Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework for measuring complexity of aerospace systems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a framework for measuring the complexity of aerospace systems and demonstrate its application. A measure that incorporates size, coupling, and modularity aspects of complexity is developed that emphasizes the importance of indirect coupling and feedback loops in the system. We demonstrate how hierarchical modular structure in the system reduces complexity and present an algorithm to decompose the system into modules. The measure is tested and found to be scalable for large-scale systems involving thousands of components and interactions (typical in modern aerospace systems). We investigate the sensitivity of the measure and demonstrate the ability of the framework to identify incorrectness in system representation. The merits of the framework are exemplified through a case study comparing three spacecraft. The framework provides the designer with three key capabilities that can positively influence the aerospace (or other) design process: the ability to identify complex subsystems, the ability to classify misrepresentations, and the ability to trade-off commercially of the shelf (COTS) and non-COTS components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen K and Carlson-Skalak S (1998) Defining product architecture during conceptual design. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC1998/DTM, Atlanta, Georgia

  • Ameri F, Summers J, Mocko G, Porter M (2008) Engineering design complexity: an investigation of methods and measures. Res Eng Des 19(2):161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson S, Sellgren U (2003) Modular product development with focus on modeling and simulation of interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 6th workshop on product structuring-application of product models, pp 17–24

  • Arena M, Younossi O, Brancato K, Blickstein I, Grammich C (2008) Why has the cost of fixed-wing aircraft risen? A macroscopic examination of the trends in us military aircraft costs over the past several decades. Tech. Rep. MG-696-NAVY/AF, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

  • Asikoglu O, Simpson T (2012) A new method for evaluating design dependencies in product architectures. In: 12th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference and 14th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, AIAA 2012-5660

  • Bearden D (2003) A complexity-based risk assessment of low-cost planetary missions: when is a mission too fast and too cheap. Acta Astronaut 52(2-6):371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman K (2011) Model-based design, engineering, and development: advancements mean new opportunities for space system development. In: AIAA SPACE 2011 conference and exposition, Long Beach, California, AIAA 2011-7304

  • Braha D (2002) Partitioning tasks to product development teams. In: Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, Montreal, Canada, vol 4, pp 333–344

  • Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2004) Topology of large-scale engineering problem-solving networks. Phys Rev E 69(1):016,113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2007) The statistical mechanics of complex product development: empirical and analytical results. Manag Sci 53(7):1127–1145. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0617

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Braha D, Maimon O (1998) The measurement of a design structural and functional complexity. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 28(4):527–535. doi:10.1109/3468.686715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson J, Doyle J (2002) Complexity and robustness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(Suppl 1):2538. doi:10.1073/pnas.012582499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney H, Plato D (1968) Efficient partitioning of components. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual design automation workshop, ACM, New York, USA, DAC ’68, pp 16.1–16.21, doi:10.1145/800167.805401

  • Chen L, Li S (2005) Analysis of decomposability and complexity for design problems in the context of decomposition. J Mech Des 127. doi:10.1115/1.1897405):545

  • Dolan B, Lewis K (2008) Robust product family consolidation and selection. J Eng Des 19(6):553–569. doi:10.1080/09544820802126511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Haik B, Yang K (1999) The components of complexity in engineering design. IIE Trans 31(10):925–934. doi:10.1023/A:1007650829429

    Google Scholar 

  • Erixon G (1996) Modular function development mfd, support for good product structure creation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd WDK workshop on product structuring, pp 13–16

  • Fiedler M (1973) Algebraic connectivity of graphs. Czechoslov Math J 23:98

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler M (1975) A property of eigenvectors of nonnegative symmetric matrices and its application to graph theory. Czechosl Math J 25(100):619–633

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann M, Lloyd S (1996) Information measures, effective complexity, and total information. Complexity 2(1):44–52

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson J, Prasad G, Allamneni S (1999) Modular product design: a life-cycle view. J Integr Des Process Sci 3(4):13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo F, Gershenson J (2004) A comparison of modular product design methods based on improvement and iteration. In: Volume 3a: 16th international conference on design theory and methodology, ASME, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, doi:10.1115/DETC2004-57396

  • Hölttä K, de Weck OL (2007) Metrics for assessing coupling density and modularity in complex products and systems. In: ASME 2007 design engineering technical conferences, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Las Vegas, Nevada

  • Hölttä K, Tang V, Seering W (2003) Modularizing product architectures using dendrograms. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, DS31-1021FPB

  • Hornby G (2007) Modularity, reuse, and hierarchy: measuring complexity by measuring structure and organization. Complexity 13(2):50–61. doi:10.1002/cplx.20202

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leighton T, Rao S (1988) An approximate max-flow min-cut theorem for uniform multicommodity flow problems with applications to approximation algorithms. In: Foundations of Computer Science, 1988., 29th Annual Symposium on, IEEE, pp 422–431, doi:10.1109/SFCS.1988.21958

  • Maimon O, Braha D (1996) On the complexity of the design synthesis problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 26(1):142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin M, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des 13(4):213–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson J, Summers J (2010) Complexity metrics for directional node-link system representations: theory and applications. In: Proceedings of the ASME IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada, 10.1115/DETC2010-28561

  • Mattson C, Magleby S (2001) The influence of product modularity during concept selection of consumer products. In: ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, DETC2001/DTM-21712

  • Mikkola JH (2000) Modularization assessment of product architecture. Druid working papers, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies

  • Morse E (2003) On the complexity of mechanical assemblies. In: Volume 3a: 8th Design for Manufacturing Conference, ASME, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 10.1115/DETC2003/DFM-48159

  • Murray BT, Pinto A, Skelding R, de Weck O, Zhu H, Nair S, Shougarian N, Sinha K, Bopardikar S, Zeidner L (2011) Meta II complex systems design and analysis (CODA). Tech. Rep. ADA552676, United Technologies Research Center, Hartford, CT

  • Newcomb PJ, Bras B, Rosen DW (1998) Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. J Mech Des 120(3):483–490. doi:10.1115/1.2829177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69(2):026,113. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravasz E, Barabási A (2003) Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Phys Rev E 67(2):026,112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheard SA, Mostashari A (2010) A complexity typology for systems engineering. In: Twentieth Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering

  • Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa M, Eppinger S, Rowles C (2000) Designing modular and integrative systems. In: ASME design engineering technical conference proceedings, Baltimore, Maryland, DETC2000/DTM-14571

  • Stoer M, Wagner F (1997) A simple min-cut algorithm. J ACM (JACM) 44(4):585–591. doi:10.1145/263867.263872

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart D, Mattikalli R, DeLaurentis D, Shah J (2011) Meta II, complexity and adaptability (ADA552865)

  • Suh N (2001) Axiomatic design: advances and applications, vol 4. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan MJ, Schwenn RE, Brink H, Mebane CT, Seales SC, Wintfeld JR, Best DB, Bowman RC, Denomme TJ, Fairbairn BD (2009) Defense acquisitions: assessments of selected weapon programs. Tech. rep., Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

  • Summers J, Shah J (2010) Mechanical engineering design complexity metrics: size, coupling, and solvability. J Mech Des 132(2):021,004. doi:10.1115/1.4000759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Luxburg U (2007) A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput 17(4):395–416. doi:10.1007/s11222-007-9033-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Y, Cheng C (1989) Towards efficient hierarchical designs by ratio cut partitioning. In: IEEE international conference on computer-aided design, 1989, IEEE, pp 298–301, doi:10.1109/ICCAD.1989.76957

  • Wertz J, Larson W (1996) Reducing space mission cost. Microcosm Press, Hawthorne

    Google Scholar 

  • Willcox K, Allaire D, Deyst J, He C, Sondecker G (2011) Stochastic process decision methods for complex-cyber-physical systems. Tech. Rep. ADA552217, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the sponsorship of this research from the Boeing Company (Contract PO 410958) under the DARPA META program. In particular, we thank David Corman, Tom Herm, Doug Stuart for their contributions in this effort. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors only.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Shashank Tamaskar, Kartavya Neema & Daniel DeLaurentis

Authors
  1. Shashank Tamaskar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kartavya Neema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel DeLaurentis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shashank Tamaskar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamaskar, S., Neema, K. & DeLaurentis, D. Framework for measuring complexity of aerospace systems. Res Eng Design 25, 125–137 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-014-0169-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-014-0169-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation