In traditional function based evolutionary design synthesis, the encoding of the design is decided by the designer, and no formal process of encoding is provided in most research in this line. As a result of limitations in the encodings typically used, evolutionary design synthesis often produces only small-scale designs - that is, relatively few components are used. And because they fail to cover the full spectrum of user needs, and frequently do not consider manufacturing processes, costs and constraints, the design results are often not very useful to industry and only end up as 'new ideas' generated to satisfy academic curiosity. This paper tries to extend the algorithmic design process of traditional evolutionary synthesis approaches, integrating the product development process and broader customer needs. The method is to adopt a chromosome model based on the domain theory described in [1] to facilitate defining of encodings, e.g. to decide the most important parts and characteristics of the designs to be evolved. From the viewpoint of the chromosome model, this approach is an extension of the model towards an evolvable chromosome model within the domain theory. An evolvable chromosome model is reasonable because designs are intrinsically evolutionary and no design should be static. The evolvable chromosome model can also facilitate computer-aided conceptual design in an interactive evolutionary design system, thus pushing the research in functional-based evolutionary design synthesis a further step towards industrial-oriented applications.
[1]
Erik D. Goodman,et al.
Knowledge interaction with genetic programming in mechatronic systems design using bond graphs
,
2005,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).
[2]
John S. Gero,et al.
Computers and Creative Design
,
1996
.
[3]
John R. Koza,et al.
Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection
,
1993,
Complex adaptive systems.
[4]
Alice M. Agogino,et al.
The Role of Constraints and Human Interaction in Evolving MEMS Designs: Microresonator Case Study
,
2004,
DAC 2004.
[5]
Erik D. Goodman,et al.
Exploring Open-Ended Design Space of Mechatronic Systems
,
2004
.
[6]
Jami J. Shah,et al.
Comparative study of representation structures for modeling function and behavior of mechanical devices
,
2001
.
[7]
Mogens Myrup Andreasen,et al.
The Role of Artefact Theories in Design
,
1998
.
[8]
Tibor Bercsey,et al.
The Autogenetic Design Theory: An evolutionary view of the design process
,
2003
.