0
Research Papers: Design Automation

P3GA: An Algorithm for Technology Characterization

[+] Author and Article Information
Edgar Galvan

Design Systems Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77840
e-mail: e_galvan@tamu.edu

Richard J. Malak

Design Systems Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77840
e-mail: rmalak@tamu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received March 8, 2013; final manuscript received July 21, 2014; published online November 14, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Michael Kokkolaras.

J. Mech. Des 137(1), 011401 (Jan 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4028101 History: Received March 08, 2013; Revised July 21, 2014; Online November 14, 2014

It is important for engineers to understand the capabilities and limitations of the technologies they consider for use in their systems. However, communicating this information can be a challenge. Mathematical characterizations of technical capabilities are of interest as a means to reduce ambiguity in communication and to increase opportunities to utilize design automation methods. The parameterized Pareto frontier (PPF) was introduced in prior work as a mathematical basis for modeling technical capabilities. One advantage of PPFs is that, in many cases, engineers can model a system by composing frontiers of its components. This allows for rapid technology evaluation and design space exploration. However, finding the PPF can be difficult. The contribution of this article is a new algorithm for approximating the PPF, called predictive parameterized Pareto genetic algorithm (P3GA). The proposed algorithm uses concepts and methods from multi-objective genetic optimization and machine learning to generate a discrete approximation of the PPF. If needed, designers can generate a continuous approximation of the frontier by generalizing beyond these data. The algorithm is explained, its performance is analyzed on numerical test problems, and its use is demonstrated on an engineering example. The results of the investigation indicate that P3GA may be effective in practice.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sage, A. P., and Armstrong, J. E., Jr., 2000, Introduction to Systems Engineering, Wiley and Sons.
Buede, D. M., 2000, The Engineering Design of Systems, Wiley, New York.
Wymore, A. W., 1993, Model-Based Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Discrete Systems and to the Tricotyledon Theory of System Design, Vol. 3, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Malak, R. J., and Paredis, C. J. J., 2010, “Using Parameterized Pareto Sets to Model Design Concepts,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(4), p. 041007. [CrossRef]
Malak, R. J., 2008, “Using Parameterized Efficient Sets to Model Alternatives for Systems Design Decisions,” Ph.D. thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Galvan, E., and Malak, R. J., 2010, “Using Predictive Modeling Techniques to Solve Multilevel Systems Design Problems,” 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Fort Worth, TX, Sept. 13–15, Paper No. AIAA-2010-9266.
Malak, R. J., Tucker, L., and Paredis, C. J. J., 2009, “Compositional Modeling of Fluid Power Systems Using Predictive Tradeoff Models,” Int. J. Fluid Power, 10(2), pp. 45–55. [CrossRef]
Parker, R. R., Galvan, E., and Malak, R. J., 2013, “Technology Characterization Models and Their Use in Systems Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(7), p. 071003. [CrossRef]
Lin, J. G., 1976, “Multiple-Objective Problems: Pareto-Optimal Solutions by Method of Proper Equality Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 21(5), pp. 641–650. [CrossRef]
Messac, A., and Mattson, C. A., 2004, “Normal Constraint Method With Guarantee of Even Representation of Complete Pareto Frontier,” AIAA J., 42(10), pp. 2101–2111 [CrossRef].
Das, I., and Dennis, J. E., 1998, “Normal-Boundary Intersection: A New Method for Generating the Pareto Surface in Nonlinear Multicriteria Optimization Problems,” SIAM J. Optim., 8(3), pp. 631–657. [CrossRef]
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., 2002, “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 6(2), pp. 182–197. [CrossRef]
Ferguson, S., Gurnani, A., Donndelinger, J., and Lewis, K., 2005, “A Study of Convergence and Mapping in Preliminary Vehicle Design,” Int. J. Veh. Syst. Modell. Test., 1(1–3), pp. 192–215. [CrossRef]
Mattson, C. A., and Messac, A., 2003, “Concept Selection Using S-Pareto Frontiers,” AIAA J., 41(6), pp. 1190–1198. [CrossRef]
Mattson, C. A., and Messac, A., 2005, “Pareto Frontier Based Concept Selection Under Uncertainty, With Visualization,” Optim. Eng., 6(1), pp. 85–115. [CrossRef]
Gurnani, A., Ferguson, S., Lewis, K. E., and Donndelinger, J., 2006, “A Constraint-Based Approach to Feasibility Assessment in Preliminary Design,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal. Manuf., 20(04), pp. 351–367. [CrossRef]
Ulrich, K. T., 2005, “Estimating the Technology Frontier for Personal Electric Vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part C, 13(5–6), pp. 448–462. [CrossRef]
Huang, C. H., Galuski, J., and Bloebaum, C. L., 2007, “Multi-Objective Pareto Concurrent Subspace Optimization for Multidisciplinary Design,” AIAA J., 45(8), pp. 1894–1906 [CrossRef].
Goel, T., Vaidyanathan, R., Haftka, R. T., Shyy, W., Queipo, N. V., and Tucker, K., 2007, “Response Surface Approximation of Pareto Optimal Front in Multi-Objective Optimization,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 196(4–6), pp. 879–893. [CrossRef]
Ikeda, K., Kita, H., and Kobayashi, S., 2001, “Failure of Pareto-Based MOEAs: Does Non-Dominated Really Mean Near to Optimal?,” Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 2, pp. 957–962. [CrossRef]
Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Deb, K., and Zitzler, E., 2002, “Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization,” Evol. Comput., 10(3), pp. 263–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Drechsler, N., Drechsler, R., and Becker, B., 2001, “Multi-Objective Optimisation Based on Relation Favour,” Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 154–166.
Campbell, M. I., 2012, “The Skewboid Method: A Simple and Effective Approach to Pareto Relaxation and Filtering,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70323 [CrossRef].
Miettinen, K., 1999, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Vol. 12, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Marler, R. T., and Arora, J. S., 2004, “Survey of Multi-Objective Optimization Methods for Engineering,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 26(6), pp. 369–395. [CrossRef]
Deb, K., 2001, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Abbass, H. A., 2002, “The Self-Adaptive Pareto Differential Evolution Algorithm,” Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Honolulu, HI, May 12–17, Vol. 1, pp. 831–836 [CrossRef].
Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., and Goldberg, D. E., 1994, “A Niched Pareto Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization,” IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, NJ, IEEE Press, Vol. 1, pp. 82–87.
Poloni, C., Giurgevich, A., Onesti, L., and Pediroda, V., 2000, “Hybridization of a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm, a Neural Network and a Classical Optimizer for a Complex Design Problem in Fluid Dynamics,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 186(2–4), pp. 403–420. [CrossRef]
Sarkar, D., and Modak, J. M., 2005, “Pareto-Optimal Solutions for Multi-Objective Optimization of Fed-Batch Bioreactors Using Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 60(2), pp. 481–492. [CrossRef]
Nandasana, A. D., Ray, A. K., and Gupta, S. K., 2003, “Applications of the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA) in Chemical Reaction Engineering,” Int. J. Chem. React. Eng., 1(1), pp. 1–16.
Kannan, S., Baskar, S., McCalley, J. D., and Murugan, P., 2009, “Application of NSGA-II Algorithm to Generation Expansion Planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 24(1), pp. 454–461. [CrossRef]
Agrawal, N., Rangaiah, G. P., Ray, A. K., and Gupta, S. K., 2007, “Design Stage Optimization of an Industrial Low-Density Polyethylene Tubular Reactor for Multiple Objectives Using NSGA-II and Its Jumping Gene Adaptations,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 62(9), pp. 2346–2365. [CrossRef]
Shan, S., and Wang, G. G., 2005, “An Efficient Pareto Set Identification Approach for Multiobjective Optimization on Black-Box Functions,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(5), pp. 866–874. [CrossRef]
Tax, D. M. J., and Duin, R. P. W., 1999, “Support Vector Domain Description,” Pattern Recogn. Lett., 20(11–13), pp. 1191–1199. [CrossRef]
Malak, J. R. J., and Paredis, C. J. J., 2010, “Using Support Vector Machines to Formalize the Valid Input Domain of Predictive Models in Systems Design Problems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 132(10), p. 101001. [CrossRef]
Scholkopf, B., Williamson, R., Smola, A., Shawe-Taylor, J., and Platt, J., 2000, “Support Vector Method for Novelty Detection,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 582–588.
Wolfe, P., 1961, “A Duality Theorem for Nonlinear Programming,” Qtr. Appl. Math., 19(3), pp. 239–233.
Cauwenberghs, G., and Poggio, T., 2000, “Incremental and Decremental Support Vector Machine Learning,” Neural Information Processing Systems, Denver, CO, pp. 409–415.
Roach, E., Parker, R. R., and Malak, R. J., 2011, “An Improved Support Vector Domain Description Method for Modeling Valid Search Domains in Engineering Design Problems,” ASME 2011 Paper No. DETC2011-48435 [CrossRef].
Deb, K., 1999, “Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms: Problem Difficulties and Construction of Test Problems,” Evol. Comput., 7(3), pp. 205–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Deb, K., Horn, J., and Goldberg, D. E., 1993, “Multimodal Deceptive Functions,” Complex Syst., 7(2), pp. 131–154 [CrossRef].
Li, H., and Zhang, Q., 2009, “Multiobjective Optimization Problems With Complicated Pareto Sets, MOEA/D and NSGA-II,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 13(2), pp. 284–302. [CrossRef]
Bader, J. M., 2010, “Hypervolume-Based Search for Multiobjective Optimization: Theory and Methods,” Ph.D. thesis, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Farina, M., Deb, K., and Amato, P., 2004, “Dynamic Multiobjective Optimization Problems: Test Cases, Approximations, and Applications,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 8(5), pp. 425–442. [CrossRef]
Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L., and While, L., 2006, “A Review of Multiobjective Test Problems and a Scalable Test Problem Toolkit,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 10(5), pp. 477–506. [CrossRef]
Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Zitzler, E., Abraham, A., Jain, L., and Goldberg, R., 2005, “Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization,” Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 105–145.
Galvan, E., 2012, “A Genetic Algorithm Approach for Technology Characterization,” Master of Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C. M., and Da Fonseca, V. G., 2003, “Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 7(2), pp. 117–132. [CrossRef]
Knowles, J. D., Thiele, L., and Zitzler, E., 2006, “A Tutorial on the Performance Assessment of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers,” Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, TIK Report No. 214.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., and Meyarivan, T., 2001, “Constrained Test Problems for Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization,” Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 284–298.
Deb, K., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., and Zitzler, E., 2002, “Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems,” Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC '02, Honolulu, HI, May 12–17, pp. 825–830 [CrossRef].
Zitzler, E., Deb, K., and Thiele, L., 2000, “Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results,” Evol. Comput., 8(2), pp. 173–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zitzler, E., and Thiele, L., 1998, “Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms—A Comparative Case Study,” Parallel Problem Solving From Nature V, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 292–301.
Esbensen, H., and Kuh, E. S., 1996, “Design Space Exploration Using the Genetic Algorithm,” 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, ISCAS '96, Connecting the World, Atlanta, GA, May 12–15, Vol. 4, pp. 500–503 [CrossRef].
Fonseca, C., and Fleming, P., 1996, “On the Performance Assessment and Comparison of Stochastic Multiobjective Optimizers,” Parallel Problem Solving from Nature—PPSN IV, Vol. 1141, H.-M.Voigt, W.Ebeling, I.Rechenberg, and H.-P.Schwefel, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 584–593.
Sayın, S., 2000, “Measuring the Quality of Discrete Representations of Efficient Sets in Multiple Objective Mathematical Programming,” Math. Program., 87(3), pp. 543–560. [CrossRef]
Cignoni, P., Rocchini, C., and Scopigno, R., 1998, “Metro: Measuring Error on Simplified Surfaces,” Comput. Graph. Forum, 17(2), pp. 167–174. [CrossRef]
Aspert, N., Santa-Cruz, D., and Ebrahimi, T., 2002, “MESH: Measuring Errors Between Surfaces Using the Hausdorff Distance,” IEEE International Conference in Multimedia and Expo, Lausanne, Switzerland, Aug. 26–29, pp. 705–708.
Schutze, O., Esquivel, X., Lara, A., and Coello, C. A. C., 2012, “Using the Averaged Hausdorff Distance as a Performance Measure in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 16(4), pp. 504–522. [CrossRef]
Zitzler, E., and Thiele, L., 1999, “Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 3(4), pp. 257–271. [CrossRef]
Shigley, J. E., and Mischke, C. R., 2001, Mechanical Engineering Design, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Idealized interactions between system-level and discipline-level engineers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Dependency relationships between discipline-level and system-level attributes for a hydraulic cylinder [4]. The preference ordering for values of discipline-level attribute b is unknown without further system-level information. In general, preferences can be nonmonotonic over the attribute domain.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustrative example of the relationship between design details, x=[x1,x2]T, and their corresponding attribute values y=[y1,y2]T

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Flow chart of the P3GA. The shaded processes correspond to the novel concepts implemented in P3GA.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison between (a) CPD and (b) PPD. In this example, there are m=2 attribute, the feasible attribute set Yf⊂ℝ2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of dominance analysis on randomly generated design sites when CPD is (a) and is not (b) applicable

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Illustration of kernel based SVDD. The SVDD is a test to determine whether a point is inside of the boundary.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Random population members in (a) the design space and their (b) attribute space image. The shaded region corresponds to the true feasible space in both domains.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

An illustration of predictive PPD

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Indicator Δp value as a function of number of generations for test problem 1, versions (a) and (b), at different values of the q parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Indicator Δp value as a function of number of generations for test problem 2, versions (a) and (b), at different values of the q parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Indicator Δp value as a function of number of generations for test problem 3, versions (a) and (b), at different values of the q parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Illustration of the P3GA results of a single trial for or test problem 2b at 100 generations. Illustrated is (a) the final p-nondominated points relative to the true PPF and (b) comparison of the true CPF at different parameter values, y1ε{0.25,0.50,0.75}, to the CPFs recovered from the P3GA data. Note that, in this case, the CPF is a cross section of the PPF at a specified parameter value.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Illustration of (a) the mean distance between the points, P, and the approximated PPF, S, at various generations

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