A design representation is developed to model multi-attribute systems utilizing multi-dimensional clipping and transformation algorithms. Given a linear system characterization, three types of supporting information is generated for the decision maker: (1) a function matrix that describes the performance attributes dependent upon the decision variables; (2) a decision space that corresponds to the feasible decision set that meets performance requirements, and; (3) a performance space that represents the feasible performance region and the Pareto Optimal set. The analytical method developed for solving these feasible spaces is described for a linear system model. A case study is presented to demonstrate how to utilize the representation to locate a feasible solution and proceed to the desired trade-off of multiple attributes. Moreover, the potential incorporations of the representation with other influential design methodologies are discussed.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
design engineering, performance evaluation, decision theory, constraint handling, Engineering Design Representation, Multiple Attributes, Constraint Based Design, Quality Function Deployment, Systems Design
Topics:
Design
1.
Paz-Soldan, J. P., and Rinderle, J. R., 1989, The Alternate Use of Abstraction and Refinement in Conceptual Mechanical Design, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
2.
Rinderle, J. R., and Krishnan, V., 1990, Constraint Reasoning in Concurrent Design, ASME, Design Technical Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL.
3.
Thornton
,
A. C.
,
1996
, “
The Use of Constraint-Based Design Knowledge to Improve the Search for Feasible Designs
,”
Eng. Applic. Artif. Intell.
,
9
, No.
4
, pp.
393
–
402
.
4.
Kusiak
,
A.
,
Wang
,
J.
, et al.,
1996
, “
Negotiation in Constraint-Based Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
118
, No.
4
, pp.
470
–
477
.
5.
Umeda
,
Y.
, and
Tomiyama
,
T.
,
1997
, “
Functional Reasoning in Design
,”
Geoexploration
,
12
, No.
2
, pp.
42
–
48
.
6.
Iwasaki, Y., et al., 1993, How Things Are Intended to Work: Capturing Functional Knowledge in Device Design, Proc. Int’l Joint Conf. AI, Menlo Park, California, AAAI Press.
7.
Sturges, R. H., O’Shaughnessy, K., et al. 1996, “Computational Model for Conceptual Design Based on Extended Function Logic,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 10, No. 4, pp. 255–274.
8.
S. Szykman, Racz, J. W., et al., 1999, The Representation of Function in Computer-Based Design, Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC99/DTM-8742.
9.
Stone, R. B., and Wood, K. L., 1999, Development of A Functional Basis for Design, Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC99/DTM-8765.
10.
Akao, Y., 1990, Quality Function Deployment; Integrating Customer Requirements Into Product Design, Booknews, Inc.
11.
Hazelrigg
,
G. A.
,
1998
, “
A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
120
, No.
4
, pp.
653
–
658
.
12.
Taguchi, G., and Konish, S., 1992, Taguchi Methods, Research and Development, Dearborn, Mich., ASI Press.
13.
Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, Inc.
14.
Sutherland
,
I. E.
, and
Hodgman
,
G. W.
,
1974
, “
Reentrant Polygon Clipping
,”
Commun. ACM
,
17
, No.
1
, pp.
32
–
42
.
15.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge [England], New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.
16.
Nazareth, J. L., 1987, Computer Solutions of Linear Programs, Oxford University Press.
17.
Oxyczka, A., 1985, “Multicriteria Optimization for Engineering Design,” Design Optimization. Gero, J. S., Academic Press, Inc. p. 298.
18.
Kunjur
,
A.
, and
Krishnamurty
,
S.
,
1997
, “
A Robust Multicriteria Optimization Approach
,”
Mech. Mach. Theory
,
32
, No.
7
, pp.
797
–
810
.
19.
Otto
,
K. N.
, and
Antonsson
,
E. K.
,
1991
, “
Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
3
, No.
2
, pp.
87
–
104
.
20.
Chen
,
W.
,
Allen
,
J. K.
, et al.
1996
, “
A Procedure for Robust Design: Minimizing Variance Caused by Noise Factors and Control Factors
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
118
, No.
4
, pp.
478
–
485
.
21.
Goodrich, M. D., and Rinderle, J. R., 1997, An Objective Approach to Design Configuration Selection, Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Sacramento, CA, DETC97/DTM-3866.
Copyright © 2001
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.