Using Parameterized Pareto Sets to Model Design Concepts

Abstract

The decisions designers make during conceptual design can have a large impact on the success of a project. Conceptual design decisions can be challenging because the imprecise nature of design concepts make them difficult to model. Prior literature exists on using Pareto sets to model design concepts abstractly in the space of decision attributes. However, this approach has limitations when the concept under consideration is a component of a larger system. The need to relate component-level decision attributes to system-level decision objectives can lead to a violation of the assumptions underlying classical Pareto dominance. The main contribution of this article is a new dominance criterion, called parameterized Pareto dominance, which is applicable in such situations. It is a generalization of the classical dominance rule and is found to be sound from a decision-theoretic perspective. A secondary contribution is the articulation of a generalized methodology for constructing concept models based on classical or parameterized Pareto sets using either observational or model-generated data. The modeling procedure, including the new dominance criterion, is demonstrated on observational data about hydraulic cylinders. The question of whether a parameterized Pareto set can be an adequate representation of a component-level design concept is evaluated on a gearbox conceptual design problem for which the component-level decision is subordinate to system-level vehicle design problem.

Compositional Modelling of Fluid Power Systems using Predictive Tradeoff Models

“…Prior investigation of tradeoff modelling covers both decision making for cases in which risk is negligible (Malak and Paredis, 2007; and decision making under uncertainty . The focus of this paper is on decisions in which one can assume risk is negligible, which one can formulate using multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 07:59 25 November 2014 (Fishburn, 1965;Keeney and Raiffa, 1993).…”

“…The focus of this article is on defining and demonstrating an approach by which the designers of fluid power systems can make sound requirements allocation decisions. The approach is based on predictive tradeoff modelling, which is a data-driven means for abstracting the capabilities of a system or technology in a way that is useful for system-level decision making (Malak and Paredis, 2007;. One generates a tradeoff model for a type of component (e.g., pumps, cylinders, engines) based on data about existing implementations of it.…”

“…Eliminate data points that are dominated by the parameterized Pareto dominance criterion (Malak and Paredis, 2007;.…”

Collaborative multi-objective optimization for distributed design of complex products

“…This is because the subsystems do not have access to the objectives of each other's subproblems, hence, subsystem solutions that appear dominated for a subproblem may actually be non-dominated for the entire system problem. One way to capture such solutions is to rely on the Parameterized Pareto Dominance relation, previously proposed in [7], and de ned as follows:…”

Bayesian Network Classifiers for Set-Based Collaborative Design

“…A notable variation of the same principle includes concept selection from a system's perspective (Malak and Paredis, 2007) The cDSP has also been used for the purposes of set-based collaborative design in a framework called the set-based method (SBM) wherein a set of targets are generated at the system level that become subsystem goals (Carlos et al, 2006;Madhavan, 2007;Seepersad et al, 2007;Madhavan et al, 2008). The subsystem teams tradeoff local goals and goals on shared parameters in order to communicate a Pareto set of design options to the system level design team.…”