In an effort to increase customization for today’s highly competitive global markets, many companies are looking to product families to increase product variety and shorten product lead-times while reducing costs. The key to a successful product family is the common product platform around which the product family is derived. Building on our previous work in product family design, we introduce a product family penalty function (PFPF) in this paper to aid in the selection of common and scaling parameters for families of products derived from scalable product platforms. The implementation of the PFPF utilizes the powerful physical programming paradigm to formulate the problem in terms of physically meaningful parameters. To demonstrate the proposed approach, a family of electric motors is developed and compared against previous results. We find that the PFPF enables us to properly balance commonality and performance within the product family through the judicious selection of the common parameters that constitute the product platform and the scaling parameters used to instantiate the product family.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
production control, programming, design engineering, electric motors, cost optimal control
Topics:
Computer programming, Design, Motors, Optimization, Preferences
1.
Wheelwright, S. C., and Clark, K. B., 1995, Leading Product Development, Free Press, New York.
2.
Aboulafia
,
R.
,
2000
, “
Airbus Pulls Closer to Boeing
,”
Aerosp. Am.
,
38
(
4
), pp.
16
–
18
.
3.
Robertson
,
D.
, and
Ulrich
,
K.
,
1998
, “
Planning Product Platforms
,”
Sloan Manage. Rev.
,
39
(
4
), pp.
19
–
31
.
4.
Pine, B. J., II, 1993, Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
5.
Pine
, II,
J. B.
,
1993
, “
Mass Customizing Products and Services
,”
Planning Review
,
22
(
4
), pp.
6
6
(8).
6.
Ulrich
,
K.
,
1995
, “
The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm
,”
Research Policy
,
24
(
3
), pp.
419
–
440
.
7.
Simpson, T. W., Maier, J. R. A., and Mistree, F., 2001, Product Platform Design: Method and Application, Research in Engineering Design, 13:1 (2-22).
8.
Sabbagh, K., 1996, Twenty-First Century Jet: The Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777, Scribner, NY.
9.
Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1996, “Conceptual Design of a Family of Products Through the Use of the Robust Concepts Exploration Method,” 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, AIAA, Vol. 2, September 4–6, pp. 1535–1545.
10.
Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1999, “Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method to Facilitate the Design of a Family of Products,” Simultaneous Engineering: Methodologies and Applications (Roy, U., Usher, J. M., et al., eds.), Gordon and Brach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 247–278.
11.
Messac, A., Martinez, M. P., and Simpson, T. W., 2002, “Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming and the Product Platform Concept Exploration Method,” Engineering Optimization, Vol. 3, (in press).
12.
Messac
,
A.
,
1996
, “
Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Computational Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
34
(
1
), pp.
149
–
158
.
13.
Messac, A., 1994, “Physpro: A Matlab-based Physical Programming Software,” Optimal Systems, 18 Winchester Drive, Lexington, MA.
14.
Messac, A., Sundararaj, G. J., Tapetta, R. V., and Renaud, J. E., 1999, “The Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Non-Convex Pareto Frontiers,” Paper # AIAA-99-1211, 40th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, St. Louis, MO, April 12–15.
15.
Messac, A., “From the Dubious Construction of Objective Functions to the Application of Physical Programming,” AIAA J., AIAJAH(Exp. pub. Date, Jan. 2000).
16.
Messac, A., Gupta, S., and Akbulut, B., 1996, “Linear Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Complex Linear Systems,” Transactions on Operational Research, October, 8, pp. 39–59.
17.
Messac
,
A.
, and
Hattis
,
P.
,
1996
, “
Physical Programming Design Optimization for High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT)
,”
AIAA J.
33
(
2
), pp.
446
–
449
.
18.
Messac
,
A.
, and
Wilson
,
B.
,
1998
, “
Physical Programming for Computational Control
,”
AIAA J.
,
36
, pp.
219
–
226
.
19.
Messac, A., and Chen, X., 2000, “Visualizing the Optimization Progress in Real-Time Using Physical Programming,” Engineering Optimization Journal, Vol. 32, No. 5.
20.
Messac, A., Melachrinoudis, E., and Sukam, Cyriaque, P., 1999, “Physical Programming: A Mathematical Perspective,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, Paper No. AIAA 2000-0686.
21.
Messac, A., and Sundararaj, G., 1999, “A Robust Design Approach Using Physical Programming,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, Paper No. AIAA 2000-0562.
22.
Chapman, S. J., 1991, Electric Machinery Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York.
23.
Veinott, C. G., and Martin, J. E., 1986, Fractional and Subfractional Horsepower Electric Motors, McGraw-Hill, New York.
24.
Lehnerd, A. P., 1987, “Revitalizing the Manufacture and Design of Mature Global Products,” Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy (Guile, B. R. and Brooks, H., eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 49–64.
25.
G. S. Electric, 1997, “Why Universal Motors Turn on the Appliance Industry,” http://www.gselectric.com/products/univers14.asp
26.
Simpson, T. W., Maier, J. R. A., and Mistree, F., 1999, “A Product Platform Concept Exploration Model for Product Family Design,” Design Theory and Methodology—DTM’99, Las Vegas, Nevada, ASME, September 12–15, Paper No. DETC99/DTM-8761.
Copyright © 2002
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.