0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

Visualizing Relations Between Grammar Rules, Objectives, and Search Space Exploration in Grammar-Based Computational Design Synthesis1

[+] Author and Article Information
Corinna Königseder

Mem. ASME
Engineering Design and Computing Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical
and Process Engineering,
ETH Zurich,
Zurich 8092, Switzerland
e-mail: ck@ethz.ch

Kristina Shea

Mem. ASME
Engineering Design and Computing Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical
and Process Engineering,
ETH Zurich,
Zurich 8092, Switzerland
e-mail: kshea@ethz.ch

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 29, 2015; final manuscript received July 18, 2016; published online August 30, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Carolyn Seepersad.

J. Mech. Des 138(10), 101101 (Aug 30, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-15-1677; doi: 10.1115/1.4034270 History: Received September 29, 2015; Revised July 18, 2016

Design grammars have been successfully applied in numerous engineering disciplines, e.g., in electrical engineering, architecture, and mechanical engineering. A successful application of design grammars in computational design synthesis (CDS) requires (a) meaningful representation of designs and the design task at hand, (b) careful formulation of grammar rules to synthesize new designs, (c) problem-specific design evaluation, and (d) selection of an appropriate algorithm to guide the synthesis process. Determining these different components of a CDS method requires not only a detailed understanding of each individual part but also of the interdependencies between them. In this paper, a new method is presented to support both CDS method development and application. The method analyzes the designs generated during the synthesis process and visualizes how the design space is explored with respect to design characteristics and objectives. The search algorithm as well as the grammar rules are analyzed with this approach. Two case studies, the synthesis of gearboxes and of bicycle frames, demonstrate how the method can be used to analyze the different components of CDS methods. The presented research can analyze the interplay between grammar rules and the search process during method development.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Architecture diagram showing how research fields in Sec. 2 relate to each other

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The generic CDS process as proposed in Cagan et al. [1]. Figure redrawn.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

User interaction scenario 5 according to Ref. [26] (top) and proposed scenario with the method visualized in black boxes (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Extended generic CDS process. Adapted from Ref. [1].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Example data to visualize the method. At the top, an example rule set is shown consisting of two rules. The table (bottom) shows datasets for six iterations. The last column of the table shows the unique topology IDs identified in the postprocessing step.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

UTS (left) with nodes representing unique topologies (§) and edges representing rule applications, PS (top right) with nodes representing positions of designs (#) in the PS and vectors representing changes of objective function values due to rule applications, and rule analysis (bottom right) representing changes by rule applications as vectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Overview of which visualization is used to analyze the effect of a CDS component on the generated designs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic overview of the implementation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Overview of the bicycle frame synthesis case study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Schematic overview of the Burst algorithm (effect of the maximum Burst length in highlighted step is explored in both case studies)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Overview of the SA algorithm (effect of the highlighted step is explored in both case studies)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Visualization of the progression of the algorithm in the UTS. (a) shows the start and the following subfigures (b)–(d) show how new topologies are explored (new nodes) and existing ones are exploited (increasing node size). Designs that are explored from one subfigure to the next are highlighted.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

UTSs for three example runs with 1000 iterations each, using the Burst algorithm with the maximum BL set to 1 (top), 5 (middle), and 20 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

UTSs for example runs with 1000 iterations each: left—SA without RTB with zoomed-in view (bottom); right—SA with RTB every 100 iterations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Example RAPs for parametric (left) and topologic (right) rules

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Overview of the gearbox case study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

UTSs for three example runs with 1000 iterations each, using the Burst algorithm with the maximum BL set to 1 (top), 5 (middle), and 20 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

UTS and pictorial representations for the topologies generated with the Burst algorithm (maximum BL = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

UTSs for two experiments with 1000 iterations each using the SA algorithm without RTB (left) and with RTB every 100 iterations (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Exploration of the PS during SA with RTB

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