Temporal Evolution of Design Principles in Engineering Systems: Analogies with Human Evolution

  • Kalyanmoy Deb
  • Sunith Bandaru
  • Cem Celal Tutum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7492)


Optimization of an engineering system or component makes a series of changes in the initial random solution(s) iteratively to form the final optimal shape. When multiple conflicting objectives are considered, recent studies on innovization revealed the fact that the set of Pareto-optimal solutions portray certain common design principles. In this paper, we consider a 14-variable bi-objective design optimization of a MEMS device and identify a number of such common design principles through a recently proposed automated innovization procedure. Although these design principles are found to exist among near-Pareto-optimal solutions, the main crux of this paper lies in a demonstration of temporal evolution of these principles during the course of optimization. The results reveal that certain important design principles start to evolve early on, whereas some detailed design principles get constructed later during optimization. Interestingly, there exists a simile between evolution of design principles with that of human evolution. Such information about the hierarchy of key design principles should enable designers to have a deeper understanding of their problems.


multi-objective optimization automated innovization MEMS design evolution design principles 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bandaru, S., Deb, K.: Automated Innovization for Simultaneous Discovery of Multiple Rules in Bi-objective Problems. In: Takahashi, R.H.C., Deb, K., Wanner, E.F., Greco, S. (eds.) EMO 2011. LNCS, vol. 6576, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandaru, S., Deb, K.: Towards automating the discovery of certain innovative design principles through a clustering-based optimization technique. Engineering Optimization 43(9), 911–941 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chankong, V., Haimes, Y.Y.: Multiobjective Decision Making Theory and Methodology. North-Holland, New York (1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb, K.: Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, Chichester (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, R.: Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Systems 9(2), 115–148 (1995)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K., Srinivasan, A.: Innovization: Innovating design principles through optimization. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2006, pp. 1629–1636. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fedder, G., Mukherjee, T.: Physical design for surface-micromachined MEMS. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGDA Physical Design Workshop, Virginia, USA (April 1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haeckel, E.: The evolution of man, vol. 1. Kessinger Publishing (1879)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newman, M.: Power laws, pareto distributions and zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics 46(5), 323–351 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reklaitis, G., Ravindran, A., Ragsdell, K.: Engineering optimization: Methods and applications. Wiley, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tutum, C.C., Fan, Z.: Multi-criteria layout synthesis of mems devices using memetic computing. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 902–908 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalyanmoy Deb
    • 1
  • Sunith Bandaru
    • 1
  • Cem Celal Tutum
    • 2
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia
  2. 2.Denmark Technical UniversityLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations