Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Graphical and text-based design interfaces for parameter design of an I-beam, desk lamp, aircraft wing, and job shop manufacturing system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we describe four design optimization problems and corresponding design interfaces that have been developed to help assess the impact of fast, graphical interfaces for design space visualization and optimization. The design problems involve the design of an I-beam, desk lamp, aircraft wing, and job shop manufacturing system. The problems vary in size from 2 to 6 inputs and 2 to 7 outputs, where the outputs are formulated as either a multiobjective optimization problem or a constrained, single objective optimization problem. Graphical and text-based design interfaces have been developed for the I-beam and desk lamp problems, and two sets of graphical design interfaces have been developed for the aircraft wing and job shop design problems that vary in the number of input variables and analytical complexity, respectively. Response delays ranging from 0.0 to 1.5 s have been imposed in the interfaces to mimic computationally expensive analyses typical of complex engineering design problems, allowing us to study the impact of delay on user performance. In addition to describing each problem, we discuss the experimental methods that we use, including the experimental factors, performance measures, and protocol. The focus in this paper is to publicize and share our design interfaces as well as our insights with other researchers who are developing tools to support design space visualization and exploration.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lembersky MR, Chi UH (1984) Decision simulators speed implementation and improve operations. Interfaces 14:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  2. Burgess S, Pasini D, Alemzadeh K (2004) Improved visualization of the design space using nested performance charts. Des Stud 25(1):51–62

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dahl DW, Chattopadhyay A, Gorn GJ (2001) The Importance of visualisation in concept design. Des Stud 22(1):5–26

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eddy J, Lewis K (2002) Visualization of multi-dimensional design and optimization data using cloud visualization. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences - design automation conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, ASME, Paper No. DETC02/DAC-02006

  5. Evans PT, Vance JM, Dark VJ (1999) Assessing the effectiveness of traditional and virtual reality interfaces in spherical mechanism design. ASME J Mech Des 121(4):507–514

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hirschi NW, Frey DD (2002) Cognition and complexity: an experiment on the effect of coupling in parameter design. Res Eng Des 13(3):123–131

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jayaram S, Vance JM, Gadh R, Jayaram U, Srinivasan H (2001) Assessment of VR technology and its applications to engineering problems. ASME J Comput Info Sci Eng 1(1):72–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelsick J, Vance JM, Buhr L, Moller C (2004) Discrete event simulation implemented in a virtual environment. ASME J Mech Des 125(3):428–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kodiyalam S, Yang RJ, Gu L (2004) High performance computing and surrogate modeling for rapid visualization with multidisciplinary optimization. AIAA J 42(11):2347–2354

    Google Scholar 

  10. Messac A, Chen X (2000) Visualizing the optimization process in real-time using physical programming. Eng Optim 32(6):721–747

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stump G, Yukish M, Simpson TW (2004) The advanced trade space visualizer: an engineering decision-making tool. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, AIAA, AIAA-2004–4568

  12. Maxfield J, Juster NP, Dew PM, Taylor S, Fitchie M, Ion WJ, Zhao J, Thompson M (2000) Predicting product cosmetic quality using virtual environments. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences - computers and information in engineering, Baltimore, MD, ASME, Paper No. DETC2000/CIE-14591

  13. Winer EH, Bloebaum CL (2002) Development of visual design steering as an aid in large-scale multidisciplinary design optimization. part i: method development. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(6):412–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zionts S (1992) The state of multiple criteria decisionmaking: past, present, and future. In: Goicoechea A, Duckstein L, Zionts S (eds) Multiple criteria decision making, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 33–43

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zionts S (1993) Multiple criteria decision making: the challenge that lies ahead. In: Tzeng GH, Wang HF, Wen UP, Yu PL (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 17–26

    Google Scholar 

  16. Athan TW, Papalambros PY (1996) A note on weighted criteria methods for compromise solutions in multi-objective optimization. Eng Optim 27(2):155–176

    Google Scholar 

  17. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1977) Goal programming and multiple objective optimization - part I. Eur J Oper Res 1(1):39–54

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson B, Cappelleri DJ, Frecker MI, Simpson TW (2001) Efficient Pareto frontier exploration using Surrogate approximations. Optim Eng 2(1):31–50

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Hazelrigg GA (1996) The implications of arrow’s impossibility theorem on approaches to optimal engineering design. ASME J Mech Des 118(2):161–164

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hazelrigg GA (1996) Information-Based Design, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

  21. Steuer RE, Choo EU (1983) An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Program 26:326–344

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Thurston DL, Carnahan JV, Liu T (1994) Optimization of design utility. J Mech Des 116(3):801–808

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yang JB, Sen P (1994) Multiple objective design optimization by estimating local utility functions. In: Advances in design automation vol. ASME DE-vol 69–2, pp 135–145

  24. Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Bus Rev 66(3):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  25. Locascio A, Thurston DL (1998) Transforming the house of quality to a multiobjective optimization formulation. Struct Optim 16(2–3):136–146

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis K, Mistree F (1998) Collaborative, sequential, and isolated decisions in design. ASME J Mech Des 120(4):643–652

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lewis K, Mistree F (2001) Modeling subsystem interactions: a game theoretic approach. J Des Manuf Autom 1(1):17–36

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rao SS, Vankayya VB, Khot NS (1988) Game theory approach for the integrated design of structures and controls. AIAA J 26(4):463–469

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Otto KN, Antonsson EK (1991) Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Res Eng Des 3(2):87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34(1):149–158

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Messac A (2000) From dubious construction of objective functions to the application of physical programming. AIAA J 38(1):155–163

    Google Scholar 

  33. Saaty T (1988) The analytic hierarchy process, revised and extended edition. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. National Research Council (1998) Visionary manufacturing challenges for 2020, Committee on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  35. Ullman DG (2003) The mechanical design process. 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sturman DJ, Zeltzer D, Pieper S (1989) Hands-on interaction with virtual environments, Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology:19–24

  38. Ware C, Balakrishnan R (1994) Reaching for objects in VR displays lag and frame rate. ACM Trans Compr Hum Interact 1:331–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Watson B, Walker N, Hodges LF, Worden A (1997) Managing level of detail through peripheral degradation: effects on search performance in head-mounted display. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 4:323–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Waern Y (1989) Cognitive aspects of computer supported tasks. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Goodman T, Spence R (1978) The effect of system response time on interactive computer-aided design. Comput Graph 12:100–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Foley JD, Wallace JD (1974) The art of natural graphic man-machine conversation. Proc IEEE 4:462–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Simpson TW, Meckesheimer M (2004) Evaluation of a graphical design interface for design space visualization. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics & materials conference, Palm Springs, CA, AIAA, AIAA-2004–1683

  44. Gu L (2001) A comparison of polynomial based regression models in vehicle safety analysis. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences - design automation conference, Pittsburgh, PA, ASME, Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21063

  45. Kleijnen JPC (1975) A comment on Blanning’s metamodel for sensitivity analysis: the regression metamodel in simulation. Interfaces 5(1):21–23

    Google Scholar 

  46. Barton RR (1998) Simulation metamodels. In: Proceedings of the 1998 winter simulation conference (WSC’98), Washington, DC, IEEE, pp. 167–174

  47. Simpson TW, Peplinski J, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Haftka R, Scott EP, Cruz JR (1998) Optimization and experiments: a survey. Appl Mech Rev 51(7):435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Simpson TW, Booker AJ, Ghosh D, Giunta AA, Koch PN, Yang RJ (2004) Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27(5):302–313

    Google Scholar 

  51. Haftka R, Gürdal Z (1992) Elements of structural optimization. 3rd Revised and Expanded Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Frecker M, Simpson TW, Goldberg JH, Barton RR, Holewinski B, Stump G (2001) Integrating design research into the classroom: experiments in two graduate courses. In: 2001 Annual ASEE Conference, Albuquerque, NM, ASEE

  53. Ligetti C, Simpson TW, Frecker M, Barton RR, Stump G (2003) Assessing the impact of graphical design interfaces on design efficiency and effectiveness. ASME J Comput Inform Sci Eng 3(2):144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Barron K, Simpson TW, Rothrock L, Frecker M, Barton RR, Ligetti C (2004) Graphical user interfaces for engineering design: impact of response delay and training on user performance. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences - design theory & methodology conference, Salt Lake City, UT, ASME, Paper No. DETC2004/DTM-57085

  55. Barton RR, Limayem F, Meckesheimer M, Yannou B (1999) Using metamodels for modeling the propagation of design uncertainties. In: 5th international conference on concurrent engineering (ICE’99), The Hague, Centre for Concurrent Enterprising, The Netherlands, pp 521–528

  56. Simpson TW, Iyer P, Barron K, Rothrock L, Frecker M, Barton RR, Meckesheimer M (2005) Metamodel-driven interfaces for engineering design: impact of delay and problem size on user performance. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics & materials conference and 1st AIAA multidisciplinary design optimization specialist conference, Austin, TX, AIAA, AIAA-2005–2060

  57. Law AM, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis. 3rd edn, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ligetti C, Simpson TW (2005) Metamodel-driven design optimization using integrative graphical design interfaces: results from a job shop manufacturing simulation experiment. ASME J Comput Inform Sci Eng 5(1):8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hammond KR (1986) Generalization in operational contexts: what does it mean? can it be done?. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 16(3):428–433

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Hammond KR, Hamm RM, Grassia J, Pearson T (1987) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 17(5):753–770

    Google Scholar 

  61. Meckesheimer M, Barton RR, Simpson TW, Limayem F, Yannou B (2001) Metamodeling of combined discrete/continuous responses. AIAA J 39(10):1955–1959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models. 4th edn. WCB/McGraw Hill, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of experimental and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 139–183

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wierwille WW, Eggemeier FT (1993) Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Hum Factors 35(2):262–282

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rothrock L, Barron K, Simpson TW, Frecker M, Barton RR, Ligetti C (2006) Applying the proximity compatibility and the control-display compatibility principles to engineering design interfaces. Hum Factors Ergonom Manuf 16(1):61–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wickens CD, Carswell CM (1995) The proximity compatibility principle: its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Hum Factors 37(3):473–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wickens CD (1992) Engineering psychology and human performance. 2nd edn. Harper Collins Inc., NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  69. Martin JD, Simpson TW (2004) A Monte Carlo simulation of the kriging model. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, AIAA, AIAA-2004–4483

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMI-0084918. We are indebted to the graduate students who worked on this project—Gary Stump, Martin Meckesheimer, Chris Ligetti, Britt Holewinski, and Param Iyer—as well as the undergraduate students, Kim Barron and Chris Ligetti, who were supported on REU supplements to our grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering and Engineering Design, The Pennsylvania State University, 329 Leonhard Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Timothy W. Simpson

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Mary Frecker

  3. Supply Chain and Information Systems, Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Russell R. Barton

  4. Harold & Inge Marcus Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Ling Rothrock

Authors
  1. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Frecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell R. Barton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ling Rothrock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy W. Simpson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simpson, T.W., Frecker, M., Barton, R.R. et al. Graphical and text-based design interfaces for parameter design of an I-beam, desk lamp, aircraft wing, and job shop manufacturing system. Engineering with Computers 23, 93–107 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-006-0045-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-006-0045-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation