Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation scheme for assessing the worth of automatically generated design alternatives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces a tool called the designer preference modeler (DPM) that analyzes the designer’s decision making during concept evaluation, and constructs a designer preference model to be used for evaluation of automatically generated design alternatives. The method is based on establishing an interaction between a designer and a computational synthesis tool during conceptual design. The synthesis software generates design alternatives using a catalog of design knowledge formulated as grammar rules which describe how electromechanical designs are built. DPM carefully selects a set from these alternatives and presents it to the designer for evaluation. The designer’s evaluations are translated into a preference model that is subsequently used to search the solution space for best designs. Application of the method to the design of a consumer product shows DPM’s range of capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altshuller G (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gorden and Breach, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm M, Stone R (2004) Product design support: exploring a design repository system. In: Proceedings of the IMECE’04, IMECE2004-61746, Anaheim, CA

  • Bracewell RH, Sharpe JEE (1996) Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation—Schemebuilder. AIEDAM 10(4):333–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant C, Stone R, McAdams D, Kurtoglu T, Campbell M (2005) A computational technique for concept generation. In: ASME IDETC’05. Long Beach, CA

  • Cagan J (2001) Engineering shape grammars. In: Antonsson EK, Cagan J (eds) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell M, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2000) Agent-based synthesis of electro-mechanical design configurations. J Mech Des 122(1):61–69. doi:10.1115/1.533546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti A, Bligh TP (1996) An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: theory, applications, and merging research issues. AIEDAM 10:313–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelrigg G (1996) Systems engineering: an approach to information-based design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtoglu T, Campbell M, Bryant C, Stone R, McAdams D (2005), “Deriving a Component Basis for Computational Functional Synthesis” Proceedings of ICED’05, Melbourne, Australia

  • Kurtoglu T, Campbell MI, Gonzales J, Bryant CR, McAdams DA, Stone RB (2005) Capturing empirically derived design knowledge for creating conceptual design configurations. In: Proceedings of the DETC2005, September. Long Beach, California, pp 24–28

  • Linsey JS, Green MG, Murphy JT, Wood KL, Markman AB (2005) Collaborating to success: an experimental study of group idea generation techniques. In: Proceedings of the DETC2005, Long Beach, CA

  • McAdams D, Wood K (2000) Quantitative measures for design by analogy, DETC2000/DTM–14562. In: Proceedings of DETC2000, Balitmore, MD

  • Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34(1):149–158. doi:10.2514/3.13035

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Moss J, Cagan J, Kotovsky k (2004) Learning from experience in an agent based design system. Res Eng Des 15:77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers KL, Zumel NB, Gracia P (1999) Automated rationale capture for the detailed design process. In: 11th Conference on Innovative Applications of AI

  • Osborn A (1957) Applied imagination. Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Wallace K (2002) Using the concept of functions to help synthesize solutions. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design—a systematic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Workingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson K, Stahovich TF (2006) A method for inferring design rules with explicit bounds of applicability. In: Proceedings of the ASME IDETC’06. Philadelphia, PA

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiny G (1981) A note on the description of designs. Environ Plan B 8:257–267. doi:10.1068/b080257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahovich TF (2000) LearnIT: an instance based approach to learning and using design strategies. ASME J Mech Des 122(3):249–256. doi:10.1115/1.1288216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone R, Wood K (2000) Development of a functional basis for design. J Mech Des 122:359–370. doi:10.1115/1.1289637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurston DL (1991) A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes. Res Eng Des 3:105–122. doi:10.1007/BF01581343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman D (1995) The mechanical design process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood KL, Antonsson EK, Beck JL (1990) Representing imprecision in engineering design: comparing fuzzy and probability calculus. Res Eng Des 1(3–4):187–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky P (1969) Discovery, invention, research through morphological analysis. McMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mission Critical Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269-3, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, USA

    Tolga Kurtoglu

  2. Automated Design Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Matthew I. Campbell

Authors
  1. Tolga Kurtoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew I. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tolga Kurtoglu.

Appendix: Grammar rules used in the design of the “bread slicer” product

Appendix: Grammar rules used in the design of the “bread slicer” product

See Fig. 4.

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kurtoglu, T., Campbell, M.I. An evaluation scheme for assessing the worth of automatically generated design alternatives. Res Eng Design 20, 59–76 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0062-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0062-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation