In this paper we introduce a technique to reduce the effects of uncertainty and incorporate flexibility in the design of complex engineering systems involving multiple decision-makers. We focus on the uncertainty that is created when a disciplinary designer or design team must try to predict or model the behavior of other disciplinary subsystems. The design of a complex system is performed by many different designers and design teams, each of which may only have control over a portion of the total set of system design variables. Modeling the interaction among these decision-makers and reducing the effect caused by lack of global control by any one designer is the focus of this paper. We use concepts from robust design to reduce the effects of decisions made during the design of one subsystem on the performance of the rest of the system. Thus, in a situation where the cost of uncertainty is high, these tools can be used to increase the robustness, or independence, of the subsystems, enabling designers to make more effective decisions. To demonstrate the usefulness of this approach, we consider a case study involving the design of a passenger aircraft.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
design engineering, decision theory, uncertain systems, large-scale systems, aircraft, Robust Design, Multidisciplinary Design, Optimization, Game Theory
Topics:
Aircraft, Complex systems, Design, Tradeoffs, Design engineering
1.
Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. Rawsan Associates, New York, New York.
2.
Lewis
,
K.
, and
Mistree
,
F.
,
1997
, “
Modeling Interactions in Multidisciplinary Design: A Game Theoretic Approach
,”
AIAA J.
,
35
, No.
8
, pp.
1387
–
1392
.
3.
Chang
,
T. S.
, and
Ward
,
A. C.
,
1995
, “
Conceptual Robustness in Simultaneous Engineering: A Formulation in Continuous Spaces
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
7
, pp.
67
–
85
.
4.
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
,
Hajela
,
P.
, and
Sobieski
,
J.
,
1992
, “
Non-Hierarchic System Decomposition in Structural Optimization
,”
Engineering Optimization
,
19
, pp.
171
–
186
.
5.
Balling
,
R.
, and
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
,
1996
, “
Optimization of Coupled Systems: A Critical Review of Approaches
,”
AIAA J.
,
34
, No.
1
, pp.
6
–
17
.
6.
Chen
,
W.
, and
Lewis
,
K.
,
1999
, “
A Robust Design Approach for Achieving Flexibility in Multidisciplinary Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
37
, No.
8
, pp.
982
–
990
.
7.
Lewis, K., 1996, “An Algorithm for Integrated Subsystem Embodiment and System Synthesis,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
8.
Vincent
,
T. L.
,
1983
, “
Game Theory as a Design Tool
,”
ASME J. Mech. Tran. Auto. Des.
,
105
, pp.
165
–
170
.
9.
Phadke, M. S., 1989, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
10.
Lewis
,
L.
, and
Parkinson
,
A.
,
1994
, “
Robust Optimal Design with a Second Order Tolerance Model
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
6
, pp.
25
–
37
.
11.
Parkinson
,
A.
,
1995
, “
Robust Mechanical Design Using Engineering Models
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
117
, pp.
48
–
54
.
12.
Chang
,
T. S.
,
Ward
,
A. C.
,
Lee
,
J.
, and
Jacox
,
E. H.
,
1994
, “
Conceptual Robustness in Simultaneous Engineering: An Extension of Taguchi’s Parameter Design
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
6
, pp.
211
–
222
.
13.
Chen
,
W.
,
Allen
,
J. K.
,
Tsui
,
K-L.
, and
Mistree
,
F.
,
1996
, “
A Procedure for Robust Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
118
, pp.
478
–
485
.
14.
Sundaresan
,
S.
,
Ishii
,
K.
, and
Houser
,
D. R.
,
1993
, “
A Robust Optimization Procedure with Variations on Design Variables and Constraints
,”
Advances in Design Automation
,
1
, pp.
379
–
386
.
15.
Chang
,
T. S.
, and
Ward
,
A. C.
,
1994
, “
Design-in-Modularity with Conceptual Robustness
,”
Research in Engineering Design
,
7
, pp.
67
–
85
.
16.
Su
,
J.
, and
Renaud
,
J. E.
,
1997
, “
Automatic Differentiation in Robust Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
35
, No.
6
, pp.
1072
–
1079
.
17.
Nash
,
J.
,
1950
, “
Equilibrium Points in n-person Games
,”
Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences
,
36
, pp.
48
–
49
.
18.
Rao
,
J. R. J.
,
Badhrinath
,
K.
,
Pakala
,
R.
, and
Mistree
,
F.
,
1997
, “
A Study of Optimal Design Under Conflict Using Models of Multi-Player Games
,”
Engineering Optimization
,
28
, pp.
63
–
94
.
19.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Bras, B. A., 1993, “The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm,” Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, M. P. Kamat, ed., AIAA, Washington, D.C., pp. 247–286.
20.
Nicolai, L. M., 1984, Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, METS Inc., San Jose, CA.
21.
Kalsi, M., Hacker, K., and Lewis, K., 1999, “Decision Trade-Offs in Complex Systems Design Using a Conceptual Robustness Approach,” The Third World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Buffalo, NY, in CD-ROM proceedings.
22.
Ignizio
,
J. P.
,
1985
, “
Generalized Goal Programming: An Overview
,”
Computers and Operations Research
,
5
, No.
3
, pp.
179
–
197
.
23.
Messac
,
A.
,
1996
, “
Physical Programming: Effective Optimization for Computational Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
34
, No.
1
, pp.
149
–
158
.
24.
Dennis
,
J. E.
, and
Das
,
I.
,
1997
, “
A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objective for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems
,”
Structural Optimization
,
14
, No.
1
, pp.
63
–
69
.
25.
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.
179
–
187
.
26.
Chen
,
W.
,
Sahai
,
A.
,
Messac
,
A.
, and
Sundararaj
,
G. J.
,
2000
, “
Exploration of the Effectiveness of Physical Programming for Robust Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
22
, No.
2
, pp.
155
–
163
.
Copyright © 2001
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.