Abstract

A new medical device can take years to develop from early concept to product launch. The long development process can be attributed to the severe consequences for the patient if the device malfunctions. As a result, three approaches are often combined to mitigate risks: failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), simulation and modeling, and physical test programs. Although widely used, all three approaches are generally time consuming and have their shortcomings: The risk probabilities in FMEA’s are often based on educated guesses, even in later development stages as data on the distribution of performance is not available. Physical test programs are often carried out on prototype components from the same batch and, therefore, may not reveal the actual distribution of actual running performance. Finally, simulation and modeling are usually performed on nominal geometry—not accounting for variation—and only provide a safety factor against failure. Thus, the traditional use of safety factors in structural analysis versus the probabilistic approach to risk management presents an obvious misfit. Therefore, the aforementioned three approaches are not ideal for addressing the design engineer’s key question; how should the design be changed to improve robustness and failure rates. The present study builds upon the existing robust and reliability-based design optimization (R2BDO) and adjusts it to address the aforementioned key questions using finite element analysis (FEA). The two main features of the presented framework are screening feasible design concepts early in the embodiment phase and subsequently optimizing the design’s probabilistic performance (i.e., reduce failure rates), while using minimal computational resources. A case study in collaboration with a medical design and manufacturing company demonstrates the new framework. The case study includes FEA contact modeling between two plastic molded components with 12 geometrical variables and optimization based on meta-modeling. The optimization minimizes the failure rate (and improves design robustness) concerning three constraint functions (torque, strain, and contact pressure). Furthermore, the study finds that the new framework significantly improves the component’s performance function (failure rate) with limited computational resources.

References

1.
Doorn
,
N.
, and
Hansson
,
S. O.
,
2011
, “
Should Probabilistic Design Replace Safety Factors?
,”
Philos. Technol.
,
24
(
2
), pp.
151
168
.
2.
Frangopol
,
D. M.
, and
Maute
,
K.
,
2003
, “
Life-Cycle Reliability-Based Optimization of Civil and Aerospace Structures
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
81
(
7
), pp.
397
410
.
3.
Agarwal
,
H.
,
Renaud
,
J. E.
,
Lee
,
J. C.
, and
Watson
,
L. T.
,
2004
, “
A Unilevel Method for Reliability Based Design Optimization
,”
45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference
,
Palm Springs, CA
,
Apr. 19–22
, Vol.
7
, pp.
5374
5392
.
4.
Lee
,
K. H.
, and
Park
,
G. J.
,
2001
, “
Robust Optimization Considering Tolerances of Design Variables
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
79
(
1
), pp.
77
86
.
5.
Messac
,
A.
, and
Ismail-Yahaya
,
A.
,
2002
, “
Multiobjective Robust Design Using Physical Programming
,”
Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim.
,
23
(
5
), pp.
357
371
.
6.
Beyer
,
H.-G.
, and
Sendhoff
,
B.
,
2007
, “
Robust Optimization—A Comprehensive Survey
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
196
(
33–34
), pp.
3190
3218
.
7.
Ju
,
B. H.
, and
Lee
,
B. C.
,
2008
, “
Reliability-Based Design Optimization Using a Moment Method and a Kriging Metamodel
,”
Eng. Optim.
,
40
(
5
), pp.
421
438
.
8.
Lagaros
,
N. D.
, and
Papadrakakis
,
M.
,
2007
, “
Robust Seismic Design Optimization of Steel Structures
,”
Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim.
,
33
(
6
), pp.
457
469
.
9.
Lee
,
I.
,
Choi
,
K. K.
,
Du
,
L.
, and
Gorsich
,
D.
,
2008
, “
Dimension Reduction Method for Reliability-Based Robust Design Optimization
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
86
(
13–14
), pp.
1550
1562
.
10.
Yadav
,
O. P.
,
Bhamare
,
S. S.
, and
Rathore
,
A.
,
2010
, “
Reliability-Based Robust Design Optimization: A Multi-Objective Framework Using Hybrid Quality Loss Function
,”
Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int.
,
26
(
1
), pp.
27
41
.
11.
Paiva
,
R. M.
,
Crawford
,
C.
, and
Suleman
,
A.
,
2014
, “
Robust and Reliability-Based Design Optimization Framework for Wing Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
52
(
4
), pp.
711
724
.
12.
Sobek II
,
D. K.
,
Ward
,
A. C.
, and
Liker
,
J. K.
,
1999
, “
Toyota’s Principles of Set-based Concurrent Engineering
,”
MIT Sloan Manage. Rev.
,
40
(
2
), p.
67
.
13.
Engelmann
,
F.
,
Breiing
,
A.
, and
Gutowski
,
T.
,
2021
,
Engineering Design
, 3rd ed.,
Springer
,
London, UK
.
14.
Pohl
,
J.
,
Thompson
,
H. M.
,
Schlaps
,
R. C.
,
Shahpar
,
S.
,
Fico
,
V.
, and
Clayton
,
G. A.
,
2017
, “
Innovative Turbine Stator Well Design Using a Kriging-Assisted Optimization Method
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
139
(
7
), p.
072603
.
15.
Du
,
X.
,
Sudjianto
,
A.
, and
Chen
,
W.
,
2004
, “
An Integrated Framework for Optimization Under Uncertainty Using Inverse Reliability Strategy
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
126
(
4
), pp.
562
570
.
16.
ISO.ORG
,
2010
,
Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—ISO Code System for Tolerances on Linear Sizes—Part 1: Basis of Tolerances, Deviations and Fits
,
ISO
,
Geneva, Switzerland
.
17.
Madrid
,
J.
,
Lorin
,
S.
,
Söderberg
,
R.
,
Hammersberg
,
P.
,
Wärmefjord
,
K.
, and
Lööf
,
J.
,
2019
, “
A Virtual Design of Experiments Method to Evaluate the Effect of Design Andwelding Parameters on Weld Quality in Aerospace Applications
,”
Aerospace
,
6
(
6
), p.
74
.
18.
Gebhard
,
R.
,
2013
,
SEU13: 122 – A Resilient Modeling Strategy
.
19.
Camba
,
J. D.
,
Contero
,
M.
, and
Company
,
P.
,
2016
, “
Parametric CAD Modeling: An Analysis of Strategies for Design Reusability
,”
CAD Comput. Aid. Des.
,
74
, pp.
13
18
31
.
20.
Hamada
,
M.
,
Wu
,
C.-F.
, and
Jeff
,
W. C.-F.
,
2000
,
Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimization
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
21.
Myers
,
R. H.
, and
Montgomery
,
D. C.
,
2002
,
Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
22.
Montgomery
,
D. C.
,
2012
,
Design and Analysis of Experiments
, Vol.
3
,
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
23.
Kleijnen
,
J. P.
, and
Sargent
,
R. G.
,
2000
, “
A Methodology for Fitting and Validating Metamodels in Simulation
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
120
(
1
), pp.
14
29
.
24.
JMP
,
2018
,
JMP 14 Deisng of Experiments Guide
,
SAS Institute
,
Charlotte, NC
.
25.
Deb
,
K.
,
Pratap
,
A.
,
Agarwal
,
S.
, and
Meyarivan
,
T.
,
2002
, “
A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II
,”
IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
,
6
(
2
), pp.
182
197
.
26.
Sanchez
,
S. M.
, and
Sanchez
,
P. J.
,
2005
, “
Very Large Fractional Factorial and Central Composite Designs
,”
ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul.
,
15
(
4
), pp.
362
377
.
You do not currently have access to this content.