Abstract
During preliminary phases in product design, on the basis of strong physical hypotheses (e.g. isotherm, steady state), physical and functional requirements can be expressed as coarse-grained constraint-based models on a few degrees of freedom, possibly including several design criteria to optimize. Such models are usually handled by multi-objective optimization solvers in order to find design solutions giving the best trade-offs between design criteria. Another approach developed in this paper is to partially explore all the areas of the design space using an anytime interval branch-and-prune algorithm called IDFS such that the design criteria are converted into so-called \(\varepsilon \)-constraints. The expected result is a sample of solutions diversified in both the objective space and the design space. Several quality indicators are introduced in order to measure this diversity and compare IDFS with two state-of-the-art multi-objective optimization solvers NSGA-II and NSGA-III on three real-world case studies. The results show that IDFS is able to identify new close-to-optimal designs and permits a better understanding of the design space. This framework provides a promising alternative tool for decision making, in particular for integrating interaction in the preliminary design process.
Graphical Abstract
Partial exploration aims to compute a diversified subset of feasible solutions; We built an anytime branch and prune algorithm for partial design space exploration. We built a protocol to analyze diversity in both the design and the objective space. We compare partial exploration and optimization approaches on three design problems. Partial Exploration is a tool for decision makers to identify quasi-optimal designs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tchertchian, N., Yvars, P., Millet, D.: Benefits and limits of a constraint satisfaction problem/life cycle assessment approach for the ecodesign of complex systems: a case applied to a hybrid passenger ferry. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 1–18 (2013)
Kang, E., Jackson, E., Schulte, W.: An approach for effective design space exploration. In: Calinescu, R., Jackson, E. (eds.) Foundations of Computer Software. Modeling, Development, and Verification of Adaptive Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 33–54. Springer, Berlin (2011)
Gelle, E., Faltings, B., Clément, D.E., Smith, I.: Constraint satisfaction methods for applications in engineering. Eng. Comput. (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00007190
Yvars, P.A.: Using constraint satisfaction for designing mechanical systems. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 2, 161–167 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-008-0047-3
Larroude, V., Yvars, PA., Millet, D.: Global optimization of environmental impact by a constraint satisfaction approach—application to ship-ecodesign. Des. Soc. p. 11 (2011)
Cicconi, P., Manieri, S., Nardelli, M., Bergantino, N., Raffaeli, R., Germani, M.: A constraint-based approach for optimizing the design of overhead lines. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 14(3), 1121–1139 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00680-x
Messine, F., Nogarede, B., Lagouanelle, J.L.: Optimal design of electromechanical actuators: a new method based on global optimization. IEEE Trans. Magn. 34(1), 299–308 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.650361
Yvars, P.A., Lafon, P., Zimmer, L.: Optimization of Mechanical System: contribution of Constraint Satisfaction Method. In: 2009 Int. Conf. Comput. Ind. Eng. Troyes, France: IEEE. p. 1379–1384 (2009)
Brownlee, A.E.I., Wright, J.A.: Constrained, mixed-integer and multi-objective optimisation of building designs by NSGA-II with fitness approximation. Appl. Soft Comput. 33, 114–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.010
Demarco, F., Bertacchini, F., Scuro, C., Bilotta, E., Pantano, P.: The development and application of an optimization tool in industrial design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 14(3), 955–970 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00679-4
Fortunet, C., Durieux, S., Chanal, H., Duc, E.: Multicriteria decision optimization for the design and manufacture of structural aircraft parts. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 14(3), 1015–1030 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00685-6
Stewart, R.H., Palmer, T.S., DuPont, B.: A survey of multi-objective optimization methods and their applications for nuclear scientists and engineers. Prog. Nucl. Energy 138, 103830 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103830
Zavala, G.R., Nebro, A.J., Luna, F., Coello Coello, C.A.: A survey of multi-objective metaheuristics applied to structural optimization. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 49(4), 537–558 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0996-4
Papalambros, P., Wilde, D.: Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation. 3rd ed. Modelling and computation (2017)
Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T.A.: Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II. In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI. vol. 1917. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 849–858 (2000)
Mandal, W.A.: A two-bar truss structural model under uncertainty: a uncertain chance constrained geometric programming (UCCGP) approach. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13(2), 471–485 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0477-5
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (Joint Research Centre). Life Cycle Indicators Framework: Development of Life Cycle Based Macro Level Monitoring Indicators for Resources, Products and Waste for the EU 27. LU: Publications Office of the European Union; (2012)
Deb, K., Jain, S.: Running Performance Metrics for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimizations; (2002)
Schwind, N., Okimoto, T., Clement, M., Inoue, K.: Representative Solutions for Multi-Objective Constraint Optimization Problems. In: The 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’16). KR; (2016)
Ingmar, L., de la Banda, M.G., Stuckey, P.J., Tack, G.: Modelling diversity of solutions. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 34(02), 1528–1535 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i02.5512
Vassilvitskii, S., Yannakakis, M.: Efficiently computing succinct trade-off curves. Theor. Comput. Sci. 348, 334–356 (2005)
Yuan, Y., Ong, Y.S., Gupta, A., Xu, H.: Objective reduction in many-objective optimization: evolutionary multiobjective approaches and comprehensive analysis. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 22(2), 189–210 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2017.2672668
Van Hentenryck, P., Mcallester, D., Kapur, D.: Solving polynomial systems using a branch and prune approach. SIAM J. Numer. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142995281504. (1997)
Chenouard, R., Goldsztejn, A., Jermann, C.: Search strategies for an anytime usage of the branch and prune algorithm. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2009, United States, pp. 468–473 (2009)
Benhamou, F., Goualard, F., Granvilliers, L., Puget, J.F.: Revising hull and box consistency. Int. Conf. Log. Program (1999). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4304.003.0024
Araya, I., Trombettoni, G., Neveu, B.: A contractor based on convex interval Taylor. In: Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization. Problems Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–16. Springer, Berlin (2012)
Chabert, G., Jaulin, L.: Contractor programming. Artif. Intell. 173(11), 1079–1100 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.03.002
Ryoo, H.S., Sahinidis, N.V.: A branch-and-reduce approach to global optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 8(2), 107–138 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138689
Misener, R., Floudas, C.A.: ANTIGONE: Algorithms for continuous/integer global optimization of nonlinear equations. J. Glob. Optim. 59(2), 503–526 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-014-0166-2
Ehrgott, M., Ruzika, S.: Improved \(\epsilon \)-constraint method for multiobjective programming. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 138(3), 375–396 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-008-9394-2
Audet, C., Bigeon, J., Cartier, D., Le Digabel, S., Salomon, L.: Performance indicators in multiobjective optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.11.016
Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C.M., Fonseca, V.: Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7, 117–132 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2003.810758
Palesi, M., Givargis, T.: Multi-objective design space exploration using genetic algorithms. In: Hardware/Software Codesign—Proceedings of the International Workshop pp 67–72 (2002)
Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Finger, S., Tomiyama, T.: A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 10(1115/1), 2013289 (2005)
Chenouard, R., Granvilliers, L., Sebastian, P.: Search heuristics for constraint-aided embodiment design. AIEDAM 23(2), 175–195 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060409000055
Sayın, S.: Measuring the quality of discrete representations of efficient sets in multiple objective mathematical programming. Math. Program. 87(3), 543–560 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s101070050011
Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A*. J. ACM 32(3), 505–536 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1145/3828.3830
Morrison, D.R., Jacobson, S.H., Sauppe, J.J., Sewell, E.C.: Branch-and-bound algorithms: a survey of recent advances in searching, branching, and pruning. Discrete Optim. 19, 79–102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disopt.2016.01.005
Meseguer, P.: Interleaved depth-first search. Proc. Fifteenth Int. J. Conf. Artif. Intell. 2, 1382–1387 (1997). https://doi.org/10.5555/1622270.1622355
Jain, H., Deb, K.: An Evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, Part II: Handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(4), 602–622 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281534
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A Models
Appendix A Models
1.1 A1 Engine
1.2 A2 Actuator
1.3 A3 Water
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Richard de Latour, T., Chenouard, R. & Granvilliers, L. Partial design space exploration strategies applied in preliminary design. Int J Interact Des Manuf 18, 2291–2307 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01377-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-023-01377-7