Divergent exploration in design with a dynamic multiobjective optimization formulation

Formulation space exploration is a new strategy for multiobjective optimization that facilitates both divergent exploration and convergent optimization during the early stages of design. The formulation space is the union of all variable and design objective spaces identified by the designer as being valid and pragmatic problem formulations. By extending a computational search into the formulation space, the solution to an optimization problem is no longer predefined by any single problem formulation, as it is with traditional optimization methods. Instead, a designer is free to change, modify, and update design objectives, variables, and constraints and explore design alternatives without requiring a concrete understanding of the design problem a priori. To facilitate this process, we introduce a new vector/matrix-based definition for multiobjective optimization problems, which is dynamic in nature and easily modified. Additionally, we provide a set of exploration metrics to help guide designers while exploring the formulation space. Finally, we provide an example to illustrate the use of this new, dynamic approach to multiobjective optimization.

[1]  Ashutosh Tiwari,et al.  Ergonomic Chair Design by Fusing Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria Using Interactive Genetic Algorithms , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[3]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  4 – Optimum Design Concepts , 2004 .

[4]  Gregory B Olson,et al.  Computational materials design and engineering , 2009 .

[5]  David Radcliffe,et al.  Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design , 2009, Comput. Aided Des..

[6]  Jie Yuan,et al.  Large population size IGA with individuals' fitness not assigned by user , 2011, Appl. Soft Comput..

[7]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  A Non-Deterministic Approach to Concept Selection Using S-Pareto Frontiers , 2002, DAC 2002.

[8]  Martin Spieck,et al.  MDO: assessment and direction for advancement—an opinion of one international group , 2009 .

[9]  A. Messac,et al.  Aggregate Objective Functions and Pareto Frontiers: Required Relationships and Practical Implications , 2000 .

[10]  Kosuke Ishii,et al.  Life-Cycle Engineering Design , 1995 .

[11]  Tarek Elhabian,et al.  Rapid Trajectory Optimization Using Computational Intelligence for Guidance and Conceptual Design of Multistage Space Launch Vehicles , 2005 .

[12]  Horst Baier,et al.  Knowledge-Based Modeling of Manufacturing Aspects in Structural Optimization Problems , 2008 .

[13]  Bradley S. Homann,et al.  Precision machine design assistant: A constraint-based tool for the design and evaluation of precision machine tool concepts , 1998, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[14]  Anas N. Al-Rabadi,et al.  A comparison of modified reconstructability analysis and Ashenhurst‐Curtis decomposition of Boolean functions , 2004 .

[15]  Rajkumar Roy,et al.  Development of a soft computing-based framework for engineering design optimisation with quantitative and qualitative search spaces , 2007, Appl. Soft Comput..

[16]  Daniel P. Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , 1989 .

[17]  A. Belegundu,et al.  Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering , 2011 .

[18]  Maurice H. Halstead,et al.  Elements of software science , 1977 .

[19]  Ashutosh Tiwari,et al.  An interactive genetic algorithm-based framework for handling qualitative criteria in design optimization , 2007, Comput. Ind..

[20]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[21]  Maurice H. Halstead,et al.  Elements of software science (Operating and programming systems series) , 1977 .

[22]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization for Complex Engineered Systems: Report From a National Science Foundation Workshop , 2011 .

[23]  A. Messac,et al.  Normal Constraint Method with Guarantee of Even Representation of Complete Pareto Frontier , 2004 .

[24]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  Case studies in concept exploration and selection with s-Pareto frontiers , 2009 .

[25]  Juite Wang,et al.  Ranking engineering design concepts using a fuzzy outranking preference model , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[26]  A. Messac,et al.  Generating Well-Distributed Sets of Pareto Points for Engineering Design Using Physical Programming , 2002 .

[27]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[28]  Hideyuki Takagi,et al.  Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation , 2001, Proc. IEEE.

[29]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Visual Steering Commands for Trade Space Exploration: User-Guided Sampling With Example , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[30]  A. Messac,et al.  Concept Selection Using s-Pareto Frontiers , 2003 .

[31]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007 .

[32]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  A Computationally Assisted Methodology for Preference-Guided Conceptual Design , 2010 .

[33]  Daniel P. Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach and Rds-student, Software for Aircraft Design, Sizing, and Performance Set (AIAA Education) , 2006 .

[34]  Giovanni Bernardini,et al.  Multi--Disciplinary Optimization for the Conceptual Design of Innovative Aircraft Configurations , 2006 .

[35]  Rania Hassan,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization of Conceptual Design of Communication Satellites with a Two-Branch Tournament Genetic Algorithm , 2002 .

[36]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Introduction to Optimum Design , 1988 .

[37]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .