Send Orders for Reprints to reprints@benthamscience.

ae
The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, 9, (Suppl-1, M4) 27-47 27

The Open Automation and Control

Systems Journal
Content list available at: www.benthamopen.com/TOAUTOCJ/

DOI: 10.2174/1874444301709010027

RESEARCH ARTICLE
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach for
Mechatronic Product Development
Didier Casnerc,*, Rémy Houssina,b, Jean Renauda and Dominique Knittela,b
a
INSA de Strasbourg, Laboratoire du Génie de la Conception, 24 boulevard de la Victoire, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex,
France
b
Université de Strasbourg, UFR de Physique et Ingénierie, 15 rue du Maréchal Lefebvre, 67100 Strasbourg, France
c
University of Applied Sciences Offenburg (Germany), Laboratory of Product and Process Innovation, Germany

Received: October 30, 2016 Revised: February 15, 2017 Accepted: March 30, 2017
Abstract:
Objective:
This paper deals with the design and the optimization of mechatronic devices.

Introduction:
Comparing with existing works, the design approach presented in this paper aims to integrate optimization in the design phase of
complex mechatronic systems in order to increase the efficiency of this method.

Methods:
To solve this problem, a novel mechatronic system design approach has been developed in order to take the multidisciplinary aspect
and to consider optimization as a tool that can be used within the embodiment design process to build mechatronic solutions from a
set of solution concepts designed with innovative or routine design methods.

Conclusions:
This approach has then been applied to the design and optimization of a wind turbine system that can be implemented to
autonomously supply a mountain cottage.

Keywords: Mechatronics, Embodiment design, Multidisciplinary design optimization, Combinatorial optimization.

1. INTRODUCTION
Designing a product aims to translate a certain amount of information expressed as a need to a technical description
of a concrete solution that meets that need. In a very competitive economic context, companies should provide
innovative and efficient products while remaining competitive. To perform this, they should frequently renew their
product line and deal with even more constraints and more stringent standards, related to environment for example.
However, the design products are always more complex and have increasingly more functionalities that imply an
increasing level of invention [1] and integration of technologies from several fields. The evolution of devices like
aircrafts, smartphones and home automation devices exemplifies this statement.
It is within this context that mechatronic systems [2] appeared forty-five years ago. These systems are defined by
AFNOR [3] as an “approach aiming at the synergistic integration of mechanics, electronics, control theory, and
* Address correspondence to this authors at the University of Applied Sciences Offenburg (Germany), Laboratory of Product and Process Innovation,
Germany; Tel: +33 3 88 14 47 00; Fax: +33 3 88 14 47 99; E-mail: [email protected]

1874-4443/17 2017 Bentham Open

28 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

computer science within product design and manufacturing, in order to improve and/or optimize its functionality”. A
mechatronic system must then be able to perceive its environment, process the information, communicate and act on its
environment and should have a high level of integration in both the functional and physical viewpoints. Actors with
different and complementary skills should therefore collaborate in an efficient way to better satisfy the needs expressed
by the customer.
Based on [4, 5], a mechatronic system therefore involves at least four different modules (Fig. 1):

A “base structure”, which often consist of a mechanical structure or a material,

One or more actuators that can act a machine or a process to change its behavior or states,
One or more sensors to provide information on the current state of the machine that can be analyzed and
processed by an information processing device,
One or more information processing device, often a computer or an embedded system, analyze and process the
information given by the sensors and control the actuator to obtain the desired behavior. The control law
synthesis consists of the main part of these processing devices.

In the classical design process [6], tools such as TRIZ [1, 7, 8] are used to define solution concepts that are more or
less abstracted representations of the system. These concepts should then be concretized as technical solutions and then
as mechatronic devices. This translation is one of the more delicate stages of the design process as it relies on the
creativity of the designers and their capabilities to implement concepts into feasible solutions and to integrate them into
the final mechatronic product. This activity dealing with the embodiment design of mechatronic devices is the heart of
the work presented in this paper.
The embodiment design activity is confronted with a certain amount of conceptual, methodological and technical
barriers, mainly due to the lack of a viewpoint shared by all stakeholders [9] involved in the design or, later, the
evaluation of the solution. Then, the expressed needs associated with actual standards and laws often lead to the onset of
conflicting goals that can be difficult to solve for the designers.
Multidisciplinary designers can also lead to other difficulties related to the communication between them. Thus,
special attention should be given to the influence of the choices and the designers’ skills on the resulting solution, which
often leads to a non-optimized solution regarding its performances, its functionalities and its level of integration. The
abstraction level of the solution during this stage indeed implies that these solutions are expressed in an imprecise and
incomplete manner. But, the first decisions made the earliest in the development process have the strongest effect on the
efficiency of the final solution and may impact more than 70% of the global product life cycle cost [10 - 12].

Fig. (1). General structure of mechatronic systems [4].

The contribution presented in this paper deals with the use of optimization tools to build, using a semiautomatic
approach, mechatronic devices in order to systematize the choice of the best solutions for the desired performances
while reducing the influence choices and skills of the designers on these results. However, optimization is usually
placed too late in the design process and is limited to identification for optimal parameters in the detailed design. But,
placing one or more optimization phases during the phase of architectural development would increase the influence of
the optimization process because the decisions taken earlier in the process are those most impact on the performance
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 29

and cost of the life cycle of the product. Similarly, the use of optimization methods for influencing both the architecture
and the parameters of the system should also increase this impact.
This paper is structured in four parts. In the first part, a literature review is presented to identify the problems
implied by the integration of optimization in the embodiment design stage of mechatronic systems. Then, in the second
part, the contribution regarding the development of an approach to optimize and design mechatronic systems is then
detailed. The third part explains how the approach can be applied to an example case study. And finally, in the fifth
part, the contribution is summarized and possible improvements and outlook are exposed.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section presents a literature review of past contributions in the fields of the embodiment design, the design
optimization and finally the use of optimization as an embodiment design approach to improve the architecture and the
parameters of complex mechatronic or multidisciplinary devices.

2.1. Design Models

In 1977, two German professors, G. Pahl and W. Beitz [6] modeled the process used to design new products. This
representation has four steps:

The definition phase,

The conceptual phase which aims to propose abstract or technical concepts that may solve the requirements,
The embodiment step which should offer technological solutions to implement the proposed concepts,
The detailed design phase, which should help preparing (detailed drawings, manufacturing steps…) the
manufacturing phase of the product or its prototype, before placing it on the market.

On a sequential engineering process, tasks begin only if the previous one is already completed. For reasons of cost
and design time, this approach, after the sequential engineering was gradually abandoned in favor of concurrent
engineering (Fig. 2), where the several steps are done in parallel [13 - 15].

Fig. (2). Flow chart diagram of the concurrent engineering process [14].

With simultaneous engineering, tasks overlap; resulting in a gain of time can be devoted to other activities of the
design process and product development [16]. This vision of the engineering process, originally developed during
World War II [17], is still valid. In this section, we use the term “concurrent engineering” to refer to issues related to
competitive factors, concerns and constraints derived from downstream business process design and development [18].
One of the definitions of concurrent engineering, which stresses the importance of downstream activities in the process
of design and development [19] “Concurrent or simultaneous engineering is the study of factors associated with the life
30 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

cycle of the product during the design phase. These factors include product functionality, manufacture, assembly,
testing, maintenance, reliability [20], dismantling [21], safety [22].” This description is supplemented by other authors
stressing the parallelization of activities within the design and development processes [23] and interaction of business
actors [24]. The challenge of integrating all business and constraints life cycle of a product in its development phase, is
still relevant. In 2004, the Society of German Engineers (Verein Deutsche Ingenieure) has published a practical guide
[4] advocating the use of the V-cycle presented in (Fig. 3) for the systematic development of mechatronic systems. This
approach has been adopted by the mechatronic community and is one of the concurrent engineering approaches.

Fig. (3). V-cycle for the design of mechatronic systems [4].

This process has two successive phases [4, 25]:

The specification and design phase (“top-down”)

The integration and validation phase (“bottom-up”)

As part of our research works [26 - 28], we placed them in the context of concurrent engineering, especially around
the design cycle V, which has the advantage of being a recognized model by the mechatronic community.

2.2. Embodiment Design

This paragraph focuses on the embodiment design process defined by Pahl and Beitz [6] as the part in which the
design solution is developed starting from the principle solution or concept of the technical product. This step is
considered as particularly complex because many actions must be performed simultaneously; several steps should be
repeated at a higher level of information and additions or alterations in one area may have repercussions on the design
in other areas.
The classical embodiment approach, presented in [6], can be separated in three main steps:

The first step starts from the design concept and aims to develop preliminary solutions that meet the customer
requirements;
The second step to develop detailed solutions from the preliminary solutions designed in the first step.
After the preliminary solution is designed, evaluation and verification phases are performed to check the
solution regarding technical and economic criteria.

In this approach, the optimization is performed in the third step to eliminate the weaknesses of the solution designed
in the two previous steps. This means that the optimization is considered as a tool to improve and correct a solution, not
as a manner to computerize the design process of a system. This design process remains a manual process the designer
should perform.
However, the design process of mechatronic is particularly complex and several research works have been
performed to develop design support tools to make the designer’s task easier.
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 31

2.3. Mechatronic Design Support

2.3.1. Guideline for Mechatronic System Design (VDI 2206)

In 2004, the German Society of Engineers issues the VDI 2206 [4] guideline that is a functional modeling
methodology based on the V-model. The functional modeling methodology means that different methods are used to
define a model of any system by capturing and processing the information about its purpose and the functions of its
components to fulfill the purpose [29]. This VDI guideline represents a practice-oriented guideline for the systematic
development of mechatronic systems and consists of three elements [4] the V-model on the macro level, a general
problem-solving cycle on the micro level, and predefined process modules for handling recurrent working steps in the
development of mechatronic systems.
As presented in (Fig. 4), it also divides the mechatronic design process in four stages: the system design, the
domain-specific design, the system integration and the assurance of properties [29]. During the system design phase, a
cross-discipline solution concept is defined for the system. During the domain-specific design, several parallel smaller
design tasks are performed. The results regarding these tasks are integrated to the overall mechatronic system during the
system integration phase. Finally, the assurance of properties aims to ensure that the results of the system fulfill the
solution concept defined during the system design phase. If the system needs improvements, the design process is
repeated until the assurance of properties succeeds.
This VDI2206 provides a practice-oriented guideline for mechatronic system design which unifies the domain-
specific design more systematically [29] but it suffers from several drawbacks:

The interfaces among the subsystems of different design domains do not arouse enough attention in this
organizational method [29].
An explicit link between the different engineers does not exist.
The mechatronic system design process based on this guideline may involve an important number of iterations
to fit the requirements according to the assurance of properties step.
The mechatronic system is not explicitly optimized during the process.

To reduce the number of unnecessary iteration loops during the design process of complex mechatronic systems,
one another design method; the hierarchical design method is presented in the follow paragraph.

Fig. (4). VDI2206 guideline for mechatronic design [4].

2.3.2. Hierarchical Design Method

The hierarchical design method considers the integration problem of the different technologies of a mechatronic
device from the early design stages [30]. Mechatronic systems can be separated into domain-specific subsystems
32 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

characterized by a “model pillar” and only the first and highest level has an interface with the other pillars, the other
subsystems via the mechatronic coupling level (Fig. 5).

Fig. (5). Mechatronic system and model pillars [30].

Based on the four design domains [31] and the axiomatic design principles, the functional requirements of a given
model pillar is defined using several design parameters. In the hierarchical design model, one functional requirement at
level i can affect several functional requirements at level i+1 based on the design parameters. These design parameters
are classified in two categories: the internal parameters that are exclusively used at a local stage and the external
parameters that are shared between the different design levels (Fig. 6).

Fig. (6). Hierarchy of parameters [30].

The hierarchical design model has been proposed to address complex design tasks during the mechatronic
development phase. In these tasks, the discipline-specific design does not need to be fully integrated on the mechatronic
design level. By analyzing the interactions between the design parameters and the functional requirements, it enables an
easy qualification on how a product should be designed to reduce unnecessary iteration loops [29]. Different modeling
levels have therefore been proposed to reduce iteration loops [30] models based on characteristic diagrams and table
data, simple analytical model, finite-element model including nonlinear effects. These levels help reducing the number
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 33

of tasks the designer should perform and reducing the number of design parameters.
In [30], Hehenberger considers the optimization from the second level (simple analytical model) but it is reduced to
a search for optimal parameters of a parametric model which is not affected during the process, which classifies the use
of optimization as a tool to improve an already-designed system within the re-design phase which, as introduced in [10],
only has a limited effect on the results because it is constrained by the choices made during the development phase. In
the next subsection, the contributions regarding the use of optimization in design engineering are presented.

2.4. Optimization in Mechatronic Design

This subsection presents an overview of uses of optimization in mechatronic design engineering.

2.4.1. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)

Most the research works in mechatronic design optimization are focused on the research for multidisciplinary design
optimization methods. These methods [32 - 35] such as Multi Discipline Feasible, All-in-once or Collaborative
Optimization help the designer to consider the interaction between the different disciplines of a mechatronic device. The
different methods differs from the manner how these interactions are included during the optimization process or the
number of optimizers required during the process. For example, Multi Discipline Feasible and All-in-once methods are
considered as single level MDO approaches as it requires only one optimizer and they use subsystem evaluators or
analyzers to identify the behavior of the subsystems. The collaborative optimization exemplifies the multilevel methods
where subsystems are optimized once (local optimization) and then results of all the monodisciplinary subsystems are
integrated in the overall mechatronic system and a final optimization process is performed to integrate the interactions.

2.4.2. Uncertain MDO

As introduced in subsection I.2, the embodiment design phase aims to develop solution layouts starting from a set of
concepts. The resulting solution should then be represented as an imprecise and an incomplete manner. To ensure the
results of the final solution, at the end of the design process, will not be too different from the results obtained for the
solution layout, some tools and methods were developed to integrate uncertainties [36] in the design process. (Fig. 7)
presents two categories of uncertainty-based application: robustness based on six-sigma analysis methods and
reliability.

Fig. (7). Two categories of uncertainty-based design [36]: (a) uncertainty-based design domains and (b) robustness and reliability in
terms of probability density function.

These methods use stochastic probability laws and properties or Monte Carlo simulation methods to evaluate the
robustness or the reliability of the system. These methods are integrated in the classical MDO methods or in the
optimization problem (by defining robustness criteria for example).

2.5. Need of a Design Support Tool for Mechatronic Embodiment Design

In the previous paragraphs, MDO and uncertain MDO were introduced. These methods are used to take the
interaction between the different fields and subsystems during the optimization process. However these methods should
be classified as parametric optimization approaches that can only be used as a parameter identification tool for sizing
problem solving. This statement classifies MDO as a redesign process or as a tool used in detailed design phases to
34 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

improve the performances and the efficiency of an already-designed system.

To better improve the efficiency of the optimization process, an extension of MDO should be done so it may also
act on the structure or the architecture of the solution. In the problem considered in this paper, the optimization should
also be intended to the optimal design of mechatronic systems during the architectural development (embodiment).

3. CONTRIBUTION: THE NOVEL OPTIMIZATION INTEGRATED-DESIGN APPROACH

To improve the optimization so that it can be used as a design tools that can be integrated in a design support
methodology to improve the efficiency of mechatronic systems. In this section, the design approach that is the heart of
the contribution presented in this paper is developed. To solve the different problems presented in the previous sections,
a novel design approach to integrate optimization in the embodiment design process of mechatronic systems has been
developed.
Fig. 8 presents the global optimization integrated-design approach based on the VDI 2206 guideline. It contains four
main phases:
Optimized mechatronic
Needs and requirements solution layout

ion
Fun

Select mechatronic solution layouts

zat
Identify the needs
ctio

mi
pti
nal

do
Define global functions of the
an

an
overall system
aly

Evaluation and verification

ion
Identify optimal parameters of the
PH and p

int SE 3
sis

rat
mechatronic solution layouts
AS

eg
tem PHA
E 1 oblem

Define technical functions

r

ys
Define the design and optimization Integrate subsystem layouts into

s
defi

ic
problems mechatronic solution layouts

n
tro
nitio

a
ch
n

Me
Mechanical Mechanical
Mechanical Mechanical
technical subsystem
problem Concepts 1
solutions layouts

Actuation Actuation
Actuation Actuation
technical subsystem
problem Concepts
solutions layouts

Sensing Sensing
Sensing Sensing
technical subsystem
problem concepts
solutions layouts

Information Information Info. proc. Info. proc.

processing processing technical subsystem
problem concepts solutions layouts

Design and optimize subsystem layouts

PHASE 2
Subsystem layout design and optimization

Fig. (8). Optimization-integrated approach for embodiment mechatronic design.

In the first phase (“top-down”), the needs, the global and technical functions as well as the design and
optimization problems are identified and defined.
In the second phase aims to design and optimize subsystem layouts for each monodisciplinary component or
module from the overall mechatronic system.
In the third phase (“bottom-up”), the modules (designed during the second phase) are integrated into
mechatronic solution layouts. These solutions are then sized (parametric optimization) and best layouts are
selected and evaluated to ensure the results of the layout fit the expected requirements.

These phases are detailed in the following subsections.

3.1. Phase 1: Functional Analysis and Problem Definition

This phase aims to define the input data and functions that will be used during the design process. During this phase,
four actions are performed:

First the needs are identified;

Then global functions (service or constraint functions) are defined for the overall system;
Then these functions are decomposed into several technical functions;
Finally, the design and optimization problems are determined.

These actions are detailed afterwards.

An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 35

3.1.1. Step 1.1: Identify the Needs

The first step aims to identify the needs and the requirements that correspond to the objectives of the design process.
To perform these identifications, APTE1 method [37] or SysML2 [38] requirements diagram may be used. When using
APTE method, it leads to the definition of the bull chart to identify:

To whom is the product useful?

On who/what does the product have an effect?
For what purpose is the product prepared?

A stability study may be performed to identify why does the need exist and what may alter or suppress the need.

3.1.2. Step 1.2: Define Global Functions of the Overall System

Based on the identification of needs, a functional analysis is realized to define the global functions of the overall
system.
This analysis should define three different types of functions:

The main functions (service functions) that correspond to the functions those satisfy the expressed needs and are
the reasons why the product should be developed. For example, for a mobile phone, the main function will be
“phone from everywhere”.
The constraint functions that will principally have force the system characteristics and define conditions the
product must always verify. These functions will for example consist of constraints imposed by current
environmental and technical standards or laws, regarding the safety, the reliability or by the customer.
The complementary functions, that facilitate, improve or supplement the provided service but do not result in an
expressed demand by the customer. For the mobile phone, these functions correspond to the auxiliary functions
such as messaging services, music listening, …

The final solution will strongly depend on this analysis: most of the differences between two products having the
same main functions result from the constraint and complementary functions.

3.1.3. Step 1.3: Define Technical Functions

Once the global functions have been identified, these functions should be successively decomposed in a set of
technical functions and, finally elementary (monodisciplinary) functions using FAST [39 - 41] (Function Analysis
System Technique) method.

3.1.4. Step 1.4: Define the Design Specifications

Based on the global functions, the design specifications and the optimization problems may be defined by
identifying, for each function:

Criteria that can be used to evaluate the global function,

For each criterion, an expected quantitative or qualitative level is defined. This level represents the expected
target of the design process.
A tolerance level is also integrated to define the limits of acceptation of a solution. This tolerance level may be
used to identify which criteria (for example those related to safety) are more critical than the others.

In the first phase, the input data of the subsystem layout design and optimization phase have been defined and
identified. In the next subsection, the second phase related to the design of the modules and subsystems of the overall
mechatronic system is detailed.

3.2. Phase 2: Subsystem Layout Design and Optimization

Based on the global problem and the functional decomposition, monodisciplinary subproblems can be elaborated.

1
http://www.methode-apte.com

2
http://www.sysml.org
36 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

These subproblems can be related to the mechanical structure, the actuation, the sensing or the information
processing subsystem design. They also define the goals for the layout design process for each design
subproblem. (Fig. 9) presents the principle of the second phase from the optimization-integrated design
approach for mechatronic systems development. This phase involves four actions that will be detailed in the
following paragraphs:

Subproblem i

Concept i1 Concept i2 Concept in Concept definition

Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical

solution solution solution solution solution solution solution solution solution
Technical solutions definition
i11 i12 i1m i21 i22 i2m in1 in2 inm

Subsystem layout
Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem Subsystem design and optimization
layout iA layout iB layout iC layout iZ

Subsystem layout Subsystem layout evaluation

i and selection

Subsystem/ module i

Fig. (9). Subsystem layout design and optimization principle.

Following the subproblem definition, concepts that can be used to solve the problem are elaborated and designed
using either inventive or routine design methods.
These concepts should then be concretized. Using solution databases, technical solutions that realize defined
concepts are built. Case-Based Reasoning approaches may be considered to perform this action.
The technical solutions are then integrated into candidate subsystem layouts using combinatorial optimization
approaches. If the subproblem has more than one objective, the optimization process leads to a multiple number
of candidate layouts.
One or a few subsystems are selected using multicriteria analysis or decision-making approaches to remove
worst and outlier subsystem layouts.

3.2.1. Step 2.1: Concept Definition

In this step, the concepts or principles of solution should be defined. To do this, the designer has mainly two
options:

The first option reuses and adapts existing concepts. In order to determine these concepts, we can search these
concepts using FAST or, in the case the concepts does not sufficiently fit the specifications, case-based
reasoning can be used to define these concepts [42] by adding an adapting step, so as to modify and combine
concepts from a solution base to obtain a better concept.
The second option relies on the development of new concepts in the conceptual design phase, using inventive
design techniques, like the Theory for Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) [1].

In most cases, to reduce system design costs, reusing existing concepts (first option), rather than creating a new
concept (second option) is preferred. A contradiction is for example characterized by the fact that the improvement of
technical parameter degrades another technical parameter. From these contradictions, one of the options presented
above is used to define a set of operating principles that solve these contradictions. All of these operating principles
constitute the solution concept. These concepts include the ability to characterize the functionality of the system whose
structure must be designed to achieve these solution concepts.

3.2.2. Step 2.2: Definition of Technical Solutions

Once the concepts that solve the design problem are built, either by defining new concepts or reusing and adapting
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 37

existing concepts, the properly known design phase can be performed to build technical solutions for each function.
These solutions will subsequently form a subsystem of the overall mechatronic solution. To achieve this step, the case-
based reasoning approach is used to build technical solutions that realize the defined concept by reusing existing
solutions from a solution base. If required these solutions can be adapted to better fit the specifications or the design
goals. These solutions are presented using the morphological matrix, as shown in (Table 1), which synthetizes the
technical solution (TS) design process for each technical function or concept.
Table 1. Example of morphological matrix.

1 2 3 4 5 … m
Function 1 TS11 TS12 TS13 TS14
Function 2 TS21 TS22
…
Function n TSn1 TSn2 TSn3 TSn4 TSn5 … TSnm

3.2.3. Step 2.3: Optimization and Design of Subsystem Layouts

Following the design of technical solutions for the different functions and concepts, these solutions must then be
integrated in candidate homogeneous subsystems layout. To do this, the eventual dependencies and incompatibilities
between the solutions must be identified. This identification process uses the Design Structure Matrix (Table 2) to
easily synthetize these relations. To fill this matrix, the following principle can be used: +1 for dependence relations, 0
for independent solutions and -1 for incompatible solutions.
Table 2. Example of design structure matrix.

TS11 TS12 … TS14 TS21 TS22 … TSn1 TSn2 … TSnm

TS11 +1 -1
TS12
…
TS14 +1 +1
TS21 +1 -1
TS22
…
TSn1
TSn2 -1
… -1
TSn3

Based on this Design Structure Matrix, combination rules may be defined (Table 3).
Table 3. Dependency and incompatibility relations (A, B and C represent different technical solutions from the
morphological matrix).

Relationship Parallel Sequential Conditional Coupled

Dependency relations AB AB ABC AB
A A A A +1
B B +1 B +1 +1 B +1
Incompatibility relations AB AB ABC AB
A A A A -1
B B -1 B -1 -1 B -1

Based on the morphological matrix, if is the number of technical solutions that can be used to realize the function Fj,
then the number of possible combination C can be estimated as:
௡

‫ ܥ‬ൌ ෑ ݉௝ (1)
௝ୀଵ

If the number of solutions and/or functions becomes important, all these combination cannot be evaluated in a
manual manner and optimization tools should be considered to reduce the subsystem design process. To build the
38 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

subsystem layouts, stochastic optimization approaches, such as genetic algorithms can be considered to combine the
technical solutions and propose optimized subsystem layouts to the designer. Based on the characteristics of the
subproblems (number of objectives), more than one solution may be proposed.

3.2.4. Step 2.4: Subsystem Evaluation and Selection

In this step, the solutions are evaluated against technical and economic criteria. Then, decision support approaches,
such as Electre, Prométhée [43] can be apply to integrate designer performances in the process and select the best
solutions among those designed using the previous combinatorial optimization step.
In this phase, subsystem layouts have been designed and genetic algorithm approaches have been considered to
combine technical solutions in order to solve each monodisciplinary sub-problem. These subsystems should now be
integrated into the overall mechatronic system. This process is the heart of the third phase detailed in the next
subsection.

3.3. Phase 3: Mechatronic System Integration and Optimization

This phase aims to integrate the subsystem layouts, developed during the previous phase, to design candidate
solutions for the mechatronic system. This phase considers three steps that are detailed afterwards. The first step is
responsible of the integration process and lead to the development of candidate mechatronic solutions. The second step
aims to size the obtained mechatronic solution in order to identify optimal parameters of the solutions. The third and
final step evaluates and selects the best mechatronic solution regarding technical and economic criteria.

3.3.1. Step 3.1: Integrate Subsystem Layouts Into Mechatronic Solutions

The subsystem layout can be synthetized in the morphological matrix presented in (Table 4). Sm, Sa, Ss, Si
respectively correspond to the subsystem layouts for the mechanical, actuation, sensing and information processing part.
Table 4. Global morphological matrix for the overall mechatronic system.

1 2 3 4 5 … m
Mechanical structure Sm1 Sm2 Sm3 Sm4
Actuation Sa1 Sa2
Sensing Ss1 Ss2 Ss3
Information processing Si1 Si2 Si3 Si4 Si5 … Sim

Based on the morphological matrix, if is the number of technical solutions that can be used to realize the function Fj,
then the number of possible combination C can be estimated as:
As for the subsystem layout design process in phase 2, the Design Structure Matrix is used to identify relationships
between the different subsystems and combinatorial optimization approaches are used to combine the subsystems and
integrate them in global mechatronic solution layouts.

3.3.2. Step 3.2: Identify Optimal Parameters of the Mechatronic System Layouts
Parametric optimization is performed in parallel for each resulting mechatronic system to identify the optimal
parameters. The criteria and constraints from the global optimization problem are used to evaluate the solutions during
the optimization process.

3.3.3. Step 3.3: Select Mechatronic Solution Layouts

A final evaluation and selection process is performed upon resulting optimized mechatronic solution layouts. This
process should select the best solution regarding global technical and economic criteria defined in the first phase
(functional analysis and problem definition). The solution is finally evaluated during the fourth phase to ensure the
results of the system fulfill the defined needs and requirements. If the system needs improvements, the design process is
repeated until the evaluation process succeeds.

4. CASE STUDY: WIND TURBINE DESIGN

In the previous section, the global optimization-integrated design approach for mechatronic system development
and optimization were detailed and presented. In this section, the application of the presented approach to a case study
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 39

is exposed. This application deals with the development of a medium power wind turbine for autonomously supplying a
high mountain cottage closed to the “Petit Mont-Cenis” with electricity. This autonomy implies that the wind turbine
should meet the energy needs of the cottage without the need of external sources and without any connection to the
electricity grid. (Fig. 10) summarizes the application of our design approach to the case study. The three different
phases are exposed in next subsections.

Fig. (10). Application of the proposed approach to the design of a wind turbine.

4.1. Phase 1: Functional Analysis and Problem Definition

Considering the global design process regarding the development of a wind turbine to autonomously supply a
mountain cottage with electricity, the first phase has been performed together with the company in charge of the project
in order to express the objective, the constraints and the requirements of the design process.

4.1.1. Step 1.1: Identify the Needs

Starting from the need expressed by the client, functional analysis tools were considered to better identify the need
using the beast horn diagram. Using this diagram, we identified that the product should be useful for the inhabitant, the
host and the guests of the mountain cottage. This product does act on the cottage that is supplied with the produced
energy electricity and the electricity produced by converting the wind. The need expressed by customer is to design a
wind turbine to autonomously supply a mountain cottage with electricity.

4.1.2. Step 1.2: Define Global Functions of the Overall System

Once this need has been expressed, the external elements were first clarified before identifying the relationships
with the environment of the wind turbine. These relationships are then expressed as service and constraints functions
that constitute the functional architecture of the wind turbine. Using the octopus diagram, we identified the following
40 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

global functions of the wind turbine. Based on the need expressed in the previous step, we defined one main function
regarding the wind turbine that should “Convert kinetic energy of wind in electrical energy to supply the mountain
cottage”. It has been supplemented by several constraint functions expressing for example that the wind turbine must be
robust to wind, environmentally friendly, resistant to the meteorological conditions (rain, snow…).

4.1.3. Step 1.3: Define the Technical Functions

In this step, we decomposed the functions expressed in the previous step (step 1.2) to obtain sub-functions, then
technical and elementary functions. The main function of the design problem: “Autonomously supply the cottage with
electricity” has been developed in order to express sub-functions for the wind turbine (Fig. 11).

Fig. (11). Functional architecture of the wind turbine.

4.1.4. Step 1.4: Define the Design Specifications

Table 5 presents the evaluation criteria that have been set up along with levels expressing the expected target. These
evaluation criteria will be considered in the selection and evaluation process in order to qualify the satisfaction level of
one solution compared with the functional architecture defined in this phase. The flexibility levels set for each criterion
allows defining if the expressed level can be let unsatisfied and the associated acceptation levels: F0 defines the
criterion is not flexible and F3 that it is fully flexible.

Table 5. Expression of evaluation criteria and levels for the wind turbine.

Function Criteria Level Flexibility level

Mf: Convert kinetic energy of wind in electrical energy to Energy produced/stored by the 50,000 kWh per F1
supply the mountain cottage wind turbine day
Cost of energy < 0,10 € per kWh F1
Cf1: The wind turbine must be robust to wind Wind speed (m/s) > 35 m/s F1
Cf2: The wind turbine should be environmentally friendly. Emission of CO2 gas None F1
Cf3: The turbine should be resistant to the meteorological Temperature range - 30°C to + 50°C F0
conditions (rain, snow…) Hygrometry range 0% to 80% F0
Cf4: The turbine has to be respectful of safety standards and Reliability > 90% F0
legislation
Cf5: The turbine must allow autonomous supply of the cottage Autonomy time3 > 24 hours F0
without any other sources
Cf6: The turbine should be respectful of the mountain Risk for animals, birds None F1
ecosystem (birds)
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 41

4.2. Phase 2: Subsystem Layout Design and Optimization

During the first phase, the functional architecture of the wind turbine has been defined. The second phase aims
designing technical solutions. These technical solutions will then be integrated into subsystems using combinatorial
optimization tools. The obtained subsystems will later be integrated into the mechatronic system (phase 3). In this
phase, we focused on the concretization of the problem regarding the conversion of wind energy into mechanical torque
(function “Harness wind energy”). The process is similar for the five other functions.

4.2.1. Step 2.1: Concept Definition

However inventive concepts might be designed to solve the design problem or some of the subsystems using tools
such as TRIZ, we decided to consider reusing existing solution concepts as the concept design is not considered in this
paper. This concept search process allows us to define the concepts for the different technical functions presented in
(Table 6). For the function “Harness wind energy”, we expressed three solution concepts:

Table 6. Expression of technical solutions for the wind energy conversion subsystem.

Solution concept Technical Solution 1 Technical Solution 2

Use of blades and rotor to convert kinetic wind energy in rotational
Horizontal axis rotor Vertical axis rotor
mechanical torque
Maintain the turbine in high altitudes Tower Inflatable structure filled with helium gas
Position the turbine in high altitudes to get higher wind speeds Tower Cable

Use of blades and rotor to convert kinetic wind energy in rotational mechanical torque
Position the turbine in high altitudes to get higher wind speeds
Maintain the turbine in high altitudes

4.2.2. Step 2.2: Definition of Technical Solutions

Considering the functional architecture developed during the first phase, existing design concepts have been
identified using Case-Based Reasoning approach (step 2.1) and then concretized as technical solutions. These technical
solutions are presented in Table 5.
Table 6 presents the technical solutions we defined and result from the process aiming to concretize the functional
architecture of the subsystem. This search for technical solutions allows us defining solution candidates for two parts of
the subsystem design problem:

The first one related to the wind energy conversion to harness kinetic energy produced by the wind in
mechanical energy. Three solutions were retained in this step: the bladed horizontal axis rotor, the vertical axis
turbine and the high-altitude wind turbine.

The second one aims to support the turbine in order to stand the turbine at a high height from the ground. Two
solutions were obtained: the first one considers a rigid tower and the second one uses a cable.

4.2.3. Step 2.3: Optimization and Design of Subsystem Layouts

In this step, we aim designing layouts for the “Harness wind energy” function by combining the solution provided
in Table 7.
Table 7 presents the design structure matrix used to identify compatibilities between the different technical
solutions. (Fig. 12) shows how subsystem layouts can be defined by combining the solutions presented in the
morphological matrix (Table 6) and their compatibilities Table 7.

3
The autonomy time expresses how many time the cottage can be supplied without wind producing energy
42 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

Fig. (12). Diagram showing connection rules between the different technical solutions considering their compatibilities.

Table 7. Design Structure Matrix (DSM) for “Harness wind energy” function.

Technical solutions A B C D E
A Horizontal axis rotor with blades 0 1 0 0
B Vertical axis rotor with blades 0 0 0 0
C Inflatable structure filled with helium gas 0 0 0 1
D Tower 1 1 0 0
E Cable 1 0 1 0

Based on the morphological and the design structure matrices we identified three possible combinations:

The use of a vertical axis turbine and a tower to raise the turbine;
A horizontal axis turbine with a tower, like classical wind turbine structures.
A horizontal axis turbine and an inflatable structure filled with gas connected to the ground by a cable. The
helium gas is lighter than air and therefore allows to maintain the turbine in the air, eventually in high-altitude
where the wind speed more important than on the ground floor.

4.3. Phase 3: Mechatronic System Integration and Optimization

Once subsystem layouts have been designed and optimized during the previous phase, these subsystems will now be
integrated into mechatronic system layouts. Candidate mechatronic systems are then evaluate against the global design
problem. Subsystem layouts resulting from phase 2 are integrated in candidate mechatronic solutions.

4.3.1. Step 3.1: Integrate Subsystem Layouts into Mechatronic System Layouts
The application of the second phase to the six sub-problems allowed us to define candidate solutions for each
feature of the wind turbine. In this step, we aim to integrate the subsystem layouts defined in (Table 8) in order to build
architectures for the wind turbine.
Table 8. Candidate subsystem layouts for the several technical functions defined in FAST diagram (Fig. 11).

Technical functions Subsystem layout 1 Subsystem layout 2 Subsystem layout 3

Convert wind energy into
TF1 Horizontal axis + tower Vertical axis + tower High-altitude wind turbine
mechanical energy
TF2 Adapt the torque/velocity Simple gearbox Planetary gearbox
Asynchronous machine with hyper-
TF3 Convert into electricity Synchronous machine Asynchronous machine
synchronous cascade
TF4.1 Adapt electricity Power inverter Rectifier Chopper
TF4.2 Store electricity Batteries Supercapacitors
TF4.3 Optimize supplied energy PI/PID Velocity controller H∞ controller Maximum Power Point Tracker

In accordance with the objectives of the design problem, we first analyzed the compatibilities between the different
technical solutions in order to express combination rules. (Table 9) presents an excerpt of the Design Structure Matrix
that summarizes this analysis. Based on matrices, we combined technical solutions according to their compatibilities in
order to build candidate architectures for wind turbine layout Fig. 13.
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 43

Fig. (13). Extract of wind turbine system architectures.

Table 9. Extract of the design structure matrix presenting compatibilities between the technical solutions.

Subsystem layouts A B C E F G H I J K L
A Horizontal axis rotor with blades 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
B High-Altitude wind turbine 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
C Vertical axis rotor with blades 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
E Planetary gearbox 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
F Synchronous machine 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
G Asynchronous machine with hyper-synchronous cascade 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
H Power inverter 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
I Chopper 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
J Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
K PI/PID controllers 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
L Maximum Power Point Tracker 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

4.3.2. Step 3.2: Identify Optimal Parameters of the Mechatronic System Layouts
This optimization process has been performed using ModeFrontier to solve the integration problem. (Fig. 14)
presents the results regarding the integration of the subsystems from the (Table 8) into mechatronic solutions. These
results have been obtained using NSGA-II optimization algorithm.
Fig. 14a compares the mechanical power produced by the turbine and the blade radius. The colored area shows the
solutions that can be considered to produce more than 1kW with blade radius varying between 1 and 3.5 meters. Three
curves are displayed, one for each technical solution for the mechanical structure. The high-altitude rotor seems to be
the solution that is the most powerful as the wind speed in high-altitude is more important and therefore produces more
energy.
Fig. 14b compares the centrifugal force against the blade radius. This force is very important while designing wind
turbine. An important centrifugal force intensity may result of a dislocation of the blades from the rotor. This graph
shows two groups of curves as this force moreover depends on the material weight. Increasing the blade radius would
lead to an increase of the centrifugal force with a parabolic form.
Fig. 14c evaluates the mechanical power produced by the turbine against the mass of the blades. This graph is
strongly correlated with the graph shown in 15a as the mass depends from the blade radius but also with the density of
the material used to manufacture the blades.
Fig. 14d compares the mechanical power and the angular velocity of the blades. This figure shows that increasing
the mechanical power produced implies a reduction of the angular velocity. The power efficiency is indeed maximized
when the ratio is constant [44]. That means that if the blade radius is increasing, than the angular velocity should
decrease to maintain a maximal efficiency.
44 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. (14). Optimization results regarding the wind turbine design problem.

5. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

In this paper, we presented a novel design methodology to better improve and optimize the functionalities and
performances of mechatronic devices from the design stage. This methodology moreover focuses on the embodiment
design process that aims to propose a mechatronic solution layout from a set of design concepts. This approach has then
been successfully applied to the optimal design of a wind turbine system to autonomously supply a mountain cottage.
The proposed approach needs to be characterized on complex mechatronic devices, such as unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV), and weaknesses of our approach need to be identified. This approach is however limited by technological
advances in computer software to fully automate the proposed design process.
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 45

Future works will be conducted in the development of a specific software tool to increase the efficiency of the
proposed approach and indexing solutions from existing solution bases available on the Internet and in patents. This
extraction of knowledge can indeed help designer in developing more inventive products and integrating solutions from
diverse technologies.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Declared None.
REFERENCES

[1] G. Altshuller, L. Shulyak, and S. Rodman, 40 Principles: Triz Keys to Innovation., Technical Innovation Center, 2002.
[2] T. Mori, Mecha-tronics., Yaskawa Internal Trademark Application, 1969.
[3] AFNOR, "NF E01-010: Mechatronics - Vocabulary," ed, 2008.
[4] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI 2206 - Entwicklungsmethodik für mechatronische Systeme (design methodology for mechatronic systems),
2004.
[5] R. Dumitrescu, "Entwicklungssystematik zur Integration kognitiver Funktionen in fortgeschrittene mechatronische Systeme", PhD Thesis,
Fakultät Maschinenbau,, University of Paderborn, Paderborn (Germany), 2010.
[6] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K-H. Grote, Engineering Design: A systematic approach, 3rd edition ed. Springer, 2007.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2]
[7] D. Cavallucci, "A research agenda for computing developments associated with innovation pipelines", Computers in Industry, vol. 62, no. 5,
pp. 377-383, 2011.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.12.002]
[8] D. Cavallucci, F. Rousselot, and C. Zanni, "An ontology for TRIZ", In: >ETRIA World TRIZ Future Conference 2010, Bergamo, 2011.
[9] M. Törngren, A. Qamar, M. Biehl, F. Loiret, and J. El-khoury, "Integrating viewpoints in the development of mechatronic products",
Mechatronics, 2013.
[10] F. Phillips, and R. Srivastava, Committed Costs vs. Uncertainty Reduction in New Product Development., 1993. (WP-1993-02-01).
[11] S. Dowlatshahi, "Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an optimization approach", International Journal of Production
Research, vol. 30, pp. 1803-1818, 1992. 1992/08/01
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549208948123]
[12] K. K. Seo, J. H. Park, D. S. Jang, and D. Wallace, "Approximate estimation of the product life cycle cost using artificial neural networks in
conceptual design", The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 19, pp. 461-471, 2002. 2002/04/01
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001700200049]
[13] M.K. Habib, "Interdisciplinary Mechatronics engineering and science: problem-solving, creative-thinking and concurrent design synergy",
International Journal of Mechatronics and Manufacturing Systems, vol. 1, pp. 4-22, 2008.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMMS.2008.018272]
[14] D. Bradley, "Mechatronics – More questions than answers", Mechatronics, vol. 20, pp. 827-841, 2010.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.07.011]
[15] R. Isermann, "Towards intelligent mechatronic systems,", Research in Eng. Design, vol. 8, pp. 139-150, 1996. 1996/09/01
[16] L. Toussaint, "Models and methods for a highly productive production-oriented design : application to the routine engineering of plastic
parts,", PhD thesis,, University of Technology of Belfort-Montbeliard, Belfort, 2010.
[17] M.C. Ziemke, and M. Spann, "Concurrent engineering’s roots in the World War II era,", In: H. Parsaei, and W. Sullivan, Eds., In Concurrent
Engineering, Springer: US, 1993, pp. 24-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3062-6_2]
[18] B. Prasad, R.S. Morenc, and R.M. Rangan, "Information management for concurrent engineering: Research issues", Concurrent Engineering,
vol. 1, pp. 3-20, 1993.
[19] H. S. Abdalla, "Concurrent engineering for global manufacturing,", International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 60-61, pp. 251-260,
1999.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00152-2]
46 The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 Casner et al.

[20] A. Coulibaly, M. Gardoni, K. Gaye, and Y. Huang, Recyclability Oriented Lifecycle Design of Mechatronic Products., Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg: Montreal, QC, 2010, pp. 135-143.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-28377]
[21] X. Zwingmann, D. Ait-Kadi, A. Coulibaly, and B. Mutel, "Optimal disassembly sequencing strategy using constraint programming
approach,", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 46-58, 2008.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552510810861932]
[22] R. Houssin, and A. Coulibaly, "An approach to solve contradiction problems for the safety integration in innovative design process,",
Computers in Industry, vol. 62, pp. 398-5, 2011.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.12.009]
[23] G. Sohlenius, Concurrent Engineering., vol. 41. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 1992, pp. 645-655.
[24] S. Tichkiewitch, De la CFAO à la conception intégrée., Hermès: Paris, 1994.
[25] R. Isermann, "Mechatronic systems-Innovative products with embedded control", Control Engineering Practice, vol. 16, pp. 14-29, 2008.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2007.03.010]
[26] D. Casner, R. Houssin, D. Knittel, and J. Renaud, "Proposal for a design approach for mechatronic systems based on optimization design and
case-based reasoning,", In: Presented at the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2013), Portland, OR, 2013.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-13052]
[27] D. Casner, R. Houssin, J. Renaud, and D. Knittel, "Contribution to the embodiment design of mechatronic system by evolutionary
optimization approaches", Joint Conference on Mechanical, 2014 Design Engineering & Advanced Manufacturing, Toulouse, France
[28] D. Casner, R. Houssin, J. Renaud, and D. Knittel, "Optimization as an innovative design approach to improve the performances and the
functionalities of mechatronic devices", In: Presented at the Triz Future Conference 2014 - Global Innovation Convention, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2014.
[29] C. Zheng, M. Bricogne, J. Le Duigou, and B. Eynard, "Survey on mechatronic engineering: A focus on design methods and product models",
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2014.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2014.05.003]
[30] P. Hehenberger, F. Poltschak, K. Zeman, and W. Amrhein, "Hierarchical design models in the mechatronic product development process of
synchronous machines", Mechatronics, vol. 20, pp. 864-875, 2010.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.04.003]
[31] N.P. Suh, Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications., Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2001.
[32] M. Balesdent, "Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Launch Vehicles", PhD thesis, vol. 20, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, pp. 232-2412011.
[33] R. Balling, and M.R. Rawlings, "Collaborative optimization with disciplinary conceptual design", Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim., vol. 20, pp.
232-241, 2000.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001580050151]
[34] N.M. Alexandrov, Y. Hussaini, and I.C. Science, "Engineering, and L. R. center, multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art", In:
Proceedings of the ICASE NASA Langley Workshop on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, Hampton: Virginia, 1997.
[35] J. SobieszczanskiSobieski and R. T. Haftka, "Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments", Struct.
Optim., vol. 14, pp. 1-23, 1997.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01197554]
[36] W. Yao, X. Chen, W. Luo, M. van Tooren, and J. Guo, "Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods for
aerospace vehicles", Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 47, pp. 450-479, 2011.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.05.001]
[37] G. Olivier, S. Ibrahim, and M. Patrick, "Distributed design theory and methodology", Concurrent Engineering,, vol. 3, pp. 43-54, 1995.
March 1, 1995
[38] S. Friedenthal, A. Moore, and R. Steiner, A Practical Guide to SysML: Systems Modeling Language., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.,
2008.
[39] AFNOR, "Management des systèmes - ingénierie intégrée - concepts généraux et introduction aux méthodes d’application (Systems
management - integrated engineering - introduction to general concepts and application methods)," in NF X50-415, ed", 1994.
[40] S. Tan, Enhanced Functional Analysis System Technique for Managing Complex Engineering Projects., University of Missouri: Rolla, 2007.
[41] C.W. Bytheway, Function Analysis Systems Technique Creativity and Innovation., J. Ross Pub., 2007.
[42] N. Armaghan, and J. Renaud, "An application of multi-criteria decision aids models for Case-Based Reasoning", Information Sciences, vol.
210, pp. 55-66, 2012.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.04.033]
[43] Y. Collette, and P. Siarry, Multiobjective Optimization Principles and Case Studies, Corr. 2nd print., Springer: Berlin, 2004.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-08883-8]
An Optimization-Based Embodiment Design Approach The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal, 2017, Volume 9 47

[44] A. Betz, Introduction to the Theory of Flow Machines., Pergamon Press, 1966.

© Casner et al.; Licensee Bentham Open

This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License
(CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.