Exploration of the effectiveness of physical programming in robust design

Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME

Volumn 122, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 155-163

  Chen, Wei ^a,c   Sahai, Atul ^a   Messac, Achille ^b,c   Sundararaj, Glynn J ^b  

^a 1120 Science and Engineering Offices   (United States)

^b Northeastern University   (United States)

^c ASME

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS; PARETO SOLUTIONS; PHYSICAL PROGRAMMING; ROBUST DESIGN;

FUNCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN;

EID: 0034206173     PISSN: 10500472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1115/1.533565     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Taguchi, G., 1993, Taguchi on Robust Technology Development: Bringing Quality Engineering Upstream, ASME, New York.
2. Box, G., 1988, "Signal-to-Noise Ratios, Performance Criteria, and Transformations," Technometrics, 30, No. 1, pp. 1-18.
3. Nair, V. N., 1992, "Taguchi's Parameter Design: A Panel Discussion," Technometrics, 34, No. 2, pp. 127-161.
4. Parkinson, A., Sorensen, C., and Pourhassan, N., 1993, "A General Approach for Robust Optimal Design," Trans. ASME, 115, pp. 74-80.
5. Sundaresan, S., Ishii, K., and Houser, D. R., 1993, "A Robust Optimization Procedure with Variations on Design Variables and Constraints," Adv. Des. Autom. ASME DE-Vol., 69-1, pp. 379-386.
6. Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Mistree, F., and Tsui, K.-L., 1996, "A Procedure for Robust Design: Minimizing Variations Caused by Noise Factors and Control Factors," ASME J. Mech. Des., 118, pp. 478-485.
7. Su, J., and Renaud, J. E., 1997, "Automatic Differentiation in Robust Optimization," AIAA J., 35, No. 6, p. 1072.
8. Messac, A., and Sundararaj, G. J., 2000, "A Robust Design Approach Using Physical Programming," Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, Jan. 10-13.
9. Das, I., and Dennis, J. E., 1997, "A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objectives for Pareto set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems," Struct. Opt., 14, pp. 63-69.
10. Steuer, R. E., 1989, Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, John Wiley, New York.
11. Iyer, H. V., and Krishnamurty, S., 1998, "A Preference-Based Robust Design Metric," ASME Design Technical Conference, paper no. DAC5625, Atlanta, GA.
12. von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern., O., 1947, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
13. Keeney, R. L., and Raifa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objective: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley, New York.
14. Hazelrigg, G. A., 1996, Systems Engineering and Approach in Information-Based Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
15. Chen, W., Wiecek, M., and Zhang, J., 1999, "Quality Utility: A Compromise Programming Approach to Robust Design," ASME J. Mech. Des., 121, No. 2, pp. 79-187.
16. Yu, P. L., 1973, "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Manage. Sci., 19, pp. 936-946.
17. Zeleny, M., 1973, Compromise Programming, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Cochrane, J. L., and Zeleny, M., eds., University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 262-301.
18. Messac, A., 1996, "Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Computational Design," AIAA J., 34, No. 1, pp. 149-158.
19. Messac, A., and Hattis, P., 1996, "Physical Programming Design Optimization for High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT)," AIAA J. Aircraft, 33, No. 2, pp. 446-449.
20. Messac, A., and Wilson, B., 1998, "Physical Programming for Computational Control," AIAA J., 36, No. 2, pp. 219-226.
21. Messac, A., Sundararaj, G. J., Tappeta, R. V., and Renaud, J. E., 1999, "The Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Non-Convex Pareto Frontiers," 40 AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Apr. 12-15, St. Louis, MO. Paper #99-1211, AIAA J., 38, No. 3, Mar. 2000.
22. Messac, A., and Chen, X., 1999, "Visualizing the Optimization Process in Real-Time Using Physical Programming," Engineering Optimization Journal, in press.
23. Messac, A., 2000, "From the Dubious Construction of Objective Functions to the Application of Physical Programming," AIAA J., 38, No. 1, pp. 155-163.
24. Messac, A., Melachrinoudis, E., Sukam, C. P., 2000, "Physical Programming: A Mathematical Perspective," 38th Aerospace Science Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 10-13.
25. Messac, A., and Sundararaj, G. J., 2000, "Physical Programming's Ability to Generate a Well-Distributed Set of Pareto Points," AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Apr. 3-6, Atlanta, Georgia.
26. Bowman, V. J., 1976, "On the Relationship of the Tchebycheff Norm and the Efficient Frontier of Multiple-criteria Objectives," Lecture Notes Econom. Math. Syst., 135, pp. 76-85.