ALEXANDRIA

PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT

Lecture 7:
Objectives in conflict:
Trade-off methods and penalty functions

Dr. Mohamed Abd Elmonem Daha

Assistant Professor, Prod. Eng. Department
Faculty of Engineering 1
Alexandria University
 Conflicting objectives in design
 Common design objectives:

Minimising mass (sprint bike; satellite components)

Minimising volume (mobile phone; minidisk player)
Objectives
Minimising environmental impact (packaging, cars)
Minimising cost (everything)

Each defines a performance metric

Some objectives may mass, m

conflict with another cost, c
We wish to minimize both (all constraints being met)

 Conflict : the choice that optimises one does not optimise the other.

 Best choice is a compromise.

2
 Multi-objective optimization: the terminology
• Solution: a viable choice, meeting
constraints, but not necessarily
optimum by either criterion.

• Plot all viable solutions as

function of performance metrics.
(Convention: express objectives
to be minimised)

• Dominated solution: one that is

unambiguously non-optimal (as A)
(there are better ones)

• Non-dominated solution: one

that is optimal by one metric (as B:
optimal by one criterion but not
necessarily by both)

• Trade-off surface: the surface on which the non-dominated solutions lie (also
called the Pareto Front)
3
Finding a compromise : a strategy 1

select

current
material

4
Finding a compromise : a strategy 2

5
Finding a compromise : a strategy 3

6
Materials for transport systems

7
The exchange Constant  for the transport

8
Making a trade-off plot

9
 Relative penalty functions
Relative penalty functions, When, as is
often the case, we seek a better material
for an existing application, it is more
helpful to compare the new material
choice with the existing one. To do this
we define a relative penalty function:

A relative trade-off plot, useful when

exploring substitution of an existing
material with the aim of reducing mass or
cost or both. The existing material sits at
the coordinates (1,1). Solutions in sector
A are both lighter and cheaper.

Material Substitution OR Material Replacement

10
 Case Studies
Multiple constraints: a light, stiff, strong tie

11
 Case Studies
Multiple constraints: a light, stiff, strong tie
The coupling equation is found by equating m1 to m2, giving

Defining the coupling constant

Cc = L/δ.

12
 Case Studies
Multiple constraints: a light, safe, pressure vessel

13
 Case Studies
Multiple constraints: a light, safe, pressure vessel
The coupling equation is found by equating m1 to m2, giving a relationship between M1 and M2:

14
 Case Studies
Conflicting objectives: An air cylinder for a truck

15
 Case Studies
Conflicting objectives: An air cylinder for a truck

16
 Case study: casing for electronic equipment
 Electronic equipment -- portable computers, players, mobile
phones, cameras – are miniaturised; many less than 12 mm thick

 Minidisk player: An ABS or Polycarbonate casing has to be > 1mm

thick to be stiff enough to protect; casing takes 20% of the
volume

 Function stiff, light, thin casing

bending stiffness EI at
Constraints
least that of existing case

minimise casing thickness The thinnest may not

Objectives
minimise casing mass be the lightest … need
to explore trade-off
choice of material
Free variables
casing thickness, t

17/30
 Case study: casing for electronic equipment

Function Stiff casing F

w
Constraints  Stiffness, S t
48 E I w t3 L
S 3 with I 
L 12 m = mass
 Adequate toughness, w = width
G1c > 1kJ/m2 L = length
 = density
Objective 1 Minimise thickness t t = thickness
S = required stiffness
1/ 3 I = second moment of area
 S L3  1 E = Youngs Modulus
Metric 1 t  
 4E w  E1/ 3 Materials
  Index to
minimise the
Objective 2 Minimise mass m thickness

 12 S w 2 1/ 3 Materials Index

Metric 2   2     to minimise the
m L  1/ 3   1/ 3
 C  E  mass
  E
MECH4301 2008 L# 10 Conflicting
18/30
Objectives
Unit 5, Frame 5.10
 Case study: casing for electronic equipment
Relative performance metrics
We are interested here in substitution. Suppose the casing is
currently made of a material Mo, elastic modulus Eo, density o.

 The thickness of a casing made from an alternative material M,

differs (for the same stiffness) from one made of Mo by the factor
1/ 3
t E 
  o Relative thickness = ratio
to E of Materials Indices (t)

    Eo 
1/ 3
The mass differs m
  1/ 3  .


by the factor mo  E   o 
Relative mass = ratio of
Materials Indices (mass)
t m
 Explore the trade-off between and
to mo

 Define a relative Z *  m  α* t
penalty function, Z* mo to (a now dimensionless)

19/30
 Case study: casing for electronic equipment

Conclusion: Four-sector trade-off plot for minidisk player

 The four sectors of a trade-off plot for substitution

B. Thinner
but heavier
Elastomers D. Worse by
win-lose sector: 10 both metrics
worth exploring Trade-off Lead
surface Don’t bother

PTFECurrent
Cu-alloys
to ABS, m/mo

Ni-alloys casing
Mass relative to ABS

Ionomer
Steels ABS
PE
PC
Ti-alloys
1 PMMA
Al-alloys PP
Mass relative

Al-SiC Composite Polyester

Nylon

Mg-alloys
CFRP C. Lighter
GFRP . but thicker
A. Better by Polymer foams
both metrics win-lose sectors:
0.1 worth exploring
win-win
sector
0.1 1 10
Thickness relative to ABS
Thickness relative to ABS, t/to
20/30