Arc-elasticity and hierarchical exploration of the neighborhood of solutions in mechanical design

In most industrial design processes, the approaches used to obtain a design solution that best fits the specification requirements result in many iterations of the ''trial-and-error'' type, starting from an initial solution. In this paper, a method is proposed to formalize the decision process in order to automate it, and to provide optimal design solutions. Two types of knowledge are formalized. The first expresses the satisfaction of design objectives, relating to physical behaviors of candidate design solutions. This formalization uses three models, an observation one, an interpretation one and an aggregation one; every design solution is qualified through a single performance variable (a single objective function). The second model is related to modifications that may or may not be applicable to the pre-existing solution. The Designer is often able to define preferences concerning design variables. Some modifications related to this pre-existing solution, can be preferred to other ones. A hierarchy of design variables is proposed to formalize these preferences. The concept of arc-elasticity is introduced as a post-processing indicator to qualify candidate solutions through a trade-off between the performance improvement and their relative distances to the initial solution. The proposed method is used and applied to a riveted assembly, and a genetic algorithm is used to identify optimal solutions.

[1]  C George,et al.  A Balancing Act: Optimizing a Product's Properties , 1994 .

[2]  A A Rassa Application of Data Envelopment Analysis in Identifying Milestones for Passenger and Freight Transportation Sustainability , 2005 .

[3]  Xavier Drèze,et al.  Measurement of online visibility and its impact on Internet traffic , 2004 .

[4]  Michael Joseph Scott,et al.  Formalizing Negotiation in Engineering Design , 1999 .

[5]  Akbar A. Javadi,et al.  A hybrid intelligent genetic algorithm , 2005, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[6]  T. QUIRANTE,et al.  Design optimization of two-stage flash evaporators : a trade-off between design objectives , 2010 .

[7]  Sung-Hyuk Cha Comprehensive Survey on Distance/Similarity Measures between Probability Density Functions , 2007 .

[8]  R. Allen The Concept of Arc Elasticity of Demand: I , 1934 .

[9]  Eli P. Fenichel,et al.  Modeling fish health to inform research and management: Renibacterium salmoninarum dynamics in Lake Michigan. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. , 1945 .

[11]  Fumihiko Kimura,et al.  Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications , 2009 .

[12]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  AN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY IN DECISION BASED DESIGN , 1998 .

[13]  Erik K. Antonsson,et al.  Aggregation functions for engineering design trade-offs , 1995, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[14]  Mehrdad Tamiz,et al.  Multi-objective meta-heuristics: An overview of the current state-of-the-art , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  David G. Ullman,et al.  Trade Studies with Uncertain Information , 2006 .

[16]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[17]  Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki,et al.  Multi-response simulation optimization using genetic algorithm within desirability function framework , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[18]  Patrick Sebastian,et al.  Linking objective and subjective modeling in engineering design through arc-elastic dominance , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[19]  G. Derringer,et al.  Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables , 1980 .

[20]  Laurent Granvilliers,et al.  Search heuristics for constraint-aided embodiment design , 2009, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[21]  Erik K. Antonsson,et al.  Trade-off strategies in engineering design , 1991 .

[22]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Computations with Imprecise Parameters in Engineering Design: Background and Theory , 1989 .

[23]  Donald E. Grierson,et al.  Comparison among five evolutionary-based optimization algorithms , 2005, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[24]  A. J. Dentsoras,et al.  Soft computing in engineering design - A review , 2008, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[25]  Philippe Dépincé,et al.  Multi-objective genetic algorithms: A way to improve the convergence rate , 2006, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[26]  Patrick Sebastian,et al.  Search Heuristics for Constraints-Aided Design , 2009 .

[27]  William T. Scherer,et al.  "The desirability function: underlying assumptions and application implications" , 1998, SMC'98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218).

[28]  Arnaud Collignan Méthode d'optimisation et d'aide à la décision en conception mécanique : application à une structure aéronautique , 2011 .

[29]  Christina M. Mastrangelo,et al.  Comparing methods for the multi-response design problem , 2001 .

[30]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[31]  Necmettin Kaya,et al.  Machining fixture locating and clamping position optimization using genetic algorithms , 2006, Comput. Ind..

[32]  A. Sankarasubramanian,et al.  Climate elasticity of streamflow in the United States , 2001 .

[33]  James P. Ignizio,et al.  Goal Programming , 2002, Encyclopedia of Information Systems.

[34]  Wayne L. Neu,et al.  Multi-Objective Optimization of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle , 2009 .

[35]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[36]  Mehrdad Tamiz,et al.  Goal programming, compromise programming and reference point method formulations: linkages and utility interpretations , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..