Limitations of Design Space-Based Indicators for Early Robustness Assessment

Herle Bagh Juul-Nyholm; Nökkvi S. Sigurdarson; Martin Ebro; Tobias Eifler

doi:10.1017/pds.2021.459

Limitations of Design Space-Based Indicators for Early Robustness Assessment

Herle Bagh Juul-Nyholm^*, Nökkvi S. Sigurdarson, Martin Ebro, Tobias Eifler

^*Corresponding author for this work

Novo Nordisk Foundation

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Research › peer-review

95 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper seeks to address the gap between qualitative Robust Design principles and parameter optimization. The former often fails to consider the challenging amount of details in embodiment and configuration design, while the latter is the widely accepted main thrust in traditional Robust Design. The gap is addressed by exploring the value of five quantitative robustness indicators for Design Space Exploration based on variables, objectives and constraints: The set level indicators, Design Space Size and Pareto Set Dispersion, and the point level indicators, Neighbourhood Performance, Failure Rate and Distance to Failure. As a background for the discussion of the limitations of these indicators an industrial case is presented. The case is an incremental encoder and includes two configurations for comparison, five objectives, eight variables, and a range of constraints. The design spaces are sampled and they show conflicting objectives, dispersed spaces and variables dependencies. Based on this it is suggested that set level indicators are more suitable than point level indicators of early robustness evaluation, but the available indicators are limited in their considerations of design space discontinuity and conflicts.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Proceedings of the Design Society
Volume	1
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Publication date	2021
Pages	1977-1986
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.459
Publication status	Published - 2021
Event	23rd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21) - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Duration: 16 Aug 2021 → 20 Aug 2021

Conference

Conference	23rd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21)
Location	Chalmers University of Technology
Country/Territory	Sweden
City	Gothenburg
Period	16/08/2021 → 20/08/2021

Bibliographical note

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Keywords

Robust design
Computational design methods
Evaluation
Design Space Exploration
Configuration Design

Access to Document

10.1017/pds.2021.459Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

FulltextFinal published version, 749 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@inproceedings{925be6511ba846c18b828e3c2f16f738,

title = "Limitations of Design Space-Based Indicators for Early Robustness Assessment",

abstract = "This paper seeks to address the gap between qualitative Robust Design principles and parameter optimization. The former often fails to consider the challenging amount of details in embodiment and configuration design, while the latter is the widely accepted main thrust in traditional Robust Design. The gap is addressed by exploring the value of five quantitative robustness indicators for Design Space Exploration based on variables, objectives and constraints: The set level indicators, Design Space Size and Pareto Set Dispersion, and the point level indicators, Neighbourhood Performance, Failure Rate and Distance to Failure. As a background for the discussion of the limitations of these indicators an industrial case is presented. The case is an incremental encoder and includes two configurations for comparison, five objectives, eight variables, and a range of constraints. The design spaces are sampled and they show conflicting objectives, dispersed spaces and variables dependencies. Based on this it is suggested that set level indicators are more suitable than point level indicators of early robustness evaluation, but the available indicators are limited in their considerations of design space discontinuity and conflicts. ",

keywords = "Robust design, Computational design methods, Evaluation, Design Space Exploration, Configuration Design",

author = "Juul-Nyholm, {Herle Bagh} and Sigurdarson, {N{\"o}kkvi S.} and Martin Ebro and Tobias Eifler",

note = "This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.; 23rd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21) ; Conference date: 16-08-2021 Through 20-08-2021",

year = "2021",

doi = "10.1017/pds.2021.459",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "1977--1986",

booktitle = "Proceedings of the Design Society",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

address = "United Kingdom",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Limitations of Design Space-Based Indicators for Early Robustness Assessment

AU - Juul-Nyholm, Herle Bagh

AU - Sigurdarson, Nökkvi S.

AU - Ebro, Martin

AU - Eifler, Tobias

N1 - This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - This paper seeks to address the gap between qualitative Robust Design principles and parameter optimization. The former often fails to consider the challenging amount of details in embodiment and configuration design, while the latter is the widely accepted main thrust in traditional Robust Design. The gap is addressed by exploring the value of five quantitative robustness indicators for Design Space Exploration based on variables, objectives and constraints: The set level indicators, Design Space Size and Pareto Set Dispersion, and the point level indicators, Neighbourhood Performance, Failure Rate and Distance to Failure. As a background for the discussion of the limitations of these indicators an industrial case is presented. The case is an incremental encoder and includes two configurations for comparison, five objectives, eight variables, and a range of constraints. The design spaces are sampled and they show conflicting objectives, dispersed spaces and variables dependencies. Based on this it is suggested that set level indicators are more suitable than point level indicators of early robustness evaluation, but the available indicators are limited in their considerations of design space discontinuity and conflicts.

AB - This paper seeks to address the gap between qualitative Robust Design principles and parameter optimization. The former often fails to consider the challenging amount of details in embodiment and configuration design, while the latter is the widely accepted main thrust in traditional Robust Design. The gap is addressed by exploring the value of five quantitative robustness indicators for Design Space Exploration based on variables, objectives and constraints: The set level indicators, Design Space Size and Pareto Set Dispersion, and the point level indicators, Neighbourhood Performance, Failure Rate and Distance to Failure. As a background for the discussion of the limitations of these indicators an industrial case is presented. The case is an incremental encoder and includes two configurations for comparison, five objectives, eight variables, and a range of constraints. The design spaces are sampled and they show conflicting objectives, dispersed spaces and variables dependencies. Based on this it is suggested that set level indicators are more suitable than point level indicators of early robustness evaluation, but the available indicators are limited in their considerations of design space discontinuity and conflicts.

KW - Robust design

KW - Computational design methods

KW - Evaluation

KW - Design Space Exploration

KW - Configuration Design

U2 - 10.1017/pds.2021.459

DO - 10.1017/pds.2021.459

M3 - Article in proceedings

VL - 1

SP - 1977

EP - 1986

BT - Proceedings of the Design Society

PB - Cambridge University Press

T2 - 23rd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21)

Y2 - 16 August 2021 through 20 August 2021

ER -

Limitations of Design Space-Based Indicators for Early Robustness Assessment

Abstract

Conference

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

OpenUrl availability

Fingerprint

Cite this