Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 273–284 | Cite as

Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes

  • Andrew B. LambeEmail author
  • Joaquim R. R. A. Martins
Research Paper

Abstract

While numerous architectures exist for solving multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) problems, there is currently no standard way of describing these architectures. In particular, a standard visual representation of the solution process would be particularly useful as a communication medium among practitioners and those new to the field. This paper presents the extended design structure matrix (XDSM), a new diagram for visualizing MDO processes. The diagram is based on extending the standard design structure matrix (DSM) to simultaneously show data dependency and process flow on a single diagram. Modifications include adding special components to define iterative processes, defining different line styles to show data and process connections independently, and adding a numbering scheme to define the order in which the components are executed. This paper describes the rules for constructing XDSMs along with many examples, including diagrams of several MDO architectures. Finally, this paper discusses potential applications of the XDSM in other areas of MDO and the future development of the diagrams.

Keywords

Multidisciplinary design optimization Visualization Design structure matrix Design architectures Multidisciplinary analysis Distributed optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Justin Gray and Kenneth Moore of the OpenMDAO development team at NASA Glenn Research Center for their feedback on the diagram structure and notations, as well for their help in verifying the XDSMs for the various MDO architectures. Their suggestions substantially enhanced the quality of the final diagrams. Additional suggestions were provided by Evin Cramer, William Crossley, John Dannenhofer, Raphael Haftka, Robert Haimes, Michael Kokkolaras, and Sean Torrez. Finally, we thank one of the anonymous referees, whose comments helped us properly place our work in relation to some of the MDO literature cited herein.

References

  1. Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2004a) Reconfigurability in MDO problem synthesis, part 1. In: Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2004b) Reconfigurability in MDO problem synthesis, part 2. In: Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin S, Baldwin A, Li B, Waskett P (2000) Analytical design planning technique (ADePT): a dependency structure matrix tool to schedule the building design process. Constr Manag Econ 18(2):173–182. doi: 10.1080/014461900370807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloebaum CL, Hajela P, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1992) Non-hierarchic system decomposition in structural optimization. Eng Optim 19(3):171–186. doi: 10.1080/03052159208941227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (2005) Unified modeling language user guide, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun RD, Kroo IM (1997) Development and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary design environment. In: Alexandrov N, Hussaini MY (eds) Multidisciplinary design optimization: state-of-the-art. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 98–116Google Scholar
  7. Braun RD, Gage P, Kroo IM, Sobieski IP (1996) Implementation and performance issues in collaborative optimization. In: Proceedings of the 6th AIAA, NASA, and ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, AIAA paper 1996-4017Google Scholar
  8. Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48:292–306. doi: 10.1109/17.946528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer EJ, Dennis JE, Frank PD, Lewis RM, Shubin GR (1994) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM J Optim 4(4):754–776. doi: 10.1137/0804044 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Wit AJ, Van Keulen F (2010) Overview of methods for multilevel and/or multidisciplinary optimization. In: Proceedings of the 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  11. DeMiguel AV, Murray W (2000) An analysis of collaborative optimization methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, aIAA 2000-4720Google Scholar
  12. Eppinger SD, Whitney DE, Smith RP, Gebala DA (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6:1–13. doi: 10.1007/BF01588087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etman LFP, Kokkolaras M, Hoftkamp AT, Papalambros PY, Rooda JE (2005) Coordination specification in distributed optimal design of multilevel systems using the χ language. Struct Multidisc Optim 29:198–212. doi: 10.1007/s00158-004-0467-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gebala DA, Eppinger SD (1991) Methods for analyzing design procedures. In: ASME conference on design theory and methodology, vol 31, pp 227–233. Miami, FLGoogle Scholar
  15. Gray J, Moore KT, Naylor BA (2010) OpenMDAO: an open-source framework for multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim HM (2001) Target cascading in optimal system design. PhD thesis, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim HM, Michelena NF, Papalambros PY, Jian T (2003) Target cascading in optimal system design. J Mech Des 125(3):474–480. doi: 10.1115/1.1582501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim HM, Chen W, Wiecek MM (2006) Lagrangian coordination for enhancing the convergence of analytical target cascading. AIAA J 44(10):2197–2207. doi: 10.2514/1.15326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2000) Bilevel integrated system synthesis with response surfaces. AIAA J 38(8):1479–1485. doi: 10.2514/2.1126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroo IM (1997) MDO for large-scale design. In: Alexandrov N, Hussaini MY (eds) Multidisciplinary design optimization: state-of-the-art. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 22–44Google Scholar
  21. Lano RJ (1977) The N2 chart. Tech. rep., TRWGoogle Scholar
  22. Martins JRRA, Marriage C, Tedford N (2009) pyMDO: an object-oriented framework for multidisciplinary design optimization. ACM Trans Math Softw 36(4):2–25. doi: 10.1145/1555386.1555389 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perez RE, Liu HHT, Behdinan K (2004) Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization approaches for aircraft conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, aIAA 2004–4537Google Scholar
  24. Roth B (2008) Aircraft family design using enhanced collaborative optimization. PhD thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Sellar RS, Batill SM, Renaud JE (1996) Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design. In: Proceedings of the 34th AIAA aerospace sciences and meeting exhibitGoogle Scholar
  26. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2008) Integrated system-of-systems synthesis. AIAA J 46(5):1072–1080. doi: 10.2514/1.27953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Agte JS, Sandusky RR (2000) Bi-level integrated system synthesis. AIAA J 38(1):164–172. doi: 10.2514/2.937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Altus TD, Phillips M, Sandusky RR (2003) Bi-level integrated system synthesis for concurrent and distributed processing. AIAA J 41(10):1996–2003. doi: 10.2514/2.1889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steward DV (1981) The design structure matrix: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 28:71–74Google Scholar
  30. Tosserams S, Etman LFP, Papalambros PY, Rooda JE (2006) An augmented Lagrangian relaxation for analytical target cascading using the alternating direction method of multipliers. Struct Multidisc Optim 31(3):176–189. doi: 10.1007/s00158-005-0579-0 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tosserams S, Hoftkamp AT, Etman LFP, Rooda JE (2010) A specification language for problem partitioning in decomposition-based design optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 42:707–723. doi: 10.1007/s00158-010-0512-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tufte ER (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, CheshireGoogle Scholar
  33. Wujek BA, Renaud JE, Batill SM, Brockman JB (1996) Concurrent subspace optimization using design variable sharing in a distributed computing environment. Concurr Eng 4:361–377. doi: 10.1177/1063293X9600400405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yassine A, Braha D (2003) Complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurr Eng 11(3):165–176. doi: 10.1177/106329303034503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Aerospace StudiesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations