Case studies in concept exploration and selection with s-Pareto frontiers

This paper investigates three design cases where the newly developed s-Pareto frontier-based concept selection paradigm is used to compare competing design concepts under a multi-objective optimisation framework. The new paradigm, which was recently introduced by the authors, is based on the Pareto optimality principle that defines an important class of optimal solutions to multi-objective optimisation problems. The set of Pareto optimal solutions comprises the Pareto frontier, a particularly useful frontier in engineering design because it characterises the tradeoffs between the design objectives. Under the newly developed paradigm, a so-called s-Pareto frontier is used to characterise the tradeoffs between conflicting design objectives and the tradeoffs between competing design concepts. As such, the s-Pareto frontier holds significant potential for the important activity of concept selection. The present paper takes a needed and notable step beyond the simple two- and three-bar truss examples provided by the authors in previous archival publications on s-Pareto. The first case study considers the design of a battery contact for a mobile phone, the second involves the design of a compliant bicycle derailleur and the third involves the design of a rigidified inflatable structure. Each case provides a unique perspective.

[1]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming , 2000 .

[2]  Xiangdong Che,et al.  Recent applications of topology optimization , 1998 .

[3]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

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

[5]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[6]  Joseph Giesing,et al.  A summary of industry MDO applications and needs , 1998 .

[7]  A. Messac,et al.  The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier , 2003 .

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

[9]  Jae-Moon Lee,et al.  A NEW APPROACH TO INTEGRATED WING DESIGN IN CONCEPTUAL SYNTHESIS AND OPTIMIZATION , 1996 .

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

[11]  Yoji Akao,et al.  Quality Function Deployment : Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design , 1990 .

[12]  Larry L. Howell,et al.  Development of Commercially Viable Compliant Mechanisms Using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model: Case Studies of Parallel Mechanisms , 2001, Adaptive Structures and Material Systems.

[13]  Christopher A. Mattson,et al.  Pareto Frontier Based Concept Selection Under Uncertainty, with Visualization , 2005 .

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

[15]  Patrick McCluskey,et al.  An Interactive Multistage ε-Inequality Constraint Method For Multiple Objectives Decision Making , 1998 .

[16]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Creating Innovtive Products Using Total Design: The Living Legacy of Stuart Pugh , 1996 .

[17]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[18]  T. Simpson.  A concept exploration method for product family design , 1998 .

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

[20]  Larry L. Howell,et al.  Evaluation of equivalent spring stiffness for use in a pseudo-rigid-body model of large-deflection compliant mechanisms , 1996 .

[21]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Statistical Approximations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: The Problem of Size , 1999 .

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

[23]  William A. Crossley,et al.  Conceptual design of helicopters via genetic algorithm , 1996 .

[24]  Larry L. Howell,et al.  The topological synthesis of compliant mechanisms , 1996 .

[25]  Achille Messac,et al.  Discrete subsystem selection using linear physical programming , 1999 .

[26]  A. Maria,et al.  Optimization of large-scale rigidified inflatable structures for housing using physical programming , 2004 .

[27]  Alan B. Flaschner,et al.  Creating innovative products using total design: The living legacy of stuart pugh , 1997 .

[28]  Michael P. Martinez,et al.  Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming , 2002 .

[29]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Metrics for Assessing Design Freedom and Information Certainty in the Early Stages of Design , 1998 .

[30]  Stuart Pugh,et al.  Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design , 1996 .

[31]  Kjartan Pedersen,et al.  Designing platform families :an evolutionary approach to developing engineering systems , 1999 .

[32]  David G. Ullman,et al.  The Mechanical Design Process , 1992 .

[33]  Achille Messac,et al.  Feasibility and optimization of rigidified inflatable structures for housing , 2003 .

[34]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Conceptual Aircraft Design Environment: Case Study Evaluation of Computing Architecture Technologies , 1998 .

[35]  Kamran Behdinan,et al.  AIRCRAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN USING GENETIC ALGORITHMS , 2000 .