The Different Kinds of Fuzzy Memberships ............................................65 Mathematical Formulation of a Fuzzy Compromise DSP.........................72 A Fuzzy Goal around a Crisp Target ......................................................76 Mathematical Formulation of a Bayesian Compromise DSP (adapted from Vadde, et al., 1994b).....................................................81
Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2
Role of EnFAS (Simulation Model) within the RCEM Structure..............84 Typical Energy Distribution in an Automotive Engine (Taylor, 1993)......................................................................................85
Figure 3.3: Figure 3.4: Figure 3.5: Figure 3.6:
Lubrication Regimes (Shigley and Mischke, 1989)..................................86 EnFAS Analysis Module Structure (Rangarajan, 1997)...........................90 Big End Bearing Loading and Load Diagram Shapes (Taylor, 1993).......91 Bearing Lubrication (Sorab, 1997).........................................................92
xxi
Flow Chart for Bearing Friction Computer Analysis ................................94 Crank Angle Resolved Connecting Rod Bearing Loads and Power Loss (Sorab, 1997) ...................................................................95
Figure 3.9: Figure 3.10: Figure 3.11: Figure 3.12: Figure 3.13:
Piston Lubrication (Sorab, 1997) ..........................................................96 Flow Chart for Piston Friction Computer Modeling................................99 Graph of Piston Ring Power Loss Vs. Crank Angle (Sorab, 1997) ......100 Cam and Flat Tappet Follower (Rangarajan,1997) ..............................101 End Pivot Rocker Roller Follower Cam Mechanism (Heywood, 1988)...............................................................................103
Flow Chart for Valve Train Friction Computer Modeling .....................105 Graph of Friction Torque of Valve Train Vs. Cam Angle (Sorab, 1997) ....................................................................................106
Figure 3.16: Figure 3.17: Figure 3.18: Figure 3.19 Figure 4.1: Figure 4.2: Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4:
Flow Chart for Oil Pump Friction Modeling.........................................107 Oil Viscosity Contribution for Pump At 00C (Sorab, 1997).................108 Overall Engine Friction Estimates from EnFAS (Sorab, 1997)..............109 Pictorial Review of Issues Addressed in the First Three Chapters...110 A Pictorial Representation of Issues Addressed in Chapter 4 ..............112 Case Study Implementation Process Diagram..........................114 A Typical Normal Distribution for Engine Speed..................................119 General Procedure for Performing Screening Experiments
xxii
for Each Subsystem............................................................................127 Figure 4.5: A General Method for Generating Engine Subsystem Response Models ...............................................................................135 Figure 4.6: Figure 4.7: Figure 4.8: Figure 4.9: Figure 4.10: Figure 4.11: Figure 4.12: Figure 4.13: Figure 4.14: Prediction Profile for BPOWLOS........................................................138 Prediction Profile for BBFLMTHK ......................................................138 Prediction Profile for MBFLMTHK .....................................................139 Prediction Profile for PPOWLOS ........................................................140 Prediction Profile for VPOWLOS........................................................142 Prediction Profile for VFLMTHK ........................................................142 Prediction Profile for PUPOWLOS......................................................144 Prediction Profile for OILFR................................................................145 Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BPOWLOS..................................................................................147 Figure 4.15: Figure 4.16: Figure 4.17 : Figure 4.18: Figure 4.19: Actual vs. Predicted Values of BPOWLOS..........................................148 Residual vs. Predicted Values of BPOWLOS.......................................149 Probability Distribution of Engine Speed...............................................151 A Typical Normal Distribution for Bearing Dimensions..........................156 Preference Function and Possibility Parameter in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................................166 Figure 4.20: A Gaussian Distribution for Representing an Uncertain Parameter
xxiii
in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................169 Figure 4.21: Mathematical Formulation of a Compromise DSP for System Level Synthesis.......................................................................175 Figure 4.22: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points (Fuzzy Formulation) .....................................................181 Figure 4.23: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points (Bayesian Formulation) .......................................................................181 Figure 4.24: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points (Crisp Formulation)......................................................182 Figure 4.25: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (Fuzzy Formulation) ..........................................183 Figure 4.26: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (Bayesian Formulation) ................................................183 Figure 4.27: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (Bayesian Formulation)................................184 Figure 5.1: Mathematical Formulation of a Compromise DSP for System Level Synthesis.......................................................................187 Figure 5.2: Figure 5.3: Figure 5.4: Mathematical Formulation of Engine Crisp Compromise DSP..............193 Mathematical Formulation of Engine Fuzzy Compromise DSP..............198 Representation of a Fuzzy Goal in a Robust Design Region..................202
xxiv
Mathematical Formulation of Engine Bayesian Compromise DSP.........204 Convergence of Deviation Function for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP...........................................................223
Figure 5.7:
Convergence of Deviation Function for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Compromise DSP ......................................................223
Figure 5.8:
Convergence of Main Bearing Clearance (MCLR, ? m) for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation........................................225
Figure 5.9:
Convergence of Oil Ring Tension (OT, MPa) for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation. .....................................................225
Figure 5.10:
Convergence of Valve Closing Load (VCL. gms) for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation. .....................................................226
Figure 5.11:
Convergence of Main Bearing Clearance (MCLR, ? m) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation. ................................................227
Figure 5.12:
Convergence of Oil Ring Tension (OT, MPa) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation. ................................................227
Figure 5.13:
Convergence of Valve Closing Load (VCL, gms) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation. ................................................228
Figure 5.14:
Deviation Variables for Bearing Power Loss (BPOWLOS) and Film Thickness (BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK) for Three Scenarios (Table 5.1) ..........................................................230
xxv
Figure 5.15:
Deviation Variables for Valve-train Power Loss (VPOWLOS) and (Cam And Follower Film Thickness) VFLMTHK for Three Scenarios (Table 5.1). .........................................................231
Figure 5.16:
Plot for Investigation Trade-Off between Tolerance Design and System Sensitivity to Tolerance .........................................233
Figure 5.17:
Comparison of Two Designs with respect to Total Engine System Power Loss............................................................................236
Figure 5.18:
Target Performance and Feasible Performance Ranges for Measuring Design Freedom...........................................................238
Figure 5.19:
Graph between DFI and Information Certainty for Different Engine Subsystems ...............................................................240
Figure 5.20: Figure 5.21: Figure 5.22:
Design Process Time Line for Automobile Engine Design. ....................241 Bilevel Modeling of Robustness...........................................................244 A System Level Crisp Compromise DSP using Design Capability Indices...............................................................................247
Research Issues Addressed through Chapter 5. ...................................253 A Schematic Representation of the Mode of Addressing Research Issues..................................................................................256
Figure A.1: Figure A.2:
Pareto Plot for BPOWLOS ................................................................269 Pareto Plot for PPOWLOS.................................................................270
xxvi
Figure A.3: Figure B.1:
Pareto Plot for VPOWLOS ................................................................271 Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BPOWLOS.................................................................................274
Figure B.2:
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for BPOWLOS.................................................................................275
Figure B.3:
Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for BPOWLOS.................................................................276
Figure B.4:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BBFLMTHK.............................................................277
Figure B.5: Figure B.6:
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for BBFLMTHK ........278 Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP For BBFLMTHK ..............................................................279
Figure B.7:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for MBFLMTHK...............................................................................280
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for MBFLMTHK ........281 Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for MBFLMTHK...............................................................282
Figure B.10:
Comparison of Actual (a) And Predicted Response Surface (b) for PPOWLOS ................................................................283
Figure B.11:
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for PPOWLOS ...........284
xxvii
Figure B.12:
Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for PPOWLOS .....................................................285
Figure B.13:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for VPOWLOS................................................................286
Figure B.14:
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for VPOWLOS..................................................................................287
Figure B.15:
Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for VPOWLOS.....................................................288
Figure B.16:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for VFLMTHK ................................................................289
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for VFLMTHK ...........290 Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) And Residual Plot (b) from JMP for VFLMTHK .....................................................291
Figure B.19:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for PUPOWLOS .............................................................292
Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for PUPOWLOS.........293 Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for PUPOWLOS ...............................................................294
Figure B.22:
Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for OILFR..........................................................................................295
xxviii
Plots of First (a) And Second Order (b) Effects for OILFR..................296 Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) And Residual Plot (b) from JMP for OILFR .........................................................................297
Figure C.1:
Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................311
Figure C.2:
Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................311
Figure C.3:
Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................312
Figure C.4:
Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................312
Figure C.5:
Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................313
Figure C.6:
Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................313
Figure C.7:
Convergence of BORE From 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................314
Figure C.8:
Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP..................................................................314
Figure C.9:
Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points
xxix
in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................315 Figure C.10: Convergence of BORE From 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................315 Figure C.11: Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................316 Figure C.12: Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................316 Figure C.13: Convergence of BORE from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................317 Figure C.14: Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................317 Figure C.15: Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................318 Figure C.16: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................319 Figure C.17: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP ..............................................................319 Figure C.18: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................320 Figure C.19: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points
xxx
in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................320 Figure C.20: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................321 Figure C.21: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................321 Figure C.22: Convergence of R1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................322 Figure C.23: Convergence of R2 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................322 Figure C.24: Convergence of B from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................323 Figure C.25: Mathematical Formulation of Bearing Compromise DSP for Tolerance Design...........................................................................325
xxxi
NOMENCLATURE
ANOVA CCD C-DSP Cdk , Cdu, Cdl DBD Design freedom Analysis of Variance Central Composite Design Compromise Decision Support Problem Design capability indices Decision Based Design A measure of the extent to which a system can be adjusted while still meeting the requirements DOE DSIDES Design of Experiments Decision Support in Designing Engineering Systems (used to solve compromise DSPs) DSP EnFAS JMP LRL RSM RCEM TDC URL Decision Support Problem Engine Friction Analysis Software Statistical Software Package developed by SAS Institute. Lower Requirement Limit Response Surface Methodology Robust Concept Exploration Method Top Dead Center Upper Requirement Limit
xxxii
xi y ? ?
~
Design variable Response Mean of a response Standard Deviation of a response A fuzzy parameter
Variables Used in the Case Study Bearings BDIAM BLEN BCLR SPEED MDIAM MLEN MCLR TOLBD TOLMD TOLMC TOLBC BORE Big end bearing diameter Big end bearing length Big end bearing clearance: Engine speed: Main bearing diameter Main bearing length: Main bearing clearance Manufacturing Tolerance on BDIAM Manufacturing Tolerance on MDIAM Manufacturing Tolerance on MCLR Manufacturing Tolerance on BCLR Bore diameter of the piston
xxxiii
WF CONROD BPOWLOS
Weight of the flywheel Length of the connecting rod Total power loss in the bearings
BBFLMTHK Big end or connecting rod bearing film thickness MBFLMTHK Main or crankshaft bearing film thickness
Piston assembly RW1 RW2 RO1 RO2 RT1 RT2 BORE CONROD RS OT OWIDTH RCURV PPOWLOS Width of compression ring 1 Width of compression ring 2 Offset of compression ring 1 Offset of compression ring 2 Tension in compression ring 1 Tension in compression ring 2 Bore diameter of the piston Length of the connecting rod Ring surface roughness Oil control ring tension Oil ring width Ring face radius of curvature Power loss in the piston assembly
xxxiv
Valve train VCL SR BASRAD RT TBL BCLOAD WROLL RCAGE CSRM CFL WVALS VPOWLOS VFLMTHK Valve closing load Valve spring rate Cam base circle radius Tappet radius Tappet bore length Load on the cam base circle Roller mass Mean radius of the roller bearing cage Composite surface roughness Cam follower contact length Valve spring weight Total valve train friction power loss Film thickness in the cam follower interface
Oil pump R1 R2 B Radius of the rotor Radius of the outer gear Width of the gear
xxxv
DINLET LINLET S OILFR PUPOWLOS
Diameter of the inlet tube Length of the inlet tube Area between engaging gear teeth Lubricant/oil flow rate through the pump Friction loss in the oil pump.
xxxvi
SUMMARY
One of the major underlying issues in designing fuel efficient automobile engines is that tribological problems relating to friction and lubrication are unearthed after the product development process (testing phase), leading to reduced quality and durability. To facilitate simultaneous engineering and concurrent determination of performance targets for different components, the usage of an overall engine friction model is proposed, so that tribological considerations are abstracted to the parametric design stages itself. The case study under investigation involves developing top level design specifications for automobile engine lubricated components (bearings, pistons, valves, etc.). The Robust Concept Exploration Method (developed in the Systems Realization Lab., Georgia Tech.) is adopted in implementing this case study. This involves three major action items, 1. Design space exploration (design of experiments), 2. System modeling (engine friction computer modeling and system approximation using response surface methods), and 3. System synthesis (Compromise DSP). Additionally through the use of fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics the relationship between quality of information about issues relating to friction and lubrication and the ranged set of top level specifications generated, at different stages in a design process, is captured. The details of the case study, the implication of the results and the conclusions that can be drawn, are elaborated in this thesis.
xxxvii
1. CHAPTER 1
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN DESIGNING LARGE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

Complex engineering systems are characterized as having multiple interdependent subsystems and conflicting design requirements, making a trade off between these requirements indispensable. While designing such systems it is extremely essential to represent them as close to reality as possible and to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in their synthesis. One such complex system is an automobile engine and one of the associated concerns is designing fuel efficient engines. To achieve a competitive advantage in the field of automobile engine design it is necessary to seek holistic and robust design processes in which considerations of fuel efficiency and durability are included. Traditional approaches to design involve design
processes with sequential decisions that increasingly constrain a design. This involves fixing parameters at one level before moving to the next level of detail. Newer methods that help a designer partition the problem to a set of related tasks and facilitate concurrent decision making to address different product issues (performance, durability, cost, etc.) must be developed. The main points of focus in this thesis, in dealing with automobile engine design include, ?? representing the engine system and its components accurately,
?? increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the process of synthesis, ?? addressing issues relating to friction and lubrication through the notion of simulation based design, and ?? seeking satisficing rather than optimal solutions to models that accurately represent the real world. By satisficing solutions we refer to those solutions that are good enough and not necessarily the best. Seeking satisficing solutions is considered a more practical approach than seeking optimal solutions in real life complex systems design. The notion of satisficing was introduced by Herbert Simon and in (Simon, 1988) he states, Of course the decision that is optimal for the simplified approximation will rarely be optimal in the real world, but experience shows it will often be satisfactory. The alternative method provided by Artificial Intelligence (AI), most often in the form of heuristic search (selective search using rules of thumb), find decisions that are good enough, that satisfice
The case study that is investigated in this thesis involves concurrent design of a system consisting of lubricated engine components. The primary concern in this case study deals with including tribological considerations in design. At this juncture the principal research question addressed through this thesis is posed.
How can issues like friction and lubrication be effectively and efficiently addressed in system level design to generate robust top level design specifications along a design timeline and avoid rework? 2
Top-level design specifications provide the foundation of the preliminary design of complex systems. They define system/subsystem concept alternatives, representing the primary descriptors of a complex system. (Koch, et al., 1996)
This principal research question serves as an ideal starting point to discuss the structure of this chapter as presented in Figure 1.1. The motivation for addressing the principal research question and significance of the same s established through the next section. As shown in i Figure 1.1, designing open engineering systems serves as a guiding paradigm in developing ranged sets of top level design specifications to satisfy the engine system requirements. The defining characteristics of open engineering systems and its relevance in generating ranged sets of top level design specifications in early design stages is presented in Section 1.2.1. Associated with open engineering systems design are issues involving modeling large systems, incorporating robustness and modeling uncertainty in early design stages. The Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM) (Chen, et al., 1996a) is used as a design framework that enables us address the aforementioned issues and to integrate tribological considerations in designing open engineering systems efficiently. A discussion on this method is presented in Section 1.2.2 and its particularization to the case study summarized in Section 1.3.3. Since we are interested in a system level design process, a clear representation of the engine components and their interactions is necessary to use the RCEM for system synthesis. A discussion on different
approaches to system level modeling and synthesis and the approach adopted in this thesis is presented in Section 1.2.3. The issue of robustness as viewed in this case study is highlighted in Section 1.2.1 under the discussion of open engineering systems. It must be remembered that specifications generated in preliminary (early) phases of engine development are seldom final. In other words, further down a design timeline, detailed component level analysis and synthesis processes are carried out which may necessitate a change in the specifications generated in the previous phases of design. Moreover, preliminary design phases are typically characterized by a lot of uncertain information (Vadde, et al., 1994b), and it is necessary to (a) recognize the extent of uncertainty prevalent in the information available to a designer and (b) model it suitably. A discussion on the role of uncertainty and the ways to model it is presented in Section 1.2.4.
RCEM: A Design Framework for System Level Design (Section 1.2.2)
Modeling Large Systems (Section 1.2.3)
Incorporating Robustness (Section 1.2.1)
Modeling Uncertainty (Section 1.2.4)
How to address the question?
Guiding Paradigm: Desiging Open Engineering Systems

(Section 1.2.1)
Principal Research Question
Problem Significance and Motivation (Section 1.1)
Why address the question?
Figure 1.1: Primary Research Question and Chapter 1 Structure
In Section 1.3 an overview of the engine design case study, the relevant research questions and the tasks involved are presented. This chapter is concluded with a road map and a running icon for the thesis, which outline the remaining chapters of this thesis.
1.1
PROBLEM SIGNIFICANCE AND MOTIVATION In this thesis we are interested in designing automobile engine lubricated components
concurrently, for reduced friction losses and sufficient lubrication. Reducing engine friction improves the thermal efficiency of the engine and consequently reduces vehicle fuel 5
consumption. Stringent government laws pertaining to environmental pollution regulation and control, and strong competitive market forces, have resulted in a renewed interest in understanding the mechanisms of engine friction and applying this understanding to designing low friction engine components. In order to do this, we need to understand ?? how friction is generated, ?? the variation of friction losses with engine conditions, ?? the distribution of these losses among engine components, and ?? the interaction of component geometry, surfaces and engine oil parameters and their effects on engine friction
A typical energy distribution in an automobile engine is shown in Figure 1.2.
Brake HP 25%
Exhaust 32%
Pumping 6%
Engine Friction 8%
Cylinder cooling 29%
Figure 1.2: Typical Energy Distribution in an Automobile Engine (Sorab, 1997)
From Figure 1.2 it is evident that magnitude of losses in an engine (pumping + friction) are very much comparable to the brake power generated. In Figure 1.3 the distribution of friction among the various engine components is illustrated.
Piston Rings 26%
Valve train 19%
Piston Skirt 11% Accessories 12%
Main Bearings 18%
Connecting Rod Bearings 14%
Figure 1.3: Typical Friction Distribution Among Various Components (Sorab, 1997)
Friction distribution among the various components varies from engine to engine and as seen from Figure 1.3, it is dominated by the piston assembly, bearings and valve train. Hence in this study, generation of top level design specifications for these three components is investigated in detail, so that the engine configurations generated ensure improved fuel efficiency. In addition design of the oil pump which supplies the lubricant is also studied, so that lubricant flow rate and power loss requirements of the pump are also included in the design.
The development process for a new engine proceeds through a series of consecutive stages including formation of a concept, planning, determination of performance targets, design synthesis of the components, trial production of prototypes, experimentation for checking performance and durability and reliability tests for assuring quality (Hamai, et al., 1990). One of the major shortcomings of such a development process is that problems relating to friction and lubrication are unearthed only in the durability and reliability evaluation stage, making implementation of changes an arduous task. To facilitate simultaneous engineering and
concurrent determination of performance targets, tribological considerations should be abstracted and introduced into to the preliminary design stages itself. This idea serves as a motivating factor in the case study investigated in this thesis. Tribological issues are captured through the usage of an overall engine friction prediction model (given in Chapter 3) which is used to determine part configurations of different engine components and also estimate engine losses. With the help of this model and other mathematical tools that are elaborated in later parts (Chapter 2) of this thesis, it is possible to examine different engine configurations and their relative merits from the point of view of engine friction and lubrication before finalizing the engine type and configuration.
Another motivating factor in this study deals with the idea of robustness or generating engine configurations that are insensitive to small variations in dimensions and also have the capacity to function effectively under different operating conditions. The theoretical foundations
of robustness and its particularization for this case study are presented in Sections 2.3 and 4.4 respectively.
Related literature on the tribological considerations in design include (Rosenberg, 1982) and (Hamai, et al., 1990) in which techniques for predicting and reducing engine friction losses are presented. In (Katoh and Yasuda, 1994) friction reduction techniques for valve train mechanisms in new generation light weight engines are summarized. Bartz (Bartz, 1985), gives an overview of lubricant effects on engine friction and potential fuel savings by adopting low friction engine oils. Through this thesis an attempt is made to use a lot of domain specific tribological information (friction and lubrication parameters of engine components) in conjunction with domain independent robust design techniques in configuring an automobile engine. The problem significance and motivation being established, in the next section our frame of reference or a set of guiding principles is presented.
1.2
OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE In this section a discussion on Open Engineering Systems, the Robust Concept
Exploration Method (RCEM), system decomposition and the role of uncertainty in design is presented from the point of view of their relevance to this case study. 1.2.1 Commitment to Designing Open Engineering Systems Open engineering systems are systems of products, processes, and/or services which are readily adaptable to changes in the systems comprehensive environment (Simpson, et al., 9
1997a). An open engineering system allows producers to remain competitive in a global marketplace through continuous improvement and indefinite growth of an existing base. More firms are striving to deliver greater quality, more customization, faster response, more innovative designs and lower prices (Bower and Hout, 1988; Stalk and Hout, 1990). World-class manufacturers have responded by adopting product design and manufacturing systems that are more flexible, responsive and cost effective than ever before, (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Drucker, 1990; Womack, et al., 1990)
In essence, an open engineering system resembles a readily adapting system. In a continuously changing environment, the traditional means of retiring and redesigning is too inefficient and expensive for society to maintain and still remain competitive. Remaining open during the early stages of solution formulation and opting for a satisficing rather than an optimal solution to system requirements produces a system that more rapidly accommodates even those changes that cannot be predicted. If every new artifact that is manufactured has to be developed from scratch, then this would result in a colossal waste of time and effort. How can this issue be tackled? One way of doing this is to consider product features in the early design stages itself and come up with concepts that would to a certain extent circumvent the necessity for an absolute change. Designing open engineering systems provides the answer to the questions of a changing competitive global marketplace.
10
Going back to the principal research question posed in Section 1.1, we see that by addressing tribological issues in design we are in a way reducing downstream changes that are necessitated by reliability and durability problems. In essence we are interested in designing the automobile engine as an open engineering system. Inherent benefits of designing open
engineering systems include increased quality, decreased time-to-market, improved customization, and increased return on investment which are enhanced through the system's capability to be adapted to change. System in this case refers to the product, process, and/or service as well as the producers and the customers. Consider the following analogy: like a species that cannot adapt itself to a changing environment, a system that cannot be adapted to a changing marketplace becomes extinct. We now proceed to the actual definition of an open engineering system,
Open engineering systems are systems of industrial products, services, and/or processes that are readily adaptable to changes in their environment and enable producers to remain competitive in a global marketplace through continuous improvement and indefinite growth of an existing base. (Simpson, et al., 1996).
The basic premise in designing an open engineering system, is to get a quality product to market quickly and then remain competitive in the marketplace through continuous development of the product line. Shown in Table 1.1 are the primary differences between the open and closed systems paradigm.
11
Table 1.1: The Fundamental Differences Between Open And Closed System Paradigms
Closed System Paradigm short term profit pressure to constrain design quickly single point solution in early stages design-for-manufacture little growth capability rigid designs mass production designed for current technology Open System Paradigm long-term investment keep design freedom open satisficing solutions in early stages design-for-life cycle indefinite growth potential flexible designs mass customization adaptable to current and future technology
What is the relevance of open engineering systems specifically in automobile engine design? Designing automobile engines as open engineering systems provides the inherent advantage of adaptability to new requirements and eliminates redesign to a great extent. The process of redesigning an engine is a cumbersome and costly process. In this thesis open engineering systems are chosen as a guiding paradigm in designing the engine effectively and avoiding rework due to durability or reliability problems. Designing open engineering systems as mentioned before help us achieve better quality products, reduced time to market, and increased return on investment. To achieve all these benefits we have to model a design process suitably. In the following two sections the characteristics of design processes under open systems and the product features under an open engineering environment, and their relevance to this thesis are discussed. Characteristics of open engineering design processes The design of open engineering is anchored on the three important requirements: 12
1. Increasing design knowledge during early design phases 2. Maintaining design freedom during early design phases. 3. Increasing efficiency of the design process. This notion is graphically represented in Figure 1.4 where the shifts in the design knowledge and design freedom, in early design stages, when designing open systems is shown. The reason for increasing design knowledge and maintaining design freedom, during early design stages, a lot of flexibility is provided for the later design stages and the amount of rework is also reduced. The specifications obtained using a design process in the early design phases, are used in quest for superior solutions as more information flows in along a design time line. Hence it is desirable to maintain some design freedom through the specifications generated. Designing open engineering systems helps achieve this.
13
Potential Time Savings
100%
Maintain Freedom Increase Knowledge
CUMULATIVE
Knowledge about Design
Design Freedom
0% Preliminary Prototype Concept Rework Detail
Design Time-Line
Preliminary
Prototype
Concept
Detail
Rework
Figure 1.4: Reducing Time -To-Market by Increasing Design Knowledge and Maintaining Design Freedom (Simpson, 1995)
What are the ramifications of these requirements.? An increase in design knowledge helps us develop a better understanding of the system and get a feel for the system sensitivity. Also included in this is the abstraction of principles to early stages of design so that downstream design changes may be avoided. This also improves the possibility of developing adaptable products as the future needs of the product are predicted if greater information is available in the early design stages. Increase in design knowledge implies the ability to answer questions usually posed in the later stages of product development and avoid rework. If issues like reliability, manufacturability are abstracted to the early design stages (where changes are implemented more easily), then a design process
14
becomes holistic, as different issues along a product timeline are addressed in the design phase itself.
Maintaining design freedom implies that it would be unwise to restrict the choices that are available quite early in the design. In designing complex systems it is desirable to keep design freedom as open as possible so that changes are implemented more easily. Also, keeping design freedom open reduces the probability of neglecting competent designs on the basis of qualitative information.
Increasing efficiency implies making the process quicker in terms of the computations involved and making wise approximations in order to increase the computational efficiency of the process. Wherever possible the process should be automated.
In this case study, the preceding features are incorporated in the following ways. Increase Design Knowledge in Early Design Sages
15
Design Phase Simulation

Testing Phase Issues relating to friction and lubrication
by incorporating tribological considerations in design phase itself by identifying the impact of system parameters on performance by identifying the significant factors or the design (friction) drivers by studying changes in the design variables due to different scenarios or trade off studies
by answering several what-if questions during the design process
Increase Design Freedom
Ranged sets of specifications as against point optimal solutions
Level of uncertainty
?? by searching for satisficing ranged sets of solutions rather than optimal or point solutions. ?? incorporating robustness into the design by making the design insensitive to changes in the later design stages 16
?? by enhancing concept exploration by not restricting the number of parameters considered or limiting their ranges. ?? by mathematically modeling the quality of information and not restricting the feasible design space based on uncertain information
Increase Efficiency
Factor B
B3
B2
C 3 B1 A1 A2 C1 C2
Factor C
A3
Factor A
by using response surfaces (Section 2.1) to develop models for system performances to improve computational efficiency.
by utilizing statistical techniques like Design of Experiments (Section 2.1) to obtain various design parameter settings quickly.
Having addressed design process issues for open systems, we now look at the product features in an open engineering system.
Product features in open engineering systems The next important issue that needs to be considered deals with the characteristics that have to be incorporated into a product that is designed as an open system. One way is to design flexible products that are adapted in response to a large number of changes in customer
17
requirements by changing a small number of components (Chen, et al., 1994). Another way is to develop robust designs which evolve into a design family of variants which meet a variety of changing market needs and requirements. This leads us into the investigation the characteristics of open engineering systems. Flexibility is one primary feature of an open engineering system without which the system is no longer adaptable to change. Flexibility encompasses the other features of open engineering system namely, adaptability, robustness, modularity and mutability. In (Simpson, 1995) these characteristics are defined. The main emphasis in this thesis is on robustness. Robustness is the capability of the system to function properly despite small environmental changes or noise (Simpson, 1995). It implies an insensitivity to small variations. The philosophy behind robust design and its particularization to the case study under investigation is elaborated in Sections 2.3 and 4.4 respectively. Robustness in this particular case is viewed from two different stand points: ?? making the system insensitive to variations that may occur in manufacturing ?? designing the system in such a way that it functions effectively under different operating conditions (satisfying a ranged set of design requirements)
Robustness is modeled at two levels, system and subsystem level. At the system level robustness implies the capacity to satisfy a ranged set of design requirements, under different operating conditions. At the subsystem level robustness is viewed as reducing system sensitivity
18
to manufacturing noise. The applications of Taguchis robust design principles and the usage of design capability indices (Chen, et al., 1996c) in designing a robust engine capable of meeting ranged sets of design requirements is presented in this thesis.
Thus one of the prime guiding notions in this thesis is the idea of designing open engineering systems, wherein design knowledge is increased, design freedom is maintained, design process efficiency is improved and system robustness ensured. As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, in order to design the engine system as an open engineering system, it is essential to model the components of the system and their interactions and also address the issue of uncertainty in preliminary engine design. In the next section a discussion on the Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM) (Chen, et al., 1996a) which provides an ideal platform to address these issues and implement open engineering systems process and product features that include tribological considerations is presented. 1.2.2 Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM) The main function of the Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM) (Chen, et al., 1996a) is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions made in the early stages of design. It utilizes a combination of Taguchis robust design principles, Response Surface Methodology, and the compromise Decision Support Problem in order to determine top-level design specifications (Pg. 2). In (Chen, et al., 1996a) it is shown that RCEM is used to explore airframe configurations and propulsion system designs and determine robust top-level design
19
specifications for the HSCT (High Speed Civil Transport) system. In (Simpson, et al., 1996) the use of RCEM in the conceptual design of a family of products is illustrated with the specific example of a general aviation aircraft. The method allows for: rapid evaluation of different design alternatives, generation of robust top-level design specifications which incorporate considerations from different disciplines, and acquisition and shaping of knowledge to reduce or reorganize the design models without risking high costs. There are several other approaches that have the same goals as the RCEM but fall short of these goals in some form. Included among these alternate methods are the Concept Exploration Model and Taguchis principles.
The Concept Exploration Model (CEM) (Chen, 1995) is an approach that utilizes simulations to predict the performance of a concept. In the early stages, design concepts are evaluated through this simulation of their performance and the ones that show the most promise form the top-level design specifications for further design. This becomes a very limiting approach due to the fact that the number of concepts and areas of the design space in which they should be generated have no scientific basis. This makes it not only difficult to locate an
20
adequate starting point but also requires extensive computation which can become quite expensive.
Taguchis principles of quality engineering (Taguchi, 1987) and statistical techniques have become a widely recognized and accepted method for increasing the robustness of designs. However, there are also difficulties associated with such methods. Critics have argued that many of the statistical methods associated with Taguchis principles are unnecessarily inefficient and complicated. There are also various mathematical difficulties associated with the loss-model approach which involves Taguchis signal-to-noise-ratio (Taguchi, 1987). In
response to this criticism, the response-model approach was developed which combines the control and noise factors within a single array. This enables the modeling of the actual response rather than the expected loss. However, these proposed alterations only provide for a single performance measure.
The Robust Concept Exploration Method (Figure 1.5) consists of four main steps (Chen, et al., 1996a): classify design parameters screening experiments elaborate the response surface models
21
generate top-level design specifications with quality considerations
F. The Compromise DSP Find Control Variables Satisfy Constraints Goals "Mean on Target" "Minimize Deviation" Maximize the independence Bounds Minimize Deviation Function
Overall Design Requirements
Robust, Top-Level Design Specifications
E. Response Surface Model
A. Factors and Ranges Noise z Factors Product/ Process C. Simulation Programs (Rigorous Analysis Tools)
k
x Control Factors
y Response
y=f( x, z) ? y = f( x, ? z)
l 2 f 2 f ? ? y = ? z ? ? z i + ? x ? ? x i i i i=1 i=1
B. Point Generator Design of Experiments Plackett-Burman Full Factorial Design Fractional Factorial Design Taguchi Orthogonal Array Central Composite Design etc.
( )
( )
D. Experiments Analyzer Eliminate unimportant factors Reduce the design space to the region of interest Plan additional experiments Input and Output Processor Simulation Program
Figure 1.5: The Robust Concept Exploration Modules
Step 1: Classify Design Parameters The first step consists of using robust design terminology and principles to classify the design parameters. The design parameters are classified as either control factors, noise factors, responses or constant design parameters. Each of these terms are defined as follows: Control factors - to be determined, top level design parameters which describe characteristics of the design at the system level (discrete or continuous)
22
Noise factors - uncontrollable design parameters associated with the unstable operating environment or manufacturing process or uncertain design parameters associated with downstream design considerations (continuous)
Responses - system performance parameters which are used for evaluating the overall design requirements (continuous)
Constant Design Parameters - those that a designer keeps constant during the study (discrete or continuous)
Step 2: Screening Experiments The second step of RCEM utilizes computer simulation as well as the tools and methods of response surface methodology (Box and Draper, 1987). It consists of an initial set of experiments whose purpose is to reduce the size of the problem and provide information for organizing secondary experiments. The results of these experiments are used to identify the significance of main effects. Those that are determined to be trivial are eliminated by holding them constant at suitable values for later experiments.
Step 3: Elaborate the Response Surface Models The third step involves secondary experiments whose purpose is to fit second order response surface models. These models are used to replace original expensive analysis
23
programs as the fast analysis module. The results of these experiments are used to increase the designers knowledge about the significance of different design factors and their interactions.
Step 4: Generate Top-Level Design Specifications with Quality Considerations The purpose of the fourth step in the RCEM is to determine the top level design specifications which are the values of the control factors. This includes the incorporation of quality considerations such as robustness and flexibility. The compromise DSP is used to integrate different considerations and make trade offs between conflicting objectives. The original analysis program is replaced by response surface models as functions of both control and noise factors. Deviations associated with the control factors are considered. The overall goals are to bring the mean on target and to minimize the variation. These are modeled as goals in the compromise DSP (Section 2.2). The main components of the RCEM (compromise DSP, Taguchis Design, Response Surface Methodology) are discussed further in Chapter 2. A brief review of the computer infrastructure of the RCEM is presented in the following. The relationship between the key elements of the RCEM as illustrated in (Chen, et al., 1996a) is shown in Figure 1.5. The robust concept exploration method consists of a simulator and three processors.
The relationship between these components and the software used is summarized as follows:
24
Module A - different design parameters are classified as control factors, noise factors, or responses and ranges are specified.
Module B - point generator - identifies simulations to be conducted based on the design of experiments.
Module C - the simulator - the center of the structure - a numerical processor which takes values of control, noise and held constant factors as input and generates values of system performance as output.
Module D- the experiments analyzer- a mathematical tool that helps in screening unimportant factors based on statistical tests of significance.
Module E - response surface model processor - fits a surface model which represents a quick mapping from decision space to performance space. In addition, mean and variance of performance is predicted. Trivial design effects are removed.
In this case, a statistical software package called JMP (Developed by SAS Institute) is used as the point generator, experiments analyzer and response surface model processor.
25
Module F - the compromise DSP (Mistree, et al., 1993a) solver (DSIDES) (Reddy, et al., 1992) - values of control factors are determined to achieve a performance as close as possible to the target mean and to minimize variations around these targets.
The Robust Concept Exploration Method provides a general framework for design at any level of hierarchy (component or system level). RCEM is anchored in the notion of Decision Based Design (Muster and Mistree, 1988), according to which the primary role of a designer in a design process under Decision Based Design is to make decisions. The
compromise DSP which is the cornerstone of the RCEM is used as a decision support tool in this thesis in the quest for top level ranged sets of specifications. In order to use this framework for system level design, a scheme for representing the system and the components is essential. In the next section a review of different techniques that are used to represent, decompose, model and synthesize large systems is discussed. 1.2.3 Modeling and Synthesizing Large Systems The decomposition or partitioning of complex systems, such as automobile engines has long been viewed as beneficial to the efficient solution of a system. Although breaking up a system into smaller, less complex subsystems may allow for effective solution at the subsystem level, decomposition makes system design more complicated by requiring the coordination of subsystem solutions. Hence depending on the magnitude of the problem a single level or
26
multilevel system synthesis may be adopted. This choice is guided by the amount and quality of information in a system model at any point in the design process.
Decomposition schemes historically have been hierarchical in nature. An excellent review of hierarchical decomposition is presented in (Renaud, 1992; Koch, 1997). On the other hand many systems lend themselves to non-hierarchic decomposition schemes instead of hierarchical ones. A review of non-hierarchic decomposition is also presented in (Renaud, 1992). Various decomposition and coordination strategies have been developed and
implemented based on the Global Sensitivity Equations approach (GSE) (SobieszczanskiSobieski, 1988) in coupling non-hierarchic subsystems (see, e.g., Balling and Sobieski, 1994). In (Kroo, et al., 1994) compatibility constraints are used at the system and subsystem levels to account for coupling between levels. In (Renaud and Tapetta, 1997) a collaborative strategy is presented in dealing with system level design with multiple subsystem objectives and compatibility constraints. In (Kuppuraju, et al., 1985) a single level system synthesis template is used in a hierarchical design problem.
In the case study investigated, while there is a component level analysis and modeling, the system synthesis is done at a single system level. The interaction between the components are handled by using the notion of state variables and formulating the response surface equations using the state variables. State variables are those factors of a system that affect system
27
performance, but are controlled by other designers (different from the one designing the system under consideration). In a similar fashion system compatibility is also ascertained when system synthesis is performed.
Having dealt with the problem of decomposing and synthesizing the system, the next step is to investigate the idea of design along a timeline based on the quality of information or complementarily, design freedom available at various design stages. In the next section the role and kinds of uncertainty in early design stages and ways to handle them for designing along a timeline is presented. 1.2.4 Decision Making Based on Information Certainty for Designing Along a Time Line Any design process is characterized by different phases of decision making under different levels of information certainty. The field of decision making is commonly classified (Luce and Raiffa, 1957) as decisions under: ?? Certainty: If a decision is known to lead invariably to a specific outcome. ?? Risk: If a decision leads to one of a set of possible outcomes, each of these having an associated probability, the probabilities being known to the designer also called stochastic uncertainty (Wood, et al., 1990). ?? Uncertainty: If a decision could lead to a set of possible outcomes and there is no information regarding the associated probabilities.
28
According to Luce and Raiffa (1957), decision making under certainty from the context of engineering design boils down to the task choosing an alternative that maximizes or minimizes a certain index. A classic example of decision under uncertainty is a Linear Programming model. However, in designing complex systems multiple measures of merit are considered and this requires a decision support tool like a compromise DSP. Risk, on the other hand, is also classified as stochastic uncertainty, which refers to uncertainty in the probability of a design parameter assuming a particular value. It arises from the lack of knowledge of the exact value of a design parameter due to a process beyond the control of a designer. However there may be a statistically significant sample set which enables him or her to represent the parameter by a probability density distribution. The third class of decision making is decision making under uncertainty. Luce and Raiffa (1957), discuss uncertainty from the point view of ignorance about decisions made by other designers, i.e., from a game theoretical point of view. This kind of uncertainty is not of concern to us in this thesis. Another common source of uncertainty in engineering design is semantic uncertainty (Krishnamachari, 1991), which is due to imprecisely defined system requirements. The use of imprecise information in design is discussed thoroughly in (Wood, et al., 1990). Imprecision arises due to the non-availability of clear information or exact data. A design parameter associated with such lack of precise information is called an imprecise parameter. The parameter may potentially assume any value within a possible range since a designer does not know, a priori, the final value that is to be used in the design process. However Wood and co-authors do not discuss the concept of possibility parameters as an
29
indicator of likelihood, while modeling fuzzy numbers, which is addressed in this thesis (Section 2.4). Based on this discussion, uncertainty is viewe d as encompassing both imprecision (semantic uncertainty) and risk (stochastic uncertainty) in the remainder of this thesis.
The nature (imprecision or risk) of uncertainty in the design parameters varies along a design time-line. The magnitudes of imprecision and risk decreases along a design time line as more information becomes available. The decrease in uncertainty along a design time-line is a result of a reduction in the number of uncertain parameters as well as a reduction in the extent of uncertainty of the parameter. A decrease in the extent of uncertainty refers to a reduction in the range of values in which an uncertain parameter may lie. To be able to make decisions and progress with the design of the system it is necessary to incorporate this uncertainty in a design model. It is desirable to develop a baseline model that is applicable to all phases of a design process. The philosophy behind modeling uncertainty is to represent appropriately the available information rather than seeking unavailable information. The ability to model soft information is of key significance in starting a design process. A major limitation of traditional design
processes is that they require precisely defined information about the design environment. A mathematical construct called the compromise Decision Support Problem (C-DSP) (Mistree, et al., 1992) is used as the base line model for this case study. The three kinds of decision making
30
activities (Luce and Raiffa, 1957) mentioned earlier are modeled using three formulations of the compromise DSP: ?? Crisp C-DSP (Mistree, et al., 1992): Decisions under certainty ?? Fuzzy C-DSP (Zhou, 1988): Decisions made with imprecise information ?? Bayesian C-DSP (Vadde, et al., 1994b): Decisions under risk or stochastic uncertainty A procedure that utilizes fuzzy parameters (Section 2.4) adequately represents imprecise information (Wood, et al., 1990). A design using such a fuzzy model may not be accurate to conclude the design process, but could very well be used to give a designer more information about the behavior of the model. At some point later in the design time-line, the availability of a statistically significant sample set (probability distribution), may make it appropriate to switch to the usage of stochastic parameters (Section 2.5) to model uncertainty. Further, fuzzy set theory or Bayesian statistics could be used to handle all forms of uncertainty (Vadde, et al., 1994b). When clear and well defined information is available, a crisp
formulation is used. Thus the usage of such mathematical models for uncertainty is very useful, in making progressive refinements to design processes as more information becomes available. The rationale for using uncertain parameters in this thesis is that there are no well defined goals for different system responses like film thickness and consequently power loss. The basic notion behind the usage of uncertainty modeling is to provide a mathematical form to requirements stated in words. As an example consider the following three different statements made about requirements for the engine bearings.
31
Statement 1: It is essential to ensure a minimum film thickness of 0.9 microns in the crankshaft bearings during engine operation. Statement 2 : Based on data from existing engines, it is desired to have as high a crankshaft bearing film thickness as possible Statement 3 : Crankshaft bearing film thickness should be adequate to avoid failure. There is an evident linguistic distinction in the way the requirements are stated in the above three cases. The first statement is an instance where there is crisp numerical information about the system requirements, and its mathematical formulation corresponds to a decision made under certainty (crisp compromise DSP). The second statement is an example where we have some kind of uncertainty in the requirements but there exists numerical data (a statistically significant data set) which aids in decision making. This is a case where introduction of probabilistic parameters helps in modeling the goal and hence is a case of decision under risk or stochastic uncertainty (Bayesian compromise DSP). The third statement is a requirement that provides only soft information. How is this situation handled? The absence of any kind of numerical information forces a designer to make some assumptions regarding the requirements for the system and proceed with a design. A reasonable assumption in this case would be to consider a band of values in the hydrodynamic lubrication range and use fuzzy sets to model the goals in a fuzzy compromise DSP (Section 2.4 and 4.5). This corresponds to a decision made under uncertainty with imprecise information.
32
Many ideas for using fuzzy sets for modeling uncertainty in this thesis are drawn from (Zimmerman, 1987) and the usage of Bayesian statistics from (Vadde, et al., 1994b). The top level design specifications generated from the three formulations are used to compute an index for design freedom (Section 5.4.4), by means of which a link between the level of information certainty and design freedom is developed under the umbrella of an open engineering system. This link serves as an ideal platform to address open engineering issues from the point of view of the results generated. The different versions of the compromise DSP, viz., Fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp compromise DSPs, for the engine design model are presented in, Section 4.5. An introduction to the case study under investigation is presented in the next section.
1.3
AN OVERVIEW OF THE ENGINE DESIGN CASE STUDY In this section the engine design problem is defined and described in words. The basic
requirements of the system is laid out and finally the different research questions/tasks addressed and a plan of action are presented. 1.3.1 Problem Statement and Definition of the Case Study Problem definition: To determine robust top level design specifications (dimensional and configurational) from a tribological point of view, for automobile engine lubricated components and accessories. More specifically, the main aim is to generate specifications that improve the fuel efficiency of an engine. The system under investigation consists of ?? bearings ?? pistons 33
?? valves ?? oil pump The engine under consideration is a hypothetical 1.8L, I-4 automobile engine (In-line, 4 cylinder, displacement volume of 1.8 liters, 1000 - 7000 rpm operating speed range). The valve train is of the roller follower type. The main aim of this study is to design these components in such a way that the friction losses in these components are minimized and adequate lubricant film thickness is maintained. Additionally robustness is incorporated into design to ensure desired functioning under different operating conditions and minimize the effects of noise. The solution to this design case study essentially involves modeling, analyzing and synthesizing the components concurrently. Concurrent design of all the components
simultaneously using a systems approach is required because the functioning of these individual components are interdependent. 1.3.2 Secondary Research Questions and Corresponding Tasks Under Investigation The principal research question addressed through this thesis posed in Section 1.1, is restated here, How can issues like friction and lubrication be effectively and efficiently addressed in system level design to generate robust top level design specifications along a design timeline and avoid rework?
34
The key phrases in this question are addressing issues of friction and lubrication, system level design, robust top level design specifications and a design timeline. In order to address this principal question it is essential to investigate a set of more specific secondary research questions and a set of related tasks, which specifically address key phrases in the principal research question. This relationship between the principal research question and the secondary research questions is illustrated in Figure 1.6.
Principal Research Question

friction and lubrication effectively and efficiently addressed be in system level design generate robust top level design specifications to along a design timeline avoid rework? and
Key phrases
like friction
level design specifications
Question 1 Task 1
Question 2 Task 2
Questions 4 & 5 Tasks 4 & 5
Questions 3 & 6 Tasks 3 & 6
Secondary Research Questions and Tasks
Figure 1.6: Principal Research Question, Key Phrases, and Secondary Research Questions and Tasks: A Mental Model
These secondary questions and tasks are presented in the following. 35
Question 1: How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the component level and the system level ? Task 1: System partitioning and recombination This task essentially involves developing a system level physical representation for the lubricated components which captures the properties of the system along with the several interactions. Decomposition of systems into subsystems is classified (Figure 1.7) as:
?? hierarchic : parent system giving rise to one or more child subsystems, with vertical (parent and subsystem) and lateral (among subsystems) interactions (adapted from (Koch, 1997)) ?? non-hierarchic: A group of interacting systems/subsystems without any well defined
parent system and consisting of only lateral interactions (adapted from (Koch, 1997))
Hierarchic P
(Parent)
Non-Hierarchic
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS1
SS2
SS -- Subsystem
Figure 1.7: Hierarchic and Non-hierarchic Representation of Systems (Koch, 1997)
36
The decomposed representation of the engine system as presented in Figure 1.8 is used for modeling purposes in this case study. This is a non-hierarchic system with interacting components, viz., bearings, pistons and valves. The rationale behind choosing a non-hierarchic model is that, there exists no well-defined parent system nor are there any design requirements that necessitate a two-tier hierarchy. Response surface equations (Section 2.1) are used to model the different subsystems. Though in reality all the subsystems interact with each other, the only interaction that is considered in this study is between the piston and bearings. This is because the engine friction model is able to handle this interaction and in practice this interaction is the most significant. The gas pressures in the piston affect the loading of the connecting rod bearing and hence the interdependency. This interaction is handled by using common variables between the two subsystem response surface equations (Section 4.3). A single level system optimization problem as discussed in (Kuppuraju, et al., 1985), is used for this design, wherein the process of component level analysis and system synthesis will be performed simultaneously.
37
Valves
Connecting rod and Crankshaft Bearings
Oil Pump
Pistons
Figure 1.8: Component Level Engine Representation
Q. 2: How can top level design specifications be generated effectively and efficiently, with considerations of friction and lubrication? Task 2: Abstraction of issues relating to friction and lubrication as applied in preliminary design stages Abstraction of issues relating to friction and lubrication is achieved by extending the notion of simulation based design to the conceptual and preliminary design of engine systems. Simulation in this case refers to an overall engine friction model for estimation of friction and lubrication parameters in the different components of the engine. The use of an accurate friction prediction model is of paramount importance to abstract issues dealing with friction and lubrication to early design phases. One such model is discussed in Chapter 3. 38
The tribological system requirements are modeled as goals and constraints in a system level compromise DSP (Section 4.5). The system responses that are needed to develop the goals and constraints are modeled using response surface equations (Section 4.3). The sampling of the design space is facilitated by the usage of formal designs, like fractional factorial, Central Composite Design (Montgomery, 1991), which help us study the behavior of the response under different parameter settings
Q. 3:
How can the quality of information available to a designer be modeled
mathematically in a design process. Task 3: Modeling Uncertainty along a design time line The quality of information is transformed from soft (qualitative) to hard (quantitative) as we move along a design time line. When information is abstracted to preliminary designs there is a certain degree of uncertainty associated with the information. It is imperative that this uncertainty is identified and modeled suitably at different points on the design time line, so that the results obtained are a true reflection of the authenticity of the information at hand. In this particular case, the uncertainty that shrouds the information that is available about friction and lubrication in the preliminary design stages is modeled using fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics (Section 2.4 and 2.5) and the effect of this modeling on the top level design specifications is investigated (Section 5.2.2, 5.2.2 and 5.4.4). The motive for using both fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics is to investigate the results obtained by modeling stochastic uncertainty (risk)
39
and semantic uncertainty (imprecision) (Section 1.2.4). Based on the results obtained, a link between uncertainty and design freedom is developed and this issue is addressed in Question 6.
Q. 4: How are systems that are capable of functioning under different kinds of environments during functional life designed? Task 4: Achieving robust design: Any system that is designed is often forced to function under different operating conditions. Hence any design should have the inherent slack to yield to such changing
conditions without failure. The lubricated components under investigation should perform well under different operating speeds of an engine. Hence these components should be made robust with respect to the operating conditions (speed) of the engine. This is achieved by integrating Taguchis design principles with the compromise DSP within the structure of the RCEM (Section 2.3.3). Modeling of robustness with respect to speed is discussed in Section 4.4.1 and its implication on the solution generated is presented in Section 5.2.3. Additionally the usage of design capability indices (Chen, et al., 1996c) in satisfying a ranged set of design requirements and a comparison with Taguchis robust design methods is presented in Section 5.4.5.
40
Q. 5: How can systems be designed to be insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate manufacture? Task 5: Addressing trade offs in tolerance design The dimensions of the components of some lubricated components are subject to manufacturing tolerances. Therefore the system is designed in such a way that it is insensitive to fluctuations in the dimensions due to these tolerances. From the viewpoint of designing for manufacture, it is advantageous to keep the tolerances high to reduce production costs. The trade off that exists between reducing system sensitivity to noise and designing for manufacture is investigated by considering different design scenarios (Section 5.5.2). In this thesis, robust design techniques are used to reduce the effects of manufacturing tolerances in the bearing dimensions on the bearing responses.
Q.6 What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at different points on a design time line? Task 6: certainty In implementing this case study, solution models with different levels of fidelity are used to represent the level of uncertainty of the information available about the system. The results from these solution models are used to develop an index for design freedom (Section 5.4.4) Develop an index for design freedom at different levels of information
41
along a design time line. The ranged set of top level design specifications for different engine subsystems (Section 5.2.4) are also developed for different levels of uncertainty.
In Table 1.2, the different chapters of the thesis in which the secondary research questions are addressed is summarized.
Table 1.2: Research Questions and Relevant Chapters

Relevant Chapters Research Questions 1. How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the system level and component level? 2. How can top level design specifications, that include considerations of friction and lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? 3. How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? 4. How can systems be designed with the capacity to function under different working environments during their functional life? 5. How can systems be designed in such a way that they are insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate manufacture? 6. What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at different points on a design time line?
Ch.1 Ch.2 Ch.3 Ch.4
? ? ?
? ? ?
1.3.3
Methodology for Addressing Research Questions and Related Tasks The RCEM which is explained in Section 1.2.3 is used as a framework for designing the
automobile engine system under investigation.
The four basic steps of the RCEM are
customized suitably to cater to both subsystem and system level modeling and synthesis. In Figure 1.9 an algorithmic representation of the tasks and steps in the case study is provided. It 42
is seen form Figure 1.9, the solution model for system synthesis (i.e., compromise DSP) is a key feature in this design. The robustness modeling (Taguchi robust design) and uncertainty modeling are integrated into this solution model within the framework of the RCEM. As illustrated in Chapter 4 (Section 4.5), robustness requirements and uncertainty models are formulated as goals and constraints in a system level compromise DSP.
System and subsystem level requirements
Identifying factors and ranges for the different subsystems (bearings, piston, valves and oil pump)
Subsystem level screening to identify most significant factors
Significant factors for bearings
Significant factors for piston
Significant factors for valves
Significant factors for oil pump
Response surface modeling for bearings, pistons, valve and oil pump
Are the response surface models accurate?
Include higher order terms and transformations
Robustness considerations
y
Formuation of a solution model for system level synthesis (Compromise DSP)
Uncertainty models
Top level design specifications
Figure 1.9: Steps in Using the RCEM for Engine Design Case Study
As seen in the figure the main steps in this case study are: 43
1. Identifying/Clarifying the requirements for the engine system. 2. Identifying factors and ranges that characterize the different components of the engine. 3. Screening these factors based on tribological considerations to identify the most significant factors. 4. Developing and validating response surface models using the engine simulation code. 5. Incorporating uncertainty and robustness into a system level solution model. 6. Formulating and solving a system level compromise DSP to generate top level design specifications.
Having given an overview of the proposed methodology, in the next section the organization of the thesis i.e., a brief discussion of issues addressed in the different chapters is presented. To facilitate easy readability a running icon is used in the subsequent chapters of this thesis. The icon and the reasoning behind it, are also explained in the next section.
1.4
ORGANIZATION OF THESIS The organization of the thesis is summarized in Figure 1.10. In Chapter 1, the
foundational principles used in exercising this case study and the motivation and significance of this study is elaborated. This, along with the problem definition and research tasks, provides an ideal mind set for the remainder of this thesis. The research questions posed in Table 1.2, act as a central theme that provides a link between the contents of the different chapters. In Chapter 2 the different mathematical constructs and tools used in exercising this case study 44
involving engine design are presented. The mathematical foundations required to address the different research questions (Table 1.2) are presented in Chapter 2. The physical principles and the computer modeling of friction in the engine components is discussed in Chapter 3. The
details of exercising the case study is presented in Chapters 4 and 5. In Chapter 4 the requirements of the system, the modeling techniques adopted and the formulation of the system synthesis template is presented. Through Chapter 4 the case study specific modeling strategies used to address the research questions are presented. The results for different design scenarios, trade-off studies and inferences therein are elaborated in Chapter 5. The results presented in this chapter are used to establish the efficacy of the modeling techniques (Chapter 2 and 4) in answering the research questions. Chapter 6 provides a summary of the work done in relation to significant contributions, industrial relevance and research extensions of this work.
45
Chapter 1
Guiding principles for case study
Chapter 2
Mathematical tools
Chapter 3
Engine friction modeling
Chapter 4
Modeling the engine subsystems
Chapter 6 Chapter 5
Results and inferences from case study implemenation Critical Evaluation and Research extensions
Figure 1.10: A Road Map for the Thesis
In Figure 1.11, the running icon that is used in this thesis is presented. Through the usage of this icon, the research focus in the different sections of this thesis is highlighted. On the left hand side of the figure, the steps used in implementing the case study are presented. On the right side, the different research objectives that are realized by performing the aforementioned steps are highlighted. Parts of this icon are used in this thesis at different places to indicate action items carried out and the realization of research objectives.
46
Increase design knowledge

Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
Top-Level Design Specs
Maintain design freedom
EnFAS
Response Surface Models
Improve efficiency
JMP
Point Generator Experiments Analyzer
Model uncertainty
JMP
JMP
Incorporate robustness
Figure 1.11: Running Icon for the Thesis
1.5
THE ROAD AHEAD Through this chapter the guiding principles that are used in implementing the case study
are outlined. This includes discussions on Open Engineering Systems, modeling uncertainty etc. Additionally a discussion of the RCEM, which is used as a implementation strategy for the case study in this thesis, is presented. The proposed plan of execution for the case study and the research questions posed therein, present a clear picture of the tasks to be performed and issues that need to be addressed in this thesis. In the next chapter the mathematical tools and principles used to embody the ideas presented in this chapter are elaborated. This includes a
47
detailed discussion of techniques for statistical modeling, uncertainty modeling, robust design and their use in optimization.
48
2. CHAPTER 2
MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS USED IN AUTOMOBILE ENGINE DESIGN

In this chapter, the mathematical and engineering principles underlying different techniques used in the case study are outlined. In this discussion special features of the different constructs and the way standard techniques are particularized to suit the case study are elaborated. As each of the different tools is discussed, its relevance is also emphasized and its purpose illustrated using the running icon. The main techniques and constructs discussed are, 1. Response surface methodology 2. Compromise DSP 3. Taguchi's robust design methods 4. Fuzzy set theory and its abstraction to model imprecise information in design 5. Bayesian statistics and its use in modeling stochastic uncertainty (risk)
In Table 2.1, the research questions investigated in this chapter and the sections where they are addressed is presented.
Table 2.1: Research Questions Addressed in Chapter 2

Research Questions How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the system level and component level? How can top level design specifications, that include considerations of friction and lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? How can systems be designed with the capacity to function under different working environments during their functional life? How can systems be designed in such a way that they are insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at different points on a design time line? 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2.1 RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

Improve efficiency
EnFAS
JMP
Q.1 How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the system level and component level? One of the prime requirements for an efficient synthesis of a system is accurate modeling of the system responses. These response models are so developed that they capture the behavior of the components of the system and the interactions between subsystems. To improve computational efficiency and increase knowledge during the design process, the
42
Response Surface Method (RSM) is employed to create response surface models based on a computer intensive simulation package (Engine Friction Analysis Software (EnFAS): Chapter 3) to create a simplified (and fast) analysis module. The RSM is a collection of statistical techniques which supports the Design of Experiments and the fitting of a response surface model (Box and Draper, 1987), (Khuri and Cornell, 1987). By careful design and analysis of experiments, a response surface model is used to relate a response, or output variable, to a number of factors, or input variables, which affect it. The response surface model is built subsequently based on the results of 'experiments'. In problems using computer simulation tools, performing 'experiments' is equivalent to performing a number of simulations each with different input settings. An example of a second-order response surface model and its
corresponding equation is shown in Figure 2.1.
x2 x1
y = ? 0 + ? ? ix i + ? ? ii x i2 + ? ? ij x ix j i i
Figure 2.1 Second-Order Response Surface Model
43
As an example, the RSM has been applied in aircraft engine design to determine a set of design parameters which has the most significant impact on system performance and achieves an optimal configuration based on the response surface model (Engelund, et al., 1993). In the context of formulating a design problem using the compromise DSP (Section 2.2), the RSM is used to provide a quick mapping between the design space (system variables) and the aspiration space (constraints and goals) as explained in the next section. 2.1.1 Creating Response Surface Models Due to the complexity of system analysis in an automobile engine design, the direct relationship between input and output is almost always unknown to a designer and is analogous to a black box as illustrated in Figure 2.2. With the RSM, the relationships between
independent design variables (factors) and their dependent performance functions (responses) are empirically mapped. This empirical mapping is achieved through a series of equations of known form and is termed a response surface model as depicted in the figure.
44
Using Simulation Package

Input Variables
Black Box
r lato mu Si
Output Variables (Responses)
Response Surface Model
Using RSM
Input Variables
x2 x1
Output Variables (Responses)
y = ? 0 + ? ?i xi + ? ? iixi2+ ? ? ijxixj ij i i
Figure 2.2: Creating Response Surface Models
Creating a response surface model requires careful design and analysis of experiments. Carrying out simulation experiments is a time-consuming activity requiring considerable manual work: producing input files for each simulation and for each experiment, running each simulation, extracting parameters from the output simulated data, and keeping account of files and data sets. In this thesis, the software package JMP is employed to automatically design experiments, and create analytical models based on simulation results (response surface models).
In JMP, planning simulation experiments is based on the theory of Design of Experiments (DOE). The available choices for experiments include full factorial, fractional factorial, Taguchi Orthogonal Arrays, central composite design (CCD), Plackett and Burman experiments, etc. Plackett and Burman experiments (Plackett and Burman, 1946), are twolevel fractional factorial designs for studying K = N-1 variables in N runs, where N is a multiple 45
of 4; Plackett and Burman experiments designs are used to fit first-order response surface models during Steps 1 and 2 of the RCEM.
Among the various kinds of experiment designs used for fitting a response surface model, central composite designs are probably the most widely used method for fitting a second-order response surface and studying second-order effects (Montgomery, 1991). As shown in Figure 2.3, central composite designs are the first-order fractional factorial designs augmented by an additional 'star' and 'center' points which allow the estimation of a secondorder surface of the form: f(x1,...xn ) = b0 + b1x1+ ...+bn xn
(Linear Terms) (Quadratic Terms)
+ g1x12 + ...+gn xn 2+
b12x1,2 + ... + bn,n-1xn-1,n (Interaction terms)
Factorial portion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 ?? +? 0 0 0 0 0
B -1 -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 0 0 -? +? 0 0 0
C -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 0 0 0 0 -?
Star portion
Center point
+?
Full factorial points Center point Star points
Figure 2.3: Three Variables Central Composite Design 46
To create a second-order response surface model for n input factors using the CCD experiments, JMP performs (2n-1 + 2n + 1) experiments. For example, when n = 7 JMP performs 79 experiments. By using this technique however, the number of experiments needed for fitting a second-order response surface model is significantly less than required by a threelevel full factorial design (2187 experiments). The benefit of using this technique increases with an increase in the number of factors. 2.1.2 Response Surface Model Regression Analysis And Validation When using the response surface model, it is very important to ensure that the regression is significant, i.e., to confirm the accuracy of the approximation. ANOVA (Analysis Of Variance) for the regression analysis is used to indicate whether the regression of the experimental data is significant. In addition to checking the ANOVA of the regression analysis, it is also important to run additional confirmation tests for the CCD. Usually a confirmation test must be conducted by randomly generating some points over the range of interest and comparing the difference between the predicted and observed values. An example of such a confirmation test is a grid experiment in which all but two of the system design variables are fixed at their nominal values. The remaining two design variables vary from their lower to their upper bound, and the results are plotted in a 3 grid for comparison with the simulated -D outputs. This provides a simple, yet effective way to visually compare the accuracy of the response surface model approximation.
47
One of the benefits of using CCD for creating response surface models is that the design factors are normalized; therefore, the coefficients of the quadratic equation directly indicate the significance of the first-order effects (linear terms), interaction effects (interaction terms), and second-order effects (quadratic terms). This provides useful information about the relative contributions of each design factor to the response outputs. The study of interaction effects between the control and the noise factors is also interesting in robust design. Whenever an interaction exists, it is possible to adjust the levels of control factors to reduce the impact of noise factors. However, if the interaction is very small, it is almost impossible to reduce the noise effects.
Response surface modeling is adopted for this case study primarily for the purpose of modeling the system in a computationally efficient manner. Additionally, it helps identify
significant factors in the system and model the interactions between subsystems by allowing model building in overlapping design spaces. This is particularly useful in modeling the bearings and piston interaction. In the next section a discussion of the compromise DSP (which uses response surface models in determining goals and constraints) is provided,.
48
2.2 COMPROMISE DSP

Maintain design freedom Improve efficiency
Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Model uncertainty
Q.2
How can top level design specifications, that include considerations of
friction and lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? While generating top level design specifications for a large system (e.g., an automobile engine), it is of prime importance to investigate different configurations effectively and rate them based on several conflicting objectives. The compromise Decision Support Problem
(compromise DSP) (Mistree, et al., 1993) is a construct that enables us to do this. The keystone of the RCEM (Section, 1.2.3) is the compromise DSP. It is a
mathematical construct through which the various metrics and tools of the RCEM are integrated. Part of the Decision Support Problem Technique (Muster and Mistree, 1988), the compromise DSP is a multiobjective decision model which is a hybrid formulation (Mistree, et al., 1993). It incorporates concepts from both traditional Mathematical Programming and Goal Programming. The compromise DSP is used to determine the values of design variables to satisfy a set of constraints and to achieve as closely as possible a set of conflicting goals. An important aspect
49
of designing any complex engineering system is the modeling and handling of multiple tradeoffs simultaneously. The compromise DSP is used to model such decisions since it is capable of handling constraints, goals, and multiple objectives (Mistree, et al., 1994). In particular, the compromise DSP offers the following capabilities: it accurately represent single-objective or multi-objectives, it uses either preemptive or Archimedean formulation to prioritize objectives, it has hard constraints or soft constraints (goals), and it quickly generates results for several different weighting schemes.
The mathematical formulation and the different entities of a compromise DSP are explained in the next section. 2.2.1 The Compromise DSP: Math and Word Formulations The compromise DSP is stated in words as follows. Given An alternative that is to be improved through modification. Assumptions used to model the domain of interest. The system variable parameters. The goals for the design.
Find
50
The values of the independent system variables (they describe the attributes of an artifact). The values of the deviation variables (they indicate the extent to which the goals are achieved).
Satisfy The system constraints that must be satisfied for the solution to be feasible. The system goals that must be used to achieve a specified target value as much as possible. The upper and lower bounds on the system variables.
Minimize The deviation function, Z, which is a measure of the deviation of the system performance from that implied by the set of goals and their associated priority levels or relative weights.
The difference between the compromise DSP and the traditional single objective formulation for a two variable problem is illustrated in Figure 2.4. In the case of the single
51
objective formulation, shown in Figure 2.4a, the objective is a function of the system variables. The space representing all feasible solutions (the feasible design space) is surrounded by the system constraints and bounds of the problem. The objective is to maximize the value of Z, and as shown in the figure, the solution is at vertex A.
In the compromise DSP, the set of system constraints and bounds again define the feasible design space, whereas the set of system goals define the aspiration space (see Figure 2.4b) (Mistree, et al., 1990a). For feasibility, the system constraints and bounds must again be satisfied, whereas the system goals are to be achieved to the extent possible. The solution to this problem represents a tradeoff between that which is desired (as modeled by the aspiration space) and that which can be achieved (as modeled by the design space).
Objective Function
Z = W1 A1 (X) + W2 A2 (X) + W 3 A3 (X)
A2 (X) + d 2 - - d2 + = G 2
X2
X2
A1 (X) + d1 - - d 1 + = G 1 Aspiration Space A3 (X) + d 3 - - d 3 + = G3
Direction of increasing Z A Feasible Design Space Feasible Design Space A
Deviation Function
Z = W 3 (d 1 - + d1 +) + W3 (d 2 -+ d 2 +) + W 3 (d 3 - + d3 +)
Bounds System constraints
X1
Bounds System constraints System goals
X1
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.4: A Single Objective Optimization Problem (a) and the Multi goal Compromise Decision Support Problem (b) (Mistree, et al., 1993)
52
The solution for the compromise DSP shown in Figure 2.4b is at vertex A. This is the same solution as that obtained for the problem illustrated in Figure 2.4a except the difference is that in the compromise DSP case (with the aspiration space modeled), the best possible solution is identified, if the feasible design space and aspiration space over lap. This solution is referred to as a satisficing solution since it is a feasible point that achieves the system goals to the extent that is possible. Given a solution, it is left to a designer to accept this solution or to explore the problem further by modifying the aspirations and/or the feasible design space and re-solving. The values of the deviation variables provide a measure for assessing the degree to which each of the goals have been achieved and thus are a source of useful information.
The mathematical form of the compromise DSP is summarized in Figure 2.5. In the compromise DSP, each goal, Ai, has two associated deviation variables di- and di+ (see Figure 2.5), which indicate the extent of the deviation from the target. The deviation variables, di+ and di-, are both positive, and the product constraint, di+ . di- = 0, ensures that at least one of the deviation variables for a particular goal is always zero. If the problem is solved using a vertex solution scheme (as in the ALP-algorithm (Mistree, et al., 1993) then this condition is automatically satisfied.
Usually, goals are not equally important. To determine a solution on the basis of preference, the goals may be rank-ordered into priority levels (Lexicographic Minimum)
53
(Ignizio, 1985)
or assigned weights (Archimedean formulation).
Customers rate certain
product qualities higher than other qualities. Designers usually seek a solution which minimizes all unwanted deviations from the desired qualities. There are various methods for measuring the effectiveness of the minimization of these unwanted deviations. In the following we present the mathematical formulation of the compromise DSP.
Given An alternative to be improved through modification. Assumptions used to model the domain of interest. The system parameters: n number of system variables p+q number of system constraints p equality constraints q inequality constraints m number of system goals C system constraint Function fk(d) Find function of deviation variables to be minimized at priority level k for the preemptive case.
X di , di
? ?
i = 1, i = 1,
,n
,m S atis fy System constraints (linear, nonlinear) Ci(X ) = 0 ; i = 1, , p Ci(X ) 0; i = p+1, , p+q System goals (linear, nonlinear) Ai(X ) + d ? ? d ? ? G ; i=1 .. m i i i Bounds X imin Xi X imax ; i = 1, , n
di , di
0; d ? d i? ? 0 i
i = 1, ,m
Minimize Archimedean deviation function Z? wi (di? ? di? ) wi ? 1 or Lexicographic minimum (premptive formulation)
Z ? (fi [d i , d i ])
Figure 2.5: Mathematical Form of a Compromise DSP (Mistree, et al., 1993)
54
The compromise DSP has been successfully used in designing aircraft (Chen, et al., 1996a), (Lewis and Mistree, 1995); thermal energy systems (Chen, et al., 1996b); mechanisms (Vadde, et al., 1994b); structural systems (Vadde, et al., 1994a); ships (Mistree, et al., 1990b); material composite design (Karandikar and Mistree, 1992); aircraft engines (Koch, et al., 1996); satellite trajectories (Lautenschlager, et al., 1995); and design for manufacture
(Peplinski, et al., 1996). The compromise DSP facilitates the paradigm s necessary to hift evaluate the multiobjective tradeoffs and identify robust satisficing solutions when designing large scale complex systems. The meaning of the term satisficing, as defined by Herbert Simon (1988) is explained in section 1.1. A satisficers notion as against an optimizers notion is explained through the following example from (Mistree, et al., 1994). While searching a haystack for needles, an optimizer searches till all needles are found, whereas a satisficer searches till enough needles are found. The solutions obtained by exercising a compromise DSP are good enough solutions obtained from a model that represents reality as closely as possible. The compromise DSP is particularized for the engine design case study in Section 4.5. In this case study three different formulations of the compromise DSP, viz., Fuzzy, Bayesian and Crisp formulation are investigated. In the next section a brief discussion on the mathematical modeling of robust design and its integration into the compromise DSP are elaborated.
55
2.3 TAGUCHIS ROBUST DESIGN TECHNIQUES

JMP
Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Robust Specifications
Q.4 How can systems be designed with the capacity to function under different working environments during their functional life? Q.5 How can systems be designed in such a way that they are insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate manufacture? The concept of robustness and its use in the case study investigated in this thesis is introduced in Section 1.2.2, under the discussion on open engineering systems. In this case study, robustness as mentioned earlier, is viewed as the capacity to function effectively under different operating conditions (meeting a ranges set of design requirements) and also minimizing the effects of noise on the system behavior (responses). In addition to using approximations in designing complex systems, it is believed that Taguchi's quality engineering (robust design) principles, (Taguchi, 1978; Taguchi, 1987; Taguchi and Phadke, 1986), are equally applicable in modeling the aforementioned requirements. Whereas various other approaches assume that a good design meets a set of well-defined functional, technical performance, and cost goals, Taguchi states that a good design minimizes the quality loss over the life of the design, where 56
quality loss is defined to be the deviation from the desired performance. Taguchi's conflicting objectives of "meeting the target" and "minimizing the variation" make tradeoffs inevitable; therefore, robust design follows the satisficing notion and is a departure from the traditional single-objective optimization approach.
As stated in (Chen, et al., 1995), the fundamental principle in robust design is to improve the quality of a product by minimizing the effect of the causes of variation without eliminating these causes. Though there are a variety of applications, there are two broad categories, or types, of robust design based on the source of variation:
Type I
Robust design associated with the minimization of the deviation of performance caused by the deviation of noise factors (uncontrollable parameters).
Type II
Robust design associated with the minimization of the deviation of performance caused by the deviation of control factors (design variables).
The logic behind the two major types of robust design applications are illustrated in Figure 2.6, (Chen, et al., 1995). On the left-hand side of Figure 2.6, a P-diagram (Phadke, 1989) is used to represent different types of parameters in robust design, their relationships with the whole system, and thus the differences in source of variation in response for Type I and Type II applications. Control factors (x) are parameters which can be specified freely by a 57
designer; noise factors (z) are parameters that are not under the control of a designer; and the signal factor (M) is the intended value for the response (y) of a product/process. In Type I applications, the deviation of the response is caused by variations in the noise factor, z, the uncontrollable parameter. Type II is different from Type I in that its input does not include a noise factor. The variation in performance is caused solely by variations in control factors or design variables in the region (?x).
58
Type I
x = Control Factors M = Signal Factors y = Response
y
Objective or Deviation Function Control Factor
x=a
x= b
z =Noise Factors
Noise Factor, z
Type II
x = Control Factors
Objective or Deviation Function
M = Signal Factors
y = Response
Robust Solution Optimizing Solution
M x opt robust (x = b) x Design Variable
(x = a)
Figure 2.6: A Comparison of Two Types of Robust Design (Chen, et al., 1995)
On the right hand side of the figure is a schematic of the different concepts behind the two types of robust design. Taguchis robust design method is a Type I method and is highlighted in the upper right block of Figure 2.6. Basically, in the Taguchi method, a designer adjusts control factors, x, to dampen the variations caused by the noise factor, z. The two curves represent the performance variation as a function of noise factor when x is at two different levels, x = a and x = b. If the design objective is to achieve a performance as closely 59
as possible to the target, M, the designs at both levels are acceptable because their means are the target M. However, introducing robustness, when x = a, the performance varies
significantly with the deviation of noise factor, z; however, when x = b, the performance deviates much less. Therefore, x = b is more robust than x = a as a design solution because x = b dampens the effect of the noise factors more than x = a.
The logic behind Type II robust design is represented in the lower right block of Figure 2.6. For purposes of illustration, assume that performance is a function of only one variable, x. In general, for this type of robust design, to reduce the variation of the response caused by the deviations of design variables, instead of seeking the peak or optimum value, a designer is interested in the flat part of a curve near the performance target. It is in this manner that robustness can affect the compromise DSP. If the objective is to move the performance function towards target M and if a robust design is not sought then obviously the point x = a is chosen. However, for a robust design, x = b is a better choice. This is because if design variables vary within the region ?x of their means, the resulting variation of response of the design at x = b is much smaller than that at x = a, while the means of the response at two designs are close. The robust solution, x = b, is more desirable since it helps bring the mean responses of the system into the target values and minimizes deviation, which is a very important factor when solving the compromise DSP for multiple responses.
60
Although the concepts behind the two major types of robust design are quite different, robust design is always concerned with aligning the peak of the bell shaped response distribution with the targeted quality, (bringing the mean to the target) and making the bell shaped curve thinner (reduce the deviation). This makes it possible to develop a general procedure for robust design based on the compromise DSP. It has been suggested by a number of researchers to model "bringing the mean to target" and "minimizing the variation" separately in a robust design formulation (Chen, et al., 1995).
If we can model a concept variant in the conceptual design phase of a product, then we can implement Taguchis robust design methods in the early stages of design. To accomplish this though the model must represent a good approximation of the real life product because it is necessary to have clearly defined target values which must be met for the product to be robust. The objective of abstracting robust design to early design stages is accomplished by integrating Taguchis principles with response surface methodology and the compromise DSP which is elaborated in the next section. 2.3.1 Integration with Response Surface Models and the Compromise DSP Using quality engineering terminology, response surface models are developed for responses (system performances) as functions of control factors (system variables) and noise factors (system parameters with deviation) over the region of interest (defined by the bounds of design variables) (Chen, et al., 1995). Based on a response surface model, the mean and
61
variance of a response are derived as functions of control factors according to the sources of variation (either the variation of noise factors or control factors themselves). The explicit forms of these equations are passed back to the compromise DSP where they are either taken as constraints or goals. Instead of using a single criterion and minimizing the signal-to-noise ratio, an important aspect of this approach is to permit a designer to independently "bring the mean on target" and "minimize the variation" around this target. This is accomplished by modeling these objectives separately as different goals in the compromise DSP.
In Table 2.2 a comparison is made between compromise DSPs for Type I and Type II robust design applications. The two formulations have a very similar structure; the major differences between them occurs in the 'Given' information and the functions of mean and variance for the system performance in 'Satisfy'.
According to (Chen, et al., 1995), this is a comprehensive robust design procedure because it is generalized to find the values of control factors to achieve a performance as close as possible to the target while minimizing the variation around that target, subject to the constraints. If the surface model is established over the space formed by all the parameters involved, the same response surface model is used for either type of compromise DSP. It is not difficult to imagine that these two formulations can be combined to achieve a robust design for a situation where there are deviations of both control and noise factors.
62
Table 2.2: Compromise DSP for Two Major Types of Robust Design Application (Chen, et al., 1995) Type I (robustness with respect to Type II (robustness with respect noise factors) to control factor variation) Response Model y = f (x, z) Response Model y = f (x) Noise Factors mzi, szi Deviation of Design Variable sxi Targets for the mean and variance of system performance The value of design variables X The value of deviation variables di+, di Constraints on system performance Goals on bring the mean on target Goals on minimizing the deviation of performance Bounds on system variables xl = x = xu Mean of system performance Mean of system performance ? yj = fj (x,? z ) ? yj = f j (x) Variance of system performance Variance of system performance m k 2 fj 2 2 fj 2 2 2 ? yj = ? ? yj = ? zi x i x i z i i =1
i =1
Given
Find
Satisfy
Minimize
The deviation function Z = [f1(di-, di+), ..., fn (dn -, dn +)]
To consider constraint variations caused by deviations of controllable or uncontrollable parameters, in (Chen, et al., 1995)it is proposed to use the worst case scenarios instead of expected values of system performance for constraints. In a probabilistic sense, using the expected values of system performance for constraints might permit the constraints to be violated, especially when the constraints are close to being active at the solution point.
63
It is effective to model the two aspects of robust design, i.e., "bring the mean on target" and "reduce the variation", as separate goals when the issues of meeting the target specification and reducing the variation of performance assume equal importance. For instance, in designing a bearing, it is always desired to bring the lubricant film thickness as close as possible to a target value, and at the same time, reduce the variation of the performance so that the power losses remains constant during the operation. In concept exploration, keeping an overall design requirement at a specific value may be very crucial, because a small variation may require huge changes in other design requirements to compensate. In these two situations, it is effective to model reducing the variation of performance as a separate goal in addition to the goal of bringing the mean on target.
The mathematical modeling of robustness and the way its is formulated in the solution model is elaborated in Sections 4.4. Having discussed the issue of incorporating robustness in design, the next major issue to be addressed is the role of uncertainty and the ways to model it efficiently. In this case study the usage of fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics is investigated and in the next two sections the mathematical underpinnings of these two strategies are elaborated.
2.4 FUZZY SET THEORY

Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Model uncertainty
64
Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? Q.6 What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at
different points on a design time line? The concept of fuzziness was first defined several decades ago. It was suggested by Zadeh (Zadeh, 1965) as the mathematics of fuzzy or cloudy quantities. Since then, increasing attention has been devoted to the fuzzy set theories and fuzzy set systems and has resulted in the rapid development of applications in many areas like operations research and management science. Fuzziness may be interpreted as a measure of the complexity of the system. It is classified under three forms, generality, ambiguity and vagueness. Generality means a concept is applied to a variety of situations, vagueness implies absence of precise boundaries and ambiguity implies lack of conceptual clarity (Zhou, 1988). Fuzzy programming plays an
important role in operations research. Since most of the real world problems are fuzzy in nature, mathematical models provided by fuzzy optimization techniques fit a variety of environments and produce reliable solutions.
In the following a brief description of the basic fuzzy set theory principles are given and after that the application of these principles to the field of design is discussed.
65
2.4.1 A Brief Description Of Fuzzy Set Theory Principles Fuzzy set induced by mappings is essentially a class with a continuum of grades of membership which admits the possibility of partial membership in it. In other words, it is a class of objects in which there is no sharp boundary between those objects that belong to this class and those which do not (Zhou, 1988). Mathematically let X={x} denote a collection of all
possible solutions, which define a feasible design space. Each x is a vector of the system variables. A fuzzy set A (the tilde represents fuzzy parameter) in X is an ordered pair,
~
A ? {x,? ~ (x)}, x ? X,? A : X ? M

A
where ? A : X ? M means ? A is a mapping from space X to space M.
If x is an element in X, where X is two dimensional, then it is mapped onto the basis of M as illustrated in Figure 2.7 and this is a one to one mapping.
66
X
X2 membership function 1 M
O X1 X1
X2
Figure 2.7: Mapping form the Design Space to the Membership Space
A fuzzy number (Dubois and Prade, 1978) denoted with a tilde to distinguish it from a crisp one, is a number characterized by a membership function or is a fuzzy subset of real numbers.
A fuzzy membership function is a function mapping from design space X to a space called membership space M.
? A : X ? M, x ? X
where ? A is termed as the membership function of x. The range of M is on the interval [0,1]. A grade of 1 is assigned to the points that completely belong to the set A and a grade 0 is assigned to the points that do not belong to A at all. This corresponds to full and non~ ~
67
membership respectively. The other points have intermediate membership in set A . This is shown in Figure 2.8.
membership in set A
1
?
full membership non-membership
intermediate membership
Figure 2.8: The Different Kinds of Fuzzy Memberships (Zhou, 1988)
Fuzzy possibility distribution (Zhou, 1988) is defined as the following: Let y be a function taking values x? X, then a possibility distribution associated with y may be viewed as a fuzzy constraint on the values of x that may be assigned to y. Such a distribution is
characterized by a possibility distribution function ? : X? M[0,1] which associates with each x? X the possibility that y may take the value x.
68
Fuzzy constraint. denoted by C( x) reflects the capacity to absorb the changes in the real world, which in other words means a constraint that allows a region of permissible violation. It is simply the constraint where crisp functions in a constraint are replaced by fuzzy numbers.
Fuzzy goal denoted by G ( x) is defined similar to a fuzzy constraint, as a goal that is modeled using fuzzy sets.
The function G(x) , which indicates the goal function, has a
membership function associated with it.
Fuzzy decision denoted by D( x) is actually a fuzzy set of alternatives resulting from the intersection of the goals and constraints. It is represented as
D( x) ? C( x) ? G (x)
~ ~ ~
Having defined these relevant terms, we now proceed to see how these relate to a design process. 2.4.2 Abstraction of Fuzzy Set Theory to Decision Based Design: Fuzzy compromise DSP Information that is available to a designer in the early stages of design is never adequate. It is highly qualitative and is used only to indicate preference. Thus mathematical modeling of the system becomes a really difficult task. This is because there exists some kind of vagueness, ambiguity and generality in the information that is available. Therefore in order to model this
69
kind of uncertain information quite effectively fuzzy set theory is a viable option. In the following the formulation of a fuzzy compromise DSP is explained.
In Section 2.2 the compromise DSP is introduced and it is noticed that the system has to satisfy a set of constraints and a set of goals. These constraints and goals have well defined target values. But what if in the early stages of design there is some kind of uncertainty in the system requirements? A designer cannot accurately estimate the values for this formulation given the kind of information he has. It is to solve this discrepancy that fuzzy set theory is sought. We formulate a fuzzy compromise DSP where the mathematically precise parameters are replaced by fuzzy values or variables. Fuzzy compromise DSPs have been presented in (Zhou, 1988) and (Krishnamachari, 1991). The formulation that is presented in this thesis has principles adopted from the above two works, but limitations that prevail in these two formulations are eliminated. A comparison of the different approaches in using fuzzy sets for optimization is presented later in this section.
In developing a fuzzy compromise DSP, several principles from fuzzy linear programming techniques (Zimmerman, 1987) have been adopted and parallels between the two constructs (fuzzy LP and the fuzzy c-DSP) drawn. The general formulation of a compromise DSP is provided in Section 2.2. In (Zimmerman, 1987) the general structure of a fuzzy LP model is presented as
70
Find x Satisfy
G i (x) ? Ti , i= 1 .. m x? 0
[2.1]
The set of m [2.1] equations encompass both the constraints and the objective function formulation. The tilde (~) on top of G indicates that G is a fuzzy inequality constraint. For each of the m equations presented in [2.1] we have an associated membership function, ? i, which is assumed to be linear in an interval of width 2ci, where ci is chosen based on the admissible violation of constraints. This membership function for G , is represented as
~
~
? i ? 1?
Gi (x) ? Ti ci
[2.2]
A fuzzy c-DSP essentially has the same structure as a crisp compromise DSP. If we consider the formulation of a fuzzy c-DSP, the condition x? 0 is ensured by the bounds on the variables (design and deviation) used in the formulation, i.e., L x? U, 0 ?d ,d-. The fuzzy ?
+
goals and constraints are formulated using linear membership functions as shown in Equations 2.3 and 2.4. The parameters H and Hj refer to possibility parameters associated with the k constraints and goals. This parameter should not be confused with the possibility distribution, which is the same as a membership function. Maximizing the possibility parameter maximizes
71
the possibility of a constraint or a goal to be satisfied. In case of linear membership functions, H is same as 1-? . Fuzzy Constraint Ck(x) (1? c0Hk)? 0, k=1..p, 0? Hk? 1 Fuzzy Goal
G j (x)(1? c jH j ) ? Tj Tj ? dgj ? dgj ? 0
? ?
[2.3]
[2.4]
j=1..q, 0? Hj? 1 It is seen in Equations 2.3 and 2.4, that the constraint and goal functions are multiplied
~
by a factor (1? cH). A representation A (X) is same as A(X)(1? cH), while formulating goals and constraints. The use of positive or negative sign in the term (1? cH) depends on whether a higher or a lower goal/constraint value is preferred respectively. As an example, if we consider
a power loss goal P(x) , a lower goal value is preferred. Hence the least preferred value of this
goal is P(x)(1+cH), for any H. If this value is put on target then we have a conservative design, in which even the worst possible goal value is on target. Hence, when it is desired to have a low value of a particular system response, then it is formulated as C(x)(1+cH) or G(x)(1+cH) in the goal or constraint formulation (Equations 2.3 and 2.4) as the case may be. On similar lines if a high value of a response is preferred then the factor (1-cH) is used in the goal or constraint formulation. The factors c0 and cj, are measures of the width of the fuzzy region and are chosen
72
based on the admissible violation of constraints and goals. A goal in a compromise DSP is, in essence, an equality constraint formulated using deviation variables. It is noted that the goal is formulated in such a way that the target is crisp (no uncertainty) and so are the deviation variables. The parameters H in case of a constraint and Hj in case of a goal, are possibility k parameters which are measures of the extent of satisfaction of the goal and constraints. Based on the preceding discussion it is seen that the way a goal is formulated, maximizing the value of Hk, increases the extent of constraint satisfaction and an increase in Hj, increases the extent of goal achievement.
The solution to the LP model represented by equation set [2.1], is presented in (Zimmerman, 1987) as a fuzzy decision whose membership function is given by ? d= ? 1? ? 2? ? 3? ? 4? ? 5? ......... ? ? i [2.5]
This in words, represents a simultaneous solution of all the m equations in [2.1]. On similar lines a fuzzy solution to a compromise DSP is obtained by the intersection of the goals and constraints, which is mathematically interpreted as satisfying the equations [2.3] and [2.4],
? and minimizing a deviation function z ? f[d gj ,d ? ] . The solution obtained is a fuzzy set whose gj
membership function contains terms involving H and Hk. j variable refers to the jth goal.
The subscript gj for the deviation
73
Since a decision maker is interested in a crisp optimal solution and not in a fuzzy solution, it is desirable to determine a maximizing decision which is a crisp optimal solution. Zimmerman (Zimmerman, 1987) proposes that this solution is a solution to the problem of determining an optimal set x0 which maximizes the membership of the fuzzy decision ? d (Equation 5). The solution xo is crisp because it refers to that crisp decision that has a maximum membership in a fuzzy set of decisions. In order to obtain a crisp solution from a fuzzy LP, a parameter ? (representative of a fuzzy decision, ? d ) is included as follows, Find x Satisfy ? ci+ Gi (x) ? Ti 0? ? ? 1, x? 0, I= 1..m Maximize ? [2.6]
Similarly if we are interested in a crisp solution to the fuzzy c-DSP, then an optimal decision is developed by including an additional set of goals maximizing the possibility parameters Hk (constraints) and Hj (goals). Thus when H=0 the goal is crisp and when H=1 the level of fuzziness is maximum. In case of the fuzzy compromise DSP however by maximizing H we are choosing the decision with minimum membership from a fuzzy set of decisions. This is because, the way we have formulated the goals we are interested in putting the least preferred
74
goal value on target and this corresponds to H=1. The deviation function is formulated in the same way as the normal compromise DSP in either the preemptive or the Archimedean form. Since the upper bound on H is 1, the goals for maximum constraint satisfaction and goal achievement are
H k ? d? ? d ? ? 1 hk hk
[2.7]
H j ? d hj ? d hj ? 1
[2.8]
Thus a crisp solution to a fuzzy compromise DSP is one that satisfies equations [2.3], [2.4], [2.7] and [2.8] and minimizes a deviation function of the form
? z ? f[d gj ,d ? , d ? , d ? ,d ? , d ? ] . The deviation variables represented as dgj correspond to the gj hk hk hj hj
performance goals that exist in a compromise DSP, while the deviation variables dhk and dhj correspond to the additional goals required to obtain a crisp solution to the fuzzy C-DSP. The ranking of the different goals based on their importance is handled through the premeptive formulation (Ignizio, 1985) of the deviation function, z. A fact that is not very obvious is that, the requirement maximize ? in the modified fuzzy LP formulation and the goal H j ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 (or H k ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 ) are inherently the same and both ensue the hj hj hk hk same condition of obtaining a decision corresponding to a crisp optimal solution. In all the m equations represented as [2.6], a single value of ? has been used. However, in the formulation of a fuzzy compromise DSP, different values of Hj are used for the different goals. The usage of a single value of H or ? , may be a reasonable decision in case of single objective 75
problems, but in case of complex multi-objective optimization problems the usage of different H (or ? ) values is recommended to reflect different goal priorities. A mathematical formulation of a fuzzy compromise DSP is presented in Figure 2.9. The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the fuzzy compromise DSP 1. The fuzzy parameters that are dealt with are limited to the type shown in Figure 2.8. The fuzzy number has a main value denoted by m and is surrounded by a region of
cloudiness c. A={m.c}
2. The solution to the fuzzy DSP is crisp. In other words the system consists of fuzzy parameters and crisp design variables. 3. The membership functions of the fuzzy parameters are assumed in their linear form.
Given System Requirements (p - constraints and q - goals), c0, cj Find System variables: xi ? X , i=1..n Deviation variables: d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , j=1..q, k=1..p gj gj hk hk hj hj Satisfy Constraints
~
C k(x) (1?c0Hk)?0, k=1..p ? ? d ?d ?0

Goals
G j (x)(1? c jH j ) ? Tj Tj Hk ? d? ? d ? ? 1 hk hk
~
? d gj ? dgj ? 0
H j ? d? ? d? ? 1 hj hj
Minimize Deviation function z
, k=1..p, j=1..q
? ? d ,d , 0 ? Hj ,H k ? 1
Bounds on the system and deviation variables , L?X?U, i=1..n, 0 ?

? ? ? ? ? ?
? (f1[d gj , d gj ],f2 [d hk , d hk ], f3[d hj, d hj ]) Preemptive formulation
Figure 2.9: Mathematical Formulation of a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
76
Another important feature to be noticed is that the constraints and goals have been normalized thereby ensuring a symmetric model (Zimmerman, 1987). In Table 2.3 a
comparison of the formulation of three different approaches to fuzzy sets modeling in optimization are summarized. The last column refers to the formulation presented in Figure 2.9.
77
Table 2.3: A Comparison of Different Approaches in the Usage of Fuzzy Sets in Optimization Models
Zimmermans Fuzzy LP (1987) Find Design variables : X (x1 ....xn ) Parameter: ? Satisfy Fuzzy DSP (Zhou, 1988) Find Design variables : X (x1 ....xn ) Possibility parameters: H, Hg Satisfy Constraints (? a i (1 ? cH)x n ) ? 0 i= 1..p Goals j=1..q n=1..N Bounds L ? X ? U, 0? H? 1 Fuzzy Compromise DSP (Krishnamachari, 1991) Find Design variables : X (x1 ....xn ) Possibility parameters: H, Hg Deviation Variables: d? , d? j j Satisfy Constraints Fuzzy Compromise DSP (Rangarajan, 1997) Find Design variables : X (x1 ....xn ) Possibility parameters: H, Hg Deviation Variables: d? , d? j j Satisfy Constraints
G i (x) ? Ti (Constraints and Goals)

or
G i (x) ? ? c i ? Ti
X?0, 0 ? ? ? 1
gk (X, Hk ) ? 0 k= 1..p
(? b j (1 ? cHg )x n ) ? 0
d ?d ? 0
Goals
gk (X,H k ) ? 0 k= 1..p
d ?d ? 0
Goals
G j (X, H j ) ?
? d hk ? hj
~? ~? d gj ? d gj
? Tj
G j (X,H j ) ? Tj Tj
?
Hk ? ? ?1 Hj ? d ? d ? 1
j=1..q, k=1..p Bounds L ? X ? U, d ? , d?j ?0,0 ? Hk , Hj ? 1 j
? d hk ? hj
? d gj ? dgj ? 0
?
H k ? d hk ? d hk ? 1
H j ? d? ? d? ? 1 hj hj
j=1..q Bounds L ? X ? U ; d ?j ,d ?j ?0, 0 ? Hk , Hj ? 1 Minimize Deviation function
~?
Maximize ? Fuzzy Parameters: Gi(x) Crisp parameters: X, ?, Ti , ci
Maximize Z= f( H, Hg ) Fuzzy parameters: ai Crisp parameters: X, H, Hj , c
Minimize Deviation function
? z ? f[dgj ,d ? ,d ? , d? , d? ,d ? ] gj hk hk hj hj
~?
? z ? f[d gj ,d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? ] gj hk hk hj hj
Fuzzy parameters: g k , G j ,Tj , d gj,d gj
Crisp parameters:: X, Hk, Hj , c, d? ,d ? , hj hj

? ? d hk , d hk
Fuzzy parameters: g k, Gj Crisp parameters:: X, Hk, Hj , c, d ? ,d? , hj hj
d hk , d hk , d ? , d ? gj gj
All formulations are presented using a similar notation to ensure consistency and enable direct comparisons. The first formulation presented in Table 2.3, is the fuzzy LP formulation presented in (Zimmerman, 1987). This is a single objective formulation and uses a single value for parameter ? for all goals and constraints. On the other hand, using the formulation that is developed in this thesis, multiple objectives are effectively handled by assigning priorities to the different goals.
In the formulation presented in (Zhou, 1988) deviation variables are not used, hence the fuzzy goals are actually fuzzy equality constraints, making the design space highly constrained. Moreover the absence of deviation variables, makes it complicated to assign different goal priorities. These two problems are circumvented in the formulation that is developed in this thesis, by the usage of deviation variables. In the third formulation (Krishnamachari, 1991) both fuzzy goals and fuzzy targets are used. The limitation with this formulation is that the deviation variables become fuzzy numbers. Consequently, it is not possible to ensure the equality constraint d ? ? d ? ? 0 , without introducing fuzzy arithmetic. Moreover the usage of fuzzy numbers for deviation variables, makes it difficult to ensure that these variables are always positive. Hence if we are using fuzzy targets then the deviation variables and deviation functions should have corresponding membership functions. The problem arises because of the usage of a fuzzy target, which when used to normalize a goal equation makes the deviation variables fuzzy. In the formulation that is proposed in this thesis, only fuzzy goal functions are used and
79
the target is retained as a crisp parameter and hence the deviation variables remain crisp. The rationale for modeling fuzzy goals in order to represent uncertainty in the system is explained using Figure 2.10.
G (x) e.g Bearing power loss
Crisp target Fuzzy goal
X- bearing dimension (diameter)

Figure 2.10: A Fuzzy Goal around a Crisp Target
As seen in the figure we have a crisp target value for the function G (x). By using fuzzy
set modeling of the goals it is possible to identify bands of design regions around a crisp target value, that fall within the permissible violation in the goals. In other words by adopting fuzzy modeling we have made the goals more flexible, which is desirable especially when dealing with uncertain information. But most of the physical situations are characterized by imprecise target information, so what is the advantage in using a fuzzy goal function? An important point to be noted is that the motive for using a fuzzy goal is to represent imprecision in the target values.
The spread of a goal function G (x), i.e., c, is determined based on the allowable tolerance on
80
the target value. Hence the membership function for G (x) is characterized based on the
preferred range of target values. Hence the usage of a fuzzy goal serves the dual purpose of manifesting imprecise targets and ensuring crispness of deviation variables. The same argument when considered from a mathematical point of view is based on the following premise. As mentioned earlier, goal in a fuzzy compromise DSP is formulated as
G j (x)(1? c jH j ) ? Tj ? ? d? ? dgj ? 0 gj Tj
[2.9]
If cj2 Hj2 <<1 (for any Hj), in other words the spread in the range of allowable targets is small, then the following relation holds good
1 (1 ? c jH j ) ? (1 ? c jH j ) ? ?
Therefore Equation [2.9] is rewritten by substituting Equation [2.10] in it, as
[2.10]
G j (x) ? T j (1? c jH j ) ? d? ? d ? ? 0 gj gj T j (1 ? c jH j ) ??
[2.11]
Equation [2.11], represents a case with a fuzzy target. Hence when the value of c is small or in other words the region of fuzziness is small, fuzzy set modeling of a goal is representative of imprecision in system targets. Additionally the membership function should be linear. Care should however be taken in the plus and minus signs which figure in the terms (1? cjHj ) and (1 ? c jH j ) . The validity of this strategy when c is large (e.g., c>0.2), is however ?? questionable. The values of c for which this strategy is valid is dependent on the physical system 81
and how much goal violation is permissible. The way the fuzzy compromise DSP is formulated and used in the case study is explained in Section 4.5.
82
2.5 BAYESIAN STATISTICS AND THE BAYESIAN COMPROMISE DSP

Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Model uncertainty
Q.6
What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at
different points on a design time line? Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? In the previous section, a method of modeling imprecision in the data is provided. The membership function which was illustrated, is something that the designer chooses based on his intuition and has no mathematical foundation for it. Stochastic uncertainty, on the other hand is represented using a probability distribution function obtained using a rigorous mathematical derivation. Thus as mentioned in Section 1.2.5, Bayesian statistics has been used as a tool for modeling decisions made under risk or stochastic uncertainty (Luce and Raiffa, 1957). Bayesian statistics offers a convenient way of modeling the likelihood that a given point within an uncertain region satisfies a goal or a constraint. In this thesis we are interested only in uncertainty in the goals and the constraints are formulated in a crisp fashion. The spread around an uncertain goal parameter, which represents the extent of uncertainty, is determined using an equation based on Gaussian distributions. Since most data sets occurring in real world are
83
normally distributed, the Gaussian distribution is a valid approximation for the spread. It must however be remembered that Bayesian statistics is used in expressing likelihood of uncertain parameters and in reality these parameters do not have any true probabilities (like tossing a coin or casting a die) associated with them.
The rationale for using Bayesian statistics in modeling stochastic uncertainty and the mathematical underpinnings of such a strategy are presented in (Vadde, 1992). More details on the description and usage of Bayesian statistics and Gaussian distributions is presented in (Barnett, 1973) and (Colin and Peter, 1991). The fundamental construct that Vadde (1992) uses in modeling stochastic uncertainty is Bayes theorem, which is summarized in the following fashion.
Suppose that we have a set of independent measurements for some parameter X. Our best estimate for the parameter X is the average of the sample or the sample mean. But there exists an uncertainty associated with this estimate. The estimation of this uncertainty leads us to the following assumption of the Bayes theorem: posterior probability ? prior probability x Likelihood, where, Posterior Probability: Given a set of observations in the past, the posterior probabilities sum up the information afterward. likelihoods get multiplied. If the observations are independent, the
84
Prior Probability:
Prior probabilities represent our knowledge or ignorance of past
observations before the present observation is taken. They form the historical database of information which guides us to calculate the probability of the next future observation.
Likelihood: This is the name given to the probability conditional on a particular alternative. Since most of the time alternatives are different suggested values of an adjustable parameter, the likelihood is often be given as a mathematical expression involving the parameter. A detailed mathematical derivation of the spread of uncertainty around a parameter in terms of the Gaussian probability distribution is presented in (Vadde, 1992). Essentially, a crisp parameter, a goal or a constraint, is replaced by a parameter with a Gaussian scatter around its most likely value, m. Thus a parameter A is represented as,
A(m, c) ? m(1 ? c .22ln(1/p) ) . where c represents the extent of scatter and p, the probability
distributions. Thus a Bayesian goal is formulated in a compromise DSP as
G j (x)(1 ? c .22ln(1/pj )) + d j ? d j ? Tj
[2.12]
where Gj(x) is the mean of the Gaussian distribution of a Bayesian goal. Essentially, the differences between the fuzzy modeling and Bayesian modeling is that, while in the former the uncertainty is represented by function defined by a designer, in the latter a rigorous mathematical derivation is used to define the uncertainty associated with a parameter. In case of fuzzy set theory, we define a possibility parameter H, which determines the values that a parameter can 85
assume, whereas the in the case of Bayesian statistics, we have a well defined probability distribution density, P, which governs, the likelihood of a parameter assuming a particular value. A general formulation of a Bayesian compromise DSP as used in this thesis, is presented in Figure 2.11. The structure and notation of this compromise DSP is very similar to the fuzzy formulation in Figure 2.9. The main difference is in the formulation of the goals and the usage of probabilities instead of possibility parameters. The use of Bayesian statistics in the formulation of a Bayesian compromise DSP for the engine design case study is presented in Section 4.5.
Given System Requirements (p - constraints and q - goals), c0, cj Find System variables: xi ?
X
, i=1..n
Deviation variables: d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , j=1..q, k=1..p gj gj pk pk pj pj Satisfy Constraints C k (1 ? c 0 ( .22ln(1/p 0 )) ? 0, k=1..p

d ?d ? 0
? ?
Goals
G j (x)(1 ? c .22ln(1/p j ) ) ? Tj Tj
? dgj ? d gj ? 0
pk ? d? ? d ? ? 1 pk pk ? ? p j ? d pj ? d pj ? 1, k=1..p, j=1..q Bounds on the system and deviation variables , L? xi? U, i=1..n, 0 ? d ? ,d ? , 0 ? p j ,p k ? 1
86
Minimize ? ? ? ? ? ? Deviation function z ? (f1 [d gj , d gj ],f 2 [d hk , d hk ], f 3[d hj , d hj ]) Preemptive formulation Figure 2.11: Mathematical Formulation of a Bayesian Compromise DSP (adapted from Vadde, et al., 1994b)
The deviation variables dgj correspond to the jth goal (same notation as in the fuzzy compromise DSP). The deviation variables dpk and dpj, correspond to the goals maximizing the likelihood of the goal achievement (pj) and constraints satisfaction (pk) respectively.
Bart Kosko, a mathematician from USC, argues in (McNeill and Freiberger, 1993), that Bayesian probabilities are special cases of fuzziness. In support of his argument he uses the hypercube modeling of fuzzy sets that Zadeh (Zadeh, 1978) suggested. Kosko argues that the diagonal of a hypercube model of a fuzzy set is a representation of probabilities. However McNeill and Freiberger (McNeill and Freiberger, 1993) state that mathematically and methodologically, and conceptually fuzzy systems are plainly distinct from probability systems. The direct link of fuzzy sets to human words and thoughts gives them a power probability must contort itself to mimic. From an engineering design point of view, fuzzy sets are ideal tools to model qualitative information, while Bayesian statistics is rooted in rigorous mathematical derivations and we stick to this distinction. The approach taken in modeling uncertainty is based on the nature of information available to us and the demands of the engineering situation, so that
87
the uncertainty is classified as either imprecise or stochastic. Based on this classification a suitable mathematical model is chosen for modeling the uncertainty.
In summary, the discussion of fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics provides a good basis to address the issue of mathematically modeling uncertainty (Q.3). Moreover, by formulating and solving fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSPs and comparing the solutions to a crisp compromise DSP, the effect of the level of information certainty on the specifications generated is understood and this provides an answer to Q.6. In Chapter 5 (Section 5.2.4) the
repercussions of the level of uncertainty on top level specifications generated is observed by examining the ranged sets of specifications generated for the different solution models.
2.6 THE ROAD AHEAD... In this chapter a detailed discussion of the different mathematical tools and constructs used in the case study is presented. These help achieve the desired objectives and also help embody the guiding principles detailed in Chapter 1. Before the actual usage of all these tools in developing the solution model in Chapter 4, the structure and physics behind the engine friction prediction model, EnFAS, is elaborated in Chapter 3
88
3. CHAPTER 3
AN OVERVIEW OF ENGINE FRICTION AND LUBRICATION

Fuel economy goals for modern vehicles have resulted in renewed interest in understanding the mechanism of engine friction and applying this understanding to the design of low friction components. Reductions in engine friction improves engine thermal efficiency and hence reduce the fuel consumption. To proceed with the development process for new engines efficiently, it is necessary to grasp a total outline of an engine consisting of main components. In order to carry out this, it is important to identify the unknown factors which exist. The most crucial among those is the engine friction prediction because main engine performance parameters such as brake horsepower and fuel consumption are logically estimated by calculating friction (Hamai, et al., 1990). In this chapter a description of computer modeling of friction in engine components (developed at Ford Motor Co.) is provided. In Figure 3.1, the role played by this friction model (EnFAS) in the RCEM is indicated. The usage of EnFAS is crucial in addressing the research question dealing with generating specifications which include tribological considerations (Q.3 in Table 1.2).
Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
Bearing model Section 3.3 Piston model Section 3.4 Valve model Section 3.5
EnFAS
Section 3.2
Input Factors
System Responses
JMP
Accessories model Section 3.6
JMP
JMP
Figure 3.1: Role of EnFAS (Simulation Model) within the RCEM Structure
The model essentially consists of analysis routines for the different engine components. The stage is set for this discussion by enunciating the significance of engine tribology, in the first section.
3.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF ENGINE TRIBOLOGY It is widely recognized that the thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine is not very high. In Figure 3.2 a typical energy distribution for an IC engine is presented (Taylor, 1993). It is seen that a substantial portion of the energy made available to the engine by the fuel is wasted in exhaust gases and cylinder cooling, leaving only a very small portion for conversion to work. The amount of energy available at the wheels is further reduced by mechanical losses. Typical percentage values for these losses vary depending on the type of engine, loading condition etc. However, the percentage figure of the useful power from total energy input does not differ significantly. It is evident that by adopting tribological measures it is 84
possible to reduce mechanical friction. Even though mechanical friction roughly forms only 10? of the total input, it is indeed significant when we consider the fact that roughly only 25? of the total input is available as brake power.
Exhaust
Total energy Input from fuel
Accessories: Alternator, Power steering, etc.
Cylinder cooling
Pumping losses(oil pump) Piston, rings, valves bearings Accessories
Indicated engine output Brake work
Engine mechanical output
Figure 3.2 Typical Energy Distribution in an Automotive Engine (Taylor, 1993)
Passenger cars, which typically spend most of their time at light load, benefit a great deal from reduction of mechanical losses. In (Bartz, 1985), it is shown that fuel consumption reductions between about 5? and 28? is obtained if engine mechanical friction is reduced considerably. Realistically speaking it is possible to reduce fuel consumption by 11? at unfavorable engine conditions and by 1.5% at favorable engine conditions. Calculations carried out in (Auiler, et al., 1977) show that reducing friction in gasoline engines by 10% yields a fuel 85
Engine mechanical friction
economy improvement of 5%. It is shown in Figure 1.2, that about 80% of the mechanical losses in an engine is attributed to friction associated with engine bearings, valve train and the piston assembly. Power loss in engine bearings is a result of losses in both the big end or connecting rod bearing and the crankshaft or main bearing. Valve train friction is an aggregate of cam-follower interface friction losses, cam shaft bearing friction and follower-guide and valve guide friction. Piston friction is confined to the rings and the piston skirts. The auxiliaries such as the oil pump contribute nearly 20% of the total mechanical losses and hence their effect cannot be neglected. The percentage loss from each of these components varies depending on the engine, specific component design and operating conditions. The lubrication in these components range from boundary to rigid hydrodynamic lubrication as indicated in the curve presented in Figure 3.3.
Boundary Mixed
Fluid film (Hydrodynamic)

v -viscosity N - speed p - load per unit projected area
0.15
0.001
friction coefficient
(vN/p)
Figure 3.3: Lubrication Regimes (Stribeck curve) (Shigley and Mischke, 1989)
86
Significant research in the area of engine tribology has been directed towards studies of friction and lubrication of the main engine components mentioned. Conventional experience suggests that the engine bearings enjoy hydrodynamic lubrication during the operating cycle, while in the cam follower interface there is elasto-hydrodynamic lubrication with continuous surface contact during operation (Taylor, 1991). The piston rings operate over a wide range of lubrication regimes from hydrodynamic at mid-stroke to mixed or even boundary at dead centers. Reviews of bearing research is found in (Martin, 1982) and (Marshall et al., 1987) and development of valve train research has been documented in (Taylor, 1991). In (McGeehan, 1978), (Ting, 1985) and (Parker, 1990) a review of research in piston friction and lubrication is presented.
After trial production of the components, testing is usually undertaken to confirm reliability and durability targets. If certain performance criteria have not been met, then
specifications have to be modified until targets are achieved. This iterative process is very timeconsuming and leads to unacceptable delays and/or increase in cost. It is thus essential to make every effort to reduce the extent of testing and the expense involved. Hence the development of a computer model to make accurate predictions of engine friction is of great importance. Most of the friction models found in published literature are based on combinations of empirical results and simple mathematical methods such as curve fitting. The model that is used in this study is a physics-based model of medium complexity, which provides fairly accurate over all engine
87
friction estimates. The details of the model are presented in the next section. The usage of such a model results in simplification in design procedures established for individual components. The usage of this engine friction model in conjunction with techniques like RCEM and the compromise DSP benefits engineers within industry in designing low-friction engine components and consequently high efficiency engines.
88
3.2
A COMPUTER MODEL FOR OVERALL ENGINE FRICTION AND LUBRICATION ANALYSIS: (ENFAS) In order to develop a model to estimate the engine friction losses, as mentioned earlier it
is necessary to understand ?? how friction is generated ?? its variation with engine operating conditions ?? its distribution among different engine components ?? its interaction with surface finish, component geometry and lubricant properties. The main aim in developing a prediction model is to estimate the friction power losses that occur in the different engine lubricated components. The model that has been developed in Ford is called Engine Friction Analysis Software (EnFAS) and it analyses an engine operating at steady state condition. The main features of this model include ?? crank angle resolved estimates of ? ?friction force ? ?power loss ? ?oil film thickness, for the different components of the engine (viz., bearings, pistons, valves, etc.) ?? ability to study the effects of lubricants on friction ?? ability to study the effects of component surface finish on friction
89
The different components of the analysis module include Valve train ?? Type I (Direct acting) ?? Type II (End pivot rocker) Piston Assembly ?? Compression rings ?? Oil ring ?? Piston skirt Bearings ?? Main bearings ?? Connecting rod bearings Accessories ?? Oil pump ?? Empirical estimates for other losses (power steering, alternator, etc.)
In Figure 3.4 the working structure of EnFAS is summarized. The computer coding is done in FORTRAN and is implemented on both work stations and PCs. Module MAIN is the sub-routine that controls the execution of the whole program. Module FINDPATH specifies the directories where input data files for analysis are found. GETENGSPEC loads in data relating to the engine under investigation and LUBEREAD provides data relating to the
90
lubricant used. GASFORCE is used to compute the combustion chamber gas forces for different engine speeds and temperatures. All the aforementioned modules serve as a common input to the component level analysis tools. These include the bearings, pistons, valve train and accessories modules. After the analysis is done the results are stored in specific data files and the control transferred to the MAIN module.
Module:MAIN
Module: FINDPATH
Module: GETENGSPEC Module: GAS_FORCE
Module:LUBEREAD
BEARINGS
PISTON ASSEMBLY
VALVE TRAIN
ACCESSORIES
Module: BEFRMD
Module:RNGSPR
Module: VALFRMD TYPE I: Direct acting tappet Module:VALROL TYPE III: With Rollers
Module:OILPUMP
Module: PSFRMD
Module:ACCESS
Module: VALFINGR TYPE II: End Pivot
Figure 3.4: EnFAS Analysis Module Structure (Rangarajan, 1997)
91
It is seen from Figure 3.4 that there exist separate component level analysis modules for bearings pistons, valves (3 types) and engine accessories. For each component there is a input data file apart from the common files having engine specifications and lubricant specific data. A discussion on the theory behind the different component model i presented in the following s sections.
3.3 FRICTION MODELING FOR THE BEARINGS Engine bearings consist of both the bearings on the big end of the connecting rod and the crankshaft (main) bearings. The terms big end bearings and connecting rod bearings are used interchangeably in this thesis. Similarly the terms main and crankshaft bearings have also been used interchangeably. Many plain journal bearing applications are treated as steadily loaded for design purposes, that is the applied load is essentially taken as fixed in direction and magnitude. However, the loading is dynamic in the engine bearings. Consequently the journal or shaft does not remain in a fixed position and executes an orbital motion. The locus of this orbital motion has a significant impact on the minimum film thickness that occurs in the bearings. From the point of view of friction, a dynamic loaded bearing theory is used for computing the locus of the motion and the minimum film thickness. In Figure 3.5, an example of the big end bearing loading and notation is shown.
92
Figure 3.5: Big End Bearing Loading and Load Diagram Shapes (Taylor, 1993)
The bearing analysis in EnFAS accounts for both the connecting rod bearings and the crankshaft bearings. The analysis routines in the software are capable of analyzing dynamically loaded, steadily loaded and quasi-steadily loaded bearings. In Figure 3.6 the dynamically loaded condition of a journal bearing is shown.
W ? Rotating journal
Oil
Bearing
Pressure developed in oil film
Figure 3.6: Bearing Lubrication (Sorab, 1997) 93
The main parameters to be estimated in bearing analysis are the bearing loads, loci, film thickness and power loss. Bearing loads and loci As mentioned earlier the engine bearings are dynamically loaded and hence the oil film that exists and the bearing loads changes with the engine conditions. The loads on the connecting rod or big end bearings are due to the gas forces in the cylinder, reciprocating inertia forces and rotating inertia forces. The loads on the main or crankshaft bearings arise partly from force reactions from big end bearings and partly from the off balance of the crankshaft. The first step in the bearing analysis is the determination of loading that occurs in the bearings. The next step is to determine the bearing locus by solving the Reynolds equation. This is done using a short bearing mobility method (Booker, 1965). The distribution of oil film pressure for a bearing is presented in Figure 3.6 Minimum Film thickness Minimum oil film thickness during one cycle is one of the most important parameters with which to judge the bearing performance and is obtained directly from the maximum eccentricity ratio. It is generally used as a comparator and represents a major factor in relating predicted performance with existing bearing experience on similar types of engines. It is
difficult to give precise values of minimum thickness at which bearing damage might occur and hence there exists a certain amount of uncertainty in this field. If the film thickness falls below a particular value, bearing failure occurs due to lubricant starvation and 94
overheating. Based on the eccentricity of the bearing, the film thickness, h, is computed from the following equation,
h ? c (1 ? ?)
c = radial clearance = eccentricity ratio (e/c)
[3.1]
Mechanical power loss The power loss in the bearings is computed using a general formula (Yang, 1992) for dynamically loaded bearings. The power loss determines the operating viscosity of the oil and is significant for that point of view also. Care should be taken with engine bearings as reducing friction may result in less reliable performance. The important bearing parameters are
computed, using FORTRAN procedures in which the required equations are numerically solved. A flow chart of the bearing analysis module is presented in Figure 3.7. This diagram is a pictorial representation of the subroutines that are included in the analysis modules for computing different parameters. The input to these subroutines consists of two data files, one with engine performance parameters and the other contains details of bearing geometry.
95
Start Input
Calculate big end bearing loads Calculate locus and film thickness for big end bearings
Calculate power loss for big end bearings
Processs for all main bearings
Compute main bearing loadings
Calculate locus and film thickness for main bearings Calculate power loss for main bearings
(Equation 3.1)
Output results
Stop
Figure 3.7: Flow Chart for Bearing Friction Computer Analysis
96
In Figure 3.8 the crank angle resolved estimates of bearing loads and power loss as predicted by EnFAS, at 3000 rpm and full load for a 1.8L Ford Zetec engine is plotted.
40 30 20 10 0 0 180 360 540 720
200 150 Power loss, W
Load, kN
Load
100 Power loss 50 0
Crank angle, degrees

Figure 3.8: Crank Angle Resolved Connecting Rod Bearing Loads and Power Loss (Sorab, 1997)
3.4 FRICTION MODELING FOR PISTON The piston assembly is widely recognized as the single largest contributor to engine friction and hence is an indispensable consideration in engine friction modeling. Piston assembly friction arises from three different sources: compression rings, oil control rings and piston skirts. A representation of piston compression ring lubrication configuration is presented in Figure 3.9. The two compression rings are shown in the figure. The gas pressure profile in these rings are 97
aligned right below them. Beneath the piston rings are regions which are characterized by cavitation.
Piston motion
Ring 1
Ring 2
Cavitating regions
Figure 3.9: Piston Lubrication (Sorab, 1997)
The main purpose of a compression ring is to act as a seal to prevent leakage of the combustion chamber gases. Since it is difficult to achieve this requirement with a single ring, usually a pack of rings is used to share the pressure drop from the combustion chamber to the crankcase. The first step in developing a model for the compression ring friction analysis is to determine the loading on the piston rings due to gas pressures. The gas pressure distribution in between the rings is computed using the orifice and volume theory (Yang, 1992) to predict gas pressures between compression rings. For the lubrication analysis of the piston rings, it is assumed that the surfaces of the ring and the liner are always separated by a lubricating film.
Pressure
98
Both entraining and squeeze motions are considered as contributing factors to the hydrodynamic process. The Reynolds equation is then solved for various crank angles by means of a direct iteration process. It is however necessary to specify the shape of the ring face, the sliding speed, the cyclic variation of load and the lubricant viscosity to establish realistic cavitation boundary conditions. In using the dynamic theory of lubrication for the piston it is assumed that sliding surface of the piston ring is approximated with a quadratic curve. The computation of minimum film thickness in a cycle and squeeze velocity is elaborated in (Yang, 1992). An iterative process is used for calculation of minimum film thickness and squeeze velocity. In computing the f riction forces in the compression rings, it is assumed the ring and the liner are separated by a lubricating film. The friction force is computed by integrating the viscous shear stress along the ring face. However, if the predicted minimum film thickness is less than the combined surface roughness of the ring and the liner boundary, boundary lubrication is assumed to occur and a constant coefficient of friction of 0.08 is used.
All the friction and lubrication analysis is done for a single compression ring and extended to the more complex problem of a complete ring pack. The main considerations in analyzing a ring pack deal with flow continuity and lubricant starvation within the pack. Though adequate film thickness is a requirement, too high a film thickness will cause a greater shearing action and hence increase the power loss.
99
The next component of interest in the piston assembly is the oil control ring, which is fitted to a groove that is closest to the crankcase and its function is to restrict the amount of oil available to compression rings and distribute the oil around the cylinder liner to lubricate the compression rings and piston skirt. The working face width of oil control rings are narrower than the axial height of compression rings, resulting in larger pressures between oil ring and cylinder liner. It is reasonable to assume that oil control rings operate in boundary lubrication and friction force is calculated as the product of coefficient of boundary friction and normal load. A constant value of 0.08 is taken for friction coefficient. The cyclic power loss is computed by integrating instantaneous power loss over one complete cycle and dividing by 2? . The piston skirt is that portion which continues below the zone in which the rings and lands are grouped together. Its function is to form a cross-head guide, capable of carrying the side thrust force created by the oblique angle made by the connecting rod relative to the cylinder axis. At the piston skirt, the piston and cylinder are assumed to be exactly circular. Due to relatively light loading and large contact areas, piston skirts normally operate in the hydrodynamic lubrication regime and hence the friction traction force per unit circumferential length is computed by integrating the viscous shear along the length of the skirt. For the computer modeling of piston lubrication and friction, three subroutines are used in EnFAS. The first is for the prediction of inter ring gas pressures, the second for single ring lubrication analysis and the last one for analysis of a complete pack of rings. These subroutines analyze both twostroke and four-stroke engines and ring pack analysis is carried out under both fully flooded and
100
starved lubrication conditions. In Figure 3.10, a flow chart of piston friction computer modeling is presented in which the different steps involved are summarized.
Start Read input data

Orifice and Volume theory (Yang, 1992)
Guess inter ring pressures Calculate flow rate through each ring gap Calculate pressure gradients in each inter-ring space Calculate new inter ring pressures
Set flow rate=flow rate for previous angle
Has ring pressure converged ?

y
Next crank angle
Final crank angle ?

y
Cyclically converged?
y
Output results
Friction Force=Coefficient of boundary friction* Normal Load
Stop
Figure 3.10: Flow Chart for Piston Friction Computer Modeling
101
In Figure 3.11, the power loss in the two rings as predicted by the model at 3000 rpm and fully flooded condition for a 1.8L Zetec engine, is presented as a function of the crank angle.
160 Power loss, Watts 120 80 40 0 0 180 360 Crank angle

Figure 3.11: Graph of Piston Ring Power Loss vs. Crank Angle (Sorab, 1997)
Second ring Top ring
540
720
3.5 FRICTION AND LUBRICATION MODELING FOR THE VALVE TRAIN The analysis of cam/follower performance is an important feature of valve train design for internal combustion engines. Classically the cam mechanism is designed with considerations of the choice of materials, suitable anti-wear additives for the lubricant and the calculation of Hertzian stresses. Significant savings in fuel consumption is possible if valve trains are designed with tribological considerations in mind. Using EnFAS analysis subroutines it is possible to
102
analyze valves with both flat tappet and roller followers, which are discussed in the next two sections. 3.5.1 Flat Tappet Follower Valve Train Friction Analysis A cam and flat tappet follower are illustrated in Figure 3.12. The kinematic and dynamic analysis of a cam and follower pair is essential for associated studies of lubrication and friction. Based on the lift profile of the cam (input) the kinematic parameters like velocity and acceleration, contact loading and contact Hertzian stresses are computed.
Cam ?
? Follower
Figure 3.12: Cam and Flat Tappet Follower (Rangarajan,1997)
The elastic deformation of the cam and follower is large compared with the lubricant film thickness and the contact is approximated by a lubricated Hertzian contact. The friction is almost entirely due to the rolling of the components in the inlet region of contact, but is dominated by the sliding of the surfaces in the lubricated contact zone. 103 The film thickness
computation is carried out using conditions of full film EHL (Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication) and is expressed as
h cen ? 2. 69 U 0 .67 G0 .53 W ? 0 .067 R x
[3.2]
where, U: Velocity parameter, G: Material parameter W: Weight parameter, R: Geometry parameter
Suitable values for the above mentioned parameters are presented in (Yang, 1992). As shear stress and hence friction force is proportional to the velocity gradient across the thickness of the film, by approximating the lubricated contact region between the cam and the follower as a regime of constant film thickness (designated as central film thickness) and neglecting the contribution of any rolling friction in the contact zone or inlet zone, the friction force is estimated (Yang, 1992).
In addition to the cam follower interface friction analysis, EnFAS model also estimates the friction power loss in the camshaft bearings, follower-guide and valve-guide interface. The camshafts are carried in suitable bearings. Although in some cases ball and roller bearings are used, typically these are plain bearings and designed using methods similar to those used for crankshaft bearings. The friction analysis for the camshaft bearings is done in a fashion similar to the crankshaft bearings using the short bearing mobility method (Booker, 1965). The friction between the follower and its guide is modeled using both a boundary lubrication and full film 104
lubrication approach. The appropriate model depends on the lubrication system of the engine considered. The valve/guide friction is calculated using the shear between concentric working surfaces.
105
3.5.2 Roller Follower Valve-Train Friction Model An end pivot rocker roller follower and cam are shown in Figure 3.13.
Cam Pivot
Follower
Figure 3.13: End Pivot Rocker Roller Follower Cam Mechanism (Heywood, 1988)
The roller follower valve train friction model is in many ways similar to the previously discussed model, in that the contact area experiences EHL. The only difference in this case is that both the mating surfaces are curved. Here again the kinematic and dynamic properties of the cam are computed based on the lift profile and loading. The film thickness is given by the expression given below,
0.70 0.53 0.13
h ? 2 . 65 * abs (U)
* G
* RRED / WW
[3.3]
where, U is a velocity parameter, G is a material parameter, RRED is reduced radius of curvature for mating surfaces and WW is a weight parameter. Suitable values for these parameters are provided in (Staron andWillermet, 1983). The total friction is expressed as the
106
sum of fluid and boundary lubrication. The friction force in fluid lubrication is computed using EHL theory. The condition in boundary lubrication is first judged on the basis of a lambda ratio that compares the average oil film thickness to the root mean square of the surface roughness (referred to as CSRM in Chapter 4 and 5). The friction force is then found using boundary lubrication conditions, if the lambda ratio is less than one. If the lambda ratio is greater than or equal to one, then friction force becomes zero because of the presence of fluid lubrication. Rocker arm friction results from the relative motion between the rocker arm and the rocker arm fulcrum. This friction increases the load on the cam during valve opening and decreases the load on the cam during valve closing.
The computer modeling of valve train mechanism includes, ?? analysis of kinematics of cam acting against a follower (roller and flat faced) ?? evaluation of loading at the cam/follower interface ?? studies of Hertzian contact stresses and lubricant film thickness at contact zone ?? estimation of friction power torque/power loss at the cam/follower interface, camshaft bearings, follower/guide and valve guide interfaces.
The analysis routines are set in such a way that as soon as the input parameters, which include valve dimensions and lift profile, the kinematic and dynamic parameters are computed and then the film thickness and friction losses are estimated, based on the valve type. A flow
107
chart representation of the computer model is presented in Figure 3.14. In Figure 3.15, a cam angle resolved plot of the friction torque, as obtained from EnFAS is presented.
Start
Read input data Calculate velocities, acceleration and radii of curvature Calculate contact load and stress in cam follower interface
Equations 3.2 (Flat tappet follower) and Calculate central and minimum film thickness for a cam cycle 3.3 (Roller follower)
Calculate friction forces, torques and power losses Total Friction=Fluid+Boundary friction Camshaft bearings y analysis? n y Follower/guide friction? n Valve/guide friction? n Rocker arm friction? n y Calculate friction power loss y Calculate friction power loss Calculate friction power loss Models presented in (Yang ,1992)
Calculate friction losses in all cam shaft bearings
Output Results
Stop
Figure 3.14: Flow Chart for Valve Train Friction Computer Modeling
108
Friction torque, N.m.
10 Lift, mm
0 -180
0 0 Cam Angle, 180

Degrees
Figure 3.15: Graph of Friction Torque of Valve Train Vs. Cam Angle (Sorab, 1997)
3.6 ACCESSORIES FRICTION MODELING The accessories model includes oil pump, water pump, alternator and power steering. For all the components the estimation of friction power loss is done with empirical models. The major losses that occur in the oil pump are pumping loses, gear meshing losses, inlet tube losses, mechanical friction losses and viscous friction losses.
The rotor dimensions and gear dimensions are the primary inputs and using these inputs along with lubricant properties the oil flow and the friction losses are computed. A flow chart of the different steps in oil pump friction modeling is shown in Figure 3.16. 109
Start Read input data Compute oil discharge flow rate Compute friction coefficient at tooth, bearings, rotor interface Compute fluid friction loss Compute mechanical friction loss Compute meshing friction loss Compute head loss Estimate overall pump friction loss
Empirical Models used at Ford
Output results Stop

Figure 3.16: Flow Chart for Oil Pump Friction Modeling
110
In Figure 3.17 the components of oil pump friction at 00C, as computed by EnFAS analysis routines is presented. In this diagram relative magnitudes of the different loses that occur in the pump is presented for a range of engine speeds.
100%
Inlet tube losses Meshing friction ? Viscous friction
% Power loss
50%
? Mech. friction
0% 1000
? Pumping losses
3000
5000
7000
Speed, RPM
Figure 3.17: Oil Viscosity Contribution for Pump At 00C (Sorab, 1997)
With the discussion of the oil pump friction analysis computer modeling of all components in EnFAS are addressed. As an example of engine level estimates which EnFAS generates, the overall engine power loss for different engine speeds has been presented in Figure 3.18. In this plot the contributions from the individual components has also been shown using suitable legends. The oil used in this case is SAE 5W-30 oil, without friction modifiers.
111
18 SAE 5W-30 no shear thinning no friction mod. OTHER ACCESSORIES OIL PUMP PISTON 6 VALVE BEARING 0 600 2000 4000 5500
Power loss (kW)
12
Figure 3.18: Overall Engine Friction Estimates from EnFAS (Sorab, 1997)
3.7 THE ROAD AHEAD In this chapter a detailed description of the sources of engine friction and ways to model it has been presented. The relevance of engine tribology in designing fuel efficient engines and the expensive nature of reliability and durability testing of engine components, serves as a motivating factor for the friction computer modeling endeavor. The physics behind the different models, the steps involved, and sample results have been elaborated in this chapter. EnFAS is viewed as an analysis tool within the scope of this chapter. In the next chapter, ways of utilizing EnFAS for efficient modeling and synthesis of automobile engines from a tribological standpoint is presented. Hence there is a transition from using EnFAS as an analysis tool to its use as a synthesis tool. In Figure 3.19, a quick review of the ideas presented in the first three chapters is
112
summarized. All the tools and techniques discussed herein, are used in Chapters 4 and 5 to successfully implement the case study.
Case Study Implementation and Results
Chapters 4 & 5
Engine Friction Modeling
Chapter 3
Valve train
Black Piston Box
Chapter 2
x2 x1
X 2
ula Sim
A Feasible Design Space
y =? 0+? ?xi +? ? xi2+ijijxixj i i ii ? ? tor i

+ G A ( )+ 2- - 2d = 2 2X d Aspiration Space + G A ( )+ 3- - 3d = 3 3X d
Mathematical Tools and Constructs
A(X + 1d - 1+ = 1 - d G 1 )
Deviation Function
Bearings
Z = W1 - 1+ ) + W2-+ 2+ ) + W3-+ 3+ 3(d + d 3(d d 3(d d
X 1 Bounds System constraints System goals
(b)
Chapter 1: Guidng Principles and Problem Overview

Figure 3.19: Pictorial Review of Issues Addressed in the First Three Chapters
113
4. CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPING SYSTEM RESPONSE AND SOLUTION MODELS

In this chapter and the subsequent one, the implementation of the case study is presented. Specifically, the formulation and development of a solution template for the design of the engine components is presented in this chapter. To facilitate better understanding a pictorial representation of the steps in the RCEM addressed in this chapter is presented in Figure 4.1. It is reiterated that the system representation is non-hierarchic with no well defined parent system. Moreover the systems are relatively uncoupled, except for the piston and bearing subsystem which have some interdependencies. The way these interdependencies are handled is presented in the later sections of this chapter.
In essence, in this chapter the different modeling techniques that facilitate a computer based synthesis for the engine system is presented. This essentially represents the
particularization of the mathematical tools presented in Chapter 2 to suit the engine case study. The development of the system response and solution models enables us achieve the major objectives that are laid down in Chapter 1. Thus, right through the chapter the research
questions posed in Chapter 1 are used a common theme in establishing the relevance of the different steps in the RCEM for engine design.
Bearings Sec. 4.5 Chapter 5
Piston
Compromise DSP
Sec. 4.1
Factors and Ranges
DSIDES
Valve train
Oil pump
EnFAS
JMP
Sec. 4.3
JMP
JMP
Sec 4.2
Figure 4.1: A Pictorial Representation of Issues Addressed in Chapter 4
Having presented the physics behind the functioning of the different components through Chapter 3, in the first section of this chapter the design requirements of the different engine subsystems and factors therein are elaborated. The next step is to identify the crucial design factors for the different subsystems, which is presented in Section 4.2. The elaboration of response surface models, modeling of robustness and the development of different solution models as compromise DSPs, are the keys steps, for effective computer implementation of the
112
process of generating top level specifications. This is presented in the last three sections of this chapter. In Table 4.1, the different research questions that are addressed in the different sections of Chapter 4 are summarized.
Table 4.1: Research Questions Addressed in Chapter 4 Research Issues

1. How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the system level and component level? 2. How can top level design specifications for a lubrication system, that include considerations of friction an lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? 3. How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? 4. How can systems be designed with the capacity to function under different working environments during their functional life? 5. How can systems be designed in such a way that they are insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate manufacture? 4.3 4.4 4.5
? ?
? ? ?
The basic assumptions that have been made in modeling the system are ?? The effects of wear on components have been ignored. ?? The models that are developed correspond to steady state operation of the engine at wide open throttle. ?? The driving cycle effects and thermal effects on engine friction have not been considered. ?? The lubricant used in this study is a factory fill oil (SAE 5W-30) used at Ford Motor Co.
113
In Figure 4.2, the process diagram for the case study is illustrated. As shown in the figure, the compromise DSP is used as a central construct in generating top-level design specifications for the engine components. The system requirements, the system responses, and the control and noise factors are the inputs to the compromise DSP. The system responses are generated using EnFAS and are formulated as goals and constraints in the compromise DSP (Section 4.5) and uncertainty modeling is also accounted for suitably. The design requirements are modeled as targets for the system goals. The top-level design specifications generated are made robust to the noise factors speed (system level) and tolerances by including goals for robust design (Section 4.4) in the compromise DSP. In order to efficiently model the system responses, factors that are significant from the point of view of meeting tribological requirements have to be identified. By performing screening experiments not only do we identify significant factors, we also make the synthesis more efficient by eliminating the insignificant ones. In the next section the design requirements and control factors for the different subsystems are presented.
114
Bi-level Robustness Modeling (Section 4.4) Noise Factors System level: Engine speed, Subsystem level: Bearing Tolerances
Engine Compromise DSP (fuzzzy/Bayesian/crisp ) Control Factors

(Tables 4.2-4.5)
System Response Equations

BPOWLOS BBFLMTHK . . . OILFR (Section 4.3)
(Figure 4.21) Given System Requirements, Response equations Find Values for control variables and deviation variables Satisfy Constraint (OILFR, BBFLMTHK, etc.) s: Goals: Robust Design, Tolerance design, Uncertainty parameters Minimize: Deviation function, Z
Top Level Design Specifications for Engine Components (Chapter 5)
Engine System Requirements (Section 4.1)
Figure 4.2: Case Study Implementation Process Diagram
115
4.1 LAYING DOWN THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND FACTORS OF THE DIFFERENT ENGINE COMPONENTS
Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
EnFAS
JMP
JMP
JMP
A brief overview of the different functional requirements and characteristics of the engine system is presented in Chapter 1. In this section the different tribological requirements and factor ranges that characterize a specific subsystem are elaborated. It is recalled that the engine under investigation is a hypothetical I-4, 1.8l engine (In-line 4 cylinder engine, with a displacement volume of 1.8 liters) with roller follower valve train. The requirements of the different subsystems determine the aspiration space for generating top level specifications and variations in the design factors provide different design alternatives whose relative merits are assessed. The design requirements are formulated as goals and constraints in the system level compromise DSP (Section 4.5).
The different factors in a subsystem are classified as control, noise, state and held constant factors to facilitate Step 1 of the Robust Concept Exploration Method (RCEM). A definition of these factors is provided in Chapter 1 under the discussion of the RCEM (Section 1.2.2). The ranges specified for each of the different factors are used for the process of 116
screening (Section 4.2), system response modeling (Section 4.3) and for design space exploration (Section 4.5) using a compromise DSP. 4.1.1 Design Requirements and Factors for the Bearing Subsystem The bearing subsystem as explained in Chapter 3 consists of both the connecting rod (big end bearings) and the crankshaft (main) bearings. The essential requirements of this subsystem are as follows ?? Maintain adequate minimum lubricant film thickness in both the big end (BBFLMTHK) and main bearings (MBFLMTHK). ?? Minimize the power loss in both the big end and main bearings. The bearing material is aluminum and the journal is made of steel. Having identified requirements for the bearings, the different governing factors for this subsystem have to be explored. Based on information from Ford Motor Co., the following factors are identified, BDIAM : Big end bearing diameter BLEN : Big end bearing length BCLR: Big end bearing clearance: SPEED : Engine speed: MDIAM : Main bearing diameter MLEN : Main bearing length: MCLR : Main bearing clearance TOLBD : Manufacturing Tolerance on BDIAM
117
TOLMD : Manufacturing Tolerance on MDIAM TOLMC Manufacturing Tolerance on MCLR TOLBC : Manufacturing Tolerance on BCLR BORE : Bore diameter of the piston WF : Weight of the flywheel CONROD : Length of the connecting rod
These factors are classified into Control factors: BDIAM, BLEN, BCLR, MDIAM, MLEN, MCLR, TOLMD TOLMC, TOLBD, TOLBC Noise factors : SPEED, TOLMD, TOLMC, TOLBD, TOLBC State factors : BORE, CONROD Held constant factors : WF A few points to be noted in this classification are 1. Factors like TOLBD, TOLBC, etc., are classified both as control and noise factors. This is because even though these are controlled by adopting a suitable manufacturing process, their variation within the tolerance band is random and this may affect the bearing responses in a random fashion. 2. BORE and CONROD are typically controlled in piston design, but affect the loading on the bearings. Hence there exists some interdependency between the engine subsystems.
118
Such interactions between subsystems are captured by taking a system level approach to design and breaking down the system into subsystems. By a state factor we mean a variable that affects the bearing subsystem responses, but is not controlled by the bearing designer. 3. Speed is a system level noise factor and affects all the subsystems under consideration. This is because the operating speed of the engine is something that varies randomly during engine functioning, depending on the engine. Classification of speed as noise is done from the point of view designing all the components in such a way that they function effectively at all speeds.
In addition to the aforementioned noise factors, the bearing clearances are subject to random temperature variation. The maximum temperature difference across the clearance is assumed to be 2000 C. This decision is based on the fact that the maximum bearing surface temperature must be less than 2200 C (for stable operation) and the temperature at which the dimensions are specified is assumed to be room temperature, around 250C. Therefore the maximum temperature variation across the bearing is assumed to be 2000C during operating. Therefore the variation of the bearing clearance is summarized as,
Change in clearance (Connecting rod bearing) = TOLBC+? *BCLR*Tdiff Change in clearance (Main bearing) = TOLMC+? MCLR*Tdiff., where ? - coefficient of thermal expansion of Aluminum.
119
Tdiff- Maximum temperature difference across the bearing=2000C.
In Table 4.2 the ranges for the different bearing factors are specified. These ranges are developed based on information from Ford.
Table 4.2: Bearing Subsystem Factors and Ranges

Factors Control Factors Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) Connecting rod bearings length, BLEN (mm) Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) length, MLEN (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m) Tolerance on BDIAM, TOLBD(micron) Tolerance on MDIAM, TOLMD(micron) Tolerance on BCLR, TOLBC(micron) Tolerance on MCLR, TOLMC(micron) State Factors Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Length of the connecting rod, CONROD (mm) Low 40.0 15.0 16.0 52.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 2.0 75.0 120.0 High 50.0 23.0 70.0 60.0 23.0 43.0 50.0 50.0 6.0 6.0 85.0 150.0 Nominal 45.0 19.0 43.0 56.0 19.0 31.5 35.0 35.0 4.0 4.0 80.0 135.0
Fly wheel weight, WF is he ld constant at a value of 810.3 gms. Engine speed for this particular engine varies from 1000 to 7000 rpm. For design purposes the range from 2000 to 6000 rpm (where most of engine operation takes place) is investigated. The speed variation in this range is assumed to be normal as shown in Figure 4.3. The variation of engine speed during operation is random, and since most random variations in nature are modeled using normal distributions, the same strategy is adopted. The tolerances are also assumed to have a normal distribution in the ranges specified. 120
? ? 3?
? ? 3?
Figure 4.3: A Typical Normal Distribution for Engine Speed.
Thus all the requirements and the factors and the ranges used to configure the bearing have been laid out, and we proceed to the piston subsystem. 4.1.2 Design Requirements and Factors for the Piston Subsystem The piston subsystem refers to the piston and cylinder, the piston rings and piston skirts. The piston, as mentioned in Chapter 3, has two compression rings and one oil control ring. The main requirement of the piston subsystem is to minimize the power loss (PPOWLOS) that occurs in the rings and the skirts. The main factors identified for this subsystem are, RW1: Width of compression ring 1 RW2: Width of compression ring 2 RO1: Offset of compression ring 1 RO2: Offset of compression ring 2 RT1: Tension in compression ring 1 121
RT2: Tension in compression ring 2 BORE: Bore diameter of the piston CONROD: Length of the connecting rod RS: Ring surface roughness OT: Oil control ring tension SPEED: Engine Speed OWIDTH: Oil ring width RCURV: Ring face radius of curvature
These factors are classified in the following fashion, Control Factors: RW1, RW2, RO1, RO2, RT1, RT2, BORE, CONROD, RS, OT Noise factors : SPEED Held constant factors : OWIDTH, RCURV OWIDTH and RCURV are held constant because the variations permissible on these are very small and based on suggestions from Ford they have been fixed at a nominal value. SPEED as mentioned earlier is a system level noise variable with a normal distribution. The piston subsystem does not include any subsystem level noise factors and all the factors have hence been classified as control factors. In Table 4.3 the ranges for the different factors, as obtained from Ford Motor Co., have been listed.
122
Table 4.3: Factors and Ranges for the Piston Subsystem

Control Factors Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Tension in compression ring 1, RT1 (MPa) Tension in compression ring 2, RT2 (MPa) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Length of the connecting rod, CONROD (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Low 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.16 0.11 75.0 120.0 0.1 0.2 High 1.6 1.6 -0.5 -0.85 0.24 0.2 85.0 150.0 0.6 0.6 Nominal 1.35 1.35 -0.25 -0.425 0.20 0.155 80.0 135.0 0.35 0.4
It is noticed that factors BORE and CONROD which are state factors in the bearing subsystem are control factors for the piston subsystem. The held constant factors have been fixed at the following values OWIDTH = 0.0029m RCURV = 0.01 m Thus having gained an understanding of the piston requirements and the factors, the valve train subsystem is explored next. 4.1.3 Design Requirements and Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem The valve train under investigation is of the roller-follower type with a pivoted rocker arm. The valve train subsystem consists of the inlet and exhaust valves (cam and follower) and the camshaft bearings. In this study only the inlet valve has been included due to similarities in the behavior of inlet and exhaust valves. The main requirements of the valve train are to ?? Maintain adequate minimum lubricant film thickness (VFLMTHK) in the cam follower interface.
123
?? Minimize the power loss (VPOWLOS) occurring due to friction in valve train.
The important factors for this subsystem include VCL: Valve closing load SR: Valve spring rate BASRAD: Cam base circle radius RT: Tappet radius TBL: Tappet bore length BCLOAD: Load on the cam base circle WROLL: Roller mass RCAGE: Mean radius of the roller bearing cage CSRM: Composite surface roughness CFL: Cam follower contact length WVALS: Valve spring weight
These factors are classified in the following manner, Control Factors: VCL, SR, BASRAD, RT, TBL, BCLOAD, WROLL, RCAGE, CSRM Held constant factors : CFL, WVALS Noise factor: SPEED
124
In this case also SPEED is the only noise variable (system level) for reasons stated earlier. CF and WVALS have a very small range of operating values and have therefore been held constant. In Table 4.4 the ranges of the aforementioned valve subsystem factors have been summarized. These again have been developed based on information from Ford Motor Co. The held constant factors have been fixed at the following values, CFL = 8.62 mm WVALS = 99.79 gm The details of the oil pump subsystem are presented in the next section.
Table 4.4: Factors and Ranges for the Valve Train Subsystem
Control Factors Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Tappet radius, RT (mm) Tappet bore length , TBL (mm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Roller mass, WROLL (gm) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Low 300.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 20.0 10.0 8.0 0.05 High 500.0 50.0 20.0 12.0 25.0 60.0 15.0 10.0 0.2 Nominal 400.0 40.0 17.5 11.0 30.0 40.0 12.5 9.0 0.125
4.1.4 Design Requirements and Factors for the Oil Pump Subsystem The basic function of the oil pump is to supply enough oil so that different engine components are not starved for lubricant. The details of the fluid friction that exists during oil flow through the pump is detailed in Chapter 3. The main requirements of the oil pump subsystem include ?? Providing the required amount of oil flow at different engine speeds (OILFR) 125
?? Minimizing the fluid friction loss that occurs during the flow through the oil pump (PUPOWLOS). Based on the above mentioned requirements the following factors are identified, R1: Radius of the rotor R2: Radius of the outer gear B: Width of the gear DINLET: Diameter of the inlet tube LINLET: Length of the inlet tube S: Area between engaging gear teeth SPEED: Engine speed
Control factors: R1, R2, B Noise factors : SPEED Held constant factors : DINLET, LINLET, S DINLET and LINLET are standard dimensions and do not have a great impact on the system. Hence these have been held constant. SPEED as mentioned earlier is classified as a system level noise factor for purposes of robust modeling.
In Table 4.5 the ranges of the control factors, obtained from Ford, have been summarized.
126
Table 4.5: Factors and Ranges for the Oil Pump Subsystem
Control Factors Radius of the rotor, R1 (mm) Radius of outer gear, R2 (mm) Width of the gear, B (mm) Low 25.0 40.0 35.0 High 30.0 60.0 60.0 Nominal 27.5 50.0 47.5
The held constant factors have been fixed at the following values DINLET = 0.010 m LINLET = 0.15 m S = 1.363 cm2
Having defined design requirements, factors and ranges for the different subsystems, the next step is to identify the factors for the different subsystems that have a significant impact on the corresponding responses. This is done by performing screening experiments which are elaborated in the next section.
4.2
IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT DESIGN FACTORS: SCREENING EXPERIMENTS

Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
Maintain Design freedom Increase design knowledge Increase efficiency
EnFAS
JMP
JMP
JMP
127
Given the control factors and their ranges, screening experiments are conducted as Step 2 of the RCEM (Chen, 1995). At the system level there are a total of 28 factors (3 for the pump, 9 for the valve train, 10 associated with piston and 6 associated with the bearings). The purpose of the screening experiments is to identify the most significant factors and thus reduce the set of factors to allow efficient higher order modeling if necessary. The experimental design k-p Fractional Factorial Design (Montgomery, 1991) used for screening in this study is a 2 which is a technique for selecting a limited number of experiments producing the most information. When the number of observations is reduced some effects will end up being
confounded (not able to obtain an unbiased estimate), therefore making it impossible to estimate all effects separately. In other words if the number of observations is less than the number of factors then it is not possible to estimate all the factors independently (without a bias). Depending on what factors need to be estimated a suitable design has to be chosen. The Defining Relation (Montgomery, 1991) of an experimental design, which provides the aliasing structure, is what determines the confounding structure (aliasing structure) of the design. k-p full factorial by the defining relation will Multiplying any column in the corresponding 2 generate the aliases of the factors lumped in the estimates. Details of this procedure are found in Box and co-authors (Box, et al., 1978) and Montgomery (Montgomery, 1991). Associated with confounding is the concept of resolution design. Montgomery (Montgomery, 1991) defines resolution design by stating that a design is of resolution R if no p-factor effect is aliased
128
(confounded) with another effect containing less than R factors. The three most applicable -p resolution designs are (Chen, 1995):
Resolution III: There are designs in which estimates of main factors are free of confounding with estimates of the main factors, but may be lumped with two factor interactions. The estimates of two-factor interactions may be lumped with each other. Resolution IV: There are designs in which estimates of main factors are free of confounding with any other estimates of main factors or two-factor interactions. However, the estimates of two-factor interactions are lumped with each other. Resolution V: Estimates of main factors and two-factor interactions are free of confounding with any other main factors or two-factor interactions. However the estimates of two-factor interactions may be lumped with three-factor interactions.
From these definitions it is seen that a higher resolution gives unbiased estimates of interesting effects, but will require more experiments. Higher resolution implies that more factors are estimated without a bias, which implies more sample points are required and consequently more experimental runs must be run. Since we are not concerned with the higher order interactions at this point (interactions between three or more than three factors are often negligible), we are able to use a Resolution III Fractional Factorial experiment. For the case study under investigation, screening experiments are conducted at the subsystem level (in order 129
to develop individual responses for the subsystems) to identify significant factors for each subsystem. Depending upon the number of factors for each subsystem suitable designs are chosen for running screening experiments. The process of screening the factors is captured in Figure 4.4.
Control & State Variables
DoE
Fractional Factorial Plackett-Burman
EnFAS
Experiments Analyzer
Pareto Plots Percent Contributions
DoE: Design of Experiments Most significant factors

Figure 4.4: General Procedure for Performing Screening Experiments for Each Subsystem
As shown in Figure 4.4, EnFAS is used to generate responses for various factor settings for the different subsystems. EnFAS being a system level analysis module, when screening experiments for one subsystem are being performed, factors of the other subsystems are held constant. Screening experiments have been performed at the subsystem level because, a system level approach to screening increases the number of factors to such an extent that standard 130
statistical software packages cannot handle the corresponding computer experimentation involved. The experiments are generated and response analysis is done using a statistical software package called JMP (developed by SAS Institute and available for use on Macintoshes and PCs). Since one of the primary goals in exercising this study is to improve fuel efficiency (Section 1.1), the factors are screened based on the effect they have on power loss for each subsystem. After having generated responses using EnFAS, a linear model is built with power loss (BPOWLOS or VPOWLOS, etc., as the case may be) as the response. The main effects of the different factors for response POWLOS are used to select the most significant ones. The parameter estimates obtained from JMP (Appendix A) are normalized for each factor and percentage contributions of the different factors are computed. The factors that contribute up to 90% of the response variation for power loss are chosen. The Pareto plots also provide estimates of percentage contribution of the different variables and those variables that contribute up to 85 - 90% of the response variation are considered significant. The statistical results and Pareto plots of the screening experiments for all the subsystems except the pump are shown in Appendix A. For the pump subsystem screening experiments are not performed as the number of factors under consideration is only 3 and hence we proceed directly to second order model building. Once the most significant factors have been identified, the other factors are held constant for the process of response modeling and system synthesis. Based on the screening experiments, for the bearing subsystem the factors in Table 4.6 are the
131
most significant ones and the factors in Table 4.7 have been held constant for future modeling purposes. Screening experiments have been performed using both control and state factors.
132
Table 4.6: Most Significant Factors for the Bearing Subsystem

Factors Control Factors Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m) Tolerance on BDIAM, TOLBD(micron) Tolerance on MDIAM, TOLMD(micron) Tolerance on BCLR, TOLBC(micron) Tolerance on MCLR, TOLMC(micron) State Factors Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Low 40.0 16.0 52.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 2.0 75.0 High 50.0 70.0 60.0 43.0 50.0 50.0 6.0 6.0 85.0 Nominal 45.0 43.0 56.0 31.5 35.0 35.0 4.0 4.0 80.0
Table 4.7: Held Constant Factors for the Bearing Subsystem

Held constant control factors Connecting rod bearings length, BLEN(mm) Crankshaft bearing length, MLEN(mm) Held constant state factors Length of the connecting rod, CONROD (mm) Nominal 19.0 19.0 Nominal 135.0
Similar analysis for the piston subsystem helps identifying the factors presented in Table 4.8 as the most significant factors and the factors in Table 4.9 are held constant for future purposes.
Table 4.8: Most Significant Factors for the Piston Subsystem

Control Factors Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Low 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 75.0 High 1.6 1.6 -0.5 -0.85 85.0 Nominal 1.35 1.35 -0.25 -0.425 80.0
133
Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa)
0.1 0.2
0.6 0.6
0.35 0.4
Table 4.9: Held Constant Factors for the Piston Subsystem

Held constant Control Factors Tension in compression ring 1, RT1 (MPa) Tension in compression ring 2, RT2 (MPa) Length of the connecting rod, CONROD (mm) Nominal 0.20 0.155 135.0
In the case of the valve train subsystem the screening experiments helped identify six important factors listed in Table 4.10 and the ones listed in Table 4.11 have been held constant.
Table 4.10: Most Significant Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem
Control Factors Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Low 300.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 8.0 0.05 High 500.0 50.0 20.0 60.0 10.0 0.2 Nominal 400.0 40.0 17.5 40.0 9.0 0.125
Table 4.11: Held Constant Factors for the Valve Train Subsystem
Held constant Control Factors Tappet radius, RT (mm) Tappet bore length , TBL (mm) Roller mass, WROLL (gm) Nominal 11.0 30.0 12.5
No screening experiments are performed for the pump subsystem for reasons mentioned earlier in this section. 134
By performing screening experiments for the different subsystems, the two guiding principles in realizing open engineering systems, viz., increasing design knowledge in early design stages and improving efficiency, have been incorporated in the following fashion. By means of the screening experiments we are able to identify the significant friction drivers in the different subsystems and this increase in design knowledge is essential in configuring a system that is fuel efficient. By knowing the significant factors, we assess the impact of major factors on system performance. In effect, by holding the insignificant factors constant, we have reduced the dimensions of the design space, thereby making the system synthesis process more computationally efficient. The number of variables we deal with is reduced considerably by screening and this in turn reduces the computational effort required for modeling and synthesis. Another ramification of screening is that though the dimension of the design space has decreased with respect to the held constant factors, we fix them at any value as they have no effect on the system performance and at this point in the design timeline, we keep the choice of their values an open issue so that we maintain design freedom. However further down the design timeline, based on other criteria and more information, we make a suitable choice on the specific numerical value of the held constant factors and close design freedom. This extra information could be relevant to tribological issues or may pertain to issues like manufacture, assembly, etc. Hence it is advantageous to maintain some amount of openness in the system to accommodate for future changes.
135
Having performed the screening experiments, the next step in RCEM is building response models for the different subsystems, which is discussed in the next section. The factors that are identified as significant and the noise factor SPEED are used in the process of response surface modeling.
4.3 ELABORATING SYSTEM RESPONSE MODELS

Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
EnFAS
JMP
Increase efficiency
JMP
JMP
Q.1 How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the system level and component level? Q.2 How can top level design specifications for a lubrication system, that include considerations of friction an lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? In answering Q.1, the usage of response surface equations as a mathematical construct to model the system behavior and facilitate representation of the engine system for a computer based efficient synthesis process is presented in Section 2.1. Through this section it is explained how the case study specific modeling of system responses and the interaction between the 136
piston and bearing subsystems are handled using response surface equations. Additionally modeling the tribological parameters as response surface equations enables modeling tribological requirements as goals and constraints in the compromise DSP (Section 4.5). Thus response surface equations facilitate the inclusion of tribological considerations in design (Q.2). In this section the mechanics of response model building is presented.
In the previous section the process of screening insignificant factors is elaborated. Having a restricted number of design parameters (through screening), allows a larger number of experiments to be run efficiently for design space sampling. Increased experimentation is essential to evaluate higher order effects and interactions between factors and their effects on the various responses. The experiment type used in this study to evaluate both quadratic effects and all two-factor interactions, in addition to first order effects, is a face centered central composite design (CCD). The central composite design is probably the most widely used experimental design for fitting a second-order response surface (Montgomery, 1991). Second order models have been found to be sufficient over the range of interest of the factors for most problems (if the range is large, the fit may not be sufficient), and is therefore used in this example. In this case we are interested in developing the response surfaces for the film thickness, friction power loss, oil flow rate, etc., for different engine subsystems in terms of the corresponding control variables and SPEED (noise variable). Thus by including speed as a
137
variable we generate responses corresponding to different speeds and this aids in designing a robust engine capable of functioning equally well at all operating speeds.
Before we develop unified models for the engine components to operate at different speeds we must first determine whether such a model is feasible or not and what the implications of such a model would be. importance in this matter. 1. The ranges of the responses at the different speeds should overlap. This is not a necessary condition, but if the ranges overlap it is easier to model the system. 2. The same settings of design variables at different speeds should produce similar responses. That is, the effects of the design variables should be almost the same at different engine speeds. Two issues are of significant
When these two conditions are satisfied, the development of response models with SPEED as a factor becomes a possibility. The engine under investigation has an operating range of 1000 - 7000 rpm for the engine speed. For the ease of modeling, it is decided to use a range of 2000 - 6000 rpm (where most of the engine operation takes place). A general method of obtaining engine responses is illustrated in Figure 4.5. For all the subsystems a face centered CCD is used, with one center point. The process of response surface modeling is done at the subsystem level, because if done at the system level the number of experiments needed to build
138
the model is extremely high and often cannot be handled by packages like JMP. This problem relating to size is well brought out in (Koch, et al., 1997). Since there is no experimental error associated with computer experimentation (a set of inputs will always give the same output, except round-off errors), only one center point is u sed. The experiments that are generated represent the different settings of the design factors for which the responses have to be calculated. The factors are normalized between 1 and -1 for the purpose of response modeling. In other words the upper bound of the factors are coded as +1 and the lower bound as -1. The responses are generated using the simulation program EnFAS, the structure and working of which is explained in Chapter 3.
The inputs to EnFAS are provided as data files which are nothing but the central composite design values for the different factors. These are decoded to their actual physical values and the analysis is performed. Since engine speed is also an input factor EnFAS is run at different engine speeds based on the SPEED value for a particular factor setting. The outputs that are generated are stored in component specific output files.
139
Most Significant Factors
Second Order Experiments (CCD)
EnFAS
Model Building
Response surface equations P = f(Xi,Xi 2,XiXj)

Figure 4.5: A General Method for Generating Engine Subsystem Response Models
After running the experiments for all the subsystems using EnFAS and the information on factors and ranges, a regression analysis is conducted (using JMP) to evaluate the fit of the resulting response surfaces. In order to include speed also as a variable, the EnFAS code is modified suitably by linking it to the JMP input file and providing engine speed as an input parameter, instead of pre-defining it in EnFAS. Each response surface is simply a polynomial that maps the input factors and SPEED to one of the responses. If the fit is not sufficient, additional experiments may need to be conducted using a higher order experiment. For this study, second order response surfaces were found to be sufficient. The resulting equations take the following form:
140
Re sponse ? b 0 ? ? bix i ?
i?1
i? 1
biix ii ? ?
2
i? 1 j? 1
b ijxij
where R is a response (Film thickness, Power loss etc.) b0 is the intercept bi are the regression coefficients for the linear terms (main effects) bii are the coefficients for purely quadratic terms bij are the coefficients for the two-factor interactions xi, xj are the design factors and xixj denotes the interactions between two factors.
The main reason for building response surface equations for the different system responses, is to replace EnFAS with these equations in the compromise DSP. For every run of EnFAS (one design setting of the factors) it takes approximately 12 minutes. If EnFAS is used directly in the compromise DSP, thousands of analysis runs are required and this involves a lot of computer time just for one design scenario and one starting point. The use of response surface equations instead of EnFAS helps avoid this problem and improve computational efficiency. The subsystem level response surface equations are functions of the factors that characterize that specific subsystem. An important issue noted here is that the response surface models are developed at the subsystem level, independent of other subsystems. It is valid to use these models together for system synthesis, because the individual subsystems are fairly uncoupled. The interactions that exist between piston
141
assembly and bearings are handled using common state variables like BORE, CONROD. Thus individually developed subsystem models are used in the overall system solution model without any loss of accuracy or incompatibility. The details of response surface modeling for the different engine subsystems is presented in the following sections. For each of the following details are presented Prediction Profile: A prediction profile is useful in getting a quick indication about the factors that affect a response significantly. The factors that have a large slope in the prediction profile have a significant effect on a response. Prediction profiles serve as tools to increase design knowledge about the system in early design stages.
Model Parameters: An indication of the goodness of the fit is obtained by computing the R-squared value (Hayter, 1996) which indicates the extent to which the model replicates reality. The R-squared value is an indicator of the accuracy of a model. The mean square error provides an estimate of lack of fit in the model. The number of observations depends on the type of second order experiment chosen.
In the following a description of models built for the different subsystem responses is presented
142
4.3.1 Developing Response Models for the Bearing Subsystem In case of the bearing subsystem the main responses to be modeled are bearing power loss, connecting rod bearing minimum film thickness and crankshaft bearing minimum film thickness. The factors listed in Table 4.6 and the noise factor SPEED are used for the modeling process. Based on the response surface models it is possible to determine which factors are important from the point of a view of a particular response. Such knowledge is important if a designer needs to adjust his design parameters suitably to obtain desired performance. The significance of the individual factors is graphically represented using a prediction profile (from JMP) which is shown in Figure 4.6 for the bearing power loss. This along with other model parameters are presented for the bearing power loss in Table 4.12. For all the response models the R-squared value is close to 1, indicating a good fit. Similar profiles and tables are presented for the two film thickness also. The response surface equations along with plots of the first order and second order effects for the bearing responses are presented in Appendix B. Bearing power loss (BPOWLOS)
BPOWLOS (kW)
3.0556 0.946032 0.2017 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 BDIAM 0 BCLR 0 MDIAM 0 MCLR 0 SPEED -1 0 BORE 1
Figure 4.6: Prediction Profile for BPOWLOS
143
It is seen from Figure 4.6, that the all the factors exercise some effect on the power loss. As seen in the figure, power loss increases considerably with speed.
Table 4.12: Details of BPOWLOS Response Model RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (kW) Mean of Response (kW) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.999154 0.998688 0.035811 1.254335 77
Connecting rod bearing minimum film thickness (BBFLMTHK)
BBFLMTHK, microns
0.8967 0.753465 0.3926 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 BDIAM 1 BCLR 1 MDIAM 1 MCLR 1 SPEED -1 1 BORE 1
Figure 4.7: Prediction Profile for BBFLMTHK
In this case we see that all factors except the main bearing factors have an influence on BBFLMTHK. This is deduced by observing the fact that the response bearing film thickness remains constant with changes in the main bearing factors (MDIAM and MCLR). This is quite obvious as the main bearing dimensions have no relation to the connecting rod bearing responses. BBFLMTHK varies quadraticaly with speed as seen in the figure
144
Table 4.13: Details of BBFLMTHK Response Model RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (microns) Mean of Response (microns) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.989266 0.983351 0.015204 0.650804 77
Crankshaft bearing minimum film thickness (MBFLMTHK)
MBFLMTHK, microns
1.3405 1.279416 0.8498 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 BDIAM 0 BCLR 0 MDIAM 0 MCLR 0 SPEED -1 0 BORE 1
Figure 4.8: Prediction Profile for MBFLMTHK
In case of MBFLMTHK, the connecting rod bearing dimensions quite naturally exercise no influence on the crankshaft bearing responses. MBFLMTHK again varies quadraticaly with SPEED.
Table 4.14: Details of MBFLMTHK Response Model RSquare RSquare Adj 145 0.998449 0.997594
Root Mean Square Error (microns) Mean of Response (microns) Observations (or Sum Wgts)
0.007260 1.051316 77
4.3.2 Developing Response Models for the Piston Subsystem In case of the piston subsystem the only response that has to be modeled is the power loss in the piston assembly. The factors and ranges presented in Table 4.8 are used for modeling processes. And as mentioned earlier SPEED is also included in modeling for
robustness. The prediction profile for the power loss is presented in Figure 4.9. Since SPEED has the greatest effect on the power loss the effects of the other factors seem muffled. But in reality if SPEED is held constant, OT, RO1 and RO2 have significant effects on the power loss. The problem with prediction profiles is that the second order effects are not captured. The response surface equations along with the first order and second order effects for PPOWLOS is presented in Appendix B.
PPOWLOS, KW
3.8105 1.698856 0.5676 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 RW1 0 RO1 0 RW2 0 RO2 0 SPEED 0 BORE 0 RS -1 0 OT 1
Figure 4.9: Prediction Profile for PPOWLOS
146
In Table 4.15, the details of the modeling are summarized. In this table it is seen that the R-Squared value is close to 1 again indicating a good fit.
Table 4.15: Details of PPOWLOS Response Model RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (kW) Mean of Response (kW) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.999821 0.999742 0.017685 1.908486 145
Having presented the details of piston response modeling, in the next section the results of the valve train modeling is illustrated. 4.3.3 Developing Response Models for the Valve Train Subsystem In the case of valve train subsystem, the two responses under consideration for modeling are the power loss (VPOWLOS) and minimum film thickness (VFLMTHK). The factors and ranges presented in Table 4.10 along with SPEED as a noise factors are used for modeling. Form the prediction profile for valve power loss is presented in Figure 4.10. It is seen VCL and SR are the two control factors that have a significant influence on the power loss. VPOWLOS increases linearly with SPEED. The root mean square error value indicates the extent of lack of fit. For the response valve-train power loss (VPOWLOS) as seen in Table 4.16 the root mean square error is less than one percent of the mean response value indicating a good fit. The valve train subsystem response surface equations and the first and second order effects plots are presented in Appendix B. 147
VPOWLOS, kW
1356.707 716.7469 262.7647 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 VCL 0 SR 0 BASRAD 0 BCLOAD 0 RCAG 0 CSRM -1 0 SPEED 1
Figure 4.10: Prediction Profile for VPOWLOS
The R-squared value, presented in Table 4.16, is very close to one indicating a very good fit. The root mean square error due to lack of fit is also pretty small compared to the average response.
Table 4.16: Details of VPOWLOS Response Modeling RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (W) Mean of Response (W) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.999899 0.999817 4.31038 692.0607 79
In Figure 4.11 the prediction profile for VFLMTHK is presented. BASRAD is the factor with the greatest effect on this response. As SPEED increases VFLMTHK increases in a linear fashion.
148
VFLMTHK, microns
0.152814 0.087359 0.043313 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 VCL 0 SR 0 BASRAD 0 BCLOAD 0 RCAG 0 CSRM -1 -1 0 SPEED 1 1
Figure 4.11: Prediction Profile for VFLMTHK
For the response VFLMTHK, the R -squared value is close to 1 and hence a good prediction of variability of the response is obtained. The root mean square error is small in comparison to the mean of the response. All these results are summarized in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17: Details of VFLMTHK Response Modeling RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (microns) Mean of Response (microns) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.999707 0.999468 0.000815 0.087886 79
4.3.4 Developing Response Models for the Oil Pump Subsystem In case of the pump subsystem, the main responses to be considered are the power loss and the flow rate of oil going into the combustion chamber. The control factors involved in this case are R1, R2 and B, the ranges of which are summarized in Table 4.5. The prediction
149
profile for the pump power loss model is presented in Figure 4.12. R2 is the control factor with the greatest influence on PUPOWLOS, which increases significantly with SPEED. The power loss increases with increase in R2. Hence form the point of view of minimizing the power loss in the pump a designer should keep the value of R2 as low as possible while maintaining adequate oil flow rate.
PUPOWLOS, kW
3374.787 852.6293 121.571 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 R1 0 R2 0 B -1 0 SPEED 1
Figure 4.12: Prediction Profile for PUPOWLOS
The R-squared value, presented in Table 4.18, is indicative of a very good fit, and the root mean square error also indicates a very small lack of fit.
Table 4.18: Details of PUPOWLOS Response Modeling RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (W) Mean of Response (W) 150 0.997686 0.994446 75.10786 1071.102
Observations (or Sum Wgts)
25
In Figure 4.13, the prediction profile of OILFR is presented. All factors have an influence on the oil flow rate and with speed the response growth is linear. R2 and B have a positive effect whereas R1 has a negative effect.
6.3 OILFR, l/s 1.938429 0.267 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 R1 0 R2 0 B -1 0 SPEED 1
Figure 4.13: Prediction Profile for OILFR
In Table 4.19 the R-square value and root mean square error for the response is presented. Both these values are indicators of a good and accurate model. The response
surface equations and the first and second order effects of the different factors is presented in Appendix B.
151
Table 4.19: Details of OILFR Response Modeling RSquare RSquare Adj Root Mean Square Error (l/s) Mean of Response (l/s) Observations (or Sum Wgts) 0.989999 0.972498 0.243024 2.010696 23
In summary, in this section the mechanics of building response surface models and statistical properties of the different subsystem models that are built are elaborated. The main advantages of using response surface models include, 1. Understanding the influence of different factors on performance indices to aid us in design (increase in design knowledge). 2. Increasing the computational efficiency of the process of system synthesis by replacing computationally intensive simulation code with response surface equations. 3. Incorporating robustness in design by building models involving both control and noise factors.
The fact that response surface models are used to replace the simulation code EnFAS for design synthesis is hinged upon the validity of the response surface models. In the next section methods of establishing the validity of response surface models that have been built is elaborated.
152
4.3.5 Validation of Response Surface Models The response surface equations developed for the various subsystem responses are validated by the following means. 1. Comparison with outputs from simulation program (EnFAS): For a random set of factor settings the output from EnFAS and the response surface equations are obtained and compared graphically. Moreover a plot between the predicted values and actual values generated by JMP for the factor settings in the CCD also serves the same purpose.
2. Residual Analysis: The plot between the residuals and fitted values for a response surface model is investigated to see if there are any outliers or if any higher order transformation is necessary. These are inferred by looking for patterns in the residual plots.
As an example, the validation of the response BPOWLOS (bearing power loss) is illustrated in the following. For some random settings of the bearing subsystem control, noise and state factors, BPOWLOS is computed using EnFAS and the response surface equations. The two surfaces with respect to SPEED and BDIAM are shown in Figure 4.14.
153
3
2.5
2.0 1.5
BPOWLOS
1
BPOWLOS
1.0 0.5
0 -1 -1
0.0 -1 -1 0
SPEED
0 1
BDIAM
1
SPEED
0 1
BDIAM
1
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.14: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BPOWLOS
From Figure 4.14, it is seen that the steep slopes in the actual response plot are smoothened out by the response surface plot without loss of accuracy. Nevertheless after the process of system synthesis the solution obtained must be validated with the actual model. In Figure 4.15, a graph between the predicted value and actual value of BPOWLOS for the set of experimental CCD runs is shown The solid line represents the actual values and the dots represent the predicted values. The outer lines provide an envelope representing the variation of the response surface equation from the actual value of the response. If the envelope is too wide then the margin of error is high. The close correspondence in the two values shows that the response surface model quite accurately represents the simulation code. In some cases
however the response surface equation may represent the simulation code accurately in some regions of the design space and in other regions the error may be very high. In such cases, a
154
greater number of points should be added to the region where the error is high. This in a way improves the fit obtained.
3.0 2.5 BPOWLOS, KW 2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 BPOWLOS Predicted , KW 3.0
Figure 4.15: Actual vs. Predicted Values of BPOWLOS
In Figure 4.16, a plot of fitted vs. residual values is shown. Residuals represent the difference between the actual response value and the value predicted by the equation. There are no significant outliers nor is any pattern among the residuals evident. Therefore, there is no necessity for any kind of higher order transformations. Another issue that has to be verified is the normality assumption of the residuals. This is verified by observing a normal plot of the residuals and checking if they lie on a straight line. Thus, the model is valid from the point of residual analysis also.
155
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Residual 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 BPOWLOS Predicted 3.0
Figure 4.16: Residual vs. Predicted Values of BPOWLOS
The other responses are validated in a similar fashion and the results are summarized in Appendix B. Thus, through this section the process of developing response surface models is highlighted. Additionally validation strategies that justify the use of these equations in place of the simulation program (EnFAS) are also summarized.
By using the equations for the different responses in terms of the variables, the mean and variance of the responses are computed easily using Taylor series approximations. These computations are essential from the point of view of mathematical modeling of robustness. In the next section the process of using these models in incorporating Taguchis robust design principles is explained.
156
4.4
MATHEMATICAL MODELIN G OF ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGNING THE ENGINE

JMP
The guiding motive for achieving robust designs is to attain not only desired performance but also very little or no deviation from desired performance under influence of noise. The main noise factors under consideration are SPEED at the system level and the manufacturing tolerances at the bearing subsystem level. Mathematical modeling of robustness at the
subsystem and system level is handled through the usage of Taguchis robust design principles in conjunction with response surfaces and compromise DSP as mentioned in Section 2.3.3. 4.4.1 Modeling Robustness at the System Level Q.4 How can systems be designed with the capacity to function under different working environments during their functional life? In Section 2.3, the underlying principles of Taguchis robust design is presented as a strategy to address Q.4. Through this section the application of these principles for achieving robust engine designs is presented. Hence, the robustness modeling necessary to address Q.4 is summarized in this section. At the system level the idea of robustness is interpreted as the capacity to function effectively at different operating speeds of the engine. In more specific
157
terms it is to be ensured that the performance of the different subsystems be as good as possible at all the speeds of the engine. Performance in this case is viewed as low friction power loss and adequate lubricant film thickness. For the engine under investigation the range of 2000 6000 rpm has been chosen as the operating range as mentioned earlier. In this range SPEED is assumed to have a normal distribution, as shown in Figure 4.17, during engine operation.
2000
4000
6000
speed (rpm)
Figure 4.17 : Probability Distribution of Engine Speed.
For this distribution of speeds the performance parameters of the subsystems are also, distributed normally. For each of the performance parameters there is a corresponding desired normal target distribution. For example, for the bearing subsystem, let us say we are interested in minimizing the power loss at 2000 rpm to 0.2kW, at 4000 rpm to 0.6 kW and at 6000 rpm to 1.0 kW. Hence the target distribution we aim for in modeling the bearing power loss goal is a normal distribution with mean as 0.6kW, and 0.2 and 1.0kW as the -3? and +3? limits
158
respectively. Our goal for robust design is to achieve this target distribution by achieving the following two goals, ?? Putting the mean of the response or performance parameter on the mean of the target distribution, i.e., mean of targets for 2000, 4000 and 6000 rpm (0.6kW for the example presented). ?? Mapping the deviation of the response with the deviation of target distribution (0.1333kW for the aforementioned example), so that at all operating speeds the best possible performance is ensured.
To model the preceding robustness requirements the mean and standard deviation of the different responses have to be computed. The expressions for the mean and standard deviation for the different subsystems is derived in the following. Bearing subsystem The response surface equation for the different responses have the following form, BPOWLOS = F1(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE)
BBFLMTHK = F2(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE) MBFLMTHK = F3(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE) If we use symbols ? and ? to represent the mean and the standard deviation of a response for any control factor setting, then the following relationships are developed.
159
? BPOWLOS ?
1 * (? BPOWLOS SPEED? 2000 ? ? BPOWLOS SPEED? 4000 ? ? BPOWLOS SPEED? 6000 ) [4.1] 3
1 * (? BBFLMTHK 3 ? BBFLMTHK ? BBFLMTHK
? BBFLMTHK ?
SPEED ? 2000
SPEED ? 4000
SPEED ? 6000
4..2]
1 ? MBFLMTHK? *(? MBFLMTHKSPEED? 2000 ? ? MBFLMTHKSPEED? 4000 ? ? MBFLMTHKSPEED? 6000 ) [4.3] 3
? BPOWLOS
SPEED
?F1 ?SPEED
*?
SPEED
[4.4]
? BBFLMTHK
SPEED
?F2 ?SPEED
*?
SPEED
[4.5]
MBFLMTHK
SPEED
?F2 *? ?SPEED
SPEED
[4.6]
where ? SPEED is computed from a normal distribution as, ? SPEED
6000 ? 2000 6
, with 6000
rpm as the +3? limit and 2000 rpm as the -3? of the normal distribution. The means of the responses are computed based on Taguchis outer array approach (Taguchi, 1987) and the standard deviations are computed using Taylor series approximations of the responses. The mean and standard deviation of responses of other subsystems are also computed in a similar fashion. It may be noted in the aforementioned expressions that terms like
160
? BBFLMTHK
SPEED ? 2000
exist. These refer to the mean of the corresponding response at a
particular speed, due to variation in the manufacturing tolerances. The expressions for the mean and standard deviation due to tolerances, of the bearing responses at each level of SPEED is developed in Section 4.4.3. Piston subsystem For the piston subsystem the only response under consideration is the piston assembly power loss, PPOWLOS which has the form (response surface equation), PPOWLOS=P1(RW1, RO1, RW2, RO2, BORE, RS, OT, SPEED). Using this we develop the following relations for mean and standard deviation of PPOWLOS for any control factor setting,
? PPOWLOS ?
1 * (PPOWLOSSPEED? 2000 ? PPOWLOSSPEED ?4000 ? PPOWLOSSPEED? 6000) 3
[4.7]
PPOWLOS
SPEED
?P1 *? SPEED ?SPEED
[4.8]
Valve train subsystem For the valve train subsystem the two responses under consideration are VFLMTHK and VPOWLOS, the response surface equations for which are represented as VPOWLOS = V1(VCL, SR, BCLOAD, BASRAD, RCAGE, CSRM, SPEED) VFLMTHK = V2(VCL, SR, BCLOAD, BASRAD, RCAGE, CSRM, SPEED)
161
Using these equations the mean and the standard deviation of the response for any control factor setting are computed as follows,
? VPOWLOS?
1 *(VPOWLOS ? 2000 ? VPOWLOS ? 4000 ? VPOWLOSSPEED? 6000) SPEED SPEED 3 1 *( VFLMTHKSPEED? 2000 ? VFLMTHKSPEED? 4000 ? VFLMTHKSPEED? 6000 ) 3
[4.9]
? VFLMTHK?
[4.10]
VPOWLOS
SPEED
? V1 *? ?SPEED
SPEED
[4.11]
? VFLMTHK
SPEED
?V 2 ?SPEED
*?
SPEED
[4.12]
Oil Pump subsystem PUPOWLOS is the only response for the pump subsystem for which robust modeling is required as the other response OILFR is a constraint. The response surface equation for PUPOWLOS is given as PUPOWLOS = PU1(R1, R2, B, SPEED) The mean and the variance of PUPOWLOS for the speed range under investigation is obtained in the following fashion 162
1 ? PUPOWLOS *(PUPOWLOS ? 2000 ? PUPOWLOS ?4000 ? PUPOWLOS ? 6000) ? SPEED SPEED SPEED 3
? PUPOWLOS SPEED ?
?PU1 ?SPEED
[4.13]
*?
SPEED
[4.14]
Hence based on the aforementioned discussion, expressions for the mean and standard deviation for the various responses have been developed. These expressions are used in the formulation of the compromise DSP (Section 4.5) as robustness goals for putting mean on target and minimizing deviation from desired performance under the influence of noise. In the next section the mathematical modeling of robustness to manufacturing variations for the bearing subsystem is discussed. 4.4.2 Modeling Robustness at the Subsystem Level (Bearings) Q.5 How can systems be designed in such a way that they are insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at the same time facilitate manufacture? Taguchis principles of minimizing the deviation of a response with respect to noise is presented as a strategy to address Q.5 in Section 2.3. This issue is revisited from the specific point of view of the bearing subsystem in this section. As mentioned earlier the bearing dimensions (diameter and clearances) are subject to manufacturing tolerance variations, the ranges of which are specified in Table 4.1. The clearances in addition, vary with temperature and also with wear (effects of wear are however neglected). The tolerances are assumed to be normally distributed as shown in Figure 4.18.
163
? ? 3?
? ? 3?
Figure 4.18: A Typical Normal Distribution for Bearing Dimensions.
These dimensional variations affect the response of the bearing subsystem and our aim for robust design is to minimize the variations caused by these manufacturing variations. To achieve this, the expressions of mean and standard deviation of the responses due to tolerances should be obtained from the response surface equations developed. The mathematical implementation of these ideas is achieved through the use of the outer array approach as suggested by Taguchi (Taguchi, 1987) in conjunction with the Taylor series approximation for the system responses. The response surface equations that have been developed are
mathematically represented as BPOWLOS = F1(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE)
BBFLMTHK = F2(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE) MBFLMTHK = F3(BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, SPEED, BORE)
Let the set X = {BDIAM,BLEN,BCLR,MDIAM,MLEN,MCLR}. Since these dimensions are normally distributed (Figure 4.15) we have the following relations 164
TOLBD ? 3*? BDIAM TOLBC ? 3 *? BCLR TOLMD ? 3* ? MDIAM TOLMC ? 3 * ? MCLR
[4.15 - 4.18]
Robust design implies that the effect of the tolerance noise on the system response (at each level of speed) has to be reduced (Section 1.3.2). Therefore, at each level of the control factors (dimensions and tolerances) we have an outer array with the variable SPEED at its different levels. For these different speed values we compute the mean and the variance of the response as a result of the normal distribution of the dimensions due to tolerances. Therefore, using first order Taylor series expansion for the mean and the variance we have
? BPOWLOS SPEED? 2000 ? [ ? ? BBFLMTHK ? BBFLMTHK ? MBFLMTHK ? MBFLMTHK
?F1 2 2 ) *? ] 0.5 X ?X i? 1 i i ( 4
SPEED? 2000
? F2(X,2000)
?F2 2 2 0.5 ) *? ] X ?X i ?1 i i ( 4
[ 4.19 - 4.24 ]
SPEED? 2000
[?
SPEED? 2000
? F2(X,2000)
?F2 2 2 0.5 ) *? ] X i ?1 i i 4
SPEED? 2000
?[
?X
where X1 =BDIAM, X 2 =BCLR, X 3 =MDIAM, X 4 =MCLR and X, is the mean of the distributions of BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR. The value for BORE is held at the
165
value determined for that particular synthesis cycle. Similar computations are performed at speeds of 4000 and 6000 rpm to obtain the mean and the variance of the responses. The means of the responses developed in Equations 4.19, 4.21 and 4.23 are used in Equations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 for modeling robustness with respect to engines speed. The variances of the
dimensions are obtained from Equations 4.15 - 4.18 using the manufacturing tolerances.
In order to minimize the effects of manufacturing noise we have to reduce the variance of the response due to the tolerances. In other words we minimize the average of the sum of the variances of the responses at each level of speed in the compromise DSP. This average variance is given by
? BPOWLOSt olerances?
1 3
* ( ? BPOWLOS
speed ? 2000
? BPOWLOSspeed ?
4000
? BPOWLOSspeed ? 6000) [4.25]
? BBFLMTHKtolerances ? 3 * ( ? BBFLMTHKspeed? 2000 ? ? BBFLMTHKspeed ? 4000 ? ? BBFLMTHKspeed ? 6000) ? BBFLMTHKtolerances ?

1 * (? BBFLMTHK 3 speed?
[4.26]
2000
? BBFLMTHKspeed ? 4000 ? ? BBFLMTHKspeed ? 6000)
[4.27]
In summary the different expressions (means and standard deviations) required for the mathematical modeling of robustness have been developed using the response surface equations. These expressions are now used in the system level compromise DSP as goals for achieving robustness in design as discussed in the next section. 166
4.5
FORMULATION OF SOLUTION MODELS BASED ON LEVEL OF INFORMATION CERTAINTY, FOR A SYSTEM LEVEL SYNTHESIS
Maintain design freedom Incorporate Robustness
Compromise DSP
DSIDES
Factors and Ranges
EnFAS
JMP
Model Uncertainty
JMP
JMP
Increase efficiency
Q.1 How can the overall system be represented, modeled and synthesized at the system level and component level? Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? In addressing Q.1, the compromise DSP is introduced as a mathematical construct (Section 2.2) for system level synthesis. It particularization for concurrent designing of engine subsystems is discussed in this section. The compromise DSP serves as a template to generate different configurations and dimensions for engine subsystems under consideration based on designer preferences and priorities. The inputs to the compromise DSP include the factors and the ranges (Section 4.1) and the response surface equations developed (Section 4.3). The main objective in developing a formulation of this kind is to generate top level design specifications for the different engine components.
167
Fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics (Sections 2.4 and 2.5) are presented as strategies for modeling uncertainty in information along a time line. Based on the level of uncertainty, three kinds of formulations of the compromise DSP are investigated, viz., fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp compromise DSPs. The formulation of these three compromise DSPs enables us to address the issue of developing solution models along a design timeline (Q.3). The fuzzy and Bayesian formulations have uncertainty parameters included in them. Before any other issue is addressed, the kind of uncertainty encountered in this case study and the reason for modeling it, should be stated. As one may recall, the main requirements for the engine subsystems stated in words are, maintain adequate film thickness and reduce power loss. The word adequate is indicative of soft qualitative and has an inherent ambiguity or fuzziness associated with it. Similarly there is some lack of clarity with regards to the power loss reduction requirement also. For example, too much reduction in bearing power loss reduces reliability in performance. It is very difficult to indicate a value of film thickness at which bearing failure occurs (Taylor, 1992) and the same is the case with the cam follower interface in the valve train. While mathematically formulating these requirements, numerical target values are needed responses for like film thickness and power loss. The usage of fuzzy numbers and Bayesian statistics enables us to model the requirements as a fuzzy OR a Bayesian goal by considering a band of values around a central goal value. Such modeling of uncertainty is advantageous, as it enables us to incorporate some amount of flexibility in the design and proceed with the formulation based on soft information especially in preliminary stages of design. As emphasized in Section 2.4.2, the cases that
168
necessitate fuzzy targets are handled through the use of fuzzy goals and the same is the case with the Bayesian goal formulation. The aforementioned ideas serve as the guiding motive for modeling uncertainty. But why use three different solution models? As mentioned in Section 1.2.5, the nature of decisions made in a design process keeps changing as we move along a design time line based on the information that flows in. One of the secondary research questions (Q.6), is to study the impact of decisions made under certainty, risk (stochastic uncertainty) and imprecision on the respective top level specifications generated. It is for this reason, that three different formulations are investigated. A transformation is made to a model of higher fidelity (crisp) when we move from the fuzzy to the Bayesian to the crisp formulation. To make the difference between the different formulations clearer, the discussion on linguistic differences in the requirements which is presented in Section 1.2.5 is reiterated here. If the specification is laid out as film thickness should be adequate to sustain hydrodynamic lubrication in the bearing, then we use the fuzzy formulation with a band width representative of values that correspond to hydrodynamic lubrication around a preferred value for film thickness. In this case we have no numerical information on what values are adequate. This would correspond to a decision made with imprecise information based on the discussion presented in Section 1.2.5. On the other hand, if the requirement is favorable bearing operating film thickness are around 0.6 to 0.9 microns (based on data from existing engines) and it is desired to maintain adequate film thickness a Bayesian formulation is adopted with a Gaussian distribution for the film thickness goal, the spread here being based on the numerical information available with respect to the film
169
thickness requirement. In this case our decision is aided by the availability of a statistically significant sample set, that increases the information certainty. This corresponds to a decision made under risk because we have probabilities associated with the different alternatives. Finally, if the same design requirement is stated as film thickness in the bearing should be as high as 0.9 microns then we have a well defined target value for film thickness and we adopt a crisp goal formulation which is based on purely quantitative information and hence falls under the class of decisions under certainty. In using the aforementioned three formulations, it is assumed that kind of information available necessitates the usage of a particular formulation of the compromise DSP. Even though the source of uncertainty is in the targets, we circumvent this problem by using fuzzy OR Bayesian distributions for the goals and this is done so that the deviation variables do not get affected by uncertainty parameters when normalized with the target values. The validity of expressing fuzziness in target values through fuzzy goals has been addressed in Section 2.4.2. Though these three formulations have essentially the same structure, the formulation of goals is done differently in the three formulations as explained in later parts of this section. The main entities in a compromise DSP include ?? Variables and bounds: Not formulation specific (except for possibility and probability parameters). ?? Constraints: Not formulation specific ?? Goals: Formulation specific
170
?? Objective function: Not formulation specific a. System Variables and bounds The variables and the ranges for the different subsystem are tabulated in section 4.1 and 4.2. This information is found in the following tables, Bearing factors: Tables 4.6, 4.7 Piston factors: Tables 4.8, 4.9 Valve train factors: Tables 4.10, 4.11 Oil pump factors: Table 4.5 These variables and bounds define the design space where the search for good design configurations is performed. In the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation, we have some uncertainty parameters also. As mentioned in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 with fuzzy and Bayesian parameters there exist possibility parameters (H) and probability densities (P) respectively. The goals are modeled using these uncertainty parameters in this compromise DSP formulation. The oil pump subsystem is modeled without uncertainty because of the lesser amount of complexity and the lower number of variables in the subsystem. The bounds on the possibility and probability parameters is [0,1]. 0 <Hi<1, for i =1..6 (fuzzy formulation) 0 <Pi<1, for i =1..6 (Bayesian formulation) b. System Constraints
171
The constraints are defined at the subsystem level. The following constraints have been identified using the information provided by Ford Motor Co. Bearings Connecting rod film thickness (BBFLMTHK) ? 0.5 microns (at all operating conditions) Main bearing film thickness (MBFLMTHK) ? 1.0 microns (at all operating conditions) Constraints on the film thickness ensure there is adequate lubrication in these components and contact between surfaces is avoided. Valve train Cam-follower film thickness (VFLMTHK) ? 0.06 microns (at all operating conditions) This constraint on valve train film thickness is to ensure that conditions of elastohydrodynamic lubrication exist in the cam follower interface and is based on data available for similar existing engines. Oil pump Oil flow rate (OILFR) at 2000 rpm ? 27.0 lpm Oil flow rate (OILFR) at 4000 rpm ? 52.0 lpm Oil flow rate (OILFR) at 6000 rpm ? 64.0 lpm The oil pump has to supply enough lubricant at different operating conditions so that the engine components are not starved of lubricant. The OILFR constraint is hence used in modeling this requirement of the oil pump. Next we focus on the goals that have to be included in the formulation.
172
c. System Goals A common goal for all the subsystems is to minimize the friction power loss as much as possible. Apart from this, different subsystems have other specific goals. Since it is intended to achieve a robust design with respect to operating conditions (SPEED), the power loss and film thickness goals (which are affected by SPEED) are modeled as two goals, one putting the mean on target and the other minimizing deviation from target distribution (Chen, et al., 1996b). Targets for the different goals have been decided based on information from Ford and certain experimental runs to get a conservative target estimate for the various system responses. Additionally based on the formulation we use, goals are formulated in a different fashion. In the following goal formulations for the different subsystems are presented.
1. Goals for putting mean on target (Taguchis robust design: Section 2.3) Bearings subsystem
? BPOWLOS * K 1 ? 0.60 ? ? ? d1 ? d 1 ? 0 0.60 ? BBFLMTHK* K 2 ? 0.75 ? ? ? d2 ? d2 ? 0 0.75

? MBFLMTHK * K3 ? 1.35 ? ? ? d 3 ? d3 ? 0 1.35
[4.28]
[4.29]
[4.30]
Piston subsystem
173
? PPOWLOS* K 4 ? 0.80 ? ? ? d 4 ? d4 ? 0 0.80
[4.31]
Valve train subsystem

? VPOWLOS * K 5 ? 576.0 ? ? ? d5 ? d5 ? 0 576.0
[4.32]
? VFLMTHK * K 6 ? 0.10 ? ? ? d6 ? d6 ? 0 0.10
[4.33]
Oil pump subsystem
? PUPOWLOS ? 700.0 ? d ? ? d? ? 0 7 7 700.0
[4.34]
where Ki is a factor that is used to control the level of uncertainty in the target values and its value varies with the kind of formulation used, Ki = (1 ? cH i ) (Fuzzy formulation) (Zhou, 1988)
= (1 ? c .22ln(1/P i ) ) (Bayesian formulation) = 1 (Crisp formulation)
It is seen from the preceding equations that the way goals are formulated differs in the fuzzy, crisp and Bayesian compromise DSPs. The simplest case is the crisp formulation with K=1. This corresponds to a baseline compromise DSP formulation as presented in Section 174
2.2. This formulation, as mentioned earlier, is used when complete information is available about the system requirements.
Next if we investigate the fuzzy formulation we see that a crisp parameter A is replaced by a fuzzy parameter A(1? cH). What does this imply? As mentioned earlier, in the fuzzy formulation we have a central value and a cloud of values around that, with varying degrees of acceptability or preference. The preference for values decreases as we move off the center value. The preference function ? , used here is a linear one as shown in Figure 4.19. The dotted line is the possibility parameter, H which is just 1-? . The width of the fuzzy region is governed by the choice of c (lower values meaning a smaller spread of fuzziness and vice versa). Thus the parameter A(1? cH) represents a band of values for each of the different goals, with a band width cH. Whether the goal is formulated as A(1-cH) or A(1+cH) depends on the individual goals as discussed in the following. Details of formulating fuzzy goals and constraints are discussed in Section 2.4.2.
175
Possibility parameter: H 1 Preference function: v 0
A
c
Figure 4.19: Preference Function and Possibility Parameter in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
If we look at bearing subsystem goals, we see that in case of the two minimum film thickness goals we are interested in maintaining as a high a value as possible. For the two crisp parameters ? BBFLMTHK and ? MBFLMTHK, the least preferred values are represented by
? BBFLMTHK (1 ? cH) and ? MBFLMTHK (1 ? cH) , as these are the lowest values for the
corresponding responses (for any H), in the fuzzy region. If even these least preferred values are put on target, then adequate film thickness is ensured under all conditions. In case of the bearing power loss, BPOWLOS, we are interested in minimizing it. Therefore the least preferred value is ? BPOWLOS (1 ? cH) (for any H) and putting this on target ensures minimization of power loss. Therefore Equations 4.28-4.30 take the form
176
? BPOWLOS * (1? c b H1 ) ? 0.60 ? ? d1 ? d1? ? 0 0.60 ? BBFLMTHK *(1 ? cb H2 ) ? 0.75 ? d? ? d? ? 0 2 2 0.75

? MBFLMTHK* (1? cb H3 ) ? 1.35 ? ? d3 ? d ? ? 0 3 1.35
[4.35]
[4.36]
[4.37]
For the piston subsystem, we are interested in minimizing the power loss and hence as in the case of the bearings this is formulated as,
? PPOWLOS*(1? c pH4 ) ? 0.80 0.80 ? d4 ? d4 ? 0
? ?
[4.38]
The valve train subsystem is again similar to the bearing subsystem, where the goals are maintaining adequate film thickness and minimizing power loss. Using a reasoning similar to the case of the bearings subsystem, these goals are formulated as,
? VPOWLOS*(1 ? cv H5 ) ? 576.0 ? d? ? d? ? 0 5 5 576.0
[4.39]
? VFLMTHK* (1 ? cvH6 ) ? 0.10 ? ? d 6 ? d? ? 0 6 0.10
[4.40]
As seen in the preceding equations, different levels of uncertainty are used in the different subsystems and these are represented by cb, cp and cv for the bearings, piston and valve train respectively. The pump subsystem, for reasons mentioned earlier, is not included in the fuzzy and Bayesian formulations. From the way the goals have been formulated, it is seen 177
that when H=1, the most conservative value (or least preferred) value of the response is used and if system requirements are met even under these conditions then a good design is obtained. Thus H is an index of the goal achievement and it is imperative to maximize H (i.e. bring H as close to 1 as possible) to obtain a crisp solution from a fuzzy formulation. The goals for maximizing the possibility parameter H is presented later in this section. The formulation is exercised for different values of c, which is a measure of the extent of fuzziness. The value of c is chosen to reflect the admissible violation in the goal achievement. The different values of c used for the three subsystems and the reason for that choice is presented in Section 5.3.
If we investigate the Bayesian formulation, here again we have a band of values with different probabilities for the different goals. But the essential difference here is that, neither the band of values nor the probabilities is left to the choice of designer. The goal values are drawn from a well defined Gaussian distribution as shown in Figure 4.20. Each of the values in the distribution has a corresponding probability, P, associated with it, as against a possibility parameter as in the case of fuzzy compromise DSP. A crisp parameter is replaced in a Bayesian formulation by ? (1 ? c .22 ln(1/ P)) . The details of mathematical derivation of this expression is presented in (Vadde, 1992). The parameter, c, is a measure of the standard deviation (? ) of the truncated Gaussian distribution and is related to it by 3? =c? , where ? is the mean of the Gaussian distribution. Details of the formulation of a Bayesian compromise DSP is presented in Section 2.5. 178
c?
? ? 3?
? ? 3?
Figure 4.20: A Gaussian Distribution for Representing an Uncertain Parameter in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
As in the fuzzy formulation case the goals is formulated as ? (1 ? c .22 ln(1 / P) ) or

?(1 ? c .22 ln(1/ P)) based on the individual goals. In this case c .22 ln(1 / P) represents the
band width. Using the same argument presented for the fuzzy formulation, the film thickness goals are formulated as ? (1 ? c .22 ln(1/ P) ) and power loss goals are formulated as
?(1 ? c .22 ln(1/ P)) . We are interested in a solution that maximizes the likelihood/probability
parameter P within the variance band governed by the choice of the value of c for the different goals.
179
The targets used in the Bayesian compromise DSP are the same ones used in the fuzzy formulation. The bandwidths considered in the two formulations are also identical. Thus the different goals for the bearing, piston and valve train assembly are formulated as,
? BPOWLOS * (1 ? c b .22ln(1/ P1) ) ? 0.60 0.60 ? d1 ? d1 ? 0
? ?
[4.41]
? BBFLMTHK * (1 ? c b .22ln( 1/ P2 ) ) ? 0.75 0.75
? d 2 ? d2 ? 0
[4.42]
? MBFLMTHK * (1 ? cb .22 ln( 1/ P3 )) ? 1.35 1.35
? d 3 ? d3 ? 0
[4.43]
? PPOWLOS * (1 ? c p .22 ln( 1/ P4 ) ) ? 0.80 0.80

? VPOWLOS * (1 ? cv .22 ln( 1/ P5 ) ) ? 576.0 576.0 ? VFLMTHK * (1 ? c v .22 ln(1/ P6 )) ? 0.10 0.10
? d4 ? d4 ? 0
[4.44]
? d 5 ? d5 ? 0
[4.45]
? d6 ? d6 ? 0
[4.46]
The Bayesian compromise DSP is exercised for different values of c to study the effect of the band width on the results generated. The values of c chosen for the different subsystems and corresponding results are presented in Section 5.3. The probability parameter P which is the probability that the uncertain parameter assumes a particular value, is indicative of the extent of goal achievement and hence has to be maximized. The goals for maximizing P, are presented later in this section. 180
It is noted that both in the fuzzy and the Bayesian formulation, the different levels of fuzziness or uncertainty (value of c) is used for the fuzzy goals based on the subsystem under consideration. This is done so that uncertainty prevalent in the three subsystems are suitably modeled. A single value of c for all the subsystems, is not an unreasonable assumption as far as this case study is concerned. However using different values of c is a more accurate approach, as the extent of uncertainty in each subsystem is better modeled. Next we look at the non-fuzzy goals for minimizing deviation in achieving robust design.
2. Goals for minimizing deviation (Taguchis robust design : Section 2.3) Taguchis robust design principles are incorporated in the compromise DSP by including goals for putting mean on target and goals for minimizing deviation. The mean on target goals are presented in the preceding discussion. The goals for minimizing deviation are formulated using the expressions for standard deviations of the various responses (Section 4.4) as follows. Bearing subsystem
181
BPOWLOS SPEED
0.1
? d 8 ? d 8 ? 1.0
? BBFLMTHK SPEED
.01
? d ? ? d ? ? 1.0 9 9
? MBFLMTHK SPEED
.01
? ? ? d 10 ? d10 ? 1.0
[4.47 - 4.52]
? BPOWLOS tolerances? d11 ? d11 ? 0

? ? ? BBFLMTHKtolerances ? d12 ? d 12 ? 0
? MBFLMTHK
tolerances
? d13 ? d13 ? 0
Piston subsystem
PPOWLOS SPEED
0.1
? d14 ? d14 ? 1.0
[4.53]
Valve train subsystem
? ?
VPOWLOS SPEED
100.0
VFLMTHK SPEED
? ? ? d 15 ? d15 ? 1.0
[4.54 - 4.55]
? ? ? d16 ? d 16 ? 1.0
0.01
Oil pump subsystem 182
? PUOWLOS SPEED
450.0
? ? ? d 17 ? d17 ? 1.0
[4.56]
Equations 4.35 - 4.45 ensure that at all operating conditions governed by engine speed, the performance of the engine is as desired. It is reiterated that performance in this case is viewed as minimizing power loss and maintaining adequate lubrication. Additionally, for the bearing subsystem using Equations 4.38 - 4.40, its is ensured that the design is also robust with respect to manufacturing tolerance variations. Next we look at the goals for maximizing manufacturing tolerances on the bearings to facilitate manufacture.
3. Goals for tolerance design (Bearings subsystem) In order to facilitate the manufacturing operations of the bearing, it is desirable to maximize the tolerance on the dimensions. Thus we achieve a dual purpose of making the system robust with respect to the variations in dimensions due to tolerances and at the same time maximize the tolerances. The maximization of tolerance on the bearing dimensions is formulated as
183
(TOLBD )
? (TOLMD )
5000
? ? d 18 ? d 18
? 1.0
[4.57]
(TOLBC )
? ( TOLMC ) 72
? ? d19 ? d19
? 1.0
[4.58]
The targets for the tolerances are obtained based on tolerances corresponding to the manufacturing processes used to fabricate the bearings.
4. Goals for maximizing possibility and probability parameters The uncertainty parameters come into play only in the fuzzy (H) and Bayesian formulation (P). Based on the information presented in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 and the way the goals are formulated, it is seen that parameters, P and H, are indication of the extent of goal satisfaction. Hence if in the formulation, goals for maximizing these parameters are included, then the extent of achievement of tribological system goals is increased. In a fuzzy formulation maximizing H is a way of obtaining a crisp solution to a fuzzy problem. These goals are formulated as
184
H ?d ?d ? 1.0 i 19 ? i 19 ? i
? ?
--- Fuzzy compromise DSP
[4.59]
Pi ? d19 ? i ? d19 ? i ? 1.0 ----Bayesian compromise DSP [4.60]

where i =1..6. Since H and P, are probabilities and possibilities, respectively their maximum value is 1and minimum is 0. The next important entity in the compromise DSP template is the deviation function.
d. Deviation function The deviation function is a way of prioritizing the goals or assigning weights to them. This is formulated either in the Archimedean form (where weights are assigned to the different to indicate relative importance) or in the preemptive form where the Lexicographic minimum solution (Ignizio, 1985) is chosen. For the different scenarios investigated either the
Archimedean, or preemptive is chosen suitably to reflect designer preferences. In Figure 4.21 a complete mathematical formulation of the compromise DSP for the engine design case study is presented. The particular cases of the crisp, fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSPs are presented in Chapter 5, under the discussion of the results generated from these formulations.
185
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 4.5 - 4.11) ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Section 4.1) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ? Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM ? Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT ? Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ?? Deviation variables : d ? ,d ? , i =1..25. i i ?? Uncertainty parameters : Hi(fuzzy formulation), Pi (Bayesian formulation), i=1..6. SATISFY ?? Bounds on the Design Variables: Tables 4.5 - 4.11 ?? Constraints Valves VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns Bearings BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns Pump OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm
OILFR ? 55.0 lpm at 4000 rpm OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
d? ? d? ? 0 i i
?? Goals
?? Goals for putting means on target: ?? Goals for minimizing deviation: ?? Goals for tolerance design (bearing subsystem): ?? Goals for maximizing possibility and probability parameters: Equations 4.28 -4.34 Equations 4.47 -4.56 Equations 4.57 - 4.58 Equations 459 - 4.60
MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z ? ? Z ? F (f1 [d 1 , d 1 ]........ f1 [d ? , d ? ]) k k
preemptive formulation
k ? 1..25 (lexicographic minimum)

Figure 4.21: Mathematical Formulation of a Compromise DSP for System Level Synthesis 186
The formulation presented in Figure 4.21 is an ideal template for the computer synthesis of different subsystems. The computer implementation of the compromise DSP is elaborated in the next section. The different design scenarios used and the corresponding results are presented in the next chapter (Section 5.1). It is emphasized that the deviation variables associated with a goal are an index of the achievement of the goal and hence the deviation variables placed in a higher priority level are have to be minimized preemptively before the deviation variables in the lower level are minimized. The priorities rank the designer preferences of one goal over another. No conclusions can be drawn with respect to the amount by which one goal is preferred or is more important than another. The solution to a preemptive
formulation, as mentioned earlier, is a Lexicographic minimum (Ignizio, 1985).
LEXICOGRAPHIC MINIMUM Given an ordered array f = (f1, f2, ... , fn ) of

(1) (2) nonnegative elements f , the solution given by f is preferred to f iff f (1) < fk(2) and all k k
higher-order elements (i.e., f1, ..., fk-1) are equal. If no other solution is preferred to f, then f is the lexicographic minimum.
The lexicographic minimum concept is appropriate for use in the early stages of design when little or no detailed information is available concerning the weights of the goals. Different quality scenarios can quickly be evaluated by changing the priority levels of the goals to be achieved to increase design knowledge in the early stages of design.
187
4.5.1
Computer Implementation of the Compromise DSP Template Using DSIDES The system level compromise DSP (Figure 4.20) is solved using a software package
called DSIDES (Reddy, et al., 1992). The basic functioning of the DSIDES software is explained in Section 3.2. This software helps us to solve the multi-variable, multiple goal compromise problem using Adaptive Linear Programming (ALP) and helps increase
computational efficiency and accuracy of the results. The inputs to this software include a data file and a FORTRAN file (Appendix C). DSIDES is run on a UNIX platform.
The data file lists the names of the variables, their bounds and nominal values and the names and the types of the system constraints and goals. It is in the data file that we specify the overall deviation function and assign weights or priorities to the goals, as the case may be. We also specify the output format in this file. If there are any linear constraints in the problem they must be specified in the data file. There are several blocks which is used in the data file for different purposes. Some of these blocks are mandatory whereas some of them are optional.
The FORTRAN file is basically a tool to compute the goals and constraints given the values for the system variables using the response surface equations. It is these values of the goals and constraints that are used to compute the value of the deviation function. The file 188
consists of several sub-routines but the active one is called USERSET where the goals and constraints are obtained. All sub-routines must exist and the ones not in use are labeled dummy by the user. Traditionally these sub-routines have been written in FORTRAN. However any programming language which has the capacity to pass arrays and be linked to the FORTRAN compiler can be used. The goals are formulated differently in the fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp formulations of the compromise DSP.
In DSIDES the user has the option of either specifying the starting value of the design variables or DSIDES can choose a suitable initial value using the module XPLORE. But in this case study, the starting value is specified. With the initial set of values DSIDES runs the FORTRAN file to compute the goals and constraints and first attempts to satisfy all the constraints by trying several iterations with different values for the design variables. If it cannot, then it returns a message in the output file stating that feasibility is not achieved. If it is able to find a feasible design region then it searches for a new set of values for the design variables that would minimize the deviation function within the feasible design space. Several iterations are run on DSIDES before a converging, satisficing solution for the variables is reached. During each iteration it starts with a different set of values for the variables and it takes several cycles for convergence especially for cases with conflicting goals.
189
The outputs are stored in an output file and can be accessed after the synthesis cycles are completed. It is also possible to plot the convergence of the design parameters, the deviation variables and the deviation function for the different cycles using the post processor control in DSIDES. The computer implementation of DSIDES is crucial for the generation of top level specifications under different design scenarios, to facilitate trade-off studies and post solution analyses. 4.5.2 Validation of the Engine Compromise DSP: Solution Convergence The efficacy of a solution model is established by demonstrating its validity. Model validation is a process in which a model is shown to be well-grounded in reality (Bailey, 1997). The validation of a model is done by investigating the structure and the behavior of the model. Four validation strategies are used in this thesis. These are 1. Validation of response surface models for the different engine responses (Section 4.3.5). 2. Investigating solution convergence in the engine compromise DSP used to generate top level design specifications (this section). 3. Studying the effects of fuzziness parameter c in a fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSP (Section 5.3).
In (Bailey, 1997) validation strategies f solution models are classified as empirical or and theoretical. This classification is adapted from the work presented in (Richardson and Pugh, 1981). The basic premise behind empirical validations is testing the structure and
190
performance of a solution model against a mental model. In theoretical validation the focus is on determining if the structure and behavior of the model conform to reality. If a model is exercised only to see how the system behaves currently, then empirical validation is sufficient. However when the model is to be used to explore other parametric settings, then theoretical validation is required. The validation of the EnFAS model with results from physical experiments (which is not presented in this thesis as the information is held confidential by Ford Motor Co.) is a case of empirical validation, because the model is validated only for one particular setting of the engine. On the other hand the validation of the response surface models, studying the effect of the fuzziness parameter c in a fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSP and the validation of the compromise DSP by means of the convergence plots (this section) are theoretical validation strategies, as they are used to validate the general structure of the model and not its behavior at specific operational settings.
The solution convergence of following
compromise DSP is validated by investigating the
1. Convergence characteristics of design variables and deviation function, from different starting points in the design space. This study essentially reveals two things, one the robustness of the search algorithm, and secondly the existence of multiple optima. 2. Constraint Activity, i.e., which system constraints are active and how crucial they are.
191
Convergence of deviation function For the three different formulations (crisp, fuzzy and Bayesian) used, convergence plots of the deviation function from three starting points (low value, nominal value and high value of the different design variables) is presented in Figures 4.22-4.24. None of these starting points lie in the feasible design region (as the constraints on oil pump flow rate and connecting rod bearing film thickness are violated). The results presented in this section correspond to the Archimedean formulation (all goals equal priority) of the deviation function. Since the
compromise DSP is exercised from the point of view of verifying the mathematical modeling of the goals and constraints, all goals are rated equally. It is seen from the three figures that for all formulations of the compromise DSP, the system converges to almost the same solution from three different starting points. This indicates the solution obtained is a global optimum. This is not so surprising as most of the active goals are all quadratic response surfaces that have a single extremum. In some cases however the solutions obtained for different starting points are different, which is attributed to the existence of more than one equally good solution. Solutions obtained from different starting points a crucial in generating top level specifications. The re number of cycles for convergence, varies with the starting point chosen, due to the position of the optimum in relation to the starting point.
192
Convergence of deviation function from three different starting points

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 St pt. 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3
Iteration no.
Figure 4.22: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points (Fuzzy Formulation)
Convergence of deviation function from 3 different starting points.

6.00E-01 5.00E-01 4.00E-01 St pt 1 3.00E-01 2.00E-01 1.00E-01 0.00E+00 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure 4.23: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points ( Bayesian Formulation)
193
Convergence of deviation function from 3 different starting points

0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 2 4 Iteration no. 6 8 10 St. pt 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure 4.24: Convergence of Deviation Function from 3 Different Starting Points (Crisp Formulation)
Convergence of design variables As an illustration of the convergence of the design variables, the convergence of BCLR (connecting rod bearing clearance) under the fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp formulations, from three starting points (low, high and nominal), is presented in Figures 4.25 - 4.27. Investigating the convergence of the design variables is important from the point of view of identifying the factors that influence convergence. Some factors may affect several goals and if these goals happen to be conflicting, then it may take several synthesis cycles for that factor to converge.
194
Convergence of BCLR from 3 different starting points

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St pt 2 St pt 3
Figure 4.25: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (Fuzzy Formulation)
Convergence of BCLR from three different starting points

Figure 4.26: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (Bayesian Formulation) 195

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St pt 2 St pt 3
Figure 4.27: Convergence of Big-end Bearing Clearance (BCLR, ? m) from 3 Starting Points (crisp Formulation)
From the convergence plots of BCLR it is evident that in all three formulations BCLR converges to the same value regardless of the starting point. However, the number of cycles for convergence is dependent on the starting point. The reason for convergence to a single value, as mentioned earlier, is attributed to the quadratic nature of the response surfaces, which have unique optima or ridge surfaces. The convergence history and plots of different variables for the four engine subsystems have been summarized in Appendix C (Section C.2). It is based on the convergence of the design variables form three different starting points that different satisficing regions are identified in the design space.
196
Constraint Activity For the final solution point, none of the constraints are active in all three of the formulations. Hence, it is concluded the solution obtained is well within the feasible design space, as far as constraint activity goes. The bearing clearance as seen in Figure 4.26, converges to its upper bound in the crisp formulation..
In order to establish the fact that the results obtained are realistic and useful from a practical point of view, recommendations from engineers working on engine tribology at the Ford Research Laboratories are obtained. Their inputs serve as means of empirical validation of the results based on existing data and knowledge base. In conclusion it is stated, through the combination of empirical and theoretical model validation techniques, it is possible to establish if the modeling techniques used and the results obtained are realistic.
4.6 THE ROAD AHEAD..... In summary in this chapter complete information regarding the case study has been presented in great detail. This encompasses all requirements of the different subsystems, the modeling involved in representing the engine subsystems on the computer in as efficient a manner as possible and finally developing a system level solution template for computer aided
197
synthesis of automobile engine components. The next step is to investigate the solutions obtained for different scenarios and formulations that have been discussed in this chapter. A detailed account of the results for the case study along with inferences and specifications are presented in Chapter 5.
198
5. CHAPTER 5
GENERATION OF TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS: INFERENCES, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

The computer implementation of the system level synthesis model is useful in generating top level specifications for different design scenarios and different compromise DSP formulations. Based on these different specifications, several inferences are drawn and the implications of different ideas like robustness and uncertainty, are brought to light. In this chapter a detailed discussion of the results, along with different trade-off studies has been presented. The results presented are classified based on the formulation used and also based on the component for which specifications have been generated. For the sake of completeness, the problem definition (Section 1.3) and the mathematical formulation of the system level compromise DSP (Figure 4.20) are presented once again in the following. These serve as an ideal starting point to discuss the results.
Problem definition: To determine robust top level design specifications (dimensional and configuration) from a tribological point of view, for automobile engine lubricated components and accessories. The system under investigation consists of bearings, piston,
valve-train and oil pump. The engine under consideration is an 1.8L, I-4 automobile engine (2000 - 6000 rpm operating speed range). The valve train is of the roller follower type.
187
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 4.5 - 4.11) ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Section 4.1) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ? Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM ? Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT ? Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ?? Deviation variables : d ? ,d ? , i =1..25. i i ?? Uncertainty parameters : Hi(fuzzy formulation), Pi (Bayesian formulation), i=1..6. SATISFY ?? Bounds on the Design Variables: Tables 4.5 - 4.11 ?? Constraints Valves VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns Bearings BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns Pump
OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm OILFR ? 52.0 lpm at 4000 rpm OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
d? ? d? ? 0 i i
?? Goals ?? ?? ?? ??
Goals for putting means on target: Goals for minimizing deviation: Goals for tolerance design (bearing subsystem): Goals for maximizing possibility and probability parameters:
Equations 4.28-4.34 Equations 4.47-4.56 Equations 4.57-4.58 Equations 459-4.60
MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z ? ? Z ? F (f1 [d 1 , d 1 ]........ f1 [d ? , d ? ]) k k
preemptive formulation (lexicographic
k ? 1..25
minimum) Figure 5.1: Mathematical Formulation of a Compromise DSP for System Level Synthesis
188
5.1 INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENT DESIGN SCENARIOS Q.2 How can top level design specifications, that include considerations of
friction and lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? The formulation of the deviation function in the compromise DSP (Figure 5.1) enables the investigation of different design scenarios that capture designer preferences. The design preferences here are reflective of the tribological requirements of the system and hence enable us to answer the research question dealing with generating top level specifications with considerations of friction and lubrication. The top level design specifications that are generated vary with the scenarios and hence depending on the future requirements of the system a designer can make suitable recommendations. More over the idea of considering different scenarios is in conformity with the idea of keeping design freedom as open as possible, by not establishing strict priorities in ranking the goals and generating specifications for that particular case alone. In Table 5.1 the scenarios that have been studied in this case study have been listed. Before discussing the individual scenarios, it is highlighted that the deviation variables are an index of goal achievement and hence these are used to prioritize the different goals in the different design scenarios.
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario): This a design scenario also referred to as the power loss scenario. This is representative of a physical situation in which a designers primary concern is reducing the engine power loss to the greatest extent possible, in order to maximize the fuel efficiency of the engine. In formulating the deviation function for this scenario, the 189
deviation variables corresponding to the power loss goals (d ? , d ? , d ? , etc.) are placed in the 1 4 5 first priority level. The deviation variables of the goals pertaining to film thickness (both mean and target and minimizing deviation goals) are placed in the second priority level, implying these are not as important as the power loss goals. Computationally it means that once the power loss goals have been achieved to the best possible extent, then among those configurations that minimize the power loss, the ones that achieve the film thickness goals as closely as possible are selected. The tolerance design goals and goals for maximizing probability/possibility parameters are placed in the last priority level indicating these are the least important as we are more interested in tribological issues. Referring to the goal formulations presented in Section 4.5 clarifies the choice of deviation variables to be included in the different priorities.
Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario): Through this a physical situation in which a designers prime concern is to ensure adequate film thickness in the different engine components, so that failure is avoided. Hence the deviation variables corresponding to the film thickness
? goals ( d ? ,d ? ,d ? ,d ? ,d 3 ,d ? , etc.) goals for the valve-train and bearings (only these 2 3 6 2 6
components have film thickness goals) are placed in the first priority level. The power loss goals is still of importance to us, but second only to the goal achieving desired film thickness. Hence deviation variables pertaining to goal for reducing power loss are placed in the second priority level. As in the case of Scenario 1, the goals for tolerance design and maximizing
190
possibility/probability parameters are placed in the third and lowest level for reasons mentioned earlier.
Scenario 3 (All goals equally important scenario): This is a scenario that best represents a compromise between the various goals. In other words a designer is interested a configuration that satisfies all his requirements to an equal extent. This is represented in the
compromise DSP by placing the deviation variables pertaining to all the goals i one priority n level. While the previous two scenarios are formulated using a preemptive formulation with a Lexicographic minimum (Ignizio, 1985) as solution, in this scenario an Archimedean weighting scheme is used to formulate the deviation function. A general discussion on these two
formulations is presented in Section 2.3, under the compromise DSP formulation.
Table 5.1: Different Scenarios for Formulation of the Deviation Function

Priority level 1
? ? f1 (d1 , d ? ,d ? ,d 7 , 4 5
Priority level 2
? ? ? ? f2 (d 2 , d 3 , d 6 , d 9 , ? ? ? d ? , d12 , d 13 , d 16 10
Priority level 3
? ? f3 (d18 , d 19 , d ? , d 20 ? d ? , d ? , d ? , d 25 ) 22 23 24
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario)-
d 8 , d11, d14 , d15, d 17)

? ? ? ?
d? ,d? ,d? ,d ? , 2 3 6 9
? ? ? d ? , d12 , d 13 , d 16 ) 10
f2 (d 2 , d 3 , d 6 , d 9 ,
Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario)
? ? ? d ? , d12 , d 13 , d 16 10
? ? f1 (d1 , d ? ,d ? ,d 7 , 4 5
? ? f3 (d18 , d 19 , d ? , d ? , 20 21
d? ,d? ,d? ,d ? , 2 3 6 9
? ? ? d ? , d12 , d 13 , d 16 ) 10
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? d 8 , d11, d14 , d15, d 17) d 22 , d 23 , d 24 , d 25 )
Scenario 3 (All goals equally important scenario)
All deviation variables in one priority level (Archimedean formulation)
191
5.2
TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS Q.2 How can top level design specifications, that include considerations of
friction and lubrication be generated effectively and efficiently? Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? Q.6 What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at
different points on a design time line? The computer implementation of the different formulations of the compromise DSP yields dimensional and configuration specifications for the different subsystems under consideration for the scenarios investigated and enables us to answer the aforementioned research questions. How do we answer these questions?
Addressing Q.2: Generating top level specifications corresponding to design scenarios (Section 5.1) anchored on tribological issues. Addressing Q.3: Generating Top level specifications for three different formulations of the compromise DSP based on the level of uncertainty -- crisp (Section 5.2.1), fuzzy (Section 5.2.2) and Bayesian (Section 5.2.3).
192
Addressing Q.6:
Developing ranged sets of design specification (5.2.4) corresponding to different levels of information certainty as governed by the formulation.
Several what-if analyses and trade-off studies are made possible using the current solution model. In the following sections the specifications generated for different formulations based on the level of uncertainty is presented. Using these results the difference in specifications generated based on the scenarios is better understood. Moreover the implication of uncertainty or ambiguity in information embodied in the models is brought out by these results. The results for the fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp formulations are presented in the following, for the three scenarios discussed in Table 5.1. In exercising the fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSP, the value for the parameter c assumed is 0.05 for the bearings and valve-train subsystems and a value of c=0.03 for the piston subsystem. parameter c is As mentioned in Section 4.5, the The actual
an indication of the bandwidth of an uncertain parameter.
bandwidths that are chosen for the different goal functions and a justification for the c values chosen is presented in Section 5.3. The results of the crisp formulation is presented first in Section 5.2.1 and then the two formulations with uncertain parameters, i.e., fuzzy and Bayesian, are presented 5.22 and 5.2.3. 5.2.1 Results of Crisp Formulation The crisp formulation shown in Figure 5.2, is one that utilizes the format of a standard optimization formulation with no uncertainty parameters. Based on our discussion of nature of
193
decision making in Section 1.2.5, the solutions to a crisp compromise DSP is a result of decisions made under certainty. The results for the bearings, piston, valve-train and pump subsystem are summarized in Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 respectively.
194
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 4.5-4.11) ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Section 4.1) FIND ?? ? ? ? ? Design variables Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ? ? ?? Deviation variables : d i ,d i , i =1..19., ?? Constraints Valves Bearings Pump VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm, OILFR ? 52.0 lpm at 4000 rpm, OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
SATISFY
d i .d i ? 0 ,
?? Bounds on design variables: Tables 4.5-4.11 ?? Goals Taguchis Robust Design Goals for putting means on target (for all subsystems):
? R |speed ? d ? ? d ? ? ? t (R- any response )

Goals for achieving target deviation with respect to speed (system level):
Equations 4.28 - 4.34
? R|speed ? d? ? d ? ? ? t (R- any response )

?
? ? ? d ? d ? 0 (R-any response )
Equations 4.47-4.49, 4.53- 4.56
Goals for minimizing deviation with respect to tolerances (bearing subsystem level)
R|tolerances
Equations 4.50-4.52
Goals for tolerance design (bearing subsystem):

2 2 (TOLBD) ? (TOLMD) 5000 2 2 (TOLBC) ? (TOLMC)
72
? ? d 18 ?
? d 18
? 1.0
Equation 4.57 Equation 4.58
? ? d19 ? d19
? 1.0
MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z Z ? F(f 1 [d ? , d ? ]........ f 1 [d ? , d ? ]) preemptive formulation (lexicographic minimum) 1 1 k k

k ? 1..19
Figure 5.2: Mathematical Formulation of Engine Crisp Compromise DSP
195
By exercising the engine compromise DSP on DSIDES for the different scenarios the following solutions are obtained for the different subsystems. The essential feature is that the specifications for all the components are generated simultaneously. The convergence history and the active goals and constraints are identified by viewing the DSIDES output file.
Table 5.2: Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Crisp Compromise DSP
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m) Tolerance on BDIAM, TOLBD(micron) Tolerance on MDIAM, TOLMD(micron) Tolerance on BCLR, TOLBC(micron) Tolerance on MCLR, TOLMC(micron) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m) 40.05 69.73 59.6 43.0 49.0 50.0 2.0 2.0 0.219 0.634 1.00 0.864 0.703 1.39 2.07 0.51 1.22 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 40.05 69.73 59.6 43.0 50.0 50.0 2.0 2.0 0.219 0.634 1.00 0.864 0.703 1.39 2.07 0.51 1.22 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 40.04 69.92 59.9 43.0 50.3 50.3 2.0 2.5 0.219 0.634 1.00 0.864 0.703 1.39 2.07 0.51 1.22
C. R. : Connecting Rod (Big end) Bearings, M. B.: Main (Crankshaft) Bearings
196
Table 5.3: Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Crisp Compromise DSP
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) 75.0 0.102 0.330 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.642 1.50 2.62 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 76.0 0.102 0.320 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.04 0.643 1.52 2.673 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 75.0 0.102 0.330 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.642 1.50 2.62
Table 5.4: Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Crisp Compromise DSP
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (2000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (2000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (4000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (4000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (6000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (6000 RPM) (?m) 316.9 30.6 19.9 20.0 8.00 5.07e-2 271.7 0.061 564.2 0.103 771.18 0.149 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 308.9 30.11 19.75 20.0 8.00 5.07e-2 301.2 0.067 598.6 0.115 827.6 0.153 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 314.7 30.2 19.56 20.0 8.00 5.07e-2 283.2 0.064 577.2 0.109 799.4 0.14
197
Table 5.5: Top Level Specifications for Oil Pump for a Crisp Compromise DSP
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Radius of the rotor, R1 (mm) Radius of outer gear, R2 (mm) Width of the gear, B (mm) Oil pump power loss, PUPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Oil flow rate, OILFR (2000 rpm) (l/sec) Oil pump power loss, PUPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Oil flow rate, OILFR (4000 rpm) (l/sec) Oil pump power loss, PUPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) Oil flow rate, OILFR (6000 rpm) (l/sec) 25.7 40.0 11 126.54 0.46 440.7 0.91 920.78 1.377 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 25.7 40.0 11 126.54 0.46 440.7 0.91 920.78 1.377 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 25.7 40.0 11 126.54 0.46 440.7 0.91 920.78 1.377
The main feature to be observed here is that the specifications generated correspond to configurations that minimize the over all power loss in the engine. It is of importance to the note the interaction between the piston and bearing subsystem in this context. The piston bore diameter (BORE) is a factor that establishes a link between these two subsystems. It is possible to obtain lower power losses in the pistons by having a different value of BORE than 75.0 mm for the power loss scenario, but this will increase the bearing power loss. Hence, the BORE value is so chosen that the power loss in the bearings and piston assembly put together, is minimized. Thus usage of a system level optimization template helps in capturing such
interactions between the subsystems involved and these interactions manifest themselves in the results generated. In case of the crisp compromise the formulation of all the goals being rigid we
198
see very little variation in specifications for the different scenarios (e.g., BORE varies only from 75.0 - 76.0 mm for the three scenarios). For the oil pump subsystem, which is included only in the crisp formulation due to lack of uncertain parameters and the simplicity of the model, the specifications generated are the same for all the scenarios (R1=25.7 mm, R2=40.0 mm, B=11.0 mm). All the formulations are executed on the computer form different starting points to check for convergence to multiple optima. The convergence from different starting points is presented in Section 5.5.1. The crisp formulation takes a greater number (20-25) of synthesis cycles to converge as the goal targets are rigid and do not have any region of acceptance around the most preferred value. As regards to constraints, none of them are active. Having presented the results for the crisp formulation, in the next two sections the specifications for different subsystems under a fuzzy and Bayesian, formulation respectively are presented. 5.2.2 Results of Fuzzy Formulation
Section 1.2.5 Section 2.4 Section 4.5 This Section..
Role of uncertainty in design
Mathematical modeling of imprecision: Fuzzy sets
Development of fuzy goals in an Engine Fuzzy C-DSP
Results from the engine fuzzy C-DSP
Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? By exercising the fuzzy compromise DSP it is possible to infer how the level of uncertainty in the system has an impact on the top level specifications that are generated. Hence as depicted in the above picture, the results presented in this section are indicators of the 199
efficacy of the uncertainty modeling that has been presented in the other sections of this thesis. Hence using the cumulative information presented in these sections the research question (Q3) relating to modeling and representing uncertainty (imprecision) is addressed. A mathematical formulation of the engine fuzzy compromise DSP is presented in Figure 5.3.
200
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 4.5-4.11) and value of c ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Section 4.1) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ? Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM ? Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT ? Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ? ? ?? Deviation variables : d i ,d i , i =1..25., ?? Possibility parameters: Hi SATISFY ?? Constraints Valves Bearings Pump VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm, OILFR ? 52.0 lpm at 4000 rpm, OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
d i .d i ? 0 ,
?? Bounds on design variables: Tables 4.5-4.11 ?? Goals Taguchis Robust Design Fuzzy goals for putting means on target (for all subsystems): ? R |speed (1 ? cH i ) ? Ti ? ? (R- any response ) ? d ? d ? 0t Ti Equations 4.35 - 4.40
? R|speed ? d? ? d ? ? ? t (R- any response )

?
? ? ? d ? d ? 0 (R-any response )
Equations 4.47 - 4.49, 4.53- 4.56
R|tolerances
Equations 4.50-4.52
Goals for tolerance design (bearing subsystem): (Same as in Figure 5.2) Goals for maximizing possibility parameters:
? ? H i ? d i ? d i ? 0 , I=1..6
. . Equation 4.59
MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z Z ? F(f1 [d ? , d ? ]........ f1[d ? , d ? ]) preemptive formulation (lexicographic minimum) 1 1 k k
k ? 1..25
Figure 5.3: Mathematical Formulation of Engine Fuzzy Compromise DSP
201
In case of the fuzzy formulation a linear preference function (Section 4.4) is used for the fuzzy goal parameters. The results for the bearings, piston a valve-train subsystems are nd presented in Tables 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 respectively. It must be remembered that the pump subsystem is included only in the crisp formulation for reasons specified in Chapter 4
Table 5.6: Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.05)
202
Table 5.7: Top Level Spe cifications for Piston for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.03)
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) 81.0 0.102 0.299 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 0.657 1.51 2.62 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 82.9 0.179 0.345 1.16 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.67 1.57 2.69 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 81.1 0.102 0.3012 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 0.659 1.52 2.64
Table 5.8: Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Fuzzy Compromise DSP (c=0.05)
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (2000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (2000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (4000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (4000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (6000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (6000 RPM) (?m) 303.9 31.3 16.9 27.6 9.50 0.20 301.7 0.053 581.01 0.088 799.18 0.129 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 308.9 30.06 19.97 60.0 10.0 0.20 344.3 0.062 664.1 0.104 914.1 0.151 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 347.0 30.2 17.54 21.4 8.00 0.20 314.5 0.057 601.3 0..091 827.1 0.136
203
Based on the results of the fuzzy formulation the variables that are quite sensitive to the changes in scenarios, are detected. For the bearings subsystem, BDIAM converge to vastly different values based on the scenarios (40.05 mm in the power loss scenario and 50.0 mm in the film thickness scenario). Same is the case with BCLR which varies from 70.0 microns in the power loss scenario to 17.7 microns in the Archimedean scenario. This goes hand in hand with the significant improvement in the connecting rod bearing film thickness (BBFLMTHK) for Scenario 2. For the piston subsystem we see RS and BORE are sensitive to designer preferences (Scenarios). A lower value of RS (0.102 microns) is obtained when the power loss goal is in top priority, than when it is in the second priority (0.179 microns). This is logical as an increase in ring surface roughness increases the power loss in the piston assembly. For the valve-train assembly, we see that the Valve Closing Load (VCL) converges to a significantly different value (347.0 g as compared to 303.0 g) for the third scenario. This is not due to any physical reason, but because of the fact that good design regions exists around two values of VCL, giving rise to different solutions. This is concluded by examining the power loss with these two values of VCL. It is essential to note the fact that, though difference in specifications based in scenarios may be a reflection of the physics behind the actual physical model, the existence of multiple design regions that are equally good, is a possibility that cannot be discounted. This is the case more so in formulations that are not crisp where the region of acceptable solutions is more dispersed than in the crisp case.
204
Another issues to be addressed is the meaning of a fuzzy goal in the context of robustness. Through a robust design we are interested in a region where the system responses do not vary very much with respect to the control variables (a relatively flat region). In this flat region, the goal function being a fuzzy number has a band of values with different memberships as presented in Figure 5.4.
Y (x) e.g Bearing power loss
Fuzzy goal in a robust design region
Robust Design Optimum design
X (e.g BDIAM)
Figure 5.4: Representation of a Fuzzy Goal in a Robust Design Region
In the figure, a quadratic responses surface is represented in a single dimensional space. The design point value of the response lies in the flat region due to robustness considerations. Since the design point lies in a flat region, the variation of the response in the fuzzy band is not significant. This goes to say that by modeling a goal as a fuzzy set, we have not compromised a 205
great extent in terms of performance. A fuzzy goal essentially helps identify a design region where the goal is achieved to a satisfactory extent and by maximizing the possibility parameter we extract a crisp solution from the fuzzy region. Thus it is ascertained that modeling requirements as fuzzy goals under the blanket of robust design is a way of eliminating inferior solutions.
206
5.2.3 Results of Bayesian Formulation

Section 1.2.5 Section 2.5 Section 4.5 This Section..
Mathematical modeling of stochastic uncertainty: Bayesian Statistics
Development of Bayesian goals in an Engine Bayesian C-DSP
Results from the Bayesian C-DSP
Q.3 How can the quality of information available to a designer, at different stages in a design process, be mathematically modeled? As mentioned in Section 1.2.5, the nature and amount of uncertainty in a system changes as we move along a design time line. In the previous section, the results from a fuzzy formulation that is used to model imprecision is presented. In Section 2.5 Bayesian statistics is presented as a tool for modeling stochastic uncertainty and Bayesian goals in a compromise DSP are developed in Section 4.5. The mathematical formulation of a Bayesian compromise DSP is presented in Figure 5.5. Hence, Q.3 is addressed in the aforementioned sections for different purposes. The results from such a formulation and the inferences that are drawn out of these results are presented in this section. The Bayesian formulation, is pretty much similar to the fuzzy formulation, except for the preference function, which in this case a well defined Gaussian distribution not dependent on a designers choice. The specifications from a Bayesian formulation for the bearings, piston and valve-train are presented in Tables 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11, respectively.
207
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 2) and the value of c. ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Section 1) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ? Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM ? Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT ? Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ? ? ?? Deviation variables : d i ,d i , i =1..25. ?? Probability Parameters: Pi SATISFY ?? Constraints Valves Bearings Pump ?? Goals VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm, OILFR ? 55.0 lpm at 4000 rpm, OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
d i .d i ? 0 , Bounds on design variables: Tables 4.5-4.11

Taguchis Robust Design Bayesian goals for putting means on target (for all subsystems):
? R |speed (1 ? c( .22(ln( Ti
?
1 )) ? Ti Pi
? d ? d ? 0t
(R- any response )
Equations 4.41 - 4.46
? R|speed ? d ? d ? ? ? t (R- any response )

?
? ? d ? d ? 0 (R-any response ) ?
Equations 4.47 - 4.49, 4.53- 4.56
R|tolerances
Equations 4.50-4.52
Goals for tolerance design (bearing subsystem): (Same as in Figure 5.2) Goals for maximizing likelihood parameters: Equation 4.60 Pi ? d? ? d ? ? 0 , I=1..6. MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z Z ? F(f1 [d ? , d ? ]........ f1[d ? , d ? ]) preemptive formulation (lexicographic minimum) 1 1 k k
k ? 1..25
Figure 5.5: Mathematical Formulation of Engine Bayesian Compromise DSP
208
Table 5.9: Top Level Specifications for Bearings for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.05)
209
Table 5.10: Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.03)
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) 79.0 0.102 0.320 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.63 1.48 2.61 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 82.3 0.165 0.338 1.16 1.16 -0.063 -0.11 0.671 1.562 2.74 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 81.45 0.163 0.296 1.1 1.1 0.0 -0.03 0.672 1.524 2.673
Table 5.11: Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Bayesian Compromise DSP (c=0.05)
Scenario 1 (Power loss scenario) Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (2000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (2000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (4000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (4000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (6000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (6000 RPM) (?m) 302.9 30.3 17.2 20.0 9.82 5.07e-2 287.3 0.051 569.8 0.090 779.3 0.131 Scenario 2 (Film thickness scenario) 321.9 31.3 19.92 20.0 8.00 5.07e-2 311.2 0.062 607.3 0.103 803.7 0.149 Scenario 3 (All goals same priority) 321.0 30.2 17.1 20.0 9.23 5.07e-2 304.5 0.057 601.3 0..091 791.1 0.139
210
211
The inferences that are drawn from the Bayesian DSP are similar to the ones for the a fuzzy formulation. For the bearings it is noted that in this formulation BCLR (17.7 - 69.7 microns) and MCLR (34.0 - 43.0 microns) change significantly as the scenarios change. Corresponding effects on the film thickness in the connecting rod and crankshaft bearings is also seen. For the piston subsystem, as in the case of the fuzzy formulation, RS (0.102 - 0.165 microns) and BORE (79.0 - 81.45 mm)show variations as scenarios change. The explanation of the results for the valve-train subsystem for the fuzzy formulation holds equally good for the Bayesian formulation also. A careful look at the results indicates that even though the trends in the results are quite similar for the fuzzy and the Bayesian case, the variation in the specifications generated for some factors, in the different scenarios in a Bayesian formulation is smaller compared to the variation in a fuzzy formulation. This essentially is a consequence of the higher fidelity in a Bayesian model and this fact is underlined in the generation of ranged sets of specifications for the different subsystems (Section 5.2.4) and also establish a link between information certainty and design freedom (Section 5.4.4). If we take a look at the values of BDIAM obtained from the fuzzy formulations for the three scenarios, we see that there is a large variation (40.0 - 50.0 mm). This is not due to the nature of uncertainty in the fuzzy model but due to the presence of two good design regions for the factor BDIAM. Hence the difference in results between the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation is not merely due to the difference in the preference functions associated with them, but also due to the existence of more than one good design region.
212
5.2.4
Developing Ranged Sets of Specifications for Different Compromise DSP Formulations Q.6 What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at
different points on a design time line? In Sections 2.4 and 2.5, the mathematical techniques (fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics) are presented as tools to address Q.6. In this section Q.6 is viewed from the point of view of the results generated from models that represent different levels of information certainty. Any design synthesis process is modeled and solutions interpreted in a fashion that acknowledges the position of the process along a design time line. Moreover the amount of information available for decision making also affects the accuracy of the results. In this particular case study, preliminary parametric stages of design of automobile engines is investigated and the primary focus is on the tribological aspects of design. Hence, the specifications generated as a result of the implementation of the case study are by no means final and are subject to revisions as and when more information becomes available, later down the time line. In an attempt to conform with the notion of keeping design freedom open (Simpson, 1995) the generation of ranged sets of specifications (Chen, 1995) is suggested. By generating ranged sets of specifications for different formulations of the compromise DSP a relationship between the ranged sets developed and the level of uncertainty in the solution model is brought out, thereby addressing Q6.
What are ranged sets of design specifications?
213
Ranged sets of specifications are a range of values for a set of system (or subsystem) descriptors or factors that have the inherent flexibility in them to accommodate, future changes in designer preferences and availability of additional information in the future. Moreover these ranges are generated by identifying different regions in the design space that are equally good.
How are ranged sets of specifications generated? In this case study ranged sets of specifications are generated based on the results from different design scenarios (future change in preferences). The ranged sets of specification from different formulations, for the bearings, piston and valve-train are presented in Tables 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14. The specifications obtained for the different design scenarios are mainly used in determining the ranged sets of specifications. The results obtained from different starting points do not show much variation. This is mainly due to the fact that most of the goals are formulated using quadratic responses, that have a unique well defined optimum. The reason for generating these ranged sets based on design scenarios is to keep the design open to designer preferences, which may change in f uture. Regions around the results obtained for the different factors are explored using EnFAS by varying a single factor alone and by seeing how the system response changes in a small region around the design point value of the factor. A region around the design point value where there is not much variation in the system response and the system goals are achieved quite closely is identified as a ranged set for that factor. As an example of how these ranged sets are developed if we consider the results from the Bayesian formulation for the
214
bearings (Table 5.9), for the three scenarios (Table 5.1) the variation in BDIAM is from 40.05 to 41.5 mm and hence this region is considered good for BDIAM. This region is explored using EnFAS by varying BDIAM alone as the input and holding all other factors constant and seeing how the system responses change. In the region specified for BDIAM, the variation of the bearing responses is negligible. The preemptive formulation (presented in Section 4.5) is essential in g enerating results based on different designer perspectives. Based on the ranged sets of specifications the factors are classified as open fixed or discrete (Simpson, 1995). For example the factor MDIAM is open in the fuzzy formulation as there exists a range of values for it that correspond to good designs based on design scenarios. On the other hand MCLR is fixed at 43 ? m regardless of the scenarios. Hence this variable offers no freedom for future modification. BDIAM is an example of a discrete factor in the fuzzy formulation, as there are two unconnected regions that are classified as good design regions, one for BDIAM values between 40.0 and 40.1 mm and the other at BDIAM =50.0mm. BCLR is also a discrete factor. In case of BCLR, in the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation we have a region from 17.1 20.0 microns and a region around 70.0 microns identified as good regions.
By generating ranged sets for the factors under different levels of uncertainty inferences about the effect of uncertainty on the specifications generated is established. In other words we interpret the results form the point of view of the quality of information that goes into the solution model used to generate the specifications.
215
Table 5.12: Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Bearing Subsystem

FUZZY C-DSP BDIAM (mm) BCLR (? m) MDIAM (mm) MCLR (? m) TOLBD (? m) TOLBC (? m) TOLMD (? m) TOLMC (? m) 40.0- 40.1, 50.0 17.1 - 20.0, 70.0 56.6 - 60.0 43.0 49.0 - 50.0 49.0 - 50.0 2.0 - 6.0 2.0 -6.0 BAYESIAN C-DSP 40.05- 41.5 17.61-20.0, 69.73 56.6 - 59.9 34.24 - 43.0 49 .0 - 50.0 50.0 2.0 - 5.0 2.60 -5.0 CRISP C-DSP 40.0- 40.1 65.73 - 69.92 56.9 -59.9 43.0 49.0 -50.0 49.0 -50.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 -2.5
216
Table 5.13: Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Piston Subsystem

FUZZY C-DSP BORE (mm) RS (? m) OT (MPa) RW1 (mm) RW2 (mm) RO1 (mm) RO2 (mm) 81.0 - 83.0 0.102 - 0.179 0.299 - 0.345 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 (-4.25E-3)- (-0.05) BAYESIAN C-DSP 79.8 - 82.5 0.102 - 0.165 0.296 -0.338 1.1 1.1 (-2.5e-3) - (-0.063) (-0.03) - (-0.05) CRISP C-DSP 75.0 - 76.0 0.102 0.320 - 0.330 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 (-0.04) - (-0.05)
Table 5.14: Ranged Sets of Specifications for the Valve-train Subsystem

FUZZY C-DSP VCL (g) SR (g/cm) BASRAD (cm) BCLOAD (N) RCAGE (mm) CSRM (? m) 303.0 - 347.0 30.0 - 32.0 16.9 - 20.0 21.4, 60.0 8.0 - 10.0 0.20 BAYESIAN C-DSP 303.0- 321.9 30.0 - 32.0 17.2 - 19.9 20.0 8.0 - 9.82 5.07E-2 CRISP C-DSP 308.0 - 316.0 30.0 - 31.5 19.5- 20.0 20.0 8.00 5.07E-2
From Tables 5.12-5.14 it is seen that, in general the ranges of specifications for the case of Fuzzy DSP is larger when compared to those of the Bayesian DSP. Valve Closing Load (VCL) for example, has a range from 303 - 347.0 g in the fuzzy case and a range of 303.0 321.9 g in the Bayesian formulation. In the case of BDIAM, under the fuzzy formulation there are two regions identified around 40 mm and 50 mm. As mentioned earlier, such results should
217
not be attributed to the nature of uncertainty of the fuzzy model, but to the existence of two good design regions satisfying the requirements laid down in the fuzzy formulation. The Fuzzy DSP is a model based on imprecise information. Thus the decisions that are made based on fuzzy models are not concrete and precise enough. This imprecision manifests itself in the form of widely spread ranges of specifications for the parameters (e.g., Ring Surface roughness (RS) varies from 0.102 - 0.179 microns in Table 5.13). The Bayesian DSP is exercised when there is greater information, e.g., a statistically significant data set, which in this case may be historic data for the film thickness and power loss. Thus there is a better quality of information available when we use a Bayesian formulation in comparison to a fuzzy formulation. Moreover the preference function chosen in the fuzzy formulation is matter of designer choice and hence ambiguous. On the other hand the Gaussian distribution used in a Bayesian
compromise DSP involves a rigorous mathematical derivation. When fuzzy sets are used, usually less information is available about the system and hence intuitively, weaker predictions and extrapolations result though they are still useful. The use of statistics based on prior information in the case a Bayesian formulation, results in better and more reliable solutions. The crisp formulation generates the smallest range on the design factors, because it is based on information that has been modeled accurately without any kind of uncertainty and system requirements are defined unambiguously.
218
Ranged set of specifications is a way of maintaining design freedom by not opting for an optimal point solution. Instead, a range of values is used a recommendation for future design iterations along the design time line. For example, the ranged sets of solutions used here can be used as starting points for more detailed component level analysis packages that may be used in the later stages of analysis for bearings, pistons and valves independently. The bottom line of this analysis is that, in the early stages of project initiation when t ere is a lot of soft uncertain h information, fuzzy set modeling of decisions is a useful tool to guide us to superior regions in the design space. When more hard information is available progressive use of a model anchored in rigorous mathematical techniques is useful in generation of top level specifications, which are again subject to modifications along the design time-line.
5.3
EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTY ON ACHIEVING DESIRED PERFORMANCE

Section 1.2.5 Section 2.5 Section 4.5 Section 5.2
This Section
Mathematical modeling uncertainty: Fuzzy sets and Bayesian
Development of an Engine C-DSP (Fuzzy/Bayesain)
Results from the fuzzy/Bayesian formulation
Effect of uncertainty parameter c on the specifications generated
The purpose of decision making in the absence of concrete information is to develop reasonably accurate specifications to be used for future design processes with more information. Hence, solutions for models with high degrees of uncertainty though not conforming to optimal performance, serve as guides to superior design regions. In this case study, as emphasized in
219
several instances, a design time line is investigated by using suitable mathematical models to represent the quality of information available to the designer. Through this section we are interested in observing the solution characteristics under the influence of a change in the extent of uncertainty. Moreover based on the results obtained from different c values, it is possible to establish the validity of the mathematical modeling of uncertainty by checking if the results are as predicted.
Based on the discussion in Section 4.4, we have different formulations (fuzzy, Bayesian, crisp, etc.) to represent quality of information along a design tine line. In the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation, the extent of uncertainty is governed by the value of parameter c. The parameter c as mentioned earlier, is an indicator of the band width of any response with uncertainty. The choice of c is governed by the amount of variation that is permissible in the response that is modeled. Uncertainty modeling is carried out for the following responses,
Bearings: Power loss (BPOWLOS), film thickness (BBFLMTHK, MBFLMTHK) Valve-train: Power loss (VPOWLOS), film thickness (VFLMTHK) Piston: Power loss (PPOWLOS)
The same level of uncertainty (or c value) is used in formulating the film thickness and power loss goal of a particular component (e.g., BPOWLOS, BBFLMTHK and
220
MBFLMTHK) as these responses exhibit some kind of an interrelationship in the way they are computed using EnFAS (Chapter 3).
The fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSPs shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.5 respectively involve uncertainty parameter c in the different goals. If we consider the bearing subsystem film thickness, BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK, the desired operating range of ? BBFLMTHK is 0.6 - 0.9 microns, which corresponds to a spread of 20% about the mean. Too high or too low a film thickness increases power loss. In case of MBFLMTHK, the desired operating range for
? MBFLMTHK is 1.15 - 1.55 microns. This corresponds to a spread of 15% about the most
desired value of 1.35. Hence to study the influence of parameter c on the solution generated for the bearing subsystem, three values of c -- 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15 are used in the fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSP (Equations 4.36, 4.37, 4.42 and 4.43 in Figures 5.3 and 5.5 respectively). Too high a value of c should not be used in the fuzzy compromise DSP for reasons mentioned in Section 2.4. In case of the Bayesian compromise DSP, too high a value of c means we are choosing a distribution with a large variance and this again is not desirable for achieving required performance. For reasons mentioned earlier the three values of c used for modeling the film thickness goals are used in formulating the bearing power loss goals (BPOWLOS) (Equations 4.35 and 4.41 in Figures 5.3 and 5.5 respectively). The values of c used in the uncertainty modeling of PPOWLOS (Equations 4.38 and 4.44 in Figures 5.3 and 5.5 respectively) are based on the range of desirable power loss values for the piston subsystem
221
which is 0.7 - 0.9 kW. This represents a bandwidth of about 12% about the central value of 0.8. Hence for the piston subsystem c values of 0.03, 0.075 and 0.12 are used in the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation. In case of VFLMTHK, desired operating range of ? VFLMTHK is from 0.085 - 0.115 microns, which corresponds to 15% band width around the most desired value of 0.1 microns in order to ensure suitable elasto-hydrodynamic lubrication. Hence to study the effect of c, three values of c, viz., 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15 are chosen for modeling ? VFLMTHK and
? VPOWLOS (Equations 4.39, 4.40, 4.45 and 4.46 in Figures 5.2 and 5.4 respectively). The
values of c are chosen in such a way that they are representative of the spread in the desired operating values of the different responses and at the same time care is taken that the uncertainty modeling is done suitably for the different components. In the following sections the effect of the parameter c is studied for the fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSPs, with reference to ?? Achievement of goals ?? Convergence of solution (deviation function and design variables). In exercising the fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSPs for different c values, the following goal priorities are used in formulating the deviation function. As mentioned in Section 5.1, the deviation variables are an index of goal achievement and hence these are used to indicate priorities. Since in this section the interest is in studying the influence of the extent of uncertainty on the results generated the goals which involve uncertainty parameter c and possibility/probability parameter H/P in them are placed at the top priority level. The other goals are placed in the second priority level. 222
Priority level 1: All goals with uncertainty parameters (mean on target goals and maximizing possibility/probability distributions (H and P).
? ? f 1 [d 1 , d ? , d 2 , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? 2 3 3 4 6 6 5
d ? , d ? , d ? , d ? ,d ? ,d ? ] 20 21 22 23 24 25
The preceding deviation variables pertain to the goals that involve uncertainty parameters in them in the formulations presented in Figures 5.2 and 5.4.
Priority level 2: All the remaining goals.

? ? ? ? ? ? f 2 [d ? , d 8 , d ? , d ? , d 10 , d 10 , d11 , d 12 , d 12 7 9 9 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? d 13 ,d 13 ,d 14 ,d 15 , d 16 , d16 , d 17 , d 18 , d 19 ]
5.3.1 Influence of Uncertainty Parameter c on Goal Achievement Fuzzy compromise DSP Three different values of c are assumed for each subsystem for the purpose of investigating the effects of uncertainty parameter on the achievement of goals in the fuzzy compromise DSP presented in Figure 5.3. The results for the bearings, piston assembly and valve-train for the corresponding c values are summarized in Tables 5.15-5.17 respectively. While generating the following results the compromise DSP is executed thrice, with the corresponding low, middle and high values of c for the three subsystems.
What does increasing c in a fuzzy formulation mean? 223
Increasing c indicates increasing uncertainty in the information available to the designer. A higher value of c may result in a design that does not meet some specified target values. But since we formulate the goals in such a way that the least preferred value is on target, the configurations obtained still meet the requirements to a satisfactory extent. At higher value of c we compromise on the extent to which the goals are achieved, but a convergent solution is obtained in lesser number of synthesis. This is because the band width around the goal parameter is wider when c is higher and this makes the goal more flexible.
Table 5.15: Results for Bearing Subsystem For Different c Values In A Fuzzy DSP cb=0.05
Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m) 40.1 65.3 59.6 34.5 0.24 0.634 1.03 0.891 0.81 1.32 2.06 0.69 1.23
cb=0.1
40.0 17.61 60.0 43.0 0.260 0.62 1.00 0.93 0.80 1.32 2.33 0.66 1.05
cb=0.15
40.1 68.9 57.6 33.0 0.282 0.61 0.97 1.01 0.656 1.32 2.53 0.38 1.07
224
Table 5.16: Results for Piston Subsystem for Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP cp=0.03
Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) 75.0 0.102 0.330 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.625 1.44 2.60
cp=0.075
75.5 0.102 0.326 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 0.64 1.47 2.62
cp=0.12
79.7 0.102 0.31 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.025 0.657 1.51 2.64
Table 5.17: Results for Valve-train Subsystem for Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP cv=0.05
Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (2000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (2000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (4000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (4000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (6000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (6000 RPM) (?m) 302.9 30.3 17.2 20.0 9.82 5.07e-2 287.3 0.051 569.8 0.090 779.3 0.131
cv=0.1
328.9 32.0 18.4 20.0 8.0 5.07e-2 311.5 0.049 598.3 0.063 801.3 0.121
cv=0.15
328.9 32.0 18.4 20.0 8.0 5.07e-2 311.5 0.049 598.3 0.063 801.3 0.121
225
In the following the results obtained by increasing the fuzziness factor c are investigated. Physically increasing c implies that the uncertainty of information has increased. By increasing c we are making the design space less constrained and relaxing the achievement of our goals as we tolerate greater deviation from the central value. From Tables 5.15-5.17 it is seen that the achievement of the goals deteriorates as we increase the level of fuzziness, for all the subsystems in general. As an example if we look at the power loss in the valve train, it increases from 779 W to 801 W at 6000 rpm as c increases (Table 5.17). The film thickness shows a reduction from 1.31 to 1.21 microns as c increases. This is quite natural as for a higher c there is a greater uncertainty with respect to determining what is good for the system and one has to be reconciled to good solutions, not necessarily the best. In this case we see that the power loss for different components at design point increases, as we increase the level of fuzziness. The non-fuzzy goals are obviously unaffected. In the bearing subsystem, the clearances BCLR (17.6 - 69.6 microns in Table 5.15)) and MCLR (33.0 -43.0 microns in Table 5.15) show significant variation with values of c. This is indicative of existence of more than one good design region with respect to these factors. The final solution values are in conformity with the ranged sets of specifications generated for these two factors in Table 5.12. Next we proceed to specifications for the valve and piston subsystems. For the valve-train it is seen that a change of cv value from 0.1 to 0.15 does not affect the specifications generated and this is due to the fact that the final design point value of the responses lie within the 10% band and any further increase in the cv value causes the VFLMTHK constraint to become active. In case of the
226
piston subsystem, BORE (piston bore diameter) is the only variable that shows a significant variation with respect to the value of c and this consequently affects the bearing subsystem also, due to the interdependencies discussed earlier (Section 4.1).
Bayesian compromise DSP: In the case of Bayesian formulation also, three values of c are used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in the different subsystems goals in the Bayesian formulation shown in Figure 5.5. In Tables 5.18-5.20, the results for the bearing, piston and valve subsystems is presented.
What is the effect of scatter (c) on the Bayesian formulation? Increasing c in a Bayesian C-DSP also represents an increase in uncertainty though of a different nature. It indicates the knowledge of increasing deviations of priors about some mean value with lesser likelihood of being at a fixed location. The Bayesian formulation handles this information effectively and produces a design that is closer to target requirements than the fuzzy formulation.
Table 5.18: Results for Bearing Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP cb=0.05
Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) 40.1
cb=0.1
40.05
cb=0.15
40.1
227
Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (2000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (4000 rpm) (?m) Bearing Power loss, BPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) C. R Min. Film thickness, BBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m) M. B Min. Film thickness, MBFLMTHK (6000 rpm) (?m)
69.73 59.6 43 0.23 0.622 1.03 0.857 0.701 1.39 2.06 0.45 1.23
69.73 59.6 34.24 0.251 0.612 1.03 0.916 0.690 1.39 2.16 0.44 1.204
69.7 58.0 27.6 0.285 0.596 0.99 0.972 0.657 1.35 2.22 0.38 1.11
Table 5.19: Results for Piston Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP cp=0.03
Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (2000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (4000 rpm) (kW) Piston power loss, PPOWLOS (6000 rpm) (kW) 79.0 0.102 0.3012 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 0.635 1.50 2.61
cp=0.075
81.0 0.102 0.3012 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 0.659 1.52 2.64
cp=0.12
81.1 0.102 0.3012 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 0.659 1.52 2.64
228
Table 5.20: Results for Valve Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP cv=0.05
Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (2000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (2000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (4000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (4000 RPM) (?m) Valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (6000 RPM) (W) Valve-train film thickness, VFLMTHK (6000 RPM) (?m) 347.0 31.8 17.42 21.4 8.00 0.20 303.2 0.053 579.4 0.09 801.3 0.132
cv=0.1
347.0 30.2 18.3 24.5 8.00 0.20 314.5 0.057 601.3 0.091 827.1 0.136
cv=0.15
348 30.3 17.8 22.1 8.00 0.20 323.5 0.053 619.4 0.09 833.8 0.130
In the case of Bayesian DSP increasing the value of c, implies increasing the statistical variance of the goal parameter. Again, as in the case of a fuzzy DSP this represents an increase in the uncertainty. The results are tabulated in Table 5.5. In the Bayesian formulation also, an increase in the value of c causes a deterioration in the achievement of the different goals. The power loss in the bearings for example varies from 2.06 to 2.22 kW as c increases. The important feature is that in this case, there is not as much difference in the solution obtained for different values of c as compared to the fuzzy case, for all the subsystems. This could be due to the fact that the design space may be very constrained, that regardless of the increasing band width of the parameters the final solution may converge to the same value. Another reason is that, as far as goal activity goes, goals achieving mean on target are far more stringent than minimizing the deviation and since increasing c has no effect on the mean of the Bayesian
229
statistical distribution and hence is not a dominating factor in solution convergence. In other words the solution convergence is governed predominantly by the mean of the statistical distribution and the spread in the distribution plays only a secondary role as far as convergence goes. 5.3.2 Influence of Fuzziness Parameter on Solution Convergence As mentioned earlier the value of parameter c affects the solution convergence process. The convergence plots for the deviation function (with the priority levels as mentioned earlier), for a fuzzy (Figure 5.3) and Bayesian compromise DSP (Figure 5.5) are presented in Figures 5.6 and 5.7. By investigating these plots we infer the effect of c on the solution search algorithm and by examining the smoothness of convergence the mathematical validity of the fuzzy and Bayesian compromise DSP is also established. This is because by exercising the fuzzy and the Bayesian compromise DSPs for different values of c, we are essentially verifying the mathematical modeling of the different goals. By examining the results from different c values, we conclude on the validity of the goal formulations in the fuzzy and the Bayesian compromise DSP.
230
Convergence characteristics of the deviation function for different values of C in a fuzzy DSP
0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 5 10 Iteration no. 15 20 c -- middle c -- low c -- high
Figure 5.6: Convergence of Deviation Function for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
Convergence of deviation function for 3 different values of c in a Bayesian compromise DSP

0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 5 Iteration 10 15 c -- low c -- middle c -- high
Figure 5.7: Convergence of Deviation Function for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
The legends in the figures have the following meaning. c -- low : cb= 0.05, cp= 0.03, cv= 0.05 231
c -- middle : cb= 0.1, cp= 0.075, cv= 0.1 c -- high : cb= 0.15, cp= 0.12, cv= 0.15
If we investigate the convergence of the solution for different levels of uncertainty, it is seen that as c increases, the convergence becomes faster both for the fuzzy and the Bayesian case. This is logical because, by increasing c we are actually relaxing the goals and they become more flexible and therefore the goals are easily satisfied thereby facilitating rapid convergence to different solutions The deviation function converges fastest for c=0.20, but the best solution (lowest power loss and highest minimum film thickness) corresponds to c = 0.05, the case with the lowest uncertainty. It must also be remembered that when we increase the value of c to a very high value, it makes the permissible violation of goals too large and may delay the convergence.
Next we investigate the convergence of the deviation variables of the different subsystems under the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation. The convergence characteristics of MCLR (bearing subsystem), OT (piston subsystem) and VCL (valve subsystem) under different c values (fuzzy formulation) are presented in Figures 5.8 - 5.10. The convergence
characteristics of the design variables provide useful information about different good design regions for the factors based on the level of uncertainty we incorporate in the compromise DSP. Higher value of c may again expedite the process of convergence of the design variables.
232
Convergence of MCLR for 3 different c values in a fuzzy compromise DSP

45 40 35 30 25 20 0 5 Iteration 10 15 c -- low c -- middle c -- high
Figure 5.8: Convergence of Main Bearing Clearance (MCLR, ? m) For Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation.
Convergence of OT for 3 different values of c in a fuzzy compromise DSP

0.41 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0 5 Iteration 10 15 c -- low c -- middle c -- high
Figure 5.9: Convergence of Oil Ring Tension (OT, MPa) for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation.
233
Convergence of VCL for 3 different c values in a Fuzzy compromise DSP

410 390 370 350 330 310 290 270 250 0 5 Iteration 10 15 c -- low c -- middle c-- high
Figure 5.10: Convergence of Valve Closing Load (VCL. gms) for Different Values of c in a Fuzzy Formulation.
Based on the convergence characteristics of the design variables, it is noted that when the value of c is low, the convergence is delayed and when c is high, convergence rate increases. Another issue to be noted in the case of VCL and MCLR is that multiple design points are identified based on the value of c. Convergence to different design points may be a result of relaxing the goals or existence of equally good design regions around the two values. This decision as to which design region is better is made based on the power loss and film thickness obtained by using these design point values in EnFAS. As mentioned in Section 5.3.1, solutions corresponding to lower values of c ensure lower power losses and higher film thickness.
234
Next we investigate the convergence of the same three variables under different values of c, for a Bayesian compromise DSP. The convergence characteristics are presented in Figure 5.11- 5.13
Convergence of MCLR for 3 different c values in a Bayesian compromise DSP

45
40
35
c -- low c -- middle c -- high
30
25
20 0 5 Iteration 10 15
Figure 5.11: Convergence of Main Bearing Clearance (MCLR, ? m) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation.
235
Convergence of OT for 3 different c values in a Bayesian compromise DSP

0.41 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0 2 4 6 Iteration 8 10 12 c -- low c -- middle c -- high
Figure 5.12: Convergence of Oil Ring Tension (OT, MPa) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation.
Convergence of VCL for 3 different c values in a Bayesian compromise DSP

400 390 380 370 360 350 340 0 5 Iteration 10 15 c -- low c -- middle c -- high
Figure 5.13: Convergence of Valve Closing Load (VCL, gms) for Different Values of c in a Bayesian Formulation.
236
The convergence of variables in the case of the Bayesian formulation is delayed as c decreases. In this case only MCLR converges to three different values with changing c values. Here again the solution corresponding to a lower value of c ensures better tribological performance. Based on the smooth convergence characteristics of the deviation function and design variables the validity of the fuzzy and Bayesian models are established.
5.4 INFERENCES BASED ON TOP LEVEL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS Based on the top level design specifications generated for the different subsystems (Tables 5.2 -5.11 in Section 5.2) it is possible to draw several conclusions and also ensure all the requirements laid down at the time of project initiation have been satisfied. In this case study following the post solution investigations are carried out.
Tribological issues: Robustness issues:
Trade off between film thickness goals and power loss goals. Implication of robustness to operating conditions and insensitivity to manufacturing variations
Open engineering issues:
Link between design freedom and information certainty along a design time line.
237
The inferences drawn by considering the aforementioned issues provide suitable answers to the research questions posed in Section 1.3. The three issues are discussed in the following sections. At the beginning of each section the research question (Chapter 1)
addressed in that section is reiterated to give a sense of direction to the discussion. 5.4.1 Trade Off between Friction Losses and Lubricant Film Thickness Q. 2 How can top level design specifications be generated effectively and
efficiently, with considerations of friction and lubrication? In Sections 4.3 and 4.5, Q.2 is addressed from the point of view of modeling the tribological requirements in the compromise DSP. In Section 5.1 the same question is
addressed form the point of view of investigating different design scenarios that capture designer preferences. In this section the results from the different design scenarios are investigated with regards to film thickness and power loss goal achievement. The film thickness and power loss associated with any engine component are interrelated. It is not possible to ensure a high film thickness and minimum power loss simultaneously. Hence a definite trade off exists between these two performance parameters. This trade off is significant for the bearing and the valvetrain subsystem. The bearings enjoy full film lubrication and cam follower interface in a valve experiences elasto-hydrodynamic Lubrication. In Figures 5.14 and 5.15 the deviation
variables for the film thickness and power loss goals for bearings and valves respectively have been shown. These results correspond to the crisp compromise DSP. It is seen from both the figures that in the first scenario (power loss scenario) the deviation of power loss is lower
238
because in this scenario the power loss goal is rated the highest. In Scenario 2 (film thickness scenario), film thickness has a very low deviation value. Thus there seems to be some trade-off depending on whether we want to maintain adequate film thickness or minimize power loss. In the third scenario, an ideal trade off between all the goals is presented. The ranged sets of specifications are generated (Tables 5.12 - 5.14) to capture this trade off and provide design recommendations that is used under different design scenarios.
9.00E-02 8.00E-02 7.00E-02 Devaition variables 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 4.00E-02 3.00E-02 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 POWER LOSS SCENARIO FILM THICKNESS ALL GOALS SCENARIO EQUAL SCENARIO Scenarios DEVBPOWLOS DEVBBFLMTHK DEVMBFLMTHK
Figure 5.14: Deviation Variables for Bearing Power Loss (BPOWLOS) and Film Thickness (BBFLMTHK And MBFLMTHK) for Three Scenarios (Table 5.1)
239
3.50E-03 3.00E-03 2.50E-03 Deviation variable 2.00E-03 1.50E-03 1.00E-03 5.00E-04 0.00E+00 POWER LOSSFILM THICKNESS ALL GOALS SCENARIO SCENARIO EQUAL SCENARIO Scenarios
DEVVPOWLOS DEVVFLMTHK
Figure 5.15: Deviation Variables for Valve-train Power Loss (VPOWLOS) and (Cam And Follower Film Thickness) VFLMTHK for Three Scenarios (Table 5.1).
5.4.2
Trade-Off between Tolerance Design and System Sensitivity to Tolerance Q.5 How can systems be designed to be insensitive to manufacturing
discrepancies and at same time facilitate manufacture ? In Section 2.3, Q.5 is addressed from the stand of Taguchis robust design and in Section 4.4.2 the mathematical modeling to minimize the effects of manufacturing noise is shown. In this section the issue of robustness is examined based on the results generated. As it is recalled in case of the bearing subsystem the goals for maximizing tolerances and minimizing the deviation of responses with respect to tolerances are conflicting. To make the system robust it is necessary to keep the tolerances as low as possible, but on the other hand in order to reduce manufacturing costs it is advantageous to keep these tolerances as high as possible. In 240
order to investigate this trade off, a compromise DSP involving the bearing subsystem alone is formulated and solved, and the results are presented in Appendix C (Section C.3). Three different design scenarios (Table C.1) are investigated in this study. In t e first scenario, h minimization of deviation goals are rated highest, in the second one tolerance design goals are rated highest and in the third an Archimedean formulation is used in which all goals (bearings) are placed in a single priority level. A plot of deviation variables for these conflicting goals, is presented in Figure 5.16. From Table C.2 it is evident that the tolerances on the diameters are not very crucial and it is possible to set them at their upper bounds for all scenarios. This is because the gradient of bearing responses (BPOWLOS, BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK) with respect to the diameters are both close to zero at the design point and hence the deviations of the responses with respect to tolerances on the diameters is negligible and the design is robust. But when it comes to the tolerances on the clearances, in scenario 1 (minimizing deviation scenario), where the deviations of the responses are rated higher than achieving maximum tolerance, we see a very high deviation for the tolerance design (clearance) goal and a low deviation for the response deviation (noise) goals. The situation is exactly reversed when we consider scenario 2 (tolerance design scenario), where tolerance design goals are rated the highest. Scenario 3 (all goals equal) represents a compromise between these two conflicting goals in which both are achieved to the greatest extent possible. For the third scenario, we see from Table C.2 that the tolerance design goals on the bearing diameter are achieved to the greatest extent possible (50 microns). The standard deviation of the responses are also not high
241
and are in the order of 10-3. Hence going back to Q.5, the scenario where all goals are rated equally provides a situation where both tolerance design and robustness requirements are achieved.
2.50E-02 NORMALIZED DEVIATION VARIABLE
2.00E-02
1.50E-02
? BPOWLOS ? BBFLMTHK ? MBFLMTHK

TOLBD (Eq. 4.57) TOLMC (Eq. 4.58)
1.00E-02
5.00E-03
0.00E+00
Minimizing deviation goal highest priority (Scenario 1)
Tolerance design All goals goals highest equal priority priority (Scenario 3) (Scenario 2)
SCENARIOS
Figure 5.16: Plot for Investigating Trade -Off between Tolerance Design and System Sensitivity to Tolerance
So based on the needs of the system a designer has to decide which issue is crucial, whether it be the issue of achieving a robust design or reducing the manufacturing costs by increasing the tolerances or settle for a compromise by adopting scenario 3 where there is a definite trade off between the two goals. The effect of robustness for the bearing subsystem is brought out in the preceding section. In the next section the implication of system level 242
robustness, form the point of view of achieving desired performance at all operating speeds is discussed.
243
5.4.3
Implication of Robustness in Designing for Different Operating Conditions
Q.4 How do we design systems that are capable of functioning under different kinds of environments during functional life? In Section 2.3, Taguchis robust design principles are introduced a strategy to address Q.4 and in Section 4.4.1, the case study specific modeling of robustness with respect to noise factor engine speed is presented. In this section it is shown how the results generated from robustness modeling help us meet the requirement laid down in Q.4.
As emphasized earlier the basic purpose of modeling robustness in this case study is to ensure very good performance at all operating speeds. The implication of integrating response surfaces and compromise DSP with Taguchis robust design principles (Section 2.3.2) is illustrated by considering a small example. In Table 5.21 two design configurations are shown involving dimensional specifications for different subsystem factors. In Figure 5.17, the total power loss from the engine is plotted for different engine speeds. If overall power loss is taken as a performance index it is be seen that though Design 1 offers better performance at lower operating speeds, with Design 2 cumulative performance over all operating speeds is better. This is evident from the fact that the total power loss summed over all speeds for Design 2 is much less compared to Design 1. Thus Design 2 is more robust in the sense it corresponds to
244
satisficing performance at all operating speeds or conditions. Better performance in this case is viewed as having lower friction losses or consequently better fuel efficiency.
245
Table 5.21: Two Design Configurations for Investigation of Robustness Factors

BDIAM (mm) BCLR (? m) MDIAM (mm) MCLR (? m) BORE (mm) RS (? m) OT (MPa) RW1 (mm) RW2 (mm) RO1 (mm) RO2 (mm) VCL (g) SR (g/cm) BASRAD (mm) BCLOAD (N) RCAGE (mm) CSRM (? m) R1 (mm) R2 (mm) B (mm)
Design 1 (Not Robust)

40.05 70.0 59.6 43.0 81.1 0.102 0.3012 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -4.25e-3 303.9 31.3 16.9 27.6 9.50 0.20 25.7 40.0 11
Design 2 (Robust)
40.14 17.1 59.9 43.0 79.8 0.102 0.324 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 -0.05 316.9 30.6 19.9 20.0 8.00 0.20 25.7 40.0 11
246
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2000 4000 6000 DESIGN 1( NOT ROBUST) DESIGN 2 (ROBUST)
ENGINE SPEED (RPM)
Figure 5.17: Comparison of Two Designs with respect to Total Engine System Power Loss
Having discussed the implications of robustness, in the next section an investigation into the link between design freedom and information certainty as perceived in this case study is presented. 5.4.4 Link Between Information Certainty and Design Freedom along a Design Time Line Q.6 What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at different points on a design time line In Section 1.2.5, the importance of modeling uncertainty along a time line is emphasized. Through Sections 2.4 and 2.5, fuzzy sets and Bayesian statistics are introduced as tools to handle imprecision and stochastic uncertainty, respectively thereby addressing Q.6. In Section 4.5 it is shown how the increasing level of information certainty is modeled mathematically using 247
three different formulations of the compromise DSP, viz., Fuzzy (Figure 5.2), Bayesian (Figure 5.4) and Crisp (Figure 5.1), respectively. In this section the results generated from the different formulations are used to develop a link between information certainty and design freedom along a time line It is asserted that the ranged sets of specifications developed under each case is an indication of the design freedom available to a designer at that point in the design time line. This is because these specifications define regions of interest from which good design configurations are selected. The wider the regions of interest, the greater is the design freedom. These ranged sets are used to compute a Design Freedom Index (DFI), based on the work of Simpson (Simpson, 1995). Simpson suggests that a possible measure for design freedom (with regard to a specific performance measure of the system) is the ratio of the overlap between the feasible performance range (PRi) and the target range (TRi) normalized against the initial feasible performance range (PRinitial) for a given performance m easure. Here, PRinitial is the first feasible performance range which is measurable during the design process. The design freedom of the system as defined by Simpson is
Design Freedom = 1 n
i=1
Overlapi =1 n Initial Performance Range
i=1
TRi ? PRi PRinitial
[5.1]
where n is the number of performance measures for the system. The metric for design freedom in Equation 5.1 is also interpreted as the percentage of the performance range which 248
falls within the target range. In this regard, if the performance range is completely contained in the target range, then design freedom is 1. If there is no overlap between TRi and PRi, then the design freedom is zero. Since every performance measure will fall somewhere between these two extremes, the average of the design freedom of the n performance measures ranges from 0 to 1.
There are some cases where the usage of the metric proposed by Simpson may lead to minor inconsistencies. This is explained with an example. In Figure 5.18 we see that the feasible performance range is completely within the target range and hence according to the aforementioned, design freedom is 1 or the designer has all possible freedom while designing. But we notice that this feasible performance range is generated by design variables that lie between limits A and B alone. All other design variable values yield performance values outside the target range. Therefore the designer should ideally choose his design from the set (A,B) and hence his design freedom is actually not 1 but less than that 1 at this point which is not concordant with what is suggested by the aforementioned definition.
249
Target Range
Feasible performance range
X=A
X=B
X - n dimensional space
Figure 5.18: Target Performance and Feasible Performance Ranges for Measuring Design Freedom
Hence it is proposed that a more apt definition of design freedom should be in terms of the design variable ranges rather than the response ranges. Since a designer exercises control over the design factors and not the system responses, a Design Freedom Index (DFI) in terms of the design factors (variables) is used in this thesis. The computation of DFI is done in the following fashion.
For a particular factor of a subsystem, let the ranged set of specification under a specific formulation (fuzzy, Bayesian or crisp) of the compromise DSP be Afi-Bfi (Tables 5.12 5.14) and let the initial range of that factor be A0i-B0i (Tables 4.2 - 4.5). This ranged set of specification is an indication of the design freedom available as far as that particular factor is concerned. DFI is defined for every subsystem in the following way, 250
A fi ? Bfi ) i? 1 A 0 i ? B 0i DFI ? n (?
n
[5.2]
where n is the number of factors in that subsystem. The DFI has been computed for all the engine subsystems (except pump) under different levels of information certainty using the information provided in Tables 5.12 -5.14. The fuzzy, Bayesian and the crisp formulations are used as indices of information certainty, because the quality of information is what governs the usage of the respective models. DFI values for the bearings, piston, assembly and valve-train are summarized in Table 5.22. Though DFI has been numerically computed it is still a qualitative index of design freedom. More research has to be pursued in this field, to clearly define the physical meaning of the numbers assigned to DFI. The material presented here is only in its embryonic stage and needs future work. A plot of DFI for the different subsystems under different formulations is provided in Figure 5.19.
Table 5.22: DFI Values of Different Engine Subsystems Based on Formulation Formulation Fuzzy Bayesian Bearings 0.51 0.41 Valves 0.494 0.243 Piston 0.105 0.06
251
Crisp
0.033
0.071
0.012
0.6 0.5 0.4 Bearings DFI 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Fuzzy Bayesian Formulation (Information certainty) Crisp Valves Piston
Figure 5.19: Graph between DFI and Information Certainty for Different Engine Subsystems
It is seen from Figure 5.19, that design freedom, for all the subsystems, reduces as we move along the design time line, which in this case is defined by the kind of formulation that is used. This is quite natural because, as the quality of information improves, better decisions are made and several factors are fixed for future purposes. A closer look at Figure 5.19, shows that for the bearing subsystem the DFI curve resembles the design freedom curve shown in Figure 1.4 for an open engineering system. Hence our objective of maintaining design freedom is satisfied to the best extent for the bearing subsystem, and not so much for the valve and piston subsystem. As a generalization of the ideas presented so far, it is concluded that the outputs of 252
a process of modeling and configuring a system with soft information, serves as ideal inputs to further synthesis processes down the design time line. Hence at each point in the design time line some part of the system gets configured. Our aim in maintaining design freedom open hinges on the idea of making only the crucial decisions at each step and leaving all other issues as open as possible to provide for inherent flexibility. As an illustration of the aforementioned ideas let us look at an automobile engine design along a time line, again from a tribological perspective. More specifically let us look at the sub- phases in the parametric design phase (i.e., after engine concept has been generated and embodied to a certain extent). In Figure 5.20, a pictorial representation of the parametric design phase has been presented.
More information on design requirements and component functioning
Detailed information on component geometry and functioning
Engine concept, little information at component level
System level empirical models for engine design (MECHFRIC)
Preliminary specifications
Secondary System level specifications analytical models of medium complexity for engine design (EnFAS)
Detailed component level models for component design
Detailed dimensional specifications
Design time line
Figure 5.20: Design Process Time Line for Automobile Engine Design.
253
It is seen from the figure that at the initial stages when not much information is available, system level empirical models are used for synthesis. MECHFRIC is an empirical engine friction model used at Ford. Specifications generated using MECHFRIC may be used as starting points for further design synthesis. As more information flows in, a physics based medium complexity model (system level) like the one we use in this case study (EnFAS), is sought. The specifications generated using such a model is used as inputs for a more rigorous synthesis process at the component level which in turn generates detailed specifications for the different engine components. There is an evident modeling hierarchy in the transition from an empirical system level approximate model, to a rigorous physics based component level model. As we move along a design time line,
?? the amount and quality of information available improves/increases. ?? the complexity and accuracy of the models used increases. ?? there is a decrease in the amount of freedom available as decision are made (Simpson, 1995).
Though these three appear as independent observations, there is an inherent causality involved. The availability of more information facilitates the development of a more complex and accurate model to aid decision making, which in turn helps configure the system better and close design freedom. The aforementioned changes that take place as we move along a timeline
254
affect the kind of design process and tools we use to address the system requirements at the necessary level of detail.
255
5.4.5
Comparison of the Use of Taguchi Methods and Design Capability Indices in Satisfying a Ranged Set of Design Requirements
Q.4 How do we design systems that are capable of functioning under different kinds of environments during functional life (meeting a ranged set of requirements)? Q.5 How can systems be designed to be insensitive to manufacturing discrepancies and at same time facilitate manufacture ?
In our commitment to designing open engineering systems, robustness has been investigated in detail through this case study. Modeling of robustness has been carried out at two levels System level: Ensuring that targets for the different goals are achieved at all operating speeds. The targets for the different responses are different for different speeds. Hence, robust design at the system level implies meeting a ranged set of requirements at different levels of the noise factor, speed. Subsystem level: Robust design for the bearings implies reduced response sensitivity to manufacturing tolerances.
In achieving the above mentioned bi-level modeling of robustness (Section 4.4) Taguchis principles (Section 2.3) have been used and the results from this kind of modeling have been presented up to this point. Simpson and co-authors (Simpson, et al., 1997b) postulate the usage of design capability indices (Chen, et al., 1996c) as an effective way of satisfying ranged sets of specifications under the influence of noise. Hence, as a comparative study the engine design case study is exercised using design capability indices to model system 256
level robustness. In Figure 5.21 a pictorial representation of the bi-level robustness modeling is presented. As seen, at the system level one of the two approaches (Taguchis robust design and design capability indices) is used to satisfy to ranged sets of design requirements. Modeling of robustness in the bearing subsystem is same as presented in Section 4.4.2.
design or Design capability indices
Modeling SYSTEM LEVEL NOISE : (Satisfying Ranged sets of specifications)
Engine Speed
Piston Oil pump Valve train
Modeling design (Minimzing noise effects)
Bearings SUBSYSTEM LEVEL NOISE : Manufacturing Tolerances
Figure 5.21: Bi-level Modeling of Robustness
The system level and subsystem level noise modeling using Taguchis robust design methods are presented in Section 4.4. In this section modeling of system level robustness using design capability indices is investigated. The system responses (power loss, film thickness, oil flow rate, etc.) are all normally distributed with a mean and standard deviation, because of the normal distribution (2000 - 6000 rpm) in engine speed which is treated as a noise factor. For 257
the different responses there exists a range of targets with a Lower Requirement Limit (LRL ) corresponding to 2000 rpm and an Upper Requirement Limit (URL) corresponding to 6000 rpm. A design capability index is computed to determine whether a family of designs is capable of satisfying a ranged set of design requirements. Let us assume a response, y (say
BPOWLOS, VFLMTHK, etc.) is normally distributed with a mean ? and standard deviation ? , then the indices Cdl , Cdu and Cdk measure the extent to which a design satisfies the ranged set of requirements from LRL to URL.
C du ?
These indices as computed as C dl ? ? ? LRL , 3?
URL ? ? . When a higher value of response, y, is desired then Cdk =Cdl , when a lower 3?
value of y is preferred then Cdk = Cdu and when a nominal value of y is preferred Cdk = min (Cdu ,Cdl ). The reasoning behind these definitions of Cdk is presented in detail (Simpson, et al., 1997b). By ensuring Cdk ? 1, a set of designs is found which satisfies the ranged set of design requirements. In case of the film thickness goals, a higher value is preferred and hence Cdk =Cdl , whereas in case of the power loss goals, a lower value is preferred and hence Cdk =Cdu. The target values (URL or LRL ) for the different responses are summarized in Table 5.23. The mean and the standard deviation of the responses are computed using the following formulae (Chen, et al., 1995), ? y ? y(? speed ) and ? y ?
?y *? speed . The mean of a response is the ?speed
response value at the mean of the noise factor and the standard deviation is computed using a first order Taylor series expansion. Since we are using normalized variables (Section 4.3.1) in the response surface equations for the system responses, ? speed =0 and ? speed =1/3 (normal
258
distribution with ? 3? limits as ? 1). Using the target and constraint values, a compromise DSP is formulated which is presented in Figure 5.22. The structure of this compromise DSP is similar to the one presented in Figure 4.20, in that it is a system level representation. The main difference lies in the fact that, robustness in this case is handled through the use of design capability indices instead Taguchi goals of putting mean on target and achieving desired target deviation.
259
Table 5.23: Constraint and Target Values for the System Responses
Response Bearing power loss Connecting rod bearing film thickness Crankshaft bearing film thickness Piston Assembly power loss Valve-train power loss Valve-train film thickness Pump power loss Pump oil flow rate Pump oil flow rate Pump oil flow rate Acronym BPOWLOS BBFLMTHK MBFLMTHK PPOWLOS VPOWLOS VFLMTHK PUPOWLOS OILFR (2000 rpm) OILFR (4000 rpm) OILFR (6000 rpm) Constraint ?1.0?m ?0.5?m Goal Target URL=2.2kW LRL=0.6?m LRL=1.2?m URL=2.5kw URL=0.75kW LRL=0.075?m URL=0.85kW
?0.06?m ?27.0 lpm ?52.0 lpm ?64.0 lpm
A crisp formulation of the compromise DSP is used in this case. The goals for robustness for the different responses are formulated as
C dk ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 i i
In case of film thickness goals, since a higher film thickness is preferred,
Cdk ,y i ? ? yi ? LRL 3? yi
[5.3]
[5.4]
In case of power loss goals, since a lower power loss is preferred,

C dk ,y i ? URL ? ? yi 3? y i
[5.5]
The constraints are formulated in a fashion similar to what is presented in Section 4.5.
260
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Tables 4.5 - 4.11) ?? Response surface equations for bearings, valves, piston and pump ?? Design requirements for bearings, valves, piston and pump (Table 5.23) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ? Valves: VCL, SR, BASRAD, BCLOAD, RCAGE, CSRM ? Piston: RO1, RW1, RO2, RW2, B, SR, OT ? Oil Pump: R1, R2, B ? ? ?? Deviation variables : d i ,d i , i =1..12, SATISFY ?? Bounds on design variables and deviation variables: Design variables Tables (4.5-4.11), ?? Constraints Valves Bearings Pump VFLMTHK ? 0.06 microns BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns OILFR ? 27.0 lpm at 2000 rpm OILFR ? 55.0 lpm at 4000 rpm OILFR ? 64.0 lpm at 6000 rpm
d i .d i ? 0 , d i ,d i ? 0
?? Goals Goals 1-7: Design capability indices (Eqaution-5.3,), Goals 8-10: Minimization of effects of manufacturing noise, Goals 11, 12: Tolerance design goals.
? ? 1. 2.2 ? ? BPOWLOS ? d 1 ? d1 ? 1 3? BPOWLOS
? 2. ? BBFLMTHK ? 0.6 ? d ? ? d 2 ? 1 2
7. 0.85 ? ? PUPOWLOS ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 7 7
3? PUPOWLOS
3? BBFLMTHK
8. ?
BPOWLOS
t olerances
? d ? ? d? ? 0 8 8
? d ? ? d? ? 0 9 9
3. ? MBFLMTHK ? 1.2 ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 3 3
3? MBFLMTHK
3? P P O W L O S
9. ? BBFLMTHK
tolerances
4. 2.5? ? P P O W L O S? d ? ? d ? ? 1 4 4
? 5. 0.75 ? ? VPOWLOS ? d 5 ? d? ? 1 5
? ? 10. ? MBFLMTHK tolerances ? d10 ? d 10 ? 0
11. 12.
2 2 ( TOLBD) ? ( TOLMD) 5000

(TOLBC) 2 ? ( TOLMC ) 72 2
3? P P O W L O S
?
?
? ? d11 ? d 11
? ? d 12 ? d12
? 1.0
3? VFLMTHK MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z

k ? 1..12
6. ? VFLMTHK ? 0.075 ? d ? ? d ? ? 1 6 6
? 1.0
? Z ? F (f 1 [d 1 , d ? ]........f 1 [d ? ,d ? ]) 1 k k
preemptive formulation (lexicographic minimum)
Figure 5.22: A System Level Crisp Compromise DSP using Design Capability Indices 261
The first seven goals, as shown in Figure 5.22 are formulated using design capability indices (system level robustness) and ensure that ranged sets of requirements are met. Goals 8, 9 and 10 represent the goals for minimizing the sensitivity of bearing responses to manufacturing tolerances (subsystem level robustness). These are formulated using Taguchis robust design principles of minimizing response deviation with respect to noise. Goals 11 and 12 are goals for maximizing tolerances on bearing dimensions and are similar to the goal formulation presented in Equations 4.57 and 4.58. The main feature in this formulation is that, system level robustness to satisfy ranged set of design requirements (goals 1-7 in Figure 5.22), is handled through the use of design capability indices and at the subsystem level Taguchis robust design principles are used to minimize effects of manufacturing noise (goals 8-10 in Figure 5.22). By comparing the results from this formulation to the results obtained using Taguchis methods at the system and subsystem level, the validity of the combined usage of design capability indices and Taguchis robust design methods to cater to robust design requirements is established. As mentioned earlier the compromise DSP is solved using DSIDES for the different design scenarios presented in Table 5.1. The same design scenarios investigated while solving the compromise DSP using Taguchis robust design, are investigated, so that the results obtained are compared. Based on the results obtained from the different design scenarios and different starting point analysis, a ranged set of top level specifications for the different subsystems factors are generated (similar to what is presented in Section 5.2.4). In Table 5.24, the ranged sets of specifications obtained using Taguchis robust design principles (both at system and subsystem
262
level) and those obtained using design capability indices at system level and Taguchis robust design principles at subsystem level, are presented and compared. The ranged sets of
specifications are obtained for the crisp formulation of the compromise DSP.
Table 5.24: Ranged Set of Top Level Specifications Using Two Different Models of Robustness
Factors Bearings Connecting rod bearings diameter, BDIAM (mm) Connecting rod bearings clearance, BCLR (?m) Crankshaft bearing (Main) diameter, MDIAM (mm) Crankshaft bearing (Main) clearance, MCLR (?m Tolerance on BDIAM, TOLBD (?m) Tolerance on BCLR, TOLBC (?m) Tolerance on MDIAM, TOLMD (?m) Tolerance on MCLR, TOLMC (?m) Piston Assembly Width of compression ring 1, RW1 (mm) Width of compression ring 2, RW2 (mm) Offset of compression ring 1,RO1 (mm) Offset of compression ring 2, RO2 (mm) Bore diameter of the piston, BORE (mm) Ring surface roughness, RS (?m) Oil control ring tension, OT (MPa) Valve-train Valve closing load, VCL (gms) Valve spring rate, SR (g/cm) Cam base circle radius, BASRAD (cm) Load on the cam base circle, BCLOAD (N) Mean radius of the roller bearing cage, RCAGE (mm) Composite surface roughness, CSRM (?m) Oil Pump Radius of the rotor, R1 (mm) Radius of outer gear, R2 (mm) 25.7 40.0 25.0 42.0 308.0 -316.0 30.0 - 31.5 19.0 - 20.0 20.0 8.0 5.07e-2 305.0 - 320.0 30.5 - 31.0 19.5 -20.0 20.0 8.0 5.07e-2 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 (-0.04) - (-0.05) 75.0 - 76.0 0.102 0.320 - 0.330 1.1 1.1 -2.5e-3 (-0.042) - (-0.045) 75.8 0.100 0.315 - 0.322 40.0 - 40.1 65.7 - 69.9 56.9 - 60.0 41.7 -43.0 49.0 -50.0 49.0 -50.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 25 40.05 - 40.5 67.9 - 70.0 56.9 - 60.0 43.0 49.0 - 50.0 49 0 - 50.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Using Taguchis Robust design Using Design Capability Indices
263
Width of the gear, B (mm)
11.0
11.0
264
Based on the information provided in Table 5.24, it is concluded that the specifications obtained using design capability indices are quite similar to those obtained using Taguchis robust design principles and there exists an overlap in the ranges for several factors. In general ranges obtained using design capability indices are smaller and are subsets of the ranges obtained by using Taguchi methods. For the bearing subsystem Main bearing clearance (MCLR) turns out to be a fixed factor under the case when design capability indices are used, but when Taguchi method is used there exists a range form 41.7 to 43.0 microns. Same is the case with the factor bore diameter (BORE) in the piston subsystem. Since subsystem level robustness for the bearings has been carried out in the same fashion for both cases, the tolerance specification turns out to be the same under both the models for robustness. Differences in specifications for factors like ring surface roughness (RS) is of the order of 10-3 microns and this purely due to computational differences or round off errors in the computation process, rather than differences in the modeling used. The specifications generated for Oil Ring Tension (OT) in the two formulations show a small over lap and hence the region from 0.315 0.330 MPa is considered a good design region for factor OT. For the factor Valve Closing Load (VCL) we see that using design capability indices we have a larger range from 305 - 320 gms, in comparison to a range form 308 - 316 gms obtained using Taguchis method. This difference is not of any consequence because the normalized coefficient of VCL in the response equation for valve-train power loss, VPOWLOS (Appendix B, Section B.3) is 95.0 and since the range for VCL is from 300 - 500 gms (Table 4.3), an increase of 100 gms in VCL causes
265
the power loss to go up by 95.0 W. The ranges 305 - 320 and 308 - 316 therefore represent a differential power loss of 8 to 15 W in the extreme case, which is not much in comparison to magnitudes of VPOWLOS (usually around 500 to 800 W depending on speed). Hence both the ranges for VCL are accepted as good design regions. In the pump subsystem all the factors are fixed and offer no freedom under both the formulations. The design point values of R1 and R2 are different under the two models of robustness. In conclusion, the close conformity in results obtained using the two models of robustness is an indication of the validity of both the approaches. The usage of design capability indices however produces a slightly smaller range of specifications and is considered a more accurate w of satisfying a ranged set of design ay requirements (Chen, et al., 1996c).
In Section 5.4.4, the definition for a Design Freedom Index (DFI) is provided and this index has been computed for different subsystems. These values correspond to the ranged set of specifications generated using Taguchis robust design principles. Similar computations of Design Freedom Indices are made for the different subsystems based on the specifications generated using design capability indices (Table 5.24). These results are summarized in Table 5.25.
Table 5.25: Design Freedom Indices for the Engine Subsystems based on Two Different Robustness Models (Crisp Formulation) Subsystem DFI using Taguchis robust design 266 DFI using design capability indices
Bearings Piston assembly Valve-train Oil pump
0.033 0.012 0.071 0.00
0.031 0.011 0.072 0.0
The DFI values computed using design capability indices are smaller than those computed using Taguchis robust design for the bearings and piston assembly. For the valvetrain its the other way round. The differences in the DFI values are quite small and do not indicate any drastic differences between the two models of robustness. Since the all the factors of the pump subsystem are fixed, by definition DFI is 0. Through Section 5.4, the secondary research questions posed in Chapter 1 have been addressed and sufficiently discussed based on the results generated from the engine design case study. This in a way emphasizes the importance of the different strategies used to address the specific issues. By answering the secondary research questions, different issues posed in the principal research question (Section 1.3.2) are addressed. This is better understood if Figure 1.6 is referred to at this juncture.
5.5 THE ROAD AHEAD In summary through this chapter a detailed discussion of the results has been made presented. This includes results for the different scenarios and formulations that have been investigated. Several inferences have been drawn using the results, which provide a realistic platform to address several research questions posed in Chapter 1. Possible answers to different research questions are developed based on the inferences and several 267
recommendations made. The validity and the accuracy of the results are also verified in the last few sections of this chapter, so as to ensure that the specifications generated make sense and are reliable. In Figure 5.23, a pictorial representation of the research issues addressed through this chapter is presented. In Chapter 6, a review of the entire case study is presented. This essentially includes a new look at the research questions posed in Chapter 1 and an understanding of the extent to which they have been addressed in this thesis. Additionally the industrial relevance of this case study is presented and possible research extensions are suggested.
Subsystem Robustness Tolerance Design Vs. Minimizign Effects of Manufacturing Noise
Ranged Sets of Design Requirements Design Vs. Design Capability Indices
Trade-Off Studies Film thickness Vs. Power loss
Ranged Sets of Top Level Specifications
Open Engineering Issues Design Freedom Vs. Information Certainty
Fuzzy C-DSP
Bayesian C-DSP
Crisp C-DSP
Modeling Uncertainty
Figure 5.23: Research Issues Addressed through Chapter 5
268
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY OF WORK DONE AND RESEARCH EXTENSIONS
Through this chapter significant issues addressed in this thesis are recapitulated. A quick review of the different chapters indicate that in Chapter 1 the problem significance motivation and a proposed solution method are presented. This discussion is supported by different guiding philosophies that provide direction to this research effort. In the second chapter the different mathematical tools that aid in computer implementation of the case study and also achieve the different objectives laid down for this case study are presented. Through Chapter 3 an overview of friction modeling in engine design is provided. Building on the first three chapters, the implementation of the case study is presented in Chapters 4 and 5, with a detailed exposition of results and conclusions. This chapter serves as an a critical evaluation of the work done in the previous chapters. The level of detail to which the case study is carried out, the quality of results and the relevance of this work from an engineering standpoint is captured in the first section of this chapter. The final section indicates the possible areas that are worth investigating further to promote the cause of research and development. Such extensions may involve further development of the existing knowledge base or may involve a totally new set of research tasks and action items.
255
6.1 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TASKS PERFORMED In exercising this case study a primary research question is posed in Chapter 1, which is restated here, How can issues like friction and lubrication be effectively and efficiently addressed in system level design to generate top level robust design specifications along a design timeline and avoid rework? In Section 1.3.2, secondary research questions are posed which address specific keywords in the principal research question. In implementing the case study in a suitable fashion and providing a satisfactory answer to the secondary questions posed, the following action items are implemented: 1. Laying down the requirements for the engine system. 2. Identifying factors and ranges that characterize the different components of the engine.
3. Screening these factors based on tribological considerations to identify the most significant factors. 4. Developing and validating response surface models using the engine simulation code. 5. Incorporating uncertainty and robustness in a system level solution model. 6. Formulating and solving a system level synthesis compromise DSP to generate top level design specifications.
256
The secondary research questions operate at a much lower level of abstraction in comparison to the principal question posed earlier. There is sequence of steps in which research has been conducted as presented in Figure 6.1. As seen in the figure, based on a principal research question, more specific questions are developed. Corresponding to the specific research questions, there are action items and tasks and based on the results of these tasks, conclusions and inferences are drawn.
RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3 Principal Research Question
RQ : Secondary research question
Contributions ACTION ITEMS Conclusions Inferences
RQ 4 RQ 5 RQ 6
Figure 6.1: A Schematic Representation of the Mode of Addressing Research Issues
The extent to which these questions have been addressed is captured in the next section. In Section 6.1.2 significant contributions from this thesis are laid down.
257
6.1.1 Research Questions Revisited Question 1: How can the overall system be represented and modeled at the component level and the system level ? Where is this issue addressed ? As a preface, a brief review of the different techniques of decomposition and their relative advantages in modeling of large engineering systems, is presented in Section 1.2.4. The way subsystem interactions and modeling are handled using response surfaces is elaborated in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2 and 4.3). A system level synthesis template is developed using a compromise DSP and the details of this formulation is presented in Section 4.5. The modeling and synthesis of the different components is done in a simple fashion in this thesis, because this effort is adequate for the medium complexity engine friction model used for the case study.
How is this question answered ? An important point to be noted is that by using a component level approach for modeling, and a system level approach for system synthesis, both component specific detail and interactions between components are efficiently handled. The specifications generated ensure an overall minimization of the power loss and not necessarily for any component. This is more so in the case of the piston and bearing subsystems where the interactions have been handled using common variables in the response surface equations. Modeling the interactions and adopting a system level synthesis template is the way Question 1 is answered in this thesis. The choice of the BORE value let in the crisp compromise DSP (Table 5.3) is 75.0 mm. This value 258
corresponds to a minimum power loss for the bearing and piston put together (3.57 kW at 6000 rpm). There may be other bore diameter values that minimize the piston power loss to a greater extent, but the purpose of a system level model is to identify those configurations that satisfy the requirements for the system as a whole.
Q. 2: How can top level design specifications be generated effectively and efficiently, with considerations of friction and lubrication? Where is this issue addressed ? The significance of engine tribology is laid down in Section 3.1. Using this as a background philosophy, sources of friction and ways to model it are also presented in Chapter 3. In Section 3.2, description of an engine friction model (EnFAS) for computer implementation of engine component design is presented. Problems encountered due to the computational intensity of EnFAS are avoided by developing response surface models for the different engine responses, which are detailed in Section 4.3. Tribological requirements are modeled as goals and constraints in the compromise DSP (Section 4.5). The trade off between film thickness and power loss considerations for the cases of the valve-train and bearing subsystems is presented in Section 5.4.1. This is achieved by investigating design scenarios with different priorities.
How is this question answered?
259
The specifications that are generated for the different scenarios meet the engine tribological requirements of minimizing power loss and maintaining adequate film thickness, based on the relative priorities. Hence the introduction of tribological considerations into design results in engines with higher fuel efficiency and better durability. The trade off studies that are performed in this thesis enable a designer to capture the difference in specifications generated when his priorities or preferences are changed. For the power loss scenario in the crisp formulation there is an overall friction loss of 3.1 kW. This is significantly lower compared to the 5.2 kW power loss obtained by using the nominal (baseline) configuration.
Q. 3: How can the quality of information available to a designer, be modeled mathematically in a design process. Where is this issue addressed ? One of the prime objectives in this case study is to model uncertainty associated in friction and lubrication, in engine design. The role of uncertainty in engineering design, especially in the early stages has been discussed in Section 1 .2.5. Based on the level of uncertainty, recommendations for usage of fuzzy sets (Section 2.4) and Bayesian statistics (Section 2.5) are presented. The formulation of fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp compromise DSPs has been outlined in Section 4.5. These models are used to represent different levels of information certainty along a design time line. Results for varying levels of uncertainty within a fuzzy and Bayesian
formulation, are presented in Section 5.3.
260
How is this question answered ? The formulation of the fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp compromise DSPs helps model uncertainty along a time line and include it in a design process. By investigating the results generated for these different formulations the impact of uncertainty on design specifications along a design timeline is understood. The specifications generated are essentially a reflection of the quality of information that goes into a solution model. Parametric studies with varying levels of uncertainty (Section 5.3) indicate the sensitivity of the results to the extent of uncertainty. In summary an answer to this question is provided by adopting suitable modeling techniques and post solution inferences.
Q. 4:
How do we design systems that are capable of functioning under
different kinds of environments during functional life ? Where is this issue addressed ? Engine operating conditions are governed by engine speed. Robust design with respect to engine speed (system level noise) is achieved by including SPEED as a factor, in the process of response modeling, as outlined in Section 4.3. Taguchis robust design principles have been discussed in Section 2.3. The mathematical modeling of robustness and the way it is
incorporated in a compromise DSP has been presented in Section 4.4 and 4.5 respectively. The superiority of robust designs is established in Section 5.4.3, by investigating two design
261
configurations. Additionally the usage of design capability indices in satisfying a ranges set of design requirements has also been addressed in Section 5.4.5 and the results obtained using design capability indices have been compared to those obtained using Taguchi's robust design principles.
How is this question answered ? Engine specifications that are generated using robust design principles ensure that the power losses are minimized at all speeds. In other words we do not design an engine that is efficient only at low speeds or high speeds. Different operating conditions are investigated by examining different operating speeds of the engine. Generating specifications that meet
performance criteria at all operating conditions is the way in which this question is answered in this thesis. Based on the discussion presented in Section 5.2.3, we see that by adopting robust design we are able to achieve a configuration that minimizes power loss at all operating speeds. In Figure 5.17, we see that the robust design configuration causes a power loss of 3.9 kW at 6000 rpm, but a configuration obtained without robustness considerations causes a power loss of 4.7 kW. However, at lower speeds the power losses are comparable for the two design configurations. Thus our objective of robustness to operating conditions is achieved by
mathematical modeling of robustness requirements in the compromise DSP.
262
Q. 5:
How can systems be designed to be insensitive to manufacturing
discrepancies and at same time facilitate manufacture ? Where is this addressed ? An important consideration in bearing design, is the variation in bearing dimensions due to manufacturing tolerances and temperatures. The magnitudes of these variations have been presented in Section 4.1. Here again, Taguchis robust design principles are used in modeling robustness at the subsystem (bearings), as presented in Section 4.4.2. The mathematical expressions for mean and variance have been formulated as goals in the compromise DSP. The trade off between designing for maximum tolerances to facilitate manufacture and reducing system sensitivity to variations in tolerances, has been brought out in Section 5.4.2.
How is this question answered ? The conflicting issues of minimizing the effects of tolerance noise and maximizing tolerances is handled by identifying design regions that are robust to tolerance variations. Question 5 is answered by considering a trade off between tolerance design goals and robust design goals and generating a configuration that best achieves both the goals. As emphasized earlier this discussion is brought out for the bearing subsystem. Form Table C.2 (Appendix C) it is seen that in the scenario where tolerance design and robustness to tolerance goals are rated equal, the minimizing deviation of the responses with respect to tolerance goals and the tolerance design goals are both achieved to the greatest extent possible.
263
6. What is the link between information certainty and design freedom at different points on a design time line? Where is this issue addressed? Based on the different formulations of the compromise DSP, ranged sets of solutions for the different subsystems have been developed in Section 5.2.4. Using these specifications a Design Freedom Index (DFI) is computed for different subsystems under different formulations, results of which have been presented in Section 5.4.4. Additionally recommendations for using different design and analysis models based on the quality of information along a timeline have been made in Section 5.4.4.
How is this question answered? In answering Question 3 the usage of fuzzy, Bayesian and crisp compromise DSPs is adopted as strategy to model a design timeline. The ranged sets of specifications generated are used to develop an index (DFI) for design freedom. Hence, by investigating the indices (DFIs) for the different subsystems for the three compromise DSPs, the relationship between information certainty and design freedom is understood. In this manner Question 6 is answered. The values of the DFI for the bearing subsystem are 0.51 (fuzzy), 0.41 (Bayesian) and 0.033 (crisp) (Table 5.22). From the graph of these values in Figure 5.19, it is seen that the design freedom for the bearing subsystem is open for a longer time along the design timeline as
264
compared to the vavle and piston subsystems. Such inferences about design freedom along a timeline is made possible through the modeling of different kinds of uncertainty at different points in a design timeline.
Following from the research questions, the contributions that have been made as a result of addressing these questions are discussed in the next section. 6.1.2 Relevant Contributions through this Work The contributions that have been made through this thesis are of two types. The first one refers to improvements achieved in the final configuration of the engine and the other contributions are in designing the design process (meta-design) to achieve desired characteristics for the system being designed. The following are considered the important contributions made in this work.
Addressing tribological issues in design stage This is considered as one of the important issues, as significant time and effort is spent in durability and reliability testing of components after product development. Compatibility or durability problems often result in rework. Thus abstraction of tribological issues through computer simulation is an efficient way of avoiding rework and designing for fuel efficiency. This abstraction is facilitated through the use of an engine friction model (EnFAS) which has been tested and validated
265
Modeling and incorporating robustness at system level and component level Incorporating robustness in design has been considered as an important issue in this case study. At the system level robustness to engine speed, implies optimum performance at all engine speeds. This condition is considered equivalent to satisfying a ranged set of design requirements. In meeting this requirement the following two approaches have been investigated ?? Taguchi's robust design ?? Design capability indices The results obtained from both these methods seem to be consistent, which indicates the validity of both approaches. But the lack of a significant difference in results obtained from the two approaches, makes it difficult to conclude which approach is superior. However looking at the approaches from the modeling (robustness) perspective, design capability indices seems to be a more valid approach than Taguchi's robust design methods when meeting a ranged set of specifications is of major concern.
Modeling robustness at the component level for the bearing subsystem implies design insensitivity to random variations in bearing dimensions. At both levels, robustness is significant as it implies consistency in performance.
Increasing computational efficiency of design process
266
While synthesizing complex engineering systems it is essential that an efficient design process is chosen. The usage of statistical techniques like design of experiments and response surfaces for design space sampling and modeling, is a key step towards increasing computational efficiency. Not only is there a reduction in computational effort, but these techniques also facilitate rapid investigation of several design alternatives.
Representation of information certainty for designing along a time line A scheme of modeling quality of information along a design time line has been presented in this thesis. This is important from the point of view the same base design template namely, compromise DSP, is used for all solution models representing different levels of uncertainty. Design being an iterative process, involves decision making at different stages with different levels of information. The solutions of models with high uncertainty serve as ideal inputs for models with better information quality. Thus, top level design specifications developed in this thesis can be used for further modifications during component level design. A significant contribution towards modeling uncertainty, has been in the development of a modified fuzzy compromise DSP (Section 2.4.2), in which the limitations prevalent in the formulations
presented in (Zhou, 1988) and (Krishnamachari, 1991) have been removed.
From an industrial perspective this work has value, as the specifications developed here are in conformity with meeting fuel economy demands, which is a major
267
concern in modern automobile technology. Moreover a reduction in fuel consumption also implies less environmental pollution, which again is of considerable importance. In the next section a discussion of possible extensions of this work is presented.
6.2 RESEARCH EXTENSIONS STEMMING FROM THIS WORK In exercising this case study, several issues have been addressed and investigated in different sections of this thesis. The strategies presented in this thesis are possible ways to solve a problem faced in real life engineering. Through this section the possible research extensions to this work have been suggested. These include
Including wear models in analyzing friction and lubrication: One of the main assumptions in exercising this case study is neglecting the effects of wear. Though this assumption simplifies the engine analysis to a great extent, including wear models enables more realistic predictions. Significant research is being carried out at Ford Research Laboratories, Dearborn, Michigan, in developing wear models for the different engine components. Functional wear affects the dimensions and the operating characteristics of different components. Hence the predictions made with assumptions of no wear may be inconsistent when conditions of high wear are present. Therefore future research can proceed in the direction of incorporating wear models into a design framework similar to the one suggested in this thesis and utilize robust design and modeling techniques in designing engine components with friction and wear considerations. Additionally the effects of using different lubricants and the 268
incorporation of operating cycle (other than wide open throttle) considerations in friction prediction should also be included.
Detailed Modeling of Subsystem Interactions: The level of interaction between subsystems that has been modeled here is pretty restricted. Apart from the piston and bearings interactions and system level modeling of noise, the subsystems are fairly uncoupled. A more realistic representation of the engine system should include a greater amount of subsystem interactions and truly facilitate a system level design. This is achieved through making the analysis model more rigorous and detailed. Additionally component level models can be used simultaneously to facilitate concurrent design. \
Refined Models for System Approximation: In this study response surfaces have been used to replace EnFAS as a fast analysis module. Recently a lot of interest has been shown in statistical model building for deterministic computer experiments. The inadequacies of response surfaces have also been brought out. Simpson and co-authors (Simpson, et al., 1997c) discuss merits and demerits of several modeling schemes and also provide helpful insight on the appropriate modeling scheme to be used in different circumstances. Further research is being carried out the Systems Realization Laboratory in efficient and accurate modeling techniques.
269
Rigorous Optimization Models to Handle Fuzzy Targets: As mentioned in Section 2.4.2, the introduction of fuzzy targets into the compromise DSP and subsequent normalization leads to fuzzy deviation variables, which cannot be handled by traditional optimization solution techniques. This problem has been circumvented in this thesis through the use of fuzzy goal functions instead of fuzzy targets. But this imposes restrictions on the band width of the fuzzy region (c) and also on the kind of membership function to be used. In order to eliminate such constraints on modeling, a new approach has to be developed wherein fuzzy targets and deviation variables are handled. There will be membership functions associated with the deviation variables and fuzzy arithmetic principles have to be used to ensure constraints imposed on the deviation variables. This research is in its embryonic stages but has great scope for improvement and significant contributions.
6.3 CLOSING REMARKS Through this thesis, a demonstration of integrating domain specific knowledge on tribological issues into domain independent robust design techniques is provided. This is facilitated through a collaborative venture between Ford Research Laboratories (Engine Friction Modeling) and the Systems Realization Laboratories (Robust Design Techniques), which has fostered mutual learning. In exercising the case study, several questions have been posed and answers provided, in different sections of the thesis. Some issues may not have been addressed at the necessary level of detail. I sincerely hope that any person reading this document or using 270
this thesis as starting point of his/her research, would be able to identify more questions and proceed in a new direction. I would like to quote Oliver Wendell at this juncture.
Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than in the one where they sprung up. (obtained from the World Wide Web) -- Oliver Wendell
Identifying new research questions, by itself, is great progress in engineering and scientific research. In conclusion I would like to use a quote by Salk, I feel that the greatest reward for doing is the opportunity to do more. (obtained from the World Wide Web) --Jonas Salk
271
REFERENCES
Auiler, J. A., Zerozek, J. D. and Blumberg, P. N., 1977, Optimization in Automotive Engine Calibration for Better Fuel Economy Methods and Application, SAE 770076.
Bailey, R. R., 1997, Designing Robust Industrial Ecosystems: A Systems Approach, M.S Thesis, The G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Balling, R. J. and Sobieski, J., 1994, September 7-9, An Algorithm for Solving the SystemLevel Problem in Multilevel Optimization, 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City, FL, pp. 794-809.
Barnett, V., Comparative Statistical Inference, John Wiley and Sons, London, 1973.
Bartz, W., 1985, Potential Fuel Savings by Use of Low Friction Engine and Transmission Lubricants, Proceedings of Mechanical Engineers Conference on Reduction of Friction and Wear in Combustion Engines, Paper C69/85, pp. 75-85.
Booker, J. F., 1965 , Dynamically Loaded Journal Bearings: Mobility Method of Solution, Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 187, pp. 537-546.
Bower, J. L. and Hout, T., 1988, Fast Cycle Capability for Competitive Power, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 (November-December), pp. 110-118.
Box, G. E. P. and Draper, N. R., 1987, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Box, G., Hunter, W. and Hunter, J., 1978, Statistics for Experimenters, Wiley, Inc., New York. Chen, W., 1995, A Robust Concept Exploration Method for Configuring Complex Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, The G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F. and Tsui, K.-L., 1995, Integration of Response Surface Methods with the Compromise Decision Support Problem in Developing a General Robust Design Procedure, ASME Design Automation Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, ASME, New York, pp. 485-492.
Chen, W., Rosen, D., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1994, Modularity and the Independence of Functional Requirements in Designing Complex Systems, Concurrent Product Design (Gadh, R., ed.), ASME, Vol. 74, pp. 31-38.
Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Mavris, D. N. and Mistree, F., 1996a, A Concept Exploration Method for Determining Robust Top-Level Specifications, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 26, pp. 137-158.
Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Tsui, K.-L. and Mistree, F., 1996b, A Procedure for Robust Design: Minimizing Variations Caused by Noise Factors and Control Factors, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 18, No.4, pp.478-485
Chen, W., Simpson, T. W., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F., 1996c, Use of Design Capability Indices to Satisfy a Ranged Set of Design Requirements, Advances in Design Automation (Dutta, D., ed.), Irvine, CA, ASME Paper No.96-DETC/DAC-1090.
Clark, K. and Fujimoto, T., 1991, Product Development Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. 328
Colin, H. and Peter, U., Bayesian Reasoning in Science, Vol.350, No.4, 1991, pp.371-374.
Drucker, P. F., 1990, The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 (May-June), pp. 94-102.
Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1978, Operations on Fuzzy Numbers, Vol. 9, pp. 613-626.
Engelund, W. C., Douglas, O. S., Lepsch, R. A. and McMillian, M. M., 1993, Aerodynamic Configuration Design using Response Surface Methodology Analysis, AIAA Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Meeting, Monterey, CA, Paper No. AIAA 93-3967.
Hamai, K., Goto, T., Musada, T., Arai, T. and Gotoh, T., 1991, Development of a Friction Prediction Model for High Performance Engines, Journal of Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers, Vol. 47, No.7, pp. 567-573.
Hayter, A. J., 1996, Probabaility and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. PWS Publishing Co. (A Division of ITT)., Boston, MA.
Heywood, J. B., 1988, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw Hill Inc, New York,
Ignizio, J. P., 1985, Introduction to Linear Goal Programming, Sage University Papers, Beverly Hills, California.
Karandikar, H. M. and Mistree, F., 1992, Designing a Composite Material Pressure Vessel for Manufacture: A Case Study for Concurrent Engineering, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 235-262.
329
Katoh, A. and Yauda, Y., 1994, An Analysis of Friction Reduction Techniques for the DirectActing Valve-train System of a New Generatio Lightweight 3-liter V6 Nissan Engine, SAE 940992.
Khuri, A. and Cornell, J. A., 1987, Response Surfaces: Design and Analysis, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Koch, P. N., 1997, Hierarchical Modeling and Robust Synthesis for the Preliminary Design of Large Scale Complex Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, The G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Koch, P. N., Barlow, A., Mistree, F. and Allen, J. K., 1996, Configuring Turbine Propulsion Systems Using Robust Concept Exploration, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Irvine, CA, Paper No 96-DETC/DAC-1472.
Koch, P. N. , Mavris, D., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F., 1997, The Problem of Size in Robust Design, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Sacramento, CA, Paper No DETC97/DAC3983.
Krishnamachari, R., 1991, Designing with Fuzzy Compromise Decision Support Problems, M.S Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Kroo, I., Altus, S., Braun, R., Gage, P., Sobieksi, I., 1994, Multidisciplinary Optimization Methods for Aircraft Preliminary Design, 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Recent Advances in Multidiscplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City, FL, pp. 697-707.
Kuppuraju, N., Ganesan, S., Mistree, F. and Sobieski, J. S., 1985, Hierarchical Decision Making in System Design, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 8, No. pp. 223-252.
330
Lautenschlager, U., Erikstad, S. O., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1995, Experimental Trajectory Analysis Using Decision Based Robust Design, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control & Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 1126-1132.
Lewis, K. and Mistree, F., 1995, Designing Top-Level Aircraft Specifications: A DecisionBased Approach to a Multiobjective, Highly Constrained Problem, 36th AIAA/ ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 10-13, pp. 2393-2405.
Luce, R.. D. and Raiffa, H., 1957, Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Martin, F. A., 1983, Developments in Engine Bearings, Proceedings of the 9th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology: Tribology of Reciprocating Engines, Butterworths, pp. 9-28. McGeehan, J. A., 1978, A Literature Review of the Effects of Piston and Ring Friction and Lubricating Oil Viscosity on Fuel Economy, SAE 780673.
McNeill, D. and Freiberger, P., 1993, Fuzzy Logic: The Revolutionary Computer Technology that is Changing the World, Touchstone Publication, Simon and Schuster Inc., New York.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F. and Bras, B. A., 1993, The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm, Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, AIAA, Washington, DC, pp. 247-286.
Mistree, F., Patel, B. and Vadde, S., 1994, On Modeling Multiple Objectives and Multi-Level Decisions in Concurrent Design, 1994 Design Automation Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, ASME, Vol. 69-2, pp. 151-161.
Mistree, F., Smith, W. F., Bras, B., Allen, J. K. and Muster, D., 1990b, Decision-Based Design: A Contemporary Paradigm for Ship Design, Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey city, NJ, pp. 565-597.
331
Montgomery, D. C., 1991, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley, New York.
Muster, D. and Mistree, F., 1988, The Decision Support Problem Technique in Engineering Design, International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., 1988, Engineering Design, The Design Council/Spriger-Verlag, London/Berlin.
Parker, D. A., 1990, The Tribology of Automotive Components: Development of Verified Computational Design Techniques, Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 204, N0. D1, Pt.D, Journal ofAutomobile Engineering, pp. 1-9.
Peplinski, J. D., Koch, P. N., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1996, Design Using Available Assets: A Paradigm Shift in Design for Manufacture, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 317-332.
Phadke, M. S., 1989, Quality Engineering using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Ranagarajan, B., 1997, User Manual for the Engine Friction Analysis Software (EnFAS), Engine and Process Department, Ford Research Laboratories, Dearborn, MI.
Reddy, R., Smith, W. F., Mistree, F., Bras, B. A., Chen, W., Malhotra, A., Badhrinath, K., Lautenschlager, U., Pakala, R., Vadde, S. and Patel, P., 1992, DSIDES User Manual, Systems Design Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Renaud, J. E., 1992, August, Sequential Approximation in Non-Hierarchic System Decomposition and Optimization: A Multidisciplinary Design Tool, Doctoral Dissertation, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
332
Renaud, J. E. and Tapetta, R. V., 1997, Multiobjective Collaborative Optimization, ASME Design Automation Conference, Paper no. DAC 3772, Sacramento, CA.
Richardson, G. P., and Pugh, A. L., 1981, Inroduction to Systems Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rosenberg, R. C., 1982, General Friction Considerations for Engine Design, SAE 821576.
Shigley, J. E. and Mischke, C. R., 1989, Mechanical Engineering Design, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA.
Simon, H. A., 1988, The Sciences of the Artificial, Third Edition, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Simpson, T. W., 1995, "Development of a Design Process for Realizing Open Engineering Systems, MS Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F. 1996, September 4 Conceptual -6, Design of a Family of Products Through the Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method, 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, Vol. 2 , pp. 1535-1545.
Simpson, T. W., Lautenschlager, U., and Mistree, F., 1997a, Mass Customization in the Age of Information: The Case for Open Engineering Systems, The InformationRevolution: Present and Future (Read, W. H., and Porter, A. L., eds.), Ablex Publishing, Greenwich, CT, in press.
Simpson, T. W., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F. and Chen, W., 1997b, Designing Ranged Sets of Top Level Specifications For a Family of Aircraft: An Application of Design Capability Indices, World Aviation Congress, October 13-16, Anaheim, CA.
333
Simpson, T. W., Peplinski, J., Koch, P. N. and Allen, J. K., 1997c, On the Use of Statistics in Design and the Implications for Deterministic Computer Experiments, Design Theory and Methodology Conference, DTM97, Sacramento, CA, ASME Paper No. DETC97/DTM-3881.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., 1988, Optimization by Decomposition: A Step from Hierarchic to Non-hierarchic Systems, NASA Technical Memorandum, NASA Langley Research Center.
Sorab, J, 1997, Advances in Engine Friction Modeling, Technical Research Seminar Series, Ford Research Laboratories, Dearborn, MI.
Stalk, G. J. and Hout, T., 1990, Competing Against Time, Free Press, New York.
Staron J. T., and Willermet, P. A., "An Analysis of Valve Train Friction in Terms of Lubrication Operating Parameters," SAE 830165, 1983.
Taguchi, G., 1978, Off-Line and On-Line Quality Control Systems, Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Control, Tokyo, Japan.
Taguchi, G., 1987, System of Experimental Design: Engineering Methods to Optimize Quality and Minimize Costs, UNIPUB/Kraus International Publications.
Taguchi, G. and Phadke, M. S., 1986, Quality Engineering Through D esign Optimization, National Electronics Conference at the National Communications Forum, Rosemont, IL, Professional Education International Inc, Vol. 40, pp. 32-39.
Taylor, C. M., 1991, Valve Train Lubrication Analysis, Proceedings of the 17th LeedsLyon Symposium on Tribology: Vehicle Tribology, Elsevier, pp. 119-131.
334
Taylor, C. M., 1992, Fluid Film Lubrication in the Internal Combustion Engine- An Invited Review, Journal of Physics D: Apllied Physics, Vol. 25, No. 1a, pp. A91-A100.
Taylor, C. M (Editor)., 1993, Engine Tribology, Tribology Series, 26, Elseiver Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ting, L. L., 1985, A Review of Present Information on Piston Ring Tribology, SAE 852355.
Ulrich, K. T. and Tung, K., 1991, "Fundamentals of Product Modularity," ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Vol. 39, pp. 73-80.
Vadde, S., 1992, Modeling Uncertainty in the Early Stages of Design using Decision Support Problems, M.S Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Vadde, S., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1994a, Compromise Decision Support Problems for Hierarchical Design under Uncertainty, Computers and Structures, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 645-658.
Vadde, S., Allen, J. K. and Mistree, F., 1994b, Modeling Uncertainty in the Combined Kinematic and Dynamic Synthesis of a Four-Bar Linkage, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-15. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D., 1990, The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York.
Wood, K. L., Anntonson, E. K. and Beck, J. L., 1989, Comparing Fuzzy and Probability Calculus for Representing Imprecision in Engineering Design, Proceedings of Design Theory and Methodology, Vol. 17, ASME, pp. 187-203.
Yang, L. S., 1992, Friction Modeling for Internal Combustion Engines, Ph.D Dissertation, University of Leeds, U.K. 335
Zadeh, L., 1965, Fuzzy Sets, Inf. Control, Vol.8, pp. 338-353.
Zadeh, L, 1978, Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for Theory of Possibility, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, pp. 3-28.
Zhou, Q. J., 1988, The Compromise Decision Support Problem: A Fuzzy Formulation, M.S Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Zimmerman, H. J., 1987, Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making and Expert Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
336
A APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF SCREENING EXPERIMENTS

In this appendix the results of the screening experiments are presented. This includes the pareto plots of the bearing, piston and valve-train subsystem for the power loss response with respect to the corresponding factors. The parameter estimates and some indices to indicate statistical significance of different factors are also tabulated. Based on the pareto plots and t-values, the insignificant factors are screened as presented in Section 4.2.
The first plot for each of the subsystems is a pareto plot that gives percentage contribution from the different factors towards a response and the t-values indicate whether the factors are statistically significant. For the bearing subsystem it is seen that factors MDIAM, BDIAM, MCLR, BORE and BCLR contribute up to 90% of the variation of the response BPOWLOS and hence these are chosen as most significant. The t-values also confirm this observation.
A.1 BEARING SUBSYSTEM
Pareto Plot of Estimates

Term SPEED MDIAM BDIAM MCLR BORE BCLR MLEN CONROD BLEN Orthog Estimate 1.0201469 0.1141719 0.1100125 -0.0742531 0.0366406 -0.0359125 0.0354094 -0.0293125 0.0278781 .2 .4 .6 .8
Figure A.1: Pareto Plot for BPOWLOS
Table A.1: Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of BPOWLOS

2.5859796
Transformed Parameter Estimates

Term Intercept BDIAM BLEN BCLR MDIAM MLEN MCLR SPEED BORE CONROD Original 1.292934 0.110012 0.027878 -0.035913 0.114172 0.035409 -0.074253 1.020147 0.036641 -0.029313 Orthog Coded 1.292934 0.110012 0.027878 -0.035913 0.114172 0.035409 -0.074253 1.020147 0.036641 -0.029313 Orthog t-Test 61.4447 5.2282 1.3249 -1.7067 5.4258 1.6828 -3.5288 48.4809 1.7413 -1.3930 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 0.1908 0.0936 <.0001 0.0982 0.0009 <.0001 0.0873 0.1693
269
A.2 PISTON SUBSYSTEM

Term BORE RW1 RO1 RS RO2 RW2 OT RT1 RT2 CONROD Orthog Estimate 0.11926094 0.04280781 0.04012031 0.03857344 0.02247031 0.01263594 0.01207031 0.00584219 0.00464219 -0.0029828 .2 .4 .6 .8
Figure A.2: Pareto Plot for PPOWLOS
Table A.2: Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of PPOWLOS

6.9569261

Term Intercept RW1 RT1 RO1 RW2 RT2 RO2 OT RS CONROD BORE Original 0.8253547 0.0428078 0.0058422 0.0046422 0.0126359 0.0401203 0.0224703 0.0120703 0.0385734 -0.002983 0.1192609 Orthog Coded 0.8253547 0.0428078 0.0058422 0.0046422 0.0126359 0.0401203 0.0224703 0.0120703 0.0385734 -0.002983 0.1192609 Orthog t-Test 302.9419 15.7124 2.1443 1.7039 4.6380 14.7259 8.2476 4.4303 14.1582 -1.0948 43.7741 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 0.0366 0.0943 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.2785 <.0001
270
A.3 VALVE-TRAIN SUBSYSTEM

Term VCL SR BASRAD RCAGE BCLOAD CSRM WROLL TBL RT Orthog Estimate 22.804396 11.063115 8.699134 7.779770 4.255000 0.001297 0.000413 -0.000215 -0.000193 .2 .4 .6 .8
Figure A.3: Pareto Plot for VPOWLOS
Table A.3: Statistical Results for First Order Modeling of VPOWLOS

16.71381

Term Intercept VCL SR BASRAD RT TBL BCLOAD CSRM RCAGE WROLL Original 184.0624 22.8044 11.0631 8.6991 -0.0002 -0.0002 4.2550 0.0013 7.7798 0.0004 Orthog Coded 184.0624 22.8044 11.0631 8.6991 -0.0002 -0.0002 4.2550 0.0013 7.7798 0.0004 Orthog t-Test 963.7123 119.3991 57.9242 45.5469 -0.0010 -0.0011 22.2783 0.0068 40.7333 0.0022 Prob>|t| <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.9992 0.9991 <.0001 0.9946 <.0001 0.9983
271
APPENDIX B
RESPONSE SURFACE MODELING: RESULTS AND VALIDATION

In this appendix the details of response surface equations for the different subsystems are presented. This is an extension of Section 4.3. The following items have been presented for the various responses, 1. Response surface equations: These equations are quadratic in nature and are used in the compromise DSP to compute the goals and constraints. 2. First order and second order effects of the predictor variables: These plots are useful in judging the nature of interactions and quadratic effects that exist among the factors and provide an indication of response behavior. 3. Graphical comparison of the surfaces obtained by the response surface prediction and the actual analytical model. (3-D plot : response +2 predictor variables ) 4. Plot between actual and predicted response for the CCD design: This indicates how closely the how closely the response surface equations match the underlying relationship in the EnFAS model.. The solid line refers to the actual response values and the dots represent the values as computed using the response surface equations. The dotted lines provide an envelope representing the variation of the response surface equation from the actual value of the response. If the envelope is too wide then the margin of error is high.
5. Residual analysis plots: Based on the existence of outliers or a pattern the statistical validity of the response surface equations is verified. For the different responses as shown in the following a pattern is not evident. Residuals are the difference between the actual response and the predicted response values and the dots in the figures are the values of the residuals for different response values.
273
B.1 BEARING RESPONSES Response: Bearing Power Loss (BPOWLOS) Response surface equation (RSE) BPOWLOS=0.94603+0.11026*BDIAM-0.03432*BCLR+0.11474*MDIAM -0.07868*MCLR+1.02568*SPEED+0.03566*BORE+0.00466*BDIAM*BDIAM +0.03861*BCLR*BCLR+0.00391*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.02526*MCLR*MCLR +0.29301*SPEED*SPEED-0.00579*BORE*BORE-0.02827*BDIAM*BCLR +0.09006*BDIAM*SPEED+0.00164*BDIAM*BORE-0.02161*BCLR*SPEED +0.01053*BCLR*BORE-0.02138*MDIAM*MCLR+0.08781*MDIAM*SPEED +0.00188*MDIAM*BORE-0.05687*MCLR*SPEED+0.00461*MCLR*BORE +0.0293*SPEED*BORE
BPOWLOS
1 0 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
BDIAM
(a)
2.5 2.0 1.5
BPOWLOS 1.0
0.5 0.0 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
BDIAM
(b) 274
Figure B.1: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BPOWLOS
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS IN BEARING POWER LOSS

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 BDIAM MDIAM SPEED MCLR BORE
SPEED*SPEED
0 -0.2 BCLR
FACTOR
(a)
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS FOR BEARING POWER LOSS
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
FACTORS
(b) Figure B.2: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for BPOWLOS 275
SPEED*MDIAM
BDIAM*BDIAM
SPEED*BDIAM
MDIAM*BCLR
MCLR*BDIAM
MCLR*MDIAM
BORE*MCLR
BORE*BORE
0 BCLR*BCLR
BORE*BCLR
276
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
BPOWLOS
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 BPOWLOS Predicted 3.0
(a)
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Residual 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 BPOWLOS Predicted 3.0
(b)
277
Figure B.3: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for BPOWLOS
Response : Connecting Rod Bearing Film Thickness (BBFLMTHK) RSE BBFLMTHK=0.7535+0.0414*BDIAM-0.0777*BCLR-0.0374*SPEED -0.0195*BORE+0.0077*BDIAM*BDIAM+0.0088*BCLR*BCLR +0.0088*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.0088*MCLR*MCLR-0.1655*SPEED*SPEED +0.0115*BORE*BORE-0.0066*BDIAM*BCLR+0.0019*BDIAM*SPEED -0.001*BDIAM*BORE-0.0609*BCLR*SPEED-0.0012*BCLR*BORE +-0.0141*SPEED*BORE
0.9 0.8 0.7
BBFLMTHK
0.6 0.5 0.4 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
BDIAM
(a)
278
0.8
0.7
BBFLMTHK
0.6 0.5 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1
BDIAM
1
(b) Figure B.4: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for BBFLMTHK
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS FOR CONNECTING ROD BEARING FILM THICKNESS

00.060 00.040 00.020 EFFECTS SPEED MCLR BORE 00.000 BDIAM BCLR MDIAM -00.020 -00.040 -00.060 -00.080 FACTORS BDIAM BCLR MDIAM MCLR SPEED BORE
(a) 279
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS OF CONNECTING ROD BEARING FILM THICKNESS

00.020 00.000 -00.020 -00.040 -00.060 -00.080 -00.100 -00.120 -00.140 -00.160 -00.180 FACTORS 1 BDIAM*BDIAM BCLR*BDIAM BCLR*BCLR MDIAM*MDIAM MCLR*MCLR SPEED*BDIAM SPEED*BCLR SPEED*MDIAM SPEED*MCLR SPEED*SPEED BORE*BDIAM BORE*BCLR BORE*SPEED BORE*BORE
(b) Figure B.5: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for BBFLMTHK
0.9
0.8 BBFLMTHK, Microns
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 BBFLMT THK( Predicted)
0.9
(a) 280
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Residual 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BBFLMTHK Predicted 0.8 0.9
(b) Figure B.6: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP For BBFLMTHK
Response: Crankshaft Bearing Film Thickness (MBFLMTHK) MBFLMTHK=1.2794+0.039*MDIAM-0.0261*MCLR+0.054*SPEED -0.072*BORE+0.0158*BDIAM*BDIAM+0.0158*BCLR*BCLR +0.0139*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.0112*MCLR*MCLR-0.2971*SPEED*SPEED -0.0257*BORE*BORE-0.0024*MDIAM*MCLR+0.0035*MDIAM*SPEED -0.0024*MDIAM*BORE-0.0163*MCLR*SPEED -0.0037*MCLR*BORE-0.0634*SPEED*BORE
281
1.35 1.25 1.15
MBFLMTHK
1.05 0.95 0.85 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1
MDIAM
1
(a)
MBFLMTHK
1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
MDIAM
(b) Figure B.7: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for MBFLMTHK
282
FRIST ORDER EFFECTS OF MAIN BEARING FILM THICKNESS

0.06 0.04 0.02 SPEED 0 BCLR BDIAM MDIAM MCLR -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 FACTORS BDIAM BCLR MDIAM MCLR SPEED BORE
(a)
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS OF MAIN BEARING FILM THICKNESS
0.05 0 1 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 FACTORS BDIAM*BDIAM BCLR*BCLR MDIAM*MDIAM MCLR*MDIAM MCLR*MCLR SPEED*MDIAM SPEED*MCLR SPEED*SPEED BORE*SPEED BORE*BORE
(b) Figure B.8: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for MBFLMTHK 283
BORE
1.3
MBFLMTHK, Microns
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 MBFLMTHK Predicted 1.3
(a)
0.015
0.010
0.005 Residual
0.000
-0.005
-0.010 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 MBFLMTHK Predicted 1.3
(b) Figure B.9: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for MBFLMTHK
284
B.2 PISTON RESPONSES Response: Piston Assembly Power Loss (PPOWLOSS) PPOW=1.69886+0.0071*RW1+0.01815*RO1+0.04194*RW2+0.05293*RO2 +1.1192*SPEED+0.05464*B+0.06411*RS+0.23851*OT +0.00039*RW1*RW1+0.01084*RO1*RO1+0.00479*RW2*RW2 +0.08134*RO2*RO2+0.12439*SPEED*SPEED-0.00401*B*B +0.01689*RS*RS-0.00081*OT*OT-0.003*RW1*RO1+0.00107*RW1*SPEED +0.00018*RW1*B+0.00149*RW1*RS+0.00538*RO1*SPEED+0.00195*RO1* B+0.00693*RO1*RS-0.00001*RO1*OT-+01419*RW2*RO2+ 0.00507*RW2*SPEED+0.00259*RW2*B+0.0119*RW2*RS+0.04132*RO2*SPE ED+0.0103*RO2*B+0.00386*RO2*RS+0.01701*SPEED*B+0.02264*SPEED*R S+0.11926*SPEED*OT+0.0062*B*RS+0.01491*B*OT
4 3
PPOWLOS
2 1 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
OT
(a)
3.5
2.5
PPOWLOS
1.5 0.5 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
OT
(b) 285
Figure B.10: Comparison of Actual (a) And Predicted Response Surface (b) for PPOWLOS
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS FOR PISTON POWER LOSS

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 RO1 RO2 RW1 RW2 RW1 RO1 RW2 RO2 BORE RS OT
BORE
FACTORS
(a)
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 BORE*BORE BORE*RW1 BORE*RW2 RO1*RO1 RS*RO1 RS*RO2 OT*RO1 RW2*RO1 RO2*RW1 RO2*RW2 OT*RO2 RS*RS RW1*RW1 OT*RS
-0.02
Second order terms
286
OT
RS
(b) Figure B.11: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for PPOWLOS
4.0 3.5 3.0 PPOWLOSS, KW 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 PPOWLOSS Predicted
3.5
4.0
(a)
287
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 Residual 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 PPOWLOSSPredicted 3.5 4.0
(b) Figure B.12: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for PPOWLOS
B.3 VALVE-TRAIN RESPONSES Response: Valve-train Power Loss (VPOWLOS) VPOWLOS=716.15+95.07*VCL+47.36*SR+32.1*BASRAD +17*BCLOAD+28.34*RCAGE+320.67*SPEED-0.83*VCL*VCL -1.49*SR*SR-0.37*BASRAD*BASRAD-2.64*BCLOAD*BCLOAD +0.05*RCAGE*RCAGE+0.02*CSRM*CSRM-24.25*SPEED*SPEED -1.75*VCL*SR+2*VCL*BASRAD+0.01*VCL*BCLOAD +1.88*VCL*RCAGE+49.39*VCL*SPEED+1.27*SR*BASRAD +0*SR*BCLOAD+1.21*SR*RCAGE+0.02*SR*CSRM+25.19*SR*SPEED +2.41*BASRAD*BCLOAD+3.6*BASRAD*RCAGE+14.77*BASRAD*SPEED +1.85*BCLOAD*RCAGE-0.05*BCLOAD*CSRM+8.48*BCLOAD*SPEED +12.81*RCAGE*SPEED
288
1400
900
VPOWLOS
400 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
VCL
(a)
1200 1100 1000 900 800 VPOWLOS 700 600 500 400 300 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
VCL
(b) Figure B.13: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for VPOWLOS
289
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS FOR VALVE TRAIN POWER LOSS

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 BCLOAD BASRAD SPEED 0 SR RCAG -50 CSRM VCL VCL SR BASRAD BCLOAD RCAG CSRM SPEED
FACTORS
(a)
4
VCL*VCL SR*VCL SR*SR
BASRAD*VCL BASRAD*SR BASRAD*BASRAD
0 1
BCLOAD*VCL BCLOAD*SR BCLOAD*BASRAD BCLOAD*BCLOAD RCAG*VCL RCAG*SR RCAG*BASRAD
-2
-4
RCAG*BCLOAD RCAG*RCAG CSRM*VCL
-6
CSRM*SR CSRM*BASRAD CSRM*BCLOAD CSRM*RCAG CSRM*CSRM Second order terms
-8
(b) Figure B.14: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for VPOWLOS 290
1400 1300 1200 1100 VPOWLOS, KW 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 200 400 600 800 1000 VPOWLOSPredicted 1200 1400
(a)
8 6 4 2 Residual 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 200 400 600 800 1000 PPOWLOSPredicted 1200 1400
(b) Figure B.15: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for VPOWLOS 291
Response: Valve-train Film Thickness (VFLMTHK) RSE VFLMTHK=0.087381-0.00344*VCL-0.00177*SR+0.01281*BASRAD +0.035567*SPEED+0.000324*VCL*VCL+0.000243*SR*SR -0.00022*BASRAD*BASRAD+0.000018*BCLOAD*BCLOAD +0.000018*RCAGE*RCAGE+0.000018*CSRM*CSRM +0.000225*SPEED*SPEED+0.000622*VCL*SR -0.00051*VCL*BASRAD-0.00224*VCL*SPEED -0.00027*SR*BASRAD-0.00118*SR*SPEED+0.005183*BASRAD*SPEED
0.15
VFLMTHK
0.10
0.05 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
BASRAD
(a)
0.15
0.10
VFLMTHK
0.05 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
BASRAD
(b) 292
Figure B.16: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for VFLMTHK
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS FOR VFLMTHK

0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 BCLOAD BASRAD RCAG VCL SR -0.002 -0.004 CSRM
VCL*VCL SR*VCL SR*SR 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0 1 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0006 FACTORS BASRAD*VCL BASRAD*SR BASRAD*BASRAD BCLOAD*VCL BCLOAD*SR BCLOAD*BASRAD BCLOAD*BCLOAD RCAG*VCL RCAG*SR RCAG*BASRAD RCAG*BCLOAD RCAG*RCAG CSRM*VCL CSRM*SR CSRM*BASRAD CSRM*BCLOAD CSRM*RCAG CSRM*CSRM
FACTORS
(a)
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS FOR VFLMTHK
293
(b) Figure B.17: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for VFLMTHK
0.16 0.15 0.14 VFLMTHK, Microns 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 VFLMTHK Predicted 0.16
(a)
294
0.0010
0.0005 Residual
0.0000
-0.0005
-0.0010
0.04
0.06
0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 VFLMTHK Predicted
0.16
(b) Figure B.18: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) And Residual Plot (b) from JMP for VFLMTHK
B.4 OIL PUMP RESPONSES Response: Oil Pump Power Loss (PUPOWLOS) PUPOWLOS=852.63-20.62+610.82*R2+52.84*B+867.23* SPEED+9.81*R1*R1+106.13*R2*R2+17.36*B*B+170.13*SPEED*SPEED11.15*R1*R2-11.11*R1*B-14.22*R1*SPEED+38.61*R2*B +473.82*R2*SPEED +39.98*B*SPEED
295
3500 3000 2500 2000
PUPOWLOS
1500 1000 500 0 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
R1
(a)
2000
PUPOWLOS
1000
0 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
R1
(b) Figure B.19: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for PUPOWLOS
296
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS OF PUMP POWER LOSS

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 R1 R2 FACTORS B SPEED R1 R2 B SPEED
(a)
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS FOR PUMP POWER LOSS
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 1 FACTORS R1*R1 R2*R1 R2*R2 B*R1 B*R2 B*B SPEED*R1 SPEED*R2 SPEED*B SPEED*SPEED
(b) Figure B.20: Plots of First (a) and Second Order (b) Effects for PUPOWLOS 297
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 PUPOWLOSS Predicted 3500
PUPOWLOS, KW
(a)
75
50
Residual
25
-25
-50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 PUPOWLOSS Predicted
(b)
298
Figure B.21: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) and Residual Plot (b) from JMP for PUPOWLOS
Response: Oil Flow Rate From Pump (OILFR) OILFR=1.8751-0.2157*R1+0.8629*R2+0.75*B+0.9708*SPEED -0.0002*R1*R1-0.0002*R2*R2+0.0748*B*B+0.0003*SPEED*SPEED -0.0834*R1*B-0.1084*R1*SPEED+0.3334*R2*B+0.4334*R2*SPEED +0.375*B*SPEED
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -1
OILFR
SPEED
0 1 1
R1
(a)
299
OILFR
1 -1 -1
SPEED
0 1 1
R1
(b) Figure B.22: Comparison of Actual (a) and Predicted Response Surface (b) for OILFR
FIRST ORDER EFFECTS OF PUMP OIL FLOW RATE

1 0.8 0.6 R1 0.4 0.2 0 R1 -0.2 -0.4 R2 B SPEED R2 B SPEED
300
(a)
SECOND ORDER EFFECTS FOR PUMP OIL FLOW RATE
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 -0.1 -0.2 FACTORS R1*R1 R2*R1 R2*R2 B*R1 B*R2 B*B SPEED*R1 SPEED*R2 SPEED*B SPEED*SPEED
(b) Figure B.23: Plots of First (a) And Second Order (b) Effects for OILFR
301
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 OILFR Predicted 5 6 7
OILFR
(a)
0.3
0.2
0.1 Residual
-0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 0 1 2 3 4 OILFR Predicted 5 6 7
(b) Figure B.24: Plots of Predicted Vs. Actual Response (a) And Residual Plot (b) from JMP for OILFR 302
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPROMISE DSP

In this appendix the files required for the compromise DSP and some results from the computer implementation are presented. These include 1. FORTRAN and data files for compromise DSP. 2. Convergence history of design variables of different subsystems 3. Results of bearing compromise DSP used for analyzing trade off in tolerance design.
C.1 FILES FOR COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPROMISE DSP In the following the FORTRAN file and data file for computer implementation of the compromise DSP is presented. The FORTRAN file varies according to the formulation used and the one that is presented here corresponds to the fuzzy formulation. The crisp and Bayesian formulations have the goals defined in a different way. The data file has the same format for all formulations, except that uncertainty parameters (P and H ) do not appear as design variables in the crisp formulation. Moreover based on the scenario the achievement function is formulated differently. The data file presented here corresponds to the fuzzy formulation and Archimedian scenario.
C.1.1 FORTRAN File for Engine Compromise DSP

SUBROUTINE USRINP (NDESV, NINP, NOUT, DESVAR) C C *** DUMMY ROUTINE. NOT USED C INTEGER NDESV, NINP, NOUT REAL DESVAR(NDESV) C C C RETURN END SUBROUTINE USROUT (NDESV, NOUT, DESVAR, LCONDF, LCONSV, LXFEAS) C C*** DUMMY ROUTINE. NOT USED. C INTEGER NDESV, NOUT REAL DESVAR(NDESV) LOGICAL LCONDF, LCONSV, LXFEAS C RETURN END
SUBROUTINE USRANA (NDESV, NOUT, DESVAR) C C*** DUMMY ROUTINE. NOT USED.
INTEGER NDESV, NOUT REAL DESVAR(NDESV) C RETURN END SUBROUTINE USRMON (NDESV, NDEVAR, NMPRI, NNLCON, NNLGOA, NOUT, & DESVAR, DEVVAR, CONDEV, DEVFUN, GVAL) C C*** DUMMY ROUTINE. NOT USED.
INTEGER NOUT, NDESV, NDEVAR, NMPRI, NNLCON, NNLGOA
304
REAL DESVAR(NDESV), DEVVAR(NDEVAR), & CONDEV, DEVFUN(NMPRI), GVAL(NNLCON+NNLGOA) C C RETURN END C*********************************************************************** C C SUBROUTINE USRSET C C PURPOSE: EVALUATE NON-LINEAR CONSTRAINTS AND GOALS. C NOTE - DO NOT SPECIFY THE DEVIATION VARIABLES C C----------------------------------------------------------------------C ARGUMENTS NAME TYPE DESCRIPTION C ------------ ---- ----------C INPUT: IPATH INT = 1 EVALUATE CONSTRAINTS AND GOALS C = 2 EVALUATE CONSTRAINTS ONLY C = 3 EVALUATE GOALS ONLY C NDESV INT NUMBER OF DESIGN VARIABLES C MNLNCG INT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF NONLINEAR C CONSTRAINTS AND GOALS C NOUT INT UNIT NUMBER OF OUTPUT DATA FILE C DESVAR REAL VECTOR OF DESIGN VARIABLES C C OUTPUT: CONSTR REAL VECTOR OF CONSTRAINT VALUES C GOALS REAL VECTOR OF GOAL VALUES C C INPUT/OUTPUT: NONE C----------------------------------------------------------------------C COMMON BLOCKS: NONE C C INCLUDE FILES: NONE C C CALLED FROM: GCALC C C CALLS TO: NONE C----------------------------------------------------------------------C DEVELOPMENT HISTORY C C AUTHOR: BHARADWAJ R. C DATE: 17 SEPT. 1997 C C C C*********************************************************************** CC SUBROUTINE USRSET (IPATH, NDESV, MNLNCG, NOUT, DESVAR, & CONSTR, GOALS)
305
C C--------------------------------------C ARGUMENTS: C--------------------------------------C INTEGER IPATH, NDESV, MNLNCG, NOUT C REAL DESVAR(NDESV) REAL CONSTR(MNLNCG), GOALS(MNLNCG) C C--------------------------------------C LOCAL VARIABLES: C--------------------------------------C IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z) INTEGER Z,SPEED REAL*8 MDIAM, MCLR,BDIAM,BCLR,B,BORE,RS,RW1,RW2,OT,RO1,RO2 REAL*8 TOLBD,TOLMD,TOLBC,TOLMC,P1,P2,P3,TDIFF,SIGBD,SIGMD,SIGBC REAL*8 SIGMC,TBC,TMC,BPOW(3),PBDBP,PMDBP,PBCBP,PMCBP,BBFLM(3) REAL*8 PBDFT,PBCFTD,BMFLM(3),PMDFT,PMCFT,DEVBBFT(3),DEVMBFT(3) REAL*8 DEVBPOW(3),PPOW(3),AVGBP,AVGPP,AGFBBF,AVGMBF,DEVTOLBP,DEVTOLBF1 REAL*8 DEVTOLBF2,PBPSP,PBBFSP,PMBFSP,PPPSP,SIGSP,DEVBPSP,DEVBBFSP REAL*8 DEVMBFSP,DEVPPSP,TOLD,TOLC,DEVTOL C C C
1.0 SET THE VALUES OF THE LOCAL DESIGN VARIABLES (OPTIONAL) BDIAM = DESVAR(1)-2.0 BCLR = DESVAR(2)-2.0 MDIAM = DESVAR(3)-2.0 MCLR = DESVAR(4)-2.0 B=DESVAR(5)-2.0 RS=DESVAR(6)-2.0 RW1=DESVAR(7)-2.0 RO1=DESVAR(8)-2.0 RW2=DESVAR(9)-2.0 RO2=DESVAR(10)-2.0 OT=DESVAR(11)-2.0 VCL = DESVAR(12)-2.0 SR = DESVAR(13)-2.0 BASRAD = DESVAR(14)-2.0 BCLOAD = DESVAR(15)-2.0 RCAGE = DESVAR(16)-2.0 CSRM = DESVAR(17) -2.0 R1 = DESVAR(18)-2.0 R2 = DESVAR(19)-2.0 B = DESVAR(20)-2.0 TOLBD = DESVAR(21)-2.0 TOLMD = DESVAR(22)-2.0 TOLBC = DESVAR(23)-2.0
306
TOLMC = DESVAR(24)-2.0 H1 = DESVAR(25)-2.0 H2 = DESVAR(26)-2.0 H3= DESVAR(27)-2.0 H4 = DESVAR(28) -2.0 H5 = DESVAR(29)-2.0 H6 = DESVAR(30)-2.0 TOLBD=TOLBD*.003 +.007 TOLMD=TOLMD*.00375 +.00875 TOLBC=TOLBC*.07 +.15 TOLMC=TOLMC*.17 +.33 H1 = P1*.475 + .525 H2 =P2*.475 + .525 H3=P3*.475+.525 H4=P4*.475+.525 H5 = P1*.475 + .525 H6 =P2*.475 + .525 TDIFF=150 SIGBD=TOLBD/3 SIGMD=TOLMD/3 TBC=(BCLR*27 +43.0)*22E-6*TDIFF/27.0 TMC=(MCLR*11.5 + 31.5)*22E-6*TDIFF/27.0 SIGBC=(TOLBC+TBC)/3.0 SIGMC=(TOLMC+TMC)/3.0 BORE=B PRINT *, ' ' PRINT *, '_________________INPUTS___________________' PRINT *, BDIAM, ' = BIG END BEARING DIAMETER' PRINT *, BCLR, ' = BIG END BEARING CLEARANCE' PRINT *, MDIAM, ' = MAIN BEARING DIAMETER' PRINT *, B, ' = BORE' PRINT *, RS, ' = RING SURFACE' PRINT *, OT, ' = OIL TENSION' PRINT *, RW1, ' = RING WIDTH 1' PRINT *, RW2, ' = RING WIDTH 2' PRINT *, RO1, ' = RING OFFSET 1' PRINT *, RO2, ' = RING OFFSET 2' PRINT *,VCL, ' = VCL' PRINT *, SR, ' = SR' PRINT *, BASRAD, ' = BASRAD' PRINT *, BCLOAD, ' = BCLOAD' PRINT *, RCAGE,' = RCAGE' PRINT *, R1, ' = R1' PRINT *,R2, ' = R2' PRINT *, B, ' = B'
DO 1526 Z=-1,1
307
& & & & & & &
SPEED=Z BPOW(Z+2)=0.94603+0.11026*BDIAM-0.03432*BCLR+0.11474*MDIAM -0.07868*MCLR+1.02568*SPEED+0.03566*BORE+0.00466*BDIAM*BDIAM +0.03861*BCLR*BCLR+0.00391*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.02526*MCLR*MCLR +0.29301*SPEED*SPEED-0.00579*BORE*BORE-0.02827*BDIAM*BCLR +0.09006*BDIAM*SPEED+0.00164*BDIAM*BORE-0.02161*BCLR*SPEED +0.01053*BCLR*BORE-0.02138*MDIAM*MCLR+0.08781*MDIAM*SPEED +0.00188*MDIAM*BORE-0.05687*MCLR*SPEED+0.00461*MCLR*BORE +0.0293 *SPEED*BORE PBDBP=.11026+.00466*2*BDIAM-.02827*BCLR+.09006*SPEED+.001064*BORE PMDBP=.11474+2*.00391*MDIAM-.02138*MCLR+.08781*SPEED+.00188*B PBCBP=-.0342+2*.03861*BCLR-.02827*BDIAM-.02161*SPEED+.01053*B PMCBP=-.07868+.02526*MCLR*2-0.02138*MDIAM-0.05687*SPEED+0.00461*B BBFLM(Z+2)=0.7535+0.0414*BDIAM-0.0777*BCLR-0.0374*SPEED -0.0195*BORE+0.0077*BDIAM*BDIAM+0.0088*BCLR*BCLR +0.0088*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.0088*MCLR*MCLR-0.1655*SPEED*SPEED +0.0115*BORE*BORE-0.0066*BDIAM*BCLR+0.0019*BDIAM*SPEED -0.001*BDIAM*BORE-0.0609*BCLR*SPEED-0.0012*BCLR*BORE -0.0141*SPEED*BORE PBDFT=.0414+2*.0077*BDIAM-.0066*BCLR+.0019*SPEED-.001*B PBCFT=-.0777+.0088*2*BCLR-.0066*BDIAM-.0609*SPEED-.0012*B BMFLM(Z+2)=1.2794+0.039*MDIAM-0.0261*MCLR+0.054*SPEED -0.072*BORE+0.0158*BDIAM*BDIAM+0.0158*BCLR*BCLR +0.0139*MDIAM*MDIAM+0.0112*MCLR*MCLR-0.2971*SPEED*SPEED -0.0257*BORE*BORE-0.0024*MDIAM*MCLR+0.0035*MDIAM*SPEED -0.0024*MDIAM*BORE-0.0163*MCLR*SPEED -0.0037*MCLR*BORE-0.0634*SPEED*BORE PMDFT=.039+2*.0139*MDIAM-.0024*MCLR+.0035*SPEED-.0024*B PMCFT=-.0261+.0112*MCLR*2-.0024*MDIAM-.0163*SPEED-.0037*B DEVBBFT(Z+2)=SQRT((PBDFT*SIGBD)**2+(PBCFT*SIGBC)**2) DEVMBFT(Z+2)=SQRT((PMDFT*SIGMD)**2+(PMCFT*SIGMC)**2) DEVBPOW(Z+2)=(PBDBP**2)*(SIGBD**2)+(PMDBP**2)*(SIGMD**2) +(PBCBP**2)*(SIGBC**2)+(PMCBP**2)*(SIGMC**2) DEVBPOW(Z+2)=SQRT(DEVBPOW(Z+2))
& & & & &
& & & & &
&
PPOW(Z+2)=1.69886+0.0071*RW1+0.01815*RO1+0.04194*RW2+0.05293 & *RO2+1.1192*SPEED+0.05464*B+0.06411*RS+0.23851*OT & +0.00039*RW1*RW1+0.01084*RO1*RO1+0.00479*RW2*RW2 & +0.08134*RO2*RO2+0.12439*SPEED*SPEED-0.00401*B*B & +0.01689*RS*RS-0.00081*OT*OT-0.003*RW1*RO1+0.00107*RW1*SPEED & +0.00018*RW1*B+0.00149*RW1*RS+0.00538*RO1*SPEED+0.00195*RO1*B & +0.00693*RO1*RS-0.00001*RO1*OT0.01419*RW2*RO2+0.00507*RW2*SPEED & +0.00259*RW2*B+0.0119*RW2*RS+0.04132*RO2*SPEED+0.0103*RO2*B & +0.00386*RO2*RS+0.01701*SPEED*B+0.02264*SPEED*RS
308
&
+0.11926*SPEED*OT+0.0062*B*RS+0.01491*B*OT
AVGVTPL(Z+2)=716.15+95.07*VCL+47.36*SR+32.1*BASRAD & +17*BCLOAD+28.34*RCAGE+320.67*SPEED-0.83*VCL*VCL & -1.49*SR*SR-0.37*BASRAD*BASRAD-2.64*BCLOAD*BCLOAD & +0.05*RCAGE*RCAGE+0.02*CSRM*CSRM-24.25*SPEED*SPEED & -1.75*VCL*SR+2*VCL*BASRAD+0.01*VCL*BCLOAD & +1.88*VCL*RCAGE+49.39*VCL*SPEED+1.27*SR*BASRAD & +0*SR*BCLOAD+1.21*SR*RCAGE+0.02*SR*CSRM+25.19*SR*SPEED & +2.41*BASRAD*BCLOAD+3.6*BASRAD*RCAGE+14.77*BASRAD*SPEED & +1.85*BCLOAD*RCAGE-0.05*BCLOAD*CSRM+8.48*BCLOAD*SPEED & +12.81*RCAGE*SPEED AVGVTFT(Z+2)=0.087381-0.00344*VCL-0.00177*SR+0.01281*BASRAD +0.035567*SPEED+0.000324*VCL*VCL+0.000243*SR*SR -0.00022*BASRAD*BASRAD+0.000018*BCLOAD*BCLOAD +0.000018*RCAGE*RCAGE+0.000018*CSRM*CSRM +0.000225*SPEED*SPEED+0.000622*VCL*SR -0.00051*VCL*BASRAD-0.00224*VCL*SPEED -0.00027*SR*BASRAD-0.00118*SR*SPEED+0.005183*BASRAD*SPEED
& & & & & &
PUPL(Z+2)=852.63-20.62*R1+610.82*R2+52.84*B+867.23*SPEED & +9.81*R1*R1 & +106.13*R2*R2+17.36*B*B+170.13*SPEED*SPEED-11.15*R1*R2 & -11.11*R1*B-14.22*R1*SPEED+38.61*R2*B+473.82*R2*SPEED & +39.98*B*SPEED PUOF(Z+2)=1.8751-0.2157*R1+0.8629*R2+0.75*B+0.9708*SPEED & -0.0002*R1*R1-0.0002*R2*R2+0.0748*B*B+0.0003*SPEED*SPEED & -0.0834*R1*B-0.1084*R1*SPEED+0.3334*R2*B+0.4334*R2*SPEED & +0.375*B*SPEED 1526 CONTINUE PDVPLSP=320.67-24.25*SPEED*2+49.39*VCL+25.19*SR & +14.77*BASRAD+8.48*BCLOAD+12.81*RCAGE PDVFTSP=0.035567+0.000225*SPEED*2-0.00224*VCL & -0.00118*SR+0.005183*BASRAD
AVGBP=0.0 AVGPP=0.0 AVGBBF=0.0 AVGMBF=0.0 DEVTOLBP=0.0 DEVTOLBF1=0.0 DEVTOLBF2=0.0 AVGBP=AVGBP+BPOW(2) AVGPP=AVGPP+PPOW(2) AVGBBF=AVGBBF+BBFLM(2)
309
AVGMBF=AVGMBF+BMFLM(2) DO 1793 Z=1,3 DEVTOLBP=DEVTOLBP+DEVBPOW(Z)/3 DEVTOLBF1=DEVTOLBF1+DEVBBFT(Z)/3 DEVTOLBF2=DEVTOLBF2+DEVMBFT(Z)/3 DEVVPLSP=ABS(PDVPLSP)*SIGSP DEVVFTSP=ABS(PDVFTSP)*SIGSP DEVPUPLSP=ABS(PDPUPLSP)*SIGSP DEVPUOFSP=ABS(PDPUOFSP)*SIGSP 1793 CONTINUE C2=BMFLM(1) C3=BMFLM(3) SPEED=0 PBPSP=1.02568+0.29301*SPEED*2+0.09006*BDIAM*SPEED-0.02161*BCLR & +0.08781*MDIAM -0.05687*MCLR*+0.0293*BORE PBBFSP= -0.0374-0.1655*SPEED*2+0.0019*BDIAM-0.0609*BCLR & -.0141*SPEED*BORE PMBFSP=0.054-0.2971*SPEED*2+0.0035*MDIAM-0.0163*MCLR & -0.0634*BORE PPPSP=1.1192+0.12439*SPEED*2+0.00107*RW1 & +0.00538*RO1+0.00507*RW2+0.04132*RO2+0.01701*B+0.02264*RS & +0.11926*OT SIGSP=1/3.0 DEVBPSP=ABS(PBPSP)*SIGSP DEVBBFSP=ABS(PBBFSP)*SIGSP DEVMBFSP=ABS(PMBFSP)*SIGSP DEVPPSP=ABS(PPPSP)*SIGSP TOLD= ((TOLBD**2) +(TOLMD**2)) TOLC= ((TOLBC**2) +(TOLMC**2)) DEVTOL=DEVTOLBP+DEVTOLBF1+DEVTOLBF2 PRINT *, '______________OUTPUTS_____________' PRINT *, AVGBP, ' = AVGBP' PRINT *,AVGPP, ' = AVGPP' PRINT *, AVGBBF, ' = AVGBBF' PRINT *, AVGMBF,'=AVGMBF' PRINT *,DEVTOLBP,'= DEVTOLBP' PRINT *, DEVTOLBF1, '= DEVTOLBF1' PRINT *, DEVTOLBF2, '= DEVTOLBF2' PRINT *, TOLD,'=TOLD' PRINT *, TOLC,'=TOLC' PRINT *, DEVBPSP, '=DEVBPSP' PRINT *, DEVBBFSP, '=DEVBBFSP'
310
PRINT *, DEVMBFSP,'=DEVMBFSP' PRINT *, DEVPPSP, '=DEVPPSP' PRINT *,AVGVTPL,'=AVGVTPL' PRINT *,AVGVTFT, ' = AVGVTFT' PRINT *,DEVVPLSP, ' = DEVVPLSP' PRINT *, DEVVFTSP,'=DEVVFTSP' PRINT *,PUOF1, ' = puof1' PRINT *,PUOF2, ' = puof2' PRINT *,PUOF3, ' = puof3' PRINT *,DEVPUPLSP, ' = DEVPUPLSP' PRINT *, DEVPUOFSP,'=DEVPUOFSP'
C C C C C
3.0 READ CONSTRAINTS AND GOALS FROM OUTPUT FILE IF (IPATH .EQ. 1 .OR. IPATH .EQ. 2) THEN CON1 CONSTRAINT. CONSTR(1) = AVGBBF/.5 - 1.0 CONSTR(2) = AVGMBF/1.0 -1.0 CONSTR(3)=C2/1.0 -1.0 CONSTR(4)=C3/1.0 -1.0 CONSTR(5) = AVGVTFT/.06 - 1.0 CONSTR(6) = PUOF1*60/27 -1.0 CONSTR(7) = PUOF2*60/55 -1.0 CONSTR(8) =PUOF3*60/66 -1.0 END IF AVGBP=AVGBP*(1-c*H1)-.83 AVGPP=AVGPP*(1-c*H2)-1.51 AVGBBF=AVGBBF*(1-c*H3)-.68 AVGMBF=AVGMBF*(1-c*H4)-1.16 AVGVTPL=AVGVTPL*(1-c*H5)-569.0 AVGVTFT=AVGVTFT*(1-c*H6)-0.1055
C C
4.0 EVALUATE NON-LINEAR GOALS IF (IPATH .EQ. 1 .OR. IPATH .EQ. 3) THEN GOALS(1) = AVGBP/.65 GOALS(2) = AVGPP/1.4 GOALS(3) = AVGBBF/.68 GOALS(4)= AVGMBF/1.16 GOALS(5) =DEVTOL/3E-3 -1.0 GOALS(6) = DEVBPSP/.304 -1.0 GOALS(7)=DEVBBFSP/6E-3 -1.0 GOALS(8)=DEVMBFSP/6E-3 -1.0 GOALS(9)=DEVPPSP/.33 -1.0 GOALS(10) = AVGVTPL/569.0 GOALS(11) = AVGVTFT/.1055
311
GOALS(12)=DEVVPLSP/83.3 -1.0 GOALS(13)= DEVVFTSP/.0125 - 1.0 GOALS(14) = AVGPUP/.7 GOALS(15)= DEVPUPLSP/.1 -1.0 GOALS(16) = P1 - 1.0 GOALS(17)=P2 -1.0 GOALS(18)= P3 - 1.0 GOALS(19) = P4 - 1.0 GOALS(20) = P5 - 1.0 GOALS(21)= P6- 1.0 GOALS(22) = TOLD/4.1E-5 -1.0 GOALS(23) = TOLC/.033 - 1.0 END IF C C C C
5.0 RETURN TO CALLING ROUTINE RETURN END
SUBROUTINE USRLIN (MLINCG, NDESV, NLINCO, NLINGO, NOUT, & DESVAR, COFLIN, RHSLIN) C C*** DUMMY ROUTINE. NOT USED. C INTEGER MLINCG, NDESV, NLINCO, NLINGO, NOUT REAL DESVAR(NDESV), COFLIN(MLINCG,NDESV), RHSLIN(NLINCO+NLINGO) C C RETURN END
C.1.2 Data File for Engine Compromise DSP

PTITLE : Problem Title, User Name and Date DESIGN OF AN ENGINE POWER TRAIN BHARADWAJ RANGARAJAN NUMSYS : Number of system variables: real,boolean 30 0 SYSVAR : System variable information BDIAM 1 1.0 3.0 2.0 : BCLR 2 1.0 3.0 2.0 : MDIAM 3 1.0 3.0 2.0 : MCLR 4 1.0 3.0 2.0 : B 5 1.0 3.0 2.0 :
312
RS 6 1.0 RW1 7 1.0 RO1 8 1.0 RW2 9 1.0 RO2 10 1.0 OT 11 1.0 VCL 12 1.0 SR 13 1.0 BASRAD 14 1.0 BCLOAD 15 1.0 RCAGE 16 1.0 CSRM 17 1.0 R1 18 1.0 R2 19 1.0 B 20 1.0 TOLBD 21 1.0 TOLMD 22 1.0 TOLBC 23 1.0 TOLMC 24 1.0 H1 25 1.0 H2 26 1.0 H3 27 1.0 H4 28 1.0 H5 29 1.0 H6 30 1.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 : 2.0 :
NUMCAG : Number of constraints and goals 0 8 0 0 23 : nlinco,nnlinq,nnlequ,nlingo,nnlgoa ACHFUN : Achievement function 1 : level 1 30 : (+3,.045) (-3,.045) (+4,.045) (-4,.045) (+5,.045) (-5,.045) (+7,.045) (-7,.045) (+8,.045) (-8,.045) (+1,.045) (+2,.045) (-6,.045) (+6,.045) (+9,.045) (-9,.045) (-10,.045) (-11,.045) (-12,.045) (-13,.045) (-14,.045) (-15,.045) (-16,.045) (-17,.045) (-18,.045) (-19,.045) (-20,.045) (-21,.045) (-22,0.45) (-23,.045) STOPCR : Stopping criteria 1 0 100 0.005 0.01 : perfm cal, prt intereslts, Mcyles,sta dev, sta var NLINCO : Names of nonlinear constraints AVGBBF 1 : AVGMBF 2 : C2 3 : C4 4 : AVGVTFT 5: PUOF1 6 : PUOF2 7 : PUOF3 8 :
313
NLINGO : Names of the nonlinear goals AVGBP 1 : AVGPP 2 : AVGBBF 3 : AVGMBF 4 : DEVTOL 5 : DEVBPSP 6 : DEVBBFSP 7 : DEVMBFSP 8 : DEVPPSP 9 : AVGVTPL 10 : AVGVTFT 11 : DEVVPLSP 12 : DEVVFTSP 13 : AVGPUP 14 : DEVPUPLSP 15 : H1 16: H2 17 : H3 18 : H4 19 : H5 20 : H6 21 : TOLD 22: TOLC 23 : ALPOUT : Output Control 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 USRMOD : User module flags 1 0 0 0 OPTIMP : Optimization parameters -0.05 0.5 0.0005 : VIOLIM, REMO, STEP ADPCTL 1 ENDPRB :**STOP reading the data file at this point**
314
C.2 CONVERGENCE PLOTS OF DESIGN VARIABLES In Section 5.5.1 as a validation strategy the convergence of the objective function from different starting points is presented. As a continuation of that discussion, convergence history of design factors of different subsystems is presented here. The convergence of design variables helps identify different regions in the design space that are equally good and also verify if the optimum obtained by exercising the ALP algorithm is global. The convergence history of the variables is presented for all the formulations (except pump, for which only the crisp model is exercised) as a method of validating the different solution models. The results presented here correspond to the Archimedian formulation (where all goals are rated equally) and in case of the fuzzy and Bayesian formulation a c value of 0.05 is used. The three starting points correspond to the high, nominal and low values of the design variables. No feasibility criterion has been considered in choosing these points and hence these starting points may not lie in the feasible design region. But we are interested only in the final solution to which the algorithm converges for different starting points.
315
C.2.1 Convergence History for Bearing Subsystem Fuzzy compromise DSP
Convergence of BCLR from 3 different starting points

Figure C.1: Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
Convergence of MCLR from three different starting points.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St pt 2 St pt 3.
Figure C.2: Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP 316

Figure C.3: Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
Convergence of MCLR (microns) from 3 different starting points

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 Iteration no. 6 8 10
St pt 1 St pt 2 St pt 3.
Figure C.4: Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
317

Figure C.5: Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
Convergence of MCLR from 3 different starting points

Figure C.6: Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
318
C.2.2 Convergence History for Piston Subsystem Fuzzy compromise DSP
Convergence of B (Bore) from 3 different starting points

86 84 82 80 78 76 74 0 2 4 6 8 10 St. Pt 1 St. pt 2. St. pt .3
Iteration no.
Figure C.7: Convergence of BORE From 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
319
Convergence of OT from 3 different starting points

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 St. Pt 1 St. pt 2. St. pt .3
Figure C.8: Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
Convergence of RW1 from 3 different starting points

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0 2 4 Iteration no. 6 8 10 St. Pt 1 St. pt 2. St. pt .3
Figure C.9: Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
320
Bayesian compromise DSP
Convergence of B from 3 different starting points

86 84 82 80 78 76 74 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St. pt. 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.10: Convergence of BORE From 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt 3.
321
Figure C.11: Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St. pt. 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt.3
Figure C.12: Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
Crisp compromise DSP
322
Convergence of B from 3 different starting points

85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.13: Convergence of BORE from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St. pt. 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.14: Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP 323

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.15: Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
324
C.2.3 Convergence History for Valve-train Subsystem Fuzzy compromise DSP

Convergence of VCL from three different starting points.
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 Iteration no. St. pt. 1 st. pt. 2 st. pt. 3
Figure C.16: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
325
Convergence of SR from three different starting points

50 45 40 St. pt 1 35 30 25 20 0 2 4 Iteration no. 6 8 10 St. pt 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.17: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP
Bayesian compromise DSP

Convergence of VCL from 3 different starting points
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.18: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
326
Convergence of SR from 3 different strting points

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 Iteration no. 10 15 St pt 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.19: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP
Crisp Formulation
Convergence of VCL from 3 different starting points
500 450 400 350 300 250 0 2 4 Iteration 6 8 10 St. pt 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.20: Convergence of VCL from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP 327
Convergence of SR from 3 different starting points

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 0 5 Iteration no. 10 St. pt 1 St. pt 2 St. pt 3.
Figure C.21: Convergence of SR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
C.2.4 Convergence history for oil pump subsystem Crisp compromise DSP
328
30 29.5 29 28.5 28 27.5 27 26.5 26 25.5 25 1 3 5 Iteration no. 7 9 St. pt 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.22: Convergence of R1 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
60 55 50 St. pt 1 45 40 35 30 1 3 5 Iteration no. 7 9 St. pt. 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.23: Convergence of R2 from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
329
15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 1 3 5 Iteration no. 7 9 St. pt 1 St. pt. 2 St. pt. 3
Figure C.24: Convergence of B from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP
330
C.3 BEARING COMPROMISE DSP FOR INVESTIGATING TOLERANCE DESIGN As mentioned in Section 5.4.2, to investigate the trade off between tolerance design and robustness to manufacturing tolerances on the bearing dimensions a compromise DSP involving the bearing subsystem alone is formulated and solved. The mathematical formulation of the bearing compromise DSP is shown in Figure C.25. No uncertainty parameters are included in this formulation as the primary focus in this study is on trade-off in tolerance design. The different design scenarios investigated are summarized in Table C.1 and the results (bearing design specifications) are listed in Table C.2. The results include the tolerances and the deviation of the responses due to the tolerances and the trade off between the two is evident.
331
GIVEN ?? Control, noise and state factors for bearings (Tables 4.1) ?? Response surface equations for bearings ?? Design requirements for bearings (Section 4.1) FIND ?? Design variables ? Bearings: BDIAM, BCLR, MDIAM, MCLR, TOLBC, TOLBD, TOLMC, TOLMD ?? Deviation variables : d ? ,d ? , i =1..11., d ? .d ? ? 0 i i i i SATISFY ?? Constraints
BBFLMTHK ? 0.5 microns MBFLMTHK ? 1.0 microns
?? Goals
? BPOWLOS ? 0.60 ? ? ? d 1 ? d1 ? 0 0.60 ? BBFLMTHK ? 0.75 ? ? d2 ? d ? ? 0 2 0.75 ? MBFLMTHK ? 1.35 ? d ? ? d? ? 0 3 3 1.35 ? BPOWLOS SPEED ? ? ? d 4 ? d 4 ? 1.0
0.1
? BPOWLOS
tolerances
? d7 ? d 7 ? 0
? ?
? BBFLMTHK tolerances ? d 8 ? d 8 ? 0
? MBFLMTHK tolerances ? d ? ? d ? ? 0 9 9
2 2 (TOLBD) ? (TOLMD) 5000 2 2 (TOLBC) ? (TOLMC)
? ? d 10 ? d10
? 1.0
? BBFLMTHK SPEED
0.01
? d5
? d5
? 1.0
72
? ? d 11 ? d 11
? 1.0
? MBFLMTHK SPEED
0.01
? ? d 6 ? d ? ? 1.0 6
MINIMIZE: Deviation Function, Z Z ? F(f1 (d1? , d ? )........f1(d ? , d ? )) 1 k k
preemptive formulation (lexicographic minimum)
k ? 1..11
Figure C.25: Mathematical Formulation of Bearing Compromise DSP for Tolerance Design
332
Table C.1: Design Scenarios Investigated For The Bearing Compromise DSP Scenario 1 Priority level 1 1. Mean on target of BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK 2. Minimize deviation of BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK 3. Mean on target BPOWLOS 4. Minimize deviation of BPOWLOS 1. Tolerance design goals Priority level 2 1. Tolerance design goals
Scenario 2
1. Mean on target of BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK 2. Minimize deviation of BBFLMTHK and MBFLMTHK 3. Mean on target BPOWLOS 4. Minimize deviation of BPOWLOS
Scenario 3
All goals in same priority level
333
Table C.2: Design Specifications from Bearing Compromise DSP. Design Factors BDIAM(mm) BCLR(micron) MDIAM(mm) MCLR(micron) TOLBD(micron) TOLMD(micron) TOLBC(micron) TOLMC(micron) ? BBFLMTHK (microns)
(Due to tolerances)
Scenario 1 40.04 65.73 54.23 36.05 49.70 49.70 3.62 2.00 1.5e-4 (2000rpm) 1.4e-3 (4000rpm) 3.5e-4 (6000rpm) 2.3e-3 (2000rpm) 3.9e-3(4000rpm) 1.54e-3(6000rpm) 1.6e-3 (2000rpm) 1.8e-3 4000rpm) 2.5e-3(6000rpm)
Scenario 2 41.90 70.00 52.03 31.45 50.00 50.00 6.0 6.00 1.2e-2 (2000rpm) 1.6e-2(4000rpm) 3.4e-26000rpm) 1.5e-2(2000rpm) 1.4e-2(4000rpm) 2.1e-2(6000rpm) 1.7e-2 (2000rpm) 3.1e-2(4000rpm) 5.6e-2(6000rpm)
Scenario 3 41.40 69.85 52.07 36.31 50.00 50.00 2.00 2.80 1.2e-2(2000rpm) 1.6e-2(4000rpm) 3.4e-2(6000rpm) 5.8e-3 (2000rpm) 6.4e-3(4000rpm) 7.5e-3 (6000rpm) 5.4e-3(2000rpm) 4.2e-2(4000rpm) 5.6e-3(6000rpm)
? MBFLMTHK (microns)
(Due to tolerances)
? BPOWLOS (kW)
(Due to tolerances)
334

Robust Concurrent Design of Engine Lubricated Components

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Robust Concurrent Design of Engine Lubricated Components

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ROBUST CONCURRENT DESIGN OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINE LUBRICATED COMPONENTS

A Thesis Presented to the Academic Faculty

Georgia Institute of Technology

ROBUST CONCURRENT DESIGN OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINE LUBRICATED COMPONENTS

_________________________________ Ward Winer Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering

LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES SUMMARY NOMENCLATURE

XV XXXII XXXII XXI

1.3.1 Problem Statement and Definition of the Case Study

115 116 119 121 123

125 132 137 140 141 143 146

150 150 155

216 222 228 229

299 307 310 311 314 319 322

C.3 BEARING COMPROMISE DSP FOR INVESTIGATING TOLERANCE DESIGN324

Top Level Specifications for Piston for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................195

Top Level Specifications for Valve-train for a Crisp Compromise DSP...................................................................................................195

Table 5.12: Table 5.13: Table 5.14: Table 5.15:

Results for Piston Subsystem for Different c Values in a Fuzzy DSP.........................................................................................218

Results for Valve Subsystem for Different Values c in a Bayesian DSP.....................................................................................221

Table 5.21: Table 5.22:

Table 5.23: Table 5.24:

Table A.1: Table A.2: Table A.3: Table C.1:

Design Specifications from Bearing Compromise DSP. ........................327

Figure 2.2: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4:

Figure 2.5: Figure 2.6:

Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3: Figure 3.4: Figure 3.5: Figure 3.6:

Figure 3.7: Figure 3.8:

Figure 3.14: Figure 3.15:

Figure 5.5: Figure 5.6:

Figure 5.20: Figure 5.21: Figure 5.22:

Figure 5.23: Figure 6.1:

Figure A.1: Figure A.2:

Pareto Plot for BPOWLOS ................................................................269 Pareto Plot for PPOWLOS.................................................................270

Figure A.3: Figure B.1:

Figure B.5: Figure B.6:

Figure B.8: Figure B.9:

Figure B.17: Figure B.18:

Figure B.20: Figure B.21:

Figure B.23: Figure B.24:

Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................312

Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Bayesian Compromise DSP..........................................................312

Convergence of BCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................313

Convergence of MCLR from 3 Different Starting Points in a Crisp Compromise DSP...............................................................313

Convergence of OT from 3 Different Starting Points in a Fuzzy Compromise DSP..................................................................314

Convergence of RW1 from 3 Different Starting Points

DINLET LINLET S OILFR PUPOWLOS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN DESIGNING LARGE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

RCEM: A Design Framework for System Level Design (Section 1.2.2)

Modeling Large Systems (Section 1.2.3)

Incorporating Robustness (Section 1.2.1)

Modeling Uncertainty (Section 1.2.4)

How to address the question?

Guiding Paradigm: Desiging Open Engineering Systems

Principal Research Question

Problem Significance and Motivation (Section 1.1)

Why address the question?

Figure 1.1: Primary Research Question and Chapter 1 Structure

A typical energy distribution in an automobile engine is shown in Figure 1.2.

Cylinder cooling 29%

Figure 1.2: Typical Energy Distribution in an Automobile Engine (Sorab, 1997)

Piston Rings 26%