0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Decision-Based Conceptual Design: Modeling and Navigating Heterogeneous Design Spaces

[+] Author and Article Information
William H. Wood

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 21250e-mail: bwood@umbc.edu

Alice M. Agogino

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720e-mail: aagogino@me.berkeley, edu

J. Mech. Des 127(1), 2-11 (Mar 02, 2005) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1799612 History: Received February 10, 2003; Revised March 01, 2004; Online March 02, 2005
Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

IDA, 1988, Unified Life Cycle Design, Institute for Defense Analysis.
Kunz, W., and Rittel, H., 1970, “Issues as Elements of Information Systems,” Studiengruppe Fuer Systemforschung, Working Paper #131. (Also described in D. Grant, “How to Use the IBIS as a Procedure for Deliberation and Argument in Environmental Design Planning,” Design Methods and Theories, 11 (4), pp. 185–220, 1977.)
McGinnis,  B. D., and Ullman,  D. G., 1992, “The Evolution of Commitments in the Design of a Component,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 114, pp. 1–7.
Sobek, D. K., and Ward, A., 1996, “Principles From Toyota’s Set—Based Concurrent Engineering Process,” Proceedings of DETC’96, Irvine, CA.
Sobek,  D. K., Liker,  J., and Ward,  A., 1998, “Another Look at How Toyota Integrates Product Development,” Harvard Bus. Rev., July–August, pp. 36–49.
Bucciarelli,  L., 2002, “Between Thought and Object in Engineering Design,” Des. Stud., 23(3), pp. 219–231.
Bucciarelli,  L., 1988, “An Ethnographic Perspective on Engineering Design,” Des. Stud., 9(3), pp. 159–168.
Maher, M. L., Balachandran, M. B., and Zhang, D. M., 1995, Case-Based Reasoning in Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Raiffa, 1968, Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., 1944, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Hazelrigg,  G. A., 1998, “An Axiomatic Framework for Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Design, 121, pp. 342–347.
Bradley,  S. R., and Agogino,  A. M., 1994, “An Intelligent Real Time Design Methodology for Component Selection: An Approach to Managing Uncertainty,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 116, pp. 980–988.
Hausen,  J. R., and Clausing,  D., 1988, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Bus. Rev., May–June, pp. 63–73.
Ramaswamy,  R., and Ulrich,  K., 1997, “A Designer’s Spreadsheet,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 119, pp. 48–56.
Box,  G. E. P., and Wislon,  K. B., 1951, “On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Methodol., 13(1), pp. 1–45.
Yoshikawa, H., 1981, “General Design Theory and a Cad System,” Man-Machine Communications in Cad/Cam, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.2–5.3 Working Conference, E. Warman, ed., Tokyo, Japan, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 35–58.
Specht,  D. F., 1990, “Probabilistic Neural Networks,” Neural Networks, 3(1), pp. 109–118.
Bradley, S. R., and Agogino, A. M., 1991, “Intelligent Real-Time Design: Application to Prototype Selection,” Artificial Intelligence in Design: AID ’91, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA, pp. 125–152.
Bradley, S., Agogino, A., and Wood, W., 1994, “Intelligent Engineering Component Catalogs,” Artificial Intelligence in Design ’94, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 641–658.
Ward,  A., Liker,  J., and Sobek,  D. K., 1995, “The Second Toyota Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster,” Sloan Manage. Rev., 36(3), pp. 43–61.
Sobek,  D. K., Ward,  A., and Liker,  J., 1999, “Toyota’s Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering,” Sloan Manage. Rev., 40(2), pp. 67–83.
Ward, A., Liker, J., Sobek, D. K., and Cristiano, J. J., 1994, “Set-Based Concurrent Engineering and Toyota,” Sixth International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Minneapolis, ASME, 68.
Chen, W., Tsui, K.-L., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1995, “Integration of the Response Surface Methodology With the Compromise Decision Support Problem in Developing a General Robust Design Procedure,” 21st Annual Design Automation Conference: Advances in Design Automation, ASME, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE:82:1.
Simpson,  T. W., Maueary,  T. M., Korte,  J. J., and Mistree,  F., 2001, “Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,” AAIA 39(12), pp. 2233–2241.
Olea, R. A., 1999, Geostatistics for Engineers and Earth Scientists, Kluwer, Boston.
Peplinski, J. D., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1996, “Integrating Product Design With Manufacturing Process Design Using the Robust Concept Exploration Method,” Proceedings of DETC’96, Irvine, CA.
Szykman, S., 1996, “Improving the Design Process by Predicting Downstream Values of Design Attributes,” Proceedings of DETC’96, Irvine, CA.
Pahng,  F., Senin,  N., and Wallace,  D., 1998, “Distributed Modeling and Evaluation of Product Design Problems,” Comput.-Aided Des., 30(6), pp. 411–423.
Pacheco, J. E., Amon, C. H., and Finger, S., 2001, “Developing Bayesian Surrogates for Use in Preliminary Design,” ASME DETC ’01: International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Pittsburgh, PA. ASME, ASME DETC2001/DTM-21701.
Pacheco, J. E., Amon, C. H., and Finger, S., 2002, “Flexible Multistage Bayesian Models for Use in Conceptual Design,” ASME DETC ’02: International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Montreal, Canada. ASME, ASME DETC2002/DTM-34022.
Schwabacher, M., Ellman, T., Hirsch, H., and Richter, G., 1996, “Learning to Choose a Reformulation for Numerical Optimization of Engineering Design,” Artificial Intelligence in Design ’96, Analysis, and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 12 (2), pp. 173–192.
Maher,  M. L., and Li,  H., 1994, “Learning Design Concepts Using Machine Learning Techniques,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing,8(2), pp. 95–111.
Locascio,  A., and Thurston,  D., 1998, “Transforming the House of Quality to a Multiobjective Optimization Formulation,” Struct. Optim., 16(2), pp. 136–146.
Scott,  M., and Antonsson,  E., 1998, “Aggregation Functions for Engineering Design Trade-Offs,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 3(1), pp. 253–64.
Scott, M. J., and Antonsson, E. K., 2000, “Using Indifference Points in Engineering Decisions,” 12th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Baltimore, MD. ASME, DETC2000/DTM-14559, ASME, New York.
Thurston,  D. L., Carnahan,  J. V., and Liu,  T., 1994, “Optimization of Design Utility,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 116, pp. 801–808.
Thurston,  D., 2001, “Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(6), pp. 176–182.
Hazelrigg,  G. A., 1997, “On Irrationality in Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 119, pp. 194–196.
Hazelrigg,  G. A., 1996, “The Implications of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem on Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 118(6), pp. 161–164.
Zeleny, M., 1982, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tappeta,  R. V., and Renaud,  J. E., 2001, “Interactive Multiobjective Design Strategy for Decision Based Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(6), pp. 205–215.
Hazelrigg,  G. A., 1998, “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 120(12), pp. 653–658.
Gu,  X., Renaud,  J. E., Ashe,  L. M., Batill,  S. M., Budhiraja,  A. S., and Krajewski,  L. J., 2002, “Decision-Based Collaborative Optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 124(3), pp. 1–13.
Chen,  W., Wiecek,  M., and Zhang,  J., 1999, “Quality Utility—A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 121(2), pp. 179–187.
Garcia, A. C. B., and Howard, H. C., 1992, “Acquiring Design Knowledge Through Design Decision Justification,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 6 (1), pp. 59–71.
Habib, W. E., and Ward, A. C., 1997, “Causality in Constraint Propagation,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 11(5), pp. 419–33.
Habib, W. E., and Ward, A. C., 1997, “Generalized Set Propagation Operations for Concurrent Engineering,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 11(5), pp. 409–17.
Tseng, M.-L., 1991, “Integrating Neural Networks and Influence Diagrams for Multiple Sensor Diagnostic Systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Chidambaram, B., and Agogino, A., 1996, “Redesign in a Manufacturing Environment,” Conference on Agile Manufacturing and Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Troy, New York.
Hyer, N., 1987, Capabilities of Group Technology, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI.
Thornton,  A., 2000, “Quantitative Selection of Variation Reduction Plans,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(2), pp. 185–193.
Kern, D., and Thornton, A., 2002, “Structured Indexing of Process Capability Data,” ASME DETC ’02: Design for Manufacture Conference, Montreal Canada. ASME, DETC2002/DFM.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Engineering model generated using DBCD. Contour plot shows joint probability density, overlays show model abstractions. The dashed line uses a smoothing factor (b) of 0.01, the dot-dash line 0.05. Regression line overlaid has R2 of 0.635. Underlying data is shown as “⋅” marks.
Grahic Jump Location
Performance and classification variables for motor components. Three decisions have been made: (i) To use a component; (ii) The component will be a rotational motor; and (iii) The motor will operate on dc power. Each decision has added variables to the design model. The objective minimizes motor mass with a constraint of 45 W on rated power. Current decisions are: frame type, commutation type, and magnet type. Depending on these decisions, the design model can expand to include new performance variables.
Grahic Jump Location
Diagram of the IRTD method showing the typical design loop in which a designer provides approximate models, variables, and objectives that, along with classification decisions, direct the design process
Grahic Jump Location
Probabilistic engineering model for motor catalog, after the constraint of 45 W has been applied. Because of the commitment, only four design parameters are “free” variables. Expected value of weight is overlaid as a dashed line on the probability density contours.
Grahic Jump Location
Expected value decision making for various classification variables. The probability densities of motor weight given a power constraint of 45 W all overlap. Frameless, rare earth, and brushless produce the best expected value of weight for each classification variable. Among all classifications, brushless are the lightest. Considerable overlap among the pdf’s means that further information could help clarify the current decision.
Grahic Jump Location
Decision making based on motor torque. The top left shows the expected value of weight plotted against torque; the distribution of motor torques in the constrained domain is overlaid (dot-dash, not to scale). The optimal decision over all choices (denoted by a “* ” overlaying the expected value plot) is a brushless motor.
Grahic Jump Location
Decision making based on motor speed. The top-left plot shows the expected value of weight plotted against speed; probability of speed is overlaid (dot-dash, not to scale). The optimal decision (“* ”) changes from brushless below 500 rps to frameless above.
Grahic Jump Location
Decision making based on motor length. The top-left plot shows the expected value of weight plotted against length; probability of length is overlaid (dot-dash, not to scale). The optimal decision (“* ”) changes from frameless for short motors to brushless for most other lengths.
Grahic Jump Location
Decision making based on motor diameter. The top-left plot shows the expected value of weight plotted against diameter; probability of diameter is overlaid (dot-dash, not to scale). As in the length variable, the optimal decision (* ) changes from frameless for small motors to brushless larger ones.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In