Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design as a sequential decision process

A method for reducing design set space using models to bound objectives

  • RESEARCH PAPER
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Design can be viewed a sequential decision process that increases the detail of modeling and analysis while simultaneously decreasing the space of alternatives considered. In a decision theoretic framework, low-fidelity models help decision-makers identify regions of feasibility and interest in the tradespace and cull others prior to constructing more computationally expensive models of higher fidelity. The method presented herein demonstrates design as a sequence of finite decision epochs through a search space defined by the extent of the set of designs under consideration, and the level of analytic fidelity subjected to each design. Previous work has shown that multi-fidelity modeling can aid in rapid optimization of the design space when high-fidelity models are coupled with low-fidelity models. This paper offers two contributions to the design community: (1) a model of design as a sequential decision process of refinement using progressively more accurate and expensive models, and (2) a connected approach for how conceptual models couple with detailed models. Formal definitions of the process are provided, and several structural design examples are presented to demonstrate the use of sequential multi-fidelity modeling in determining an optimal modeling selection policy.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson J (2007) Fundamentals of aerodynamics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher MJ, Croke BFW, Jakeman AJ, Peeters LJM (2015) A review of surrogate models and their application to groundwater modeling. Water Resour Res 51(8):5957–5973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avigad G, Moshaiov A (2009) Interactive evolutionary multiobjective search and optimization of set-based concepts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B: Cybern 39(4):1013–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman R (1957) Dynamic programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brantley MW, Mcfadden WJ, Davis MJ (2002) Expanding the trade space: an analysis of requirements tradeoffs affecting system design. Acquisit Rev Quart 9(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol Rev 100(3):432–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri A, Haftka RT (2014) Efficient global optimization with adaptive target setting. AIAA J 52 (7):1573–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S, Alonso JJ, Kroo IM, Wintzer M (2004) Multi-fidelity design optimization of low-boom supersonic business jets. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, AIAA 2004-4371. Albany

  • Choi S, Alonso JJ, Kroo IM, Wintzer M (2008) Multifidelity design optimization of low-boom supersonic jets. J Aircr 45(1):106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S, Alonso JJ, Kroo IM (2009) Two-level multi-fidelity design optimization studies for supersonic jets. J Aircr 46(3):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi SH, Lee SJ, Kim TG (2014) Multi-fidelity modeling & simulation methodology for simulation speed up. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSIM/PADS conference on principles of advanced discrete simulation. Denver, pp 139–150

  • Choi SM, Nguyen NV, Kim WS, Lee JW, Kim S, Byun YH (2010) Multidisciplinary unmanned combat air vehicle system design using multi-fidelity analysis. In: Proceedings of the 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, AIAA 2010-482. Orlando, pp 1–16

  • Du Q, Faber V, Gunzburger M (1999) Centroidal Voronoi tessellations: applications and algorithms. SIAM Rev 41(4):637–676

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Elham A, van Tooren MJL (2016) Coupled adjoint aerostructural wing optimization using quasi-three-dimensional aerodynamic analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43(4):889–906

  • Evans JH (1959) Basic design concepts. J Amer Soc Naval Eng 71(4):671–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch WW, Ward AC (1997) A set-based system for eliminating design in engineering problems dominated by uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 1997 ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC97/DTM-3886. Sacramento, pp 1–12

  • Finger S, Dixon JR (1989) A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: descriptive, prescriptive, and computer-based models of design processes. Res Eng Des 1:51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger S, Fox MS, Navlndiandra D, Prins FB, Rinderle JR (1988) Design fusion: a product life-cycle view for engineering designs. Second IFIP WG 52 workshop on intelligent CAD, pp 1–7

  • Forrester AI, Sȯbester A, Keane AJ (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modeling: a practical guide. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg K, Mooz H (1992) The relationship of system engineering to the project cycle. Eng Manag J 4 (3):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey DD, Herder PM, Wijnia Y, Subrahmanian E, Katsikopoulos K, Clausing DP (2009) The Pugh controlled convergence method: model-based evaluation and implications for design theory. Res Eng Des 20 (1):41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giffin M, de Weck OL, Bounova G, Keller R, Eckert C, Clarkson PJ (2009) Change propagation analysis in complex technical systems. J Mech Des 131(8):081,001–1–14

  • Haftka RT, Villanueva D, Chaudhuri A (2016) Parallel surrogate-assisted global optimization with expensive functions – a survey. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(1):3–13

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hall EJ (2000) Modular multi-fidelity simulation methodology for multiple spool turbofan engines. In: NASA high performance computing and communications computational aerosciences workshop. NASA Ames Research Centre

  • Huang D, Allen TT, Notz WI, Miller RA (2006) Sequential kriging optimization using multiple-fidelity evaluations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 32(5):369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs J, Etman L, van Keulen F, Rooda J (2004) Framework for sequential approximate optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27:384–400

  • Jones DR (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim 21:345–383

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DR, Schonlau M, William J (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13:455–492

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keim DA (2002) Information visualization and visual data mining. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 8(1):1–8

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kitayama S, Srirat J, Arakawa M, Yamazaki K (2013) Sequential approximate multi-objective optimization using radial basis function network. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(3):501–515

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppuraju N, Ittimakin P, Mistree F (1985) Design through selection: a method that works. Des Stud 6(2):91–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumanns M, Thiele L, Deb K, Zitzler E (2002) Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 10(3):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifsson L, Koziel S (2010) Multi-fidelity design optimization of transonic airfoils using shape-preserving response prediction. Procedia Comput Sci 1(1):1311–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu GR, Nguyen TT (2010) Smoothed finite element methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Logan DL (2007) A first course in the finite element method cengage learning. Mason

  • Malak RJ, Aughenbaugh JM, Paredis CJJ (2009) Multi-attribute utility analysis in set-based conceptual design. Comput Aided Des 41(3):214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marjanishvili S, Agnew E (2006) Comparison of various procedures for progressive collapse analysis. J Perform Constr Facil 20(4):365–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason WH, Knill DL, Giunta AA, Grossman B, Watson LT, Haftka RT (1998) Getting the full benefits of CFD in conceptual design. In: 16th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, pp 1–11

  • Miller SW, Simpson TW, Yukish MA, Bennett LA, Lego SE, Stump GM (2013) Preference construction, sequential decision making, and trade space exploration. In: ASME international design engineering technical conference & computers and information in engineering conference, DETC2013-13098. Portland, pp 1–12

  • Miller SW, Simpson TW, Yukish MA (2015) Design as a sequential process: a method for reducing design set space using models to bound objectives. In: ASME international design engineering technical conference & computers and information in engineering conference, DETC2015-46909. Boston, pp 1–13

  • Minisci E, Liqiang H, Vasile M (2010) Multidisciplinary design of a micro-USV for re-entry operations. In: AIAA/AAS astrodynamics specialist conference 2010, AIAA 2010-7968

  • Moore RA, Paredis CJJ (2009) Variable fidelity modeling as applied to trajectory optimization for a hydraulic backhoe. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, DETC2009-87522. San Diego, pp 1–12

  • Nahm YE, Ishikawa H (2006) A new 3D-CAD system for set-based parametric design. Int J Adv Manuf Technols 29(1-2):137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, vol 157, 3rd edn. Springer, London

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pėrez V, Renaud J, Watson L (2004) An interior-point sequential approximate optimization methodology. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27(5):360–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh S (1991) Total design - integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinertsen DG (1997) Managing the design factory: a product developer’s toolkit. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisenthel PH, Allen TT, Lesieutre DJ, Lee SH (2010) Development of multidisciplinary, multifidelity analysis, integration, and optimization of aerospace vehicles. Tech. Rep. 074, DTIC Document

  • Rekuc SJ, Aughenbaugh JM, Bruns M, Paredis CJJ (2006) Eliminating design alternatives based on imprecise information. In: SAE technical paper, SAE international, pp 1–13

  • Roberts CJ, Richards MG, Ross AM, Rhodes DH, Hastings DE (2009) Scenario planning in dynamic multi-attribute tradespace exploration. In: 3rd annual IEEE international systems conference, pp 366–371

  • Robertson B, Radcliffe D (2009) Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Comput Aided Des 41(3):136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TD, Eldred MS, Willcox KE, Haimes R (2008) Surrogate-based optimization using multifidelity models with variable parameterization and corrected space mapping. AIAA J 46(11):2814–2822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodri̇guez J F, Pėrez V, Padmanabhan D, Renaud JE (2001) Sequential approximate optimization using variable fidelity response surface approximations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(1):24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross AM, Hastings DE (2005) The tradespace exploration paradigm. INCOSE International Symposium, pp 1–13

  • Ross AM, Rhodes DH (2008) Using natural value-centric time scales for conceptualizing system timelines through epoch-era analysis. INCOSE Int Symp 18(1):1186–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. Proc IEEE WESCON 26(8):328–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Shai O, Reich Y, Rubin D (2009) Creative conceptual design: extending the scope by infused design. Comput Aided Des 41(3):117– 135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shames IH, Dym CL (1985) Energy and finite element methods in structural mechanics. Hemisphere Pub. Corp, Washington, DC

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shan S, Wang GG (2010) Survey of modeling and optimization strategies to solve high-dimensional design problems with computationally-expensive black-box functions. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(2):219–241

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shewchuk JR (1996) Triangle: engineering a 2D quality mesh generator and Delaunay triangulator. In: Applied computational geometry, towards geometric engineering. Springer, pp 203–222

  • Shewchuk JR (2002) Delaunay refinement algorithms for triangular mesh generation. Comput Geom 22 (1):21–74

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shocker AD, Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P (1991) Consideration set influences on consumer decision making and choice: issues, models, and suggestions. Mark Lett 2(3):181–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer DJ, Doerry N, Buckley ME (2009) What is set-based design? Nav Eng J 121(4):31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobek DKI, Ward AC, Liker JK (1999) Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Manage Rev 40(2):67–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Stander JN, Venter G, Kamper MJ (2016) High fidelity multidisciplinary design optimisation of an electromagnetic device. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53(5):1113–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump GM, Lego SE, Yukish MA, Simpson TW, Donndelinger JA (2009) Visual steering commands for trade space exploration: user-guided sampling with example. ASME J Comput Inf Sci Eng 9(4):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takagi H (2001) Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilitiesof EC optimization and human evaluation. Proc IEEE 89(9):1275–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsetsos K, Usher M, Chater N (2010) Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychol Rev 117 (4):1275–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2004) Product design and development, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman S, Haftka RT (2004) Structural optimization complexity: what has Moore’s law done for us? Struct Multidiscip Optim 28(6):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viana FAC, Simpson TW, Balabanov V, Toropov V (2014) Metamodeling in multidisciplinary design optimization: how far have we really come? AIAA J 52(4):670–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward AC (1989) A theory of quantitative inference for artifact sets, applied to a mechanical design compiler. Doctor of science Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis DJ, Persson PO, Israeli ER (2008) Multifidelity approaches for the computational analysis and design of effective flapping wing vehicles. In: 46th AIAA Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA 2008–518. Reno, pp 1-17

  • Xu X, Dajun X, Guobiao C (2005) Optimization design for scramjet and analysis of its operation performance. Acta Astronaut 57(2-8):390–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukish MA (2005) Research topics in trade space exploration. In: IEEE Aerospace conference, #1001. New York, pp 1–7

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA / TTO) under contract HR0011-12-C-0075 iFAB Foundry for making this work feasible.

The authors also acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1436236). This material is also supported by the U.S. Department of Defense through the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) under Contract H98230-08-D-0171. SERC is a federally funded University Affiliated Research Center managed by the Stevens Institute of Technology. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA, or the U.S. Government, or the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Simon W. Miller, Michael A. Yukish & Timothy W. Simpson

Authors
  1. Simon W. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. Yukish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon W. Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, S.W., Yukish, M.A. & Simpson, T.W. Design as a sequential decision process. Struct Multidisc Optim 57, 305–324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1756-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1756-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation