On combinatorial design spaces for the configuration design of product families

For typical optimization problems, the design space of interest is well defined: It is a subset of Rn, where n is the number of (continuous) variables. Constraints are often introduced to eliminate infeasible regions of this space from consideration. Many engineering design problems can be formulated as search in such a design space. For configuration design problems, however, the design space is much more difficult to define precisely, particularly when constraints are present. Configuration design spaces are discrete and combinatorial in nature, but not necessarily purely combinatorial, as certain combinations represent infeasible designs. One of our primary design objectives is to drastically reduce the effort to explore large combinatorial design spaces. We believe it is imperative to develop methods for mathematically defining design spaces for configuration design. The purpose of this paper is to outline our approach to defining configuration design spaces for engineering design, with an emphasis on the mathematics of the spaces and their combinations into larger spaces that more completely capture design requirements. Specifically, we introduce design spaces that model physical connectivity, functionality, and assemblability considerations for a representative product family, a class of coffeemakers. Then, we show how these spaces can be combined into a “common” product variety design space. We demonstrate how constraints can be defined and applied to these spaces so that feasible design regions can be directly modeled. Additionally, we explore the topological and combinatorial properties of these spaces. The application of this design space modeling methodology is illustrated using the coffeemaker product family.

[1]  David W. Rosen,et al.  The role of topology in engineering design research , 1996 .

[2]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Influencing generative design through continuous evaluation: Associating costs with the coffeemaker shape grammar , 1999, Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf..

[3]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces , 1974, IJCAI.

[4]  P. A. Macmahon,et al.  Yoke‐Chains and Multipartite Compositions in connexion with the Analytical forms called “Trees” , 1890 .

[5]  J. C. Abbott,et al.  Sets, lattices, and Boolean algebras , 1970 .

[6]  David W. Rosen,et al.  DESIGN OF MODULAR PRODUCT ARCHITECTURES IN DISCRETE DESIGN SPACES SUBJECT TO LIFE CYCLE ISSUES , 1996 .

[7]  Z. A. Lomnicki Two-terminal series-parallel networks , 1972, Advances in Applied Probability.

[8]  T. Schnier,et al.  Genetic Engineering and Design Problems , 1997 .

[9]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  An improved shape annealing algorithm for truss topology , 1995 .

[10]  M. Heinrich,et al.  A resource-based paradigm for the configuring of technical systems from modular components , 1991, [1991] Proceedings. The Seventh IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Application.

[11]  J. Gero,et al.  Evolving designs by generating useful complex gene structures , 1999 .

[12]  Sridhar Kota,et al.  Functions, structures, and constraints in conceptual design , 1990 .

[13]  John R. Dixon,et al.  A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes , 1989 .

[14]  John R. Dixon,et al.  A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part II: Representations, analysis, and design for the life cycle , 1989 .

[15]  Donald L. Kreher,et al.  Combinatorial algorithms: generation, enumeration, and search , 1998, SIGA.

[16]  Reijo Sulonen,et al.  Towards a general ontology of configuration , 1998, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[17]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Blend of Different Tastes: The Language of Coffeemakers , 1998 .

[18]  James R. Munkres,et al.  Topology; a first course , 1974 .

[19]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1990, AAAI.