Complex engineered systems are typically designed using a systems engineering framework that is showing its limitations. Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO), which has evolved remarkably since its inception 25 years ago, offers alternatives to complement and enhance the systems engineering approach to help address the challenges inherent in the design of complex engineered systems. To gain insight into these challenges, a one-day workshop was organized that gathered 48 people from industry, academia, and government agencies. The goal was to examine MDO’s current and future role in designing complex engineered systems. This paper summarizes the views of five distinguished speakers on the “state of the research” and discussions from an industry panel comprised of representatives from Boeing, Caterpillar, Ford, NASA Glenn Research Center, and United Technologies Research Center on the “state of the practice.” Future research topics to advance MDO are also identified in five key areas: (1) modeling and the design space, (2) metrics, objectives, and requirements, (3) coupling in complex engineered systems, (4) dealing with uncertainty, and (5) people and workflow. Finally, five overarching themes are offered to advance MDO practice. First, MDO researchers need to engage disciplines outside of engineering and target opportunities outside of their traditional application areas. Second, MDO problem formulations must evolve to encompass a wider range of design criteria. Third, effective strategies are needed to put designers “back in the loop” during MDO. Fourth, the MDO community needs to do a better job of publicizing its successes to improve the “buy in” that is needed to advance MDO in academia, industry, and government agencies. Fifth, students and practitioners need to be better educated on systems design, optimization, and MDO methods and tools along with their benefits and drawbacks.

References

1.
Griffin
,
M. D.
, 2010, “
Keynote Address: How Do We Fix System Engineering?
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
.
3.
Drew
,
C.
, 2009, “
A Dream Interrupted at Boeing
,” The New York Times, 5 September, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06boeing.html?_r=1&hphttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06boeing.html?_r=1&hp
5.
Valdes-Dapena
,
P.
, 2009, “
Chevy Volt to Get 230 MPG Rating
,” CNNMoney.com, 11 August, http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/
7.
Becz
,
S.
,
Pinto
,
A.
,
Zeidner
,
L. E.
,
Banaszuk
,
A.
,
Khire
,
R.
, and
Reeve
,
H. M.
, 2010, “
Design System for Managing Complexity in Aerospace Systems
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9223.
8.
Deshmukh
,
A.
, and
Collopy
,
P.
, 2010, “
Fundamental Research into the Design of Large-Scale Complex Systems
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9320.
9.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
, 1990, “
Sensitivity of Complex, Internally Coupled Systems
,”
AIAA J.
,
28
(
1
), pp.
153
160
.
10.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
, 1993, “
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: An Emerging New Engineering Discipline
,”
The World Congress on Optimal Design of Structural Systems
,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
,
NASA Technical Memorandum
107761.
11.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
, and
Haftka
,
R. T.
, 1997, “
Multidisciplinary Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments
,”
Struct. Optim.
,
14
(
1
), pp.
1
23
.
12.
Agate
,
J.
,
de Weck
,
O.
,
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
,
Arendson
,
P.
,
Morris
,
A.
, and
Spieck
,
M.
, 2010, “
MDO: Assessment and Direction for Advancement—An Opinion of One International Group
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
40
(
1
), pp.
17
33
.
13.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
,
Multidisciplinary Optimization for Engineering Systems: Achievements and Potential
(
NASA Langley Research Center
,
Hampton, VA
, 1989).
14.
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
,
Hajela
,
P.
, and
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
, 1992, “
Non-Hierarchic System Decomposition in Structural Optimization
,”
Eng. Optim.
,
19
(
1
), pp.
171
186
.
15.
Altus
,
S. S.
,
Kroo
,
I. M.
, and
Gage
,
P. J.
, 1996, “
A Genetic Algorithm for Scheduling and Decomposition of Multidisciplinary Design Problems
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
118
(
4
), pp.
486
489
.
16.
Rogers
,
J. L.
, 1996, “
DeMAID/GA: An Enhanced Design Manager’s Aid for Intelligent Decomposition
,”
6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
,
Bellevue, WA
,
AIAA
, AIAA-96-4157-CP, pp.
1497
1504
.
17.
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
, 1995, “
Coupling Strength-Based System Reduction for Complex Engineering Design
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
10
(
2
), pp.
113
121
.
18.
Martins
,
J. R. R. A.
,
Alonso
,
J. J.
, and
Reuther
,
J. J.
, 2005, “
A Coupled-Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis Method for High-Fidelity Aero-Structural Design
,”
Optim. Eng.
,
6
(
1
), pp.
33
62
.
19.
Wang
,
G. G.
, and
Shan
,
S.
, 2007, “
Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
129
(
4
), pp.
370
380
.
20.
Balabanov
,
V.
,
Charpentier
,
C.
,
Ghosh
,
D. K.
,
Quinn
,
G.
,
Vanderplaats
,
G.
, and
Venter
,
G.
, 2002, “
VisualDOC: A Software System for General Purpose Integration and Design Optimization
,”
9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
,
Atlanta, GA
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2002-5513.
21.
Phoenix Integration Inc.
, 1999,
MODELCENTER v2.01
, Blacksburg, VA, http://www.phoenix-int.comhttp://www.phoenix-int.com
22.
Koch
,
P. N.
,
Evans
,
J. P.
, and
Powell
,
D.
, 2002, “
Interdigitation for Effective Design Space Exploration Using ISIGHT
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
23
(
2
), pp.
111
126
.
23.
Sobieski
,
J.
, 2010, “
A Perspective on the State of Multidsciplinary Design Optimization (MDO),” NSF “Future of MDO
Workshop: Advancing the Design of Complex Systems
, Fort Worth, TX.
24.
Collopy
,
P.
, 2010, “
NSF Workshop: Design of Large-Scale Complex Systems,” NSF “Future of MDO
Workshop: Advancing the Design of Complex Systems
, Fort Worth, TX.
25.
Zeidner
,
L. E.
,
Reeve
,
H. M.
,
Khire
,
R.
, and
Becz
,
S.
, 2010, “
Design Issues for a Bottom-Up Complexity Metric Applied to Hierarchical Systems
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9224.
26.
Zeidner
,
L. E.
,
Reeve
,
H. M.
,
Khire
,
R.
, and
Becz
,
S.
, 2010, “
Architectural Enumeration and Evaluation for Identification of Low-Complexity Systems
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9264.
27.
Khire
,
R.
,
Becz
,
S.
,
Reeve
,
H. M.
, and
Zeidner
,
L. E.
, 2010, “
Assessing Performance Uncertainty in Complex Hybrid Systems
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9225.
28.
Kroo
,
I.
, 2004, “
Collectives and Complex System Design
,”
Von Karman Institute (VKI) Lecture Series on Optimization Methods and Tools for Multicriteria/Multidisciplinary Design
,
von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-Saint-Genèse
,
Belgium
.
29.
Kroo
,
I.
, 2004, “
Innovations in Aeronautics
,”
42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
,
Reno, NV
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2004-0001.
30.
Oh
,
S.-C.
,
Lee
,
D.
, and
Kumara
,
S. R. T.
, 2008, “
Effective Web Service Composition in Diverse and Large-Scale Service Networks
,”
IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput.
,
1
(
1
), pp.
15
32
.
31.
Steward
,
A. D.
, 1981, “
The Design Structure System: A Method for Managing the Design of Complex Systems
,”
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.
,
28
(
3
), pp.
71
74
.
32.
Sosa
,
M. E.
,
Eppinger
,
S. D.
, and
Rowles
,
C. M.
, 2007, “
A Network Approach to Define Modularity of Components in Complex Products
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
129
(
11
), pp.
1118
1129
.
33.
Braha
,
D.
, and
Bar-Yam
,
Y.
, 2004, “
Information Flow Structure in Large-Scale Poduct Development Organizational Networks
,”
J. Inf. Technol.
,
19
, pp.
244
253
.
34.
Braha
,
D.
, and
Bar-Yam
,
Y.
, 2007, “
The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development
,”
Manage. Sci.
,
53
(
7
), pp.
1127
1145
.
35.
Giffin
,
M.
,
de Weck
,
O.
,
Bounova
,
G.
,
Keller
,
R.
,
Eckert
,
C.
, and
Clarkson
,
P. J.
, 2009, “
Change Propagation Analysis of Complex Technical Systems
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
131
(
8
),
081001.
36.
Cramer
,
E. J.
, 2010, “
MDO is a State of Mind,” NSF “Future of MDO
Workshop: Advancing the Design of Complex Systems
, Fort Worth, TX.
37.
Yang
,
R.-J.
, 2010, “
MDO in Auto Industry,” NSF “Future of MDO
Workshop: Advancing the Design of Complex Systems
, Fort Worth, TX.
38.
Gray
,
J.
,
Moore
,
K. T.
, and
Naylor
,
B. A.
, 2010, “
OPENMDAO: An Open Source Framework for Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
,”
13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
,
Fort Worth, TX
,
AIAA
, AIAA-2010-9101.
39.
Khire
,
R.
, 2010, “
Challenges in Design and Optimization of Large Scale Energy Efficient Systems,” NSF “Future of MDO
Workshop: Advancing the Design of Complex Systems
, Fort Worth, TX.
40.
Alexandrov
,
N. M.
,
Lewis
,
R. M.
,
Gumbert
,
C. R.
,
Green
,
L. L.
, and
Newman
,
P. A.
, 2001, “
Approximation and Model Management in Aerodynamic Optimization With Variable-Fidelity Models
,”
J. Aircr.
,
38
(
6
), pp.
1093
1101
.
41.
Thokala
,
P.
, and
Martins
,
J. R. R. A.
, 2006, “
Variable Complexity Methods Applied to Airfoil Design
,”
Eng. Optim.
,
39
(
3
), pp.
271
286
.
42.
Venkataraman
,
S.
, and
Haftka
,
R. T.
, 2004, “
Structural Optimization Complexity: What Has Moore’s Law Done for Us?
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
28
(
6
), pp.
375
387
.
You do not currently have access to this content.