Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Multi-objective Optimisation Using Evolutionary Algorithms: An Introduction Read chapter Read first chapter

2011 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimisation and Visual Analytics for Product Family Design

Authors : Ruchit A. Shah, Patrick M. Reed, Timothy W. Simpson

Published in: Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing

Publisher: Springer London

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Product family design involves the development of multiple products that share common components, modules and subsystems, yet target different market segments and groups of customers. The key to a successful product family is the product platform—the common components, modules and subsystems—around which the family is derived. The fundamental challenge when designing a family of products is resolving the inherent trade-off between commonality and performance. If there is too much commonality, then individual products may not meet their performance targets; however, too little sharing restricts the economies of scale that can be achieved during manufacturing and production. Multi-objective evolutionary optimisation algorithms have been used extensively to address this trade-off and determine which variables should be common (i.e., part of the platform) and which should be unique in a product family. In this chapter, we present a novel approach based on many-objective evolutionary optimisation and visual analytics to resolve trade-offs between commonality and many performance objectives. We provide a detailed example involving a family of aircraft that demonstrates the challenges of solving a 10-objective trade-off between commonality and the nine performance objectives in the family. Future research directions involving the use of multi-objective optimisation and visual analytics for product family design are also discussed.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter State-of-the-Art Multi-Objective Optimisation of Manufacturing Processes Based on Thermo-Mechanical Simulations
next chapter Product Portfolio Selection of Designs Through an Analysis of Lower-Dimensional Manifolds and Identification of Common Properties
Literature
1.
Anderson, D.M. (1997). Agile product development for mass customization: How to develop and deliver products for mass customization, Niche Markets, JIT, Build-to-Order and Flexible Manufacturing. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
2.
Galsworth, G. D. (1994). Smart, simple design: Using variety effectiveness to reduce total cost and maximize customer selection. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.
3.
Ho, T. H., & Tang, C. S. (1998). Product variety management: Research advances. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
4.
Child, P., Diederichs, R., Sanders, F.-H., & Wisniowski, S. (1991). The management of complexity. Sloan Management Review, 33(1), 73–80.
5.
Ishii, K., Juengel, C, & Eubanks, C.F. (1995). Design for product variety: Key to product line structuring. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Theory and Methodology (pp. 499–506). Boston, MA 83(2)
6.
7.
Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997). The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership, Free Press. NY: New York.
8.
Thevenot, H. J., & Simpson, T. W. (2007). A comprehensive metric for evaluating commonality in a product family. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(6), 577–598.CrossRef
9.
Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 19–31.
10.
Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z., & Jiao, J. (Eds.). (2005). Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. New York: Springer.
11.
Simpson, T. W. (2005). Methods for optimizing product platforms and product families: Overview and classification. In T. W. Simpson, Z. Siddique, & J. Jiao (Eds.), Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications (pp. 133–156). New York: Springer.
12.
Nelson, S. A., I. I., Parkinson, M. B., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2001). Multicriteria optimization in product platform design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123(2), 199–204.CrossRef
13.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Michelena, N., Papalambros, P., Saitou, K., Ferez-Duarte, A., & Fenyes, P.A. (2002). A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for family products of mild variation, with application to automotive body stractures. Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciphnary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, AIAA-2002-5610.
14.
Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P., & Perez-Duarte, A. (2002). Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design
15.
Fujita, K., Akagi, S., Yoneda, T., & Ishikawa, M. (1998). Simultaneous optimization of product family sharing system structure and configuration. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DFM-5722.
16.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., & Baker, J. D. (1999). 12–15 September. Assessing value for product family design and selection. Advances in Design Automation, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8613.
17.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., & Otto, K.N. (2000). Modular platform-based product family design. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, ASME, Paper No. DETC-2000/DAC-14238.
18.
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., & Baker, J. D. (2000). A method for architecting product platforms. Research in Engineering Design, 12(2), 61–72.CrossRef
19.
Allada, V., & Rai, R. (2002). Module-based multiple product design, IIE Annual Conference 2002, Orlando, FL, IIE.
20.
Simpson, T. W., Seepersad, C. C., & Mistree, F. (2001). Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 9(3), 177–190.CrossRef
21.
Tseng, M.M., & Jiao, J. (1998). Design for mass customization by developing product family architecture. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Theory and Methodology, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5717.
22.
Chidambaram, B., & Agogino, A. M. (1999). 12–15 September. Catalog-based customization. Advances in Design Automation, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8675.
23.
Nayak, R. U., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. W. (2002). 10–13 September. A variation-based method for product family design. Engineering Optimization, 34(1), 65–81.
24.
Messac, A., Martinez, M. P., & Simpson, T. W. (2000). Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming. 8th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, AIAA, AIAA-2000-4838, to appear in ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.
25.
Khajavirad, A., Michalak, J. J., & Simpson, T. W. (2009). An efficient decomposed multiobjective genetic algorithm for solving the joint product platform selection and product family design problem with generalized commonality. Structural and Multidiscipilnary Optimization, 39(2), 187–201.CrossRef
26.
Messac, A., Martinez, M. P., & Simpson, T. W. (2002). Effective product family design using physical programming. Engineering Optimization, 34(3), 245–261.CrossRef
27.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing.MATH
28.
Back, T., Fogel, D., & Michalewicz, Z. (2000). Handbook of evolutionary computation. Bristol, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
29.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. New York: John Wiley & Sons LTD.MATH
30.
Coello, C. C., Van Veldhuizen, D. A., & Lamont, G. B. (2002). Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.MATH
31.
Fleming, P. J., Purshouse, R. C., & R. J. Lygoe (2005), Many-objective optimization: An engineering design perspective, in Evolutionary Multi—Criterion Optimization, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg pp. 14–32.
32.
Kasprzyk, J. R., Reed, P. M., Kirsch, B., & Characklis, G. Managing population and 761 drought risks using many-objective water portfolio planning under uncertainty, Water Resources 762 Research, doi:10.1029/2009WR008121.
33.
Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2007). A framework for visually interactive decisionmaking and design using evolutionary multiobjective optimization (VIDEO). Environmental Modelling and Software, 22(12), 1691–1704.CrossRef
34.
Woods, D. (1986). “Paradigms for intelligent decision support,” Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments, Springer, New York, NY
35.
Keim, D. A., Mansmann, F., Schneidewind, J., & Ziegler, H. (2006). Challenges in visual data analysis. Proceedings of Information Visualization, IEEE Computer Society 9–16, London, UK.
36.
Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 24–29.
37.
Qu, Y., & Furnas, G. W. (2005). Sources of structure in sensemaking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI ‘05 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ASM Press: Portland, OR, April 2–7.
38.
Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1996). 4–6 September. Conceptual design of a family of products through the use of the robust concept exploration method. 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, AIAA, Vol. 2, pp. 1535–1545. AIAA-96-4161-CP.
39.
NASA. (1978). GASP—General aviation synthesis program, NASA CR-152303, Contract NAS 2-9352, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.
40.
Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1999). Use of the robust concept exploration method to facilitate the design of a family of products. In U. Roy, J. M. Usher, et al. (Eds.), Simultaneous engineering: Methodologies and applications (pp. 247–278). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
41.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O.F., & Bras, B.A. (1993). The compromise decision support problem and the adaptive linear programming algorithm, In: M. P. Kamat (ed.), Structural optimization: Status and promise, Washington
42.
Jiao, J., & Tseng, M. M. (2000). Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design, 11(3), 225–243.CrossRef
43.
Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., & Miller, R. (2000). A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 122(4), 403–410.CrossRef
44.
Siddique, Z., Rosen, D.W., & Wang, N. (1998). On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality, Design Theory and Methodology—DTM’98, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5661.
45.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182–197.CrossRef
46.
Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2005). The value of online adaptive search: A performance comparison of NSGA-II, ε-NSGAII, and εMOEA. In C. C. Coello, A. H. Aguirre, & E. Zitzler (Eds.), The Third International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3410 (pp. 386–398). Guanajuato, Mexico: Springer.
47.
Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2006). Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multiobjective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design. Advances in Water Resources, 29(6), 792–807.CrossRef
48.
Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Deb, K., & Zitzler, E. (2002). Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 10(3), 263–282.CrossRef
49.
Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S. (2003). A fast multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for finding well-spread pareto-optimal solutions. Tech. Rep. KanGAL 2003002, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
50.
Harik, G. R., Lobo, F. G. (1999). A parameter-less genetic algorithm. Tech. Rep. IlliGAL 99009, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
51.
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T. (2006). How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration? Hydrology and earth system sciences 10 (2).
52.
Kollat, J., & Reed, P. (2007). A computational scaling analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in long-term groundwater monitoring applications. Advances in Water Resources, 30(3), 408–419.CrossRef
53.
Goldberg, D. E. (2002). The design of innovation: lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.MATH
54.
Purshouse, R. C., & Fleming, P. J. (2007). On the evolutionary optimization of many conflicting objectives. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 11(6), 770–784.CrossRef
55.
Farina, M., & Amato, P. (2004). A fuzzy definition of “optimality” for manycriteria optimization problems. Systems, man and cybernetics, part A: Systems and humans, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 315 – 326, May 2004.
56.
Teytaud, O. (2006). How entropy-theorems can show that on-line approximating high-dim pareto-fronts is too hard. in PPSN BTP Workshop, 2006.
57.
Laumanns, M., L. Thiele, K. Deb, & Zitzler, E. (2001), On the convergence and diversity-preservation properties of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.
58.
Inselberg, A. (1985). The plane with parallel coordinates. The Visual Computer, 1(1), 69–91.MATHCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimisation and Visual Analytics for Product Family Design
Authors
Ruchit A. Shah
Patrick M. Reed
Timothy W. Simpson
Copyright Year
2011
Publisher
Springer London
Book
Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing

Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-617-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-0-85729-652-8

Copyright Year: 2011

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-652-8_4

Premium Partners

    Image Credits