Determination of ranged sets of design specifications by incorporating design-space heterogeneity

Engineering Optimization

Volumn 40, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1011-1029

  Liu, Huibin ^a   Chen, Wei ^b   Scott, Michael J ^c   Qureshi, Khurshid ^d  

^a BD Medical   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c University of Illinois at Chicago   (United States)

^d FORD MOTOR COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Design attribute; Design specification; Flexibility; Heterogeneity; Ranged set of targets

Indexed keywords

BLENDING; DESIGN; PRODUCT DESIGN; ROUGH SET THEORY; SET THEORY; SPECIFICATIONS; TARGETS;

DESIGN ATTRIBUTE; DESIGN SPECIFICATION; FLEXIBILITY; HETEROGENEITY; RANGED SET OF TARGETS;

PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 54949111729     PISSN: 0305215X     EISSN: 10290273     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03052150802378558     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alisantoso, D., Khoo, L.P., Ivan Lee, B.H. and Fok, S.C., 2005. A rough set approach to design concept analysis in a design chain. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 26 (5-6), 427-435.
2. Chen, W., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F, 1997. The robust concept exploration method for enhancing concurrent systems design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 5 (3), 203-217.
3. Chen, W. and Yuan, C, 1999. A probabilistic design model for achieving flexibility in design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 121 (1), 77-83.
4. Cooper, A., Georgiopoulos, P., Kim, H.M. and Papalambros, P.Y., 2006. Analytical target setting: an enterprise context in optimal product design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 128 (1), 4-13.
5. Farhang-Mehr, A. and Azarm, S., 2003. An information-theoretic entropy metric for assessing multi-objective optimization solution set quality. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 125 (4), 655-663.
6. Ford, D.N. and Sobek Jr, D.K., 2005. Adapting real options to new product development by modeling the second Toyota paradox. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52 (2), 175-185.
7. Ge, P., Lu, S.C-Y. and Bukkapatnam, S.T.S., 2005. Supporting negotiations in the early stage of large-scale mechanical system design. ASME Journal of Mecluinical Design, 127 (6), 1056-1067.
8. Hinneburg, A. and Keim, D.A., 1998. An efficient approach to clustering in large multimedia database with noise. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD98). New York: American Association for Artificial Intelligence Press, 58-65.
9. Huang, H-Z., Wu, W-D. and Liu, C-S., 2005a. A coordination method for fuzzy multi-objective optimization of system reliability. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 16 (3), 213-220.
10. Huang, H-Z., Bo, R. and Chen, W., 2005b. An integrated computational intelligence approach to product concept generation and evaluation. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 41 (5), 567-583.
11. Kim, H.M., Michelena, N.F., Papalambros, P.Y. and Jiang, T, 2003a. Target cascading in optimal system design, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 125 (3) 474-480.
12. Kim, H.M., Rideout, D.G., Papalambros, P.Y. and Stein, J.L., 2003b. Analytical target cascading in automotive vehicle design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 125 (3), 481-489.
13. Klein, M., Sayama, H., Faratin, P. and Bar-Yam, Y., 2003. The dynamics of collaborative design: insights from complex systems and negotiation research. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 11 (3), 201-208.
14. Komorowski, J., Pawlak, Z., Polkowski, L. and Skowron, A., 1998. Rough sets: a tutorial. In: S.K. Pal and A. Skowron, eds. Rough Fuzzy Hybridization. A New Trend in Decision Making. 3-98, Singapore: Springer.
15. Lottaz, C., Clément, D.E., Fairings, B.V. and Smith, I.F.C., 1999. Constraint-based support for collaboration in design and construction. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(1), 23-35.
16. Lottaz, C., Smith, I.F.C., Robert-Nicoud, Y. and Fallings, B.V., 2000. Constraint-based support for negotiation in collaborative design. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 14 (2), 261-280.
17. Messac, A. and Chen, W., 2000. The engineering design discipline: is its confounding lexicon hindering its evolution? Engineering Valuation & Cost Analysis, 3 (2-3), 67-83.
18. Michelena, N., Park, H. and Papalambros, P., 2003. Convergence properties of analytical target cascading. AIAA Journal, 41 (5), 897-905.
19. Nguyen, H.S., 1998. Discretization problem for rough sets methods. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Tmnds in Computing, Warsaw, Poland, 545-553.
20. Nguyen, H.S. and Skowron, A., 1995. Quantization of real value attributes-rough set and boolean reasoning approach. In: Proceedings of the Second Joint Annual Conference on Information Sciences, Society of Information Processing, North Carolina, USA, 34-37.
21. Olewnik, A., Brauen, T., Ferguson, S. and Lewis, K., 2004. A framework for flexible systems and its implementation in multiattribute decision making. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 126 (3), 412-419.
22. Pacheco, J.E., Amon, C.H. and Finger, S., 2003. Bayesian surrogates applied to conceptual stages of the engineering design process. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 125 (4), 664-672.
23. Pawlak, Z., 1982, Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Science, 11, 341-356.
24. Pawlak, Z., 1991. Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publication.
25. Shan, S. and Wang, G.G., 2004. Space exploration and global optimization for computationally intensive design problems: a rough set based approach. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 28, 427-441.
26. Simpson, T.W., Rosen, D., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F., 1998. Metrics for assessing design freedom and information certainty in the early stages of design, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 120, 628-635.
27. Sobek Jr, D.K. and Ward, A., 1996. Principles from Toyota's set-based concurrent engineering. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers in Engineering Conference, Irvine, California.
28. Sobek Jr, D.K. and Ward, A., 1999. Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering. Sloan Management Review, 40 (2), 67-83.
29. Wassenaar, H. J. and Chen, W, 2003. An approach to decision based design with discrete choice analysis for demand modeling, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 125 (3), 490-497.
30. Wood, W. H. and Agogino, A.M., 2005. Decision-based conceptual design: modeling and navigating heterogeneous design spaces. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 127 (1), pp. 2-11.
31. Yanagisawa, H. and Fukuda, S., 2003. Interactive reduct evolutional computation for aesthetic design. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 5(1), 1-7.
32. Yannou, B., Moreno, F., Thevenot, H. and Simpson, T.W., 2005. Faster generation of feasible design points. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Automation Conference, Long Beach, CA. ASME Article No. DETC2005/DAC-85449.
33. Yannou, B., Simpson, T.W. and Barton, R.R., 2003. Towards a conceptual design explorer using metamodeling approaches and constraint programming. ASME Design Engineering Conferences-Design Automation Conference, Chicago, IL, ASME Article No. DETC2003/DAC-48766.