Vehicle Platform Compatibility Evaluation via Aspect Segmentation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The automotive industry faces challenges in ensuring compatibility between software and hardware components across different vehicle platforms, leading to risks of incorrect configurations, malfunctions, and quality issues during design, manufacturing, and aftermarket updates, particularly in complex electrical systems with thousands of parts.
Innovation Solution
A method and system for evaluating compatibility by using a database with vehicle platform configuration information, comparing parameter values of system components across various aspect domains, and determining compatibility based on legal, technical, and design constraints, ensuring that system components are compatible without violating any constraints.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If a corporate product structure is used to manage variation points and variants, then manufacturing and material sourcing efficiency is improved, but the ability to resolve compatibility issues from engineering and software perspectives deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the product structure into multiple independent aspect models (corporate aspect model, engineering aspect model, software aspect model) that can be developed and maintained separately. Each aspect model focuses on specific concerns (manufacturing, engineering, software) without being constrained by a single monolithic structure, allowing each domain to optimize for its specific goals while maintaining overall integration through the aspect-oriented framework.
2Device complexity
If the number of variation points and variants is minimized by choosing a generic structure, then design complexity is reduced, but the ability to reflect downstream structure variations with different generic structures deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The aspect models serve as universal intermediaries that can represent variations across multiple downstream structures with different generic structures. Rather than creating separate variation point systems for each downstream structure, the aspect models provide a unified mechanism that can accommodate diverse structural variations through aspect definitions that are applicable across different contexts and structures.
3Ease of manufacture
If complex variation rules are created to keep variation points manageable, then manufacturing control is improved, but the risk of incorrect variants and unmanageable complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The aspect models act as intermediaries between the corporate product structure and downstream structures, providing a buffer that prevents direct propagation of complexity. Rather than creating complex variation rules that directly constrain downstream structures, the aspect models define aspects and constraints at an intermediate level that can be resolved into simpler, more reliable rules for manufacturing control, reducing the risk of incorrect variants.
4Reliability
If multiple aspect domains with twenty or more system components each are evaluated for compatibility, then comprehensive compatibility checking is improved, but computational complexity and processing time deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The compatibility evaluation is segmented into aspect-specific analyses rather than a monolithic system-wide check. Each aspect model evaluates compatibility within its specific domain (corporate, engineering, software) independently, then results are integrated. This segmentation reduces computational complexity by breaking down the large-scale compatibility problem into smaller, more manageable aspect-level evaluations while maintaining comprehensive coverage.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3~4
Figure 5~6
AI summary
There is provided a method of evaluating compatibility of a first system component of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: providing a database comprising: vehicle platform configuration information comprising configuration information about two or more vehicle models, wherein each vehicle model comprises one or more aspect domains, wherein each aspect domain comprises one or more system components, wherein each system component comprises configuration information, wherein each configuration information comprises a set of parameter values; wherein at least two system components of two different vehicle models belong to the same aspect domain; wherein at least one of the number of aspect domains of each vehicle model and the number of system components of each aspect domain of said vehicle model is twenty or more; determining a compatibility result between said first system component and at least one other system component in said vehicle platform by comparing the configuration information (12) of said first system component to the configuration information (11) of said at least one other system component, wherein the set of parameter values (19a) in the configuration information (12) of said first system component is compared to the set of parameter values (18a) in the configuration information (11) of said at least one other system component to determine if said sets of parameter values (18a, 19a) have at least a compatible parameter value; and returning a compatibility result based on if said first system component is determined to be compatible with said at least one other system component.