This research focuses on multi-objective system design and optimization. The primary goal is to develop and test a mathematically rigorous and efficient interactive multi-objective optimization algorithm that takes into account the Decision Maker’s (DM’s) preferences during the design process. An interactive MultiObjective Optimization Design Strategy (iMOODS) has been developed in this research to include the Pareto sensitivity analysis, Pareto surface approximation and local preference functions to capture the DM’s preferences in an Iterative Decision Making Strategy (IDMS). This new multiobjective optimization procedure provides the DM with a formal means for efficient design exploration around a given Pareto point. The use of local preference functions allows the iMOODS to construct the second order Pareto surface approximation more accurately in the preferred region of the Pareto surface. The iMOODS has been successfully applied to two test problems. The first problem consists of a set of simple analytical expressions for the objective and constraints. The second problem is the design and sizing of a high-performance and low-cost ten bar structure that has multiple objectives. The results indicate that the class functions are effective in capturing the local preferences of the DM. The Pareto designs that reflect the DM’s preferences can be efficiently generated within IDMS.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
design engineering, optimisation, decision theory
Topics:
Approximation, Decision making, Design, Preferences, Pareto optimization, Optimization
1.
Eschenauer
,
H. A.
,
Geilen
,
J.
, and
Wahl
,
H. J.
,
1993
, “
SAPOP—an Optimization Procedure for Multicriteria Structural Design
,”
International Series of Numerical Mathematics
,
110
, pp.
207
–
227
.
2.
Stadler
,
W.
, and
Dauer
,
J.
,
1992
, “
Multicriteria Optimization in Engineering: A Tutorial and Survey
,” Structural Optimization: Status and Promise,
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
, Edited by M. P. Kamat,
150
, pp.
209
–
244
.
3.
Stadler
,
W.
,
1995
, “
Caveats and Boons of Multicriteria Optimization
,”
Microcomputers in Civil Engineering
,
10
, pp.
291
–
299
.
4.
Hwang, C. L., and Masud, A. S. M., 1979, Multiple Objective Decision Making-Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
5.
Tappeta
,
R. V.
, and
Renaud
,
J. E.
,
1999
, “
Interactive MultiObjective Optimization Procedure
,”
AIAA J.
,
37
, No.
7
, July, pp.
881
–
889
.
6.
Tappeta
,
R. V.
, and
Renaud
,
J. E.
,
2000
, “
Interactive Physical Programming: Tradeoff Analysis and Decision Making
,”
AIAA J.
,
38
, No.
5
, May, pp.
917
–
926
.
7.
Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H., and Tanino, T., 1985, Theory of Multiobjective Optimization, Academic Press, Orlando.
8.
Miettinen, K., 1998, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
9.
Narula
,
S. C.
,
Kirilov
,
L.
, and
Vassilev
,
V.
,
1994
, “
Reference Direction Approach for Solving Multiple Objective Nonlinear Programming Problems
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
,
24
, pp.
804
–
806
.
10.
Gabriele, G. A., and Beltracchi, T. J., 1988, “OPT3.2: A Fortran Implementation of the Generalized Reduced Gradient Method,” Users Manual, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering and Mechanical, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
11.
Roy
,
B.
, and
Vanderpooten
,
D.
,
1996
, “
The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Works
,”
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
,
5
, pp.
22
–
38
.
12.
The MathWorks, Inc., 1992, MATLAB Reference Guide, August.
13.
Grace, A., 1992, Optimization Toolbox for use with MATLAB, The Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA
14.
Wujek, B. A., Renaud, J. E., and Brockman, J. B., 1994, “Design Driven Concurrent Optimization in System Design Problems Using Second Order Sensitivities,” AIAA 94-4276-CP, Proceedings of the 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City, Florida, September 7–9.
Copyright © 2001
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.