Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 19, Issue 2–3, pp 113–125 | Cite as

Evolutionary engineering design synthesis of on-board traffic monitoring sensors

  • Yizhen Zhang
  • Erik K. Antonsson
  • Alcherio Martinoli
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, a formal engineering design synthesis methodology based on evolutionary computation is presented, with special emphasis on the design and optimization of distributed independent systems. A case study concerned with design of a sensory system for traffic monitoring purposes is presented, along with simulations of traffic scenarios at several levels of abstraction. It is shown how the methodology introduced is able to deal with the engineering design challenges present in the case study, and effectively synthesize novel design solutions of good quality. Moreover, when the fitness function is formulated as an aggregation of design preferences with different weights and trade-off strategies, the complete Pareto optimal frontier can be determined by the evolutionary synthesis methodology. The results of this study suggest that the approach can be useful for designers to solve challenging engineering design synthesis problems.

Keywords

Engineering design synthesis Evolutionary computation Multi-level simulation Engineering trade-offs and performance evaluations Traffic systems Distributed sensory systems 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported, in part, by Delphi Delco Electronic Systems, and by the Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC—9402726.

References

  1. Aczél J (1966) Lectures on functional equations and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonsson EK, Cagan J (eds) (2001) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonsson EK, Zhang Y, Martinoli A (2003) Evolving engineering design tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on design theory and methodology (DTM), September 2003. ASME. Paper no. DETC2003/DTM-48676Google Scholar
  4. Bäck T (1996) Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley PJ (ed) (1999) Evolutionary design by computers. Morgan Kaufmann, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugajska MD, Schultz AC (2000) Co-evolution of form and function in the design of autonomous agents: Micro air vehicle project. In: Proceedings of workshop on evolution of sensors GECCO 2000, Las Vegas, NV, August 2000, pp 240–244Google Scholar
  7. Fitzpatrick JM, Grefenstette JJ (1988) Genetic algorithms in noisy environments. Mach Learn 3(2–3):101–120Google Scholar
  8. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search. Optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee C-Y, Antonsson EK (2000) Variable length genomes for evolutionary algorithms. In: GECCO 2000, proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, July 2000. IEEE, Morgan Kaufmann, p 806Google Scholar
  10. Lipson H, Pollack JB (2000) Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406:974–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martinoli A, Zhang Y, Prakash P, Antonsson EK, Olney RD (2002) Towards evolutionary design of intelligent transportation systems. In: Fiorentin SR (ed) Proceedings of the eleventh international symposium of the associazione tecnica dell’automobile on advanced technologies for ADAS systems, Siena, Italy. ATA Paper Number 02A009Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman M (2000) Applied mathematics: the power of design. Nature 405:412–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nolfi S, Floreano D (2000) Evolutionary robotics. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Otto KN, Antonsson EK (1991) Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Res Eng Des 3(2):87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paenke I, Branke J, Jin Y (2006) Efficient search for robust solutions by means of evolutionary algorithms and fitness approximation. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 10(4):405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pugh J, Zhang Y, Martinoli A (2005) Particle swarm optimization for unsupervised robotic learning. In: Proceedings of the swarm intelligence symposium, June 2005. IEEE, pp 92–99Google Scholar
  18. Scott MJ, Antonsson EK (1998) Aggregation functions for engineering design trade-offs. Fuzzy Sets Syst 99(3):253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott MJ, Antonsson EK (2000) Using indifference points in engineering decisions. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on design theory and methodology (DTM), September 2000. ASMEGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang Y, Martinoli A, Antonsson EK, Olney RD (2003a) Evolution of sensory configurations for intelligent vehicles. In: Tsugawa S (ed) Proceedings of the IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium, Columbus, OH, June 2003. IEEE, pp 351–356Google Scholar
  21. Zhang Y, Martinoli A, Antonsson EK (2003b) Evolutionary design of a collective sensory system. In: Lipson H, Antonsson EK, Koza JR (eds) Computational synthesis: from basic building blocks to high level functionality, Menlo Park, CA, 24–26 March 2003. Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium Series, The American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, pp 283–290. Technical Report SS-03-02Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yizhen Zhang
    • 1
  • Erik K. Antonsson
    • 1
  • Alcherio Martinoli
    • 2
  1. 1.Engineering Design Research Laboratory, Division of Engineering and Applied ScienceCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.Distributed Intelligent Systems and Algorithms LaboratoryÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations