Exploration of the effectiveness of physical programming in robust design

被引:78
作者
Chen, W [1 ]
Sahai, A [1 ]
Messac, A [1 ]
Sundararaj, GJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Mech Engn, Integrat & Design Engn Lab, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
关键词
robust design; physical programming; multicriteria optimization; Pareto solutions; design preference;
D O I
10.1115/1.533565
中图分类号
TH [机械、仪表工业];
学科分类号
0802 ;
摘要
Computational optimization Sor design is effective only to the extent that the aggregate objective function adequately captures designer's preference. Physical programming is an optimization method that captures the designer's physical understanding of the desired design outcome in forming the aggregate objective function. Furthermore, to be useful, a resulting optimal design must be sufficiently robust/insensitive to known and unknown variations that to different degrees affect the design's performance. This paper explores the effectiveness of the physical programming approach in explicitly addressing the issue of design robustness. Specifically, we synergistically integrate methods that had previously and independently been developed by the authors, thereby leading to optimal-robust-designs, We show how the physical programming method can be used to effectively exploit designer preference in making tradeoffs between the mean and variation of performance, by solving a bi-objective robust design problem. The work documented in this paper establishes the general superiority of physical programming over other conventional methods (e.g., weighted sum) in solving multiobjective optimization problems. It also illustrates that the physical programming method is among the most effective multicriteria mathematical programming techniques for the generation of Pareto solutions that belong to both convex and non-convex efficient frontiers. [S1050-0472(00)00902-8].
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 163
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Bowman VJ, 1976, LECT NOTES EC MATH S, V135, P76
[2]   SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIOS, PERFORMANCE CRITERIA, AND TRANSFORMATIONS [J].
BOX, G .
TECHNOMETRICS, 1988, 30 (01) :1-17
[3]   A procedure for robust design: Minimizing variations caused by noise factors and control factors [J].
Chen, W ;
ALlen, JK ;
Tsui, KL ;
Mistree, F .
JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, 1996, 118 (04) :478-485
[4]   Quality utility - A compromise programming approach to robust design [J].
Chen, W ;
Wiecek, MM ;
Zhang, J .
JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, 1999, 121 (02) :179-187
[5]   A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems [J].
Das, I ;
Dennis, JE .
STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION, 1997, 14 (01) :63-69
[6]  
Hazelrigg G.A., 1996, SYSTEMS ENG APPROACH
[7]  
IYER HV, 1998, ASME DES TECHN C ATL
[8]  
Keeney R.L., 1976, DECISIONS MULTIPLE O
[9]   Physical programming design optimization for High Speed Civil Transport [J].
Messac, A ;
Hattis, PD .
JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT, 1996, 33 (02) :446-449
[10]   From dubious construction of objective functions to the application of physical programming [J].
Messac, A .
AIAA JOURNAL, 2000, 38 (01) :155-163