Comparing Design Synthesis Methods

Abstract

The Lunar Zebro is a small moon rover that needs an advanced chassis to endure the harsh environment that the moon brings. To arrive at a solution for such a frame or chassis creativity and hard work are necessary. Whereas hard work is a given, creativity is not and it may need a helping hand. Design synthesis methods, of which brainstorming is a basic example, aid engineers and designers with reaching better solutions. Currently, however, which method works best for a given scenario is unknown. The purpose of this research is to determine which synthesis method works best for concept generation, with the focus lying on generating innovative solutions for frame design. A meta-method is created to evaluate the performance of different synthesis methods when applied to design cases. This meta-method consists of executing fifty case-method combinations, built up from pairing ten design synthesis methods with five design cases, which are focused on frame design primarily. The combinations are then evaluated using a self-made rubric. In the end, it became apparent that different methods apply well at different stages of the design process and at different system levels. Some work well to orient, understand the supersystem and therefore have an positive yet indirect influence on the final outcome. Some work well to generate concepts, bring new ideas at system level. Others apply well after a concept is already generated, only being useful to improve subsystems.