Analysis and Synthesis of

Engineering Systems

Preparing and making engineering decisions

under multiple criteria

José Arzola Ruiz

2010
Index

No. Content Page

Abstract 3

Introduction 4

Development 7

I. Brief description of the developed methodology and the methods for the 7

analysis and the synthesis of engineering systems

I.1 Correspondence between the decisions making processes structures 9

and the mathematical models of the associate systems structures

I.2 Decomposition principles of the decisions making tasks in complex objects 35

I.3 Analysis of decisions making systems by tasks 42

I.4 Synthesis of engineering systems 52

I.4.1 Preparing decisions in Engineering Systems organized in hierarchical 52

participative structures

I.4.2 Decisions making in discreet hierarchical participative systems 59

I.5 The Integration of Variables Method 80

I.5.1 Searching by Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a 83

Variable Code

I.5.2 Searching by Random Exploration of the Extreme of a Function of a 95

Variable Code

I.6 Some other researches linked to the presented work 97

II Conclusions 98

III Bibliography 100

2
Abstract: In the present work the bases of a methodology that allows analyzing classes of
engineering problems (tasks) as preparing and making decisions under multiple criteria tasks,
elaborated by the author, are presented. Starting from the analysis the synthesis of the system
is carried out. A general model of the preparing and making decisions in engineering systems
tasks is proposed and the existent relationship among the structure of the mathematical model
of preparing and making decisions tasks with the structure of its decomposition, coincidental
with the commonly established structures in economical and social organizations is studied. The
synthesis of the system is presented as an outline that consist on decision options generation,
for the different resulting components of the decomposition, and the later selection of the best,
for the whole system, options combination. The linkage of the results obtained with the Systems
Theory, the Multicriterial Analysis methods, the optimization techniques is settled down. The
Integration of Variables method conceived for the solution of the synthesis of the decisions
making stage is presented, but it is useful too for the options generations tasks. The theoretical
results are exemplified with practical applications carried out with the author's direct
participation.

Key words: Systems Theory, Decisions Making, Multiple Criteria Analysis, Optimization Tasks
Decomposition, Discrete Optimization Methods, Optimization in Engineering.

3
Introduction
As an inherent part to his profession, every engineer is occupied in the solution of preparing

decisions tasks related to his specialty. The solution to these tasks is, however, extremely

complex because of the presence of a series of circumstances:

a) The simple calculation of any alternative solution to an engineering problem it is,

usually, very difficult

b) Human objectives are difficult to describe mathematically.

c) Any engineering problem it is always a component part of another, more complexity

problem. The best solution to a certain problem can constitute a bad solution, or even be

incompatible for the higher spam problem of which it is a part.

The single execution of engineering calculation systems is associated with great difficulties:

a) Presence of different methods for the calculation of the same parameters or efficiency

indicators, with the particularity that some of them are precise under certain conditions and

imprecise in others.

b) Implicit character of a great part of the calculation procedures used in engineering that

require of numeric methods for it execution.

c) Using charts, graphics, nomograms and other complex functions as a component part of

the procedures for the determination of parameters, indicators and intermediate variables

In the present work a methodology for the analysis and synthesis of engineering systems is

exposed that include tree stage: external analysis, internal analysis and synthesis of the

system.

Among the most important basic research results developed by the author, associated to the

presented methodology, stand out:

 Study of the existent correspondence between the structures of the mathematical

models of the systems and the more appropriate preparing and making decisions

structures for its solution. These last ones are obtained as a consequence of the

4
decomposition and solution outlines, by parts, of the original decisions making task (see

epigraph I.1).

 Formulation of decomposition principles of decisions making tasks in complex

objects, focused to the characteristic for engineering tasks. The practical application of

these principles facilitates the determination of the more span system of which the

studied system it is a component part, the determination of the connection variables

between the tasks and decomposition of the original one into related subtasks (see

epigraph I.2).

 Deduction, starting from the theoretical bases of the classics and from own

developments, of a systems analysis methodology. As exits of this analysis the detailed

decisions making models of the studied task, the associated calculation and graphic

procedures and complementary simulation procedures, necessary for completing the

information required by the eventual decider for searching solutions that satisfy his

complete preferences system are obtained (see epigraph I.3).

 Synthesis of the preparing and making decisions system (see epigraph I.4):

o Development of tools for prep raring decisions that means, proper for the

generation of close to the best commitment among the efficiency indicators options

for each element of the resulting from the decomposition systems, including a

concrete methodology for the generation of these options.

o Development of tools for decisions making that means, characteristic for the

decisions conciliation among the system elements. The Selection of Proposals under

Multiple Criteria Task and it generalization corresponding to the decisions making

task in hierarchical participative structures and of the necessary algorithms for the

calculation of the proposals evaluations of the systemic losses according Tchebycheff

Program are deduced.

 Development of the general Integration of Variables method, as a tool for the

generation and selection of solution options. This method generalizes, among others,

5
 the Genetic Algorithms. Starting from this method can be potentially developed a

practically limitless number of optimization algorithms. The Selection of Proposals

exact algorithm and the Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a

Variable Code and Random Exploration of the Extreme of a Function of a Variable

Code heuristic outlines of discrete optimization, among others, have been developed.

Its application to design and manufacture tasks and its comparison with the Genetic

Algorithms are also studied (see epigraph I.5).

The author has participated in not less than 18 already concluded successfully applied research

themes where the mentioned basic research results are applied. Some of these results are

reflected in the exposed examples. These investigations are related to problems from

Mechanic, Metallurgic, Hydraulic, Chemistry and Electric engineering. The results have been

introduced in several courses devoted to the topic.

Among the main collaborators that had and still have a significant participation in the realization

of applied research works that endorse the theoretical results must be mentioned: Alexis

Cordovés, Rolando Simeón, Ricardo Avila, Benito Casals, Roberto Castillo, Raúl Santana,

Genovevo Morejón, Efraím Navas, Jesús Hechavarría, Michel Lastre, Luis Suárez, Alberto Fiol

and others, whose Works are reflected in some measure in the indexed bibliography.

6
 Development

I. Brief description of the developed methodology and the methods for the analysis and

the synthesis of engineering systems

Just in a some vanguard universities of the world as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(see http://esd.mit.edu/) in the United States of America and other from that country and from

Europe, Asia and Australia, basically groped in the Council of Engineering Systems Universities

(see http://www.cesun.org/) begin to include, in their systems of pre and post graduate education

approaches guided to preparing and making engineer decisions under multiple criteria.

In the present work the concept of engineering systems is defined as systems aiding the

preparing and making decisions under multiple criteria, including subjective character indicators,

of processes characteristics of the design, technologies generation, processes operation,

production planning, logistics and maintenance and its integration to the economic

administration of the companies.

Explicitly, for the first time, the concept of preparing decisions is defined by the author,

although in an implicit way it appears reflected in the work of many other authors 
60
.

In the consulted specialized bibliography it is not an alternative methodology for the analysis

and the synthesis of engineering systems, and its validation in a sufficiently wide number of

applied works, what limits the application of the systemic approach to the development of

engineering solutions and the teaching of Engineering. The proposed methodology is dedicated

to fulfill this hole.

In the year 2000 some results of the so called in that time Integrative approach for the

conception and design of engineering Systems for preparing and making decisions under

multiple criteria were presented in the book [4]. This approach constituted the starting point of

the research results proposed. The exposed methodology contributes the first intent reflected in

the international scientific literature of satisfying the necessity in the analysis and the synthesis

of systems aiding to make engineer decisions. The solution of these tasks includes as
7
components, from one hand, the solution of the decomposition of great complexity tasks

problems and of the solutions composition among the resulting tasks and, from the other, the

conciliation of interrelated criteria. The decisions conciliation among the parts of a system, the

functions of the parts and of the whole, in the time and pursuing multiple objectives it is

required. This conciliation is carried out by means of a systems structure necessarily related to

the mathematical model structure of the associated object or process. However, in the available

scientific literature just the different existent structures for the complex systems organization are

studied without establishing some links with the structure of the mathematical model of the

analyzed system. This limitation was not overcome by the mentioned integrative approach.

Previously was formulated by the author the Selection of Proposals Task, studied it

properties and elaborated the discrete optimization method associated [3]. The formulation of

this task contributed a model of the decisions conciliation problem among the decomposition

subtasks derived from original discrete complex optimization tasks. Nevertheless, the model

and the developed solution method consider the possibility of the criteria representation as

separable by objects functions plus a systemic component, with the particularity that the

magnitude of this component sensibly influences on the convergence of the developed

algorithm that allowed to successfully facing a group of high complexity tasks, reflected in three

of the presented examples.

With a view to overcoming the mentioned limitations was formulated the Generalized Selection

of Proposals Task [4, 16], that presupposes efficiency indicators not necessarily separable. For

the solution of these last tasks procedures that allow making evolve solution codes are

required. This reality motivated to formulate the essential features of the Integration of

Variables method, that appears published for the first time in [12] and that it is characterized, in

general, by making evolve populations of solution codes, independently of the operators used

with this end. Some algorithms of the method that are competitive in connection with other

previously used ones, particularly with Genetic Algorithms, in the solution of complex tasks

have been developed. In the specialized bibliography several other algorithms appear that
8
could be understood as particular cases of this method.

In [3] a general solution outline to the problem of decisions making, for systems organized

in hierarchical participative structures, composed by two well defined phases: the phase of

preparing of decisions or decision options generation, and the phase of decisions making or

selection of the previously generated solution options was already proposed. However, just now

this proposal has a material support starting from the possibility of solving the second phase of

this outline for a great number of cases, including those that have been already studied by the

author.

I.1 Correspondence between the decisions making processes structures and the

mathematical models of the associate systems structures

This topic is studied starting from the predominant definition of system as a group of interrelated

elements 
34, 64, 68, 69considering, also, the concepts of intensity of the connections and of

the "emergent" properties.

Let be the set of objects A = (A1 , A2, ..., An ), it enumerations S = (1, 2, ..., n), the set

Xs = (x1 s, x2s, ..., x qs) of the possible states of each object, it enumerations I s = (1, 2, ..., qs) and

the set of relations Gj defined between objects, every one of which it is a subset of the

Cartesian product of the elements from A, that means,

Gj (A1 x A2 x ... x An )

The intensity gi of each relation Gi between the elements of a system it is a function of the

state adopted by each object s S, that means gj= g j (ek),  ek  E = (I1 I 2… In ). The

intensities of the relations between the objects (elements) of a system are usually restricted

superiorly or inferiorly.

The resulting from the interaction among the elements properties, called in some works as

"emergent properties" Y of the system, which depend on the values of the state variables.

Taking into account that, in this work, main attention is paid to the engineering systems, the

evaluation of these properties are denominated, in advances, as efficiency indicators. Some of

9
these indicators can be quantifiable as functions of the system state, while others can be just

evaluable for each possible state of the system.

In this work as System is called every group of objects, it relationships and the resulting from

these interactions properties. That is to say, the system is constituted by the triad:

System = (A, G, Y).

I.1.1 Direction systems

In general, every direction system can represent in the way shown in figure 1 
44, 45
. The

direction system acts on the system - object and obtains information about it behavior as a

result of the previously applied actions. Also, and it is essential, the director system also

receives external directive actions that should be satisfied 

44, 45
. If one considerer as director

system a production company and as system - object (or, simply, object) the set of it shops,

the external direction actions could be executed, for example, by a corporation to which the

company could be subordinated. In this case, the studied direction system fulfills, in relation to

the corporation, the function of one of it elements. As can be appreciated, from the corporation

emanate directive actions of general character and the managerial apparatus of the enterprise

carries out a group of actions on the direction object guided to the achievement of the

emanated from the higher system (the corporation) tasks. The direction object suffers certain

interferences from the surrounding environment that means unexpected influences about

which it frequently don't have information. Examples of interferences can be considered the

bad weather, variations in the market, mishaps in the productive process, and others.

In such a way, a direction system (of the system - object) is needed for making and

executing the appropriate decisions. As a consequence of the existent relationships among the

object elements, the decisions that are adopted for the whole system have to be conciliated by

the different elements of the direction system. Saying in other words, the complex structure of

the system - object conditions, in the most general case, a complex structure of the direction

system 
26, 34, 38, 42, 44, 52, 57, 64
.

10
 Fig. 1 General representation of a direction system

The decisions making for the whole object requires, as it is analyzed later on, of the preparing

decisions for each element of the system and of the later decisions conciliation among them.

To make fulfill the adopted decisions, the direction (managing) system needs of a control

system in charge of assuring the execution of made decisions 

45, 58, 66
. The prosecution of

the information on the result of the executed actions and its presentation in affordable form to

the direction system requires of an information system. In the general case, the structure of the

control system is closely related to the structure of the decisions making system, but this study

goes out from the objectives of this epigraph. In such a way, the analyzed direction system

could be represented as it is shown in the figure 2.

In advances, the external actions will be represented by means of the letter w; the actions of

the whole system, for the letter u; the actions of the direction system of the element i of the

system object, for xi; the actions of the control system on each element of the system object, for

x'i (which are not identical to the actions of the preparing and making decisions system,

because although the control system tries to assure the required xi values, it always is not able

to reach them. This topic is analyzed clearly in the bibliography dedicated to the control systems

[58]). The interferences are symbolized by the letter.

As external actions are understood the actions from the more span system to which belongs,

as an element, the studied decisions making system.

Cybernetics is called the science that studies the direction processes in its wider sense. The

general principles of the cybernetic approach, exposed firstly by Norbert Wiener [64, 69],

founder of this science, are used in advance as one of the bases in the elaboration of the

11
presented methodology for the analysis and the synthesis of engineering systems for preparing

and making decisions under multiple criteria.

Fig. 2 Representation of a direction system by main blocks

According to the first principle, all objects are under the permanent action of entrances that

determine its state. The directed entrances allow varying the state of the object with the purpose

of reaching certain objectives. The interferences constitute entrances to those the direction

system doesn't have access and could reflect, among other, the action of other elements of the

same system to which belongs, in quality of an element, the direction system of the given object

or of other systems. In advance, directed entrances are symbolized by the vector

x = x (x1,x2, ..., xn) X and constitute states that are established for the system – object by the

direction system and are called decision variables of the system; the interferences by the vector








) and the exits by the vector y = y (y1 , y2, ..., ym) of the system properties,

resulting from interactions between system elements; the decision variables vector of the more

spam system by u = u (u1 ,u2, ..., un ), resulting from the states of the system elements. On the

other hand, each state of the system - object determines sets of possible states of it component

elements.

According to the second principle, a set X exists so that x X and the task consists on finding a

x* value that assure x* = arg Pref [Y(x)], where Pref designates a preference operator of the

solutions of all and every system elements starting from the values adopted by the m

12
dimensional vector of the system efficiency indicators Y(x); xs = (x1s, ..., xrs)  Xs decision

variables of the s system element. The system in its integrity also makes decisions that

necessarily influence on the behavior and the values of the efficiency indicators of all and each

one of it elements. Then, the preference function also depends on the vector u, that means: x* =

arg Pref [Y(u, x)], assuring a group of restrictions to the intensities of the internal relationships

gj= gj (ek), for each possible decision u  U. The set U it is given by the restrictions to the

intensities h(u) of the relationships of the system with the environment.

According to the third principle the interferences are not necessarily well-known, or its

knowledge can be incomplete. Here it should be pointed out not studied by Winner in his works

circumstance: the interferences can be the result of the action on the given system from other

related to it systems; while higher is the degree of a system organization, lesser will be the

influence of the interferences on each element that constitutes it. This way, if the studied system

conciliates its decisions with the more span one, of which it is a component element, the values

that adopt the decision variables of the other linked systems can simply constitute entrance data

to take into account, while, in absence of conciliation, the unknown values of these variables,

constitute non well-known interferences.

The fourth principle indicates the necessity in the feedback of the direction system with the

information related to the real state of the object, in way of being able to rectify the directive

actions as it becomes necessary.

This principle is especially valid for the systems that work in real time. The consideration of

the dependence of x, , y with regard to the time it is studied by the Control Theory. The

engineering systems occupied on the products, technologies, tools, etc. design prepare

decisions that maintain its validity for a long period, for what in these systems the dependence

of the variable x, , y on the time can be taken in consideration by means of the periodic

upgrade of the initial conditions.

The great complexity of the real systems, conditions the necessity to establish direction

systems for each one of the elements of the complex object and of taking in consideration the
13
existent relationships among these elements, by means the interrelation of the individual

direction systems. That is to say, it conditions the necessity to establish certain structures of the

direction systems. As it will be seen in advances, the selection of the more appropriate

organizational structure of the systems is determined by the structure of its mathematical

description (mathematical model).

From the definition of the concept of system and from the interpretation made of the first and

second principles of cybernetics approach exposed, the general structure of mathematical

models of direction systems could be expressed as:

Pref { Y(u, x) / h(u)  0; g (u, x)  0} (1)

Where:

Pref: designate a preference operator of the whole system solutions (u, x) starting from the

values adopted by Y(u, x).

Y(u, x): m dimensional vector - function of preference indicators of the system..

g(x, u): k dimensional vector - function of the intensities of existing relationships among

system elements.

h(u): vector - function of intensities of the more span system, of which the studied system

constitutes an element.

x = (x1 ,..., xn ) X: decision vectors of all and each one of the n system elements
.

xs = (x1s, ..., xrs) X s: decision variables of the s system element.

u = (u1, ..., up ): p dimensional vector of decision variables of the system.

Each component of a system decision describes it state and can have its components by

each element. That is to say, u could constitute a matrix, with columns given by

ui = ui ( ui1, u i2, ..., uin), where uis : i coordination variable of the s system element.

The components of the vectors u = (u 1 ,u2 ,... ,up) constitute all system decision variables

and affect not only it own behavior quality determined by Y(u, x) components values, but the

14
components values of the vector - function of preference indicators of the more span´ system, of

which it constitute a simple element.

Each one of the functions component of the vector - function Y(u, x) defines a concrete

objective of the system operation. The restrictions to the intensities of the relationships giinf 

gi(x, u) gisup depends, in the general case, of the decision variables, of the elements, as well

as of the whole system. In general case, giinf y gisup values could also constitute functions of the

vector u. As a consequence of the differentiation that system elements establish, a part of (or

all) the restrictions are usually grouped by elements. Restrictions xiinf xi xiinf to the decision

variables of the elements are also settled down. The set of system restrictions conditions the

existence of an existence space Xs for each s system element, the existence space X, for the

set of decision variables of all the system elements and the existence space U for the decision

variables of the whole system (those that relate the given system with another, more span,

system of which it is a component part.

The components of Y(u, x) could have numerical expression or be only subjectively evaluated.

For some of the components of Y(u, x) that are numerically evaluated could be required the

operation of minimization while for others, it is required the operation of maximization. Some of

the efficiency indicators could be Some of the efficiency indicators could have random character

starting from the indetermination of the entrances given by the risky behavior of the surrounding

world or by the some grade of indetermination of the proper mathematical description of the

process. Some restrictions or even indicators could have fuzzy character, as a result of the

derived imprecise behavior of the definition set of the corresponding variables. The

particularities of each model impose particular approaches for the solution search to the

corresponding task. Further the quantifiable components of Y(u, x) are substituted by the

components of Z(u, x), given by zj(u, x) = j yj(u,x),

Where:

1 if the indicator yj(u, x) must to be minimized

j =
–1 if the indicator yj(u, x) must to be maximized
15
while the non quantifiable components are taken in consideration by choosing appropriate

solutions with components Z(u, x) values close to:

Min { Z(u, x) / h(u)  0; g (u, x)  0} (2)

As the model (2) constitute an approximation to the model (1), according the research results

described in [38] the solutions to the task (1) could be found between the solutions differ from

an efficient solution to the task (2) by each one of the quantifiable criteria zi(u, x), in not more

than a certain magnitude i .

A great variety of particular cases of possible formulations of the general model (2) exists,

which correspond with respective possible solution approaches. Next some of them are shown,

which correspond with much known in society and in technique structures. The exposed

solution outlines belong together with the author's experience. It could be other alternative

outlines.

Many authors have been in charge of the study of the organizational structures. Among the

works that have a foundation based on systemic approaches in the author's opinion could be

mentioned 
2, 26, 42, 44, 49, 53, 61, 68
. In the field of applications the structures of decisions

conciliation are settling down according to the particularities of the task to solve 
26, 42, 57, 71
.

However, in the available literature the existent relationship among the mathematical structure

of the decisions making task and of the appropriate structure of the decisions making process is

not analyzed. Next some specific structures of the model (2) that suggest decomposition

outlines in structures similar to those used by the human being in it organizational practice are

studied . Surely, the ulterior investigation of the topic will enrich the proposed results.

Let (2) be present en the form:

Min { Z(z1 (x1), ...,zn (xn )) / g(xs)0;  s S } (3)

Where:

Z(z1, ..., zn) : m dimensional monotonous growing of its arguments vector - functions of the

whole system.
16
 g(xs) : rs dimensional vector – functions of the relations intensities of the s system element.

xs : ns dimensional decision variables vector of the s system el

zs : ms dimensional criteria vector, of the s system element.

The solution to (3) it is reduced to the independent solution of smaller dimensional tasks:

Min { zs( x s) / gs(xs)  0; s S} (4)

That is to say, if the direction task has the structure or it is close to the model (3), then it can

be solved by means of the search of solutions to the component subtasks, that it is a

consequence of the weakness of the links between systems elements.

In this case the model (3) of the decisions making task it is denominated directly

decomposable. The organizational appropriate structure of the direction system it is

denominated decentralized structure and it is characterized by the existence of independent

direction systems by each system element. It is not required, therefore, the decision conciliation

among the subsystems (subtasks).

The application of this structure in systems that don't fully satisfy the previous requirements

leads to direction systems that, although simple, are characterized by reduced solution

existence spaces for each system, as a result of the no consideration of the relationships

among the elements, what conditions the maximum intensity and indetermination of the

interferences that act on the isolated systems. At the same time, in most of the cases, optimal

solutions of the systems are in the border of existence solution spaces, for what the reduction of

this space is equivalent to decrease the number of possible selection alternatives and, as a

result, to the reduction of the quality of the decisions made.

In the systems design practice, the tendency prevails to the independent solution of the

tasks, what corresponds with the organization of this type of structures. Nevertheless, as the

real systems are characterized by the presence of essential relationships among the system -

object elements, could be concluded that the field of application of this structure is basically

restricted to the cases when the design and installation costs of an direction system for

17
decisions conciliation among the system - object elements are higher than the derived of its

absence losses or when the insufficient knowledge about the linked tasks impedes the

development of effective procedures of decisions conciliation.

Example 1: Welding by explosion technologies generation

One of ways of conciliating different mechanical and technological properties, with low production costs, is

constituted by the welding and conforming by explosion technologies. The use of the explosion energy for the

production of materials and pieces is characterized by relatively simple equipment, to concentrate high energy

levels on small volumes and relatively low costs. However, it requires careful methods for manipulation and the

development of scientifically based procedures for technologies generation 

24
.

The bimetals manufactured by welding by explosion technologies can be effectively applied in the

development, for example, component parts subjected to high pressure recipients and those working in highly

corrosive environments in biotechnical, chemical, petrochemical, metallurgical industries among many other

applications. These technologies don't require complex facilities and are economically competitive with regard to

other technologies of bimetal production that do require them.

Formulation of the technology generation problem

The task of generation of metals welding by explosion technology consists on the following: It is required to define

the type and the height of the layer of an explosive material been deposited on one of the metal pieces,

denominated flying piece, the separation among the sheets , of given materials and thicknesses, in a such way of

assuring, once provoked the explosion, the bimetallic union, characterized by a shear strength value non inferior

than the one required by the decider, assuring a given trust probability.

In such a way, there are the following data: M1 - bases material, M2 - material of the flying sheet, s - thickness

of the flying sheet, 

mín
- minimum value of the shear strength of the welded union, determined by the operation

conditions of the bimetallic compound.

A certain explosive type distributed with the same height on the whole flying sheet corresponds to a given

detonation speed, that is determined by the explosive properties. A decision variable is constituted, without doubts,

by the separation distance among sheets, another is constituted by the explosive type to be used and the third, by

the height of the explosive over the flying sheet. In this case, the objective would consist on minimizing the

detonation speed that assures the given shear strength. If it is adopted as third decision variable the detonation

speed, then the objective would be to minimize the height of the explosive. This last composition of variables is

used in this example.

Given the development reached until the moment in the study of the physical phenomena that take place during

18
the welding by explosion, the only way of characterization of the properties to be obtained consists in the

prosecution of the experimentation results..

This way, the decision variables composition it is D - detonation speed of the explosive substance employed, h -

space that separates the sheets to be welded, E - explosive type to be selected. The adopted efficiency indicator it

is H - explosive height deposited on the flying sheet. It is required to satisfy the

restrictionD, h, E - 3 S min .

Where:

Mean shear strength obtained as a result of the explosion.

S: Standard error of the regression equation obtained as a result of the prosecution of the data obtained from

the experimental design. The coefficient 3 establish the requirement of assuring a probability non inferior than

99,8% of overcoming the shear strength required by the decider.

In such a way, the mathematical model for the technology generation could be formulated the following way:

Minimize H(D, E)

Assuring the execution of the restriction


D ,h,E - 3 S min

Restrictions are added to the acceptable variation intervals to the separation among sheets and to the speed

of the explosive detonation.

For each couple of metals and each explosive type that could be used it is required to carry out its characterization

with the purpose of identifying the parameters of the model. Instead the objective function proposed could be

introduced more than one objective, taking into account the cost of the explosive, etc. but for doing would be

required to elaborate the mathematical description of the welding process by explosion for a wide sort of bimetals

and of explosive types.

Although the design of the technological installation to which will service the bimetal has to do with the election

of the component metals and of its dimensions, it doesn't has sense, in the current state of the knowledge of this

technology, to integrate in a common system the technology of fabrication of the installation and of the bimetal, for

what the system of technology generation of the bimetal fabrication necessarily responds, at the moment, to a

decentralized structure. Of course, in the developed software one has the possibility to gradually increase the

couples of component metals and the possible explosive to be used. But, at the moment, the exposed

mathematical model is solved for selected by the user bimetals and explosives, among those already studied. The

Exploration in a Net of Variables method with penalization for the no fulfillment of the restrictions is used for

searching solution to the model.

19
 Let the structure of the model (2) admit the representation by:

Min { Z(Z1(u, x 1), ..., Zn(u, x n))/h(u)  0; gs (u, xs) 0; s S} (5)

That means the efficiency and the operation conditions of the whole system and of each

one of it elements depend on the value of all and each one of the coordination variables, those

that are not separable by system elements.

The solution to (5) could be reduced to the solution to:

Min { Z(Q1(u), ...,Qn (u)) / h(u)  0} (6)

Where:

Q s(u) = Min { Zs(u, x s ) / g s (u, xs )  0} ; s S, u/ h(u)  0 (7)

xs = xs(uopt) (8)

If the structure of the direction task has the structure or it is close to (5), then it can be

approximately solved by means of:

 Searching solution to (7), for each s system element, for admissible discretized values of

the coordination variables u (or all its acceptable values, in the case of a finite number of

discrete values of u).

 Determination of approximate functions Qs (u) and xs = xsopt (u).

 Solution to the approximate model (6) with the end of finding close to optimal values of

u = (u1, u2 ,..., u k).

 Calculation of the values xsopt(u), for u= uopt

The most appropriate organizational structure of the system is denominated scattered-

conciliated structure and it is characterized by the independent solution of the direction tasks, for

different values of the coordination variables u, in the case of the discrete tasks, or the

elaboration of approximate functions, for each concrete system element that characterize the

influence of its own decisions on the system indicators, in the case of continuous tasks. Starting

from the functions Qs(u) it can be the found the must appropriates u values. In practice, the

solution of direction tasks with this structure is carried out for the cases when the dimension of u

20
vector it is very small, given the complexity of elaboration of approximate functions Qs(u), x s =

xs(uopt), with acceptable precision, for dimensions higher than 4.

In the operation process, each organ executes the reception and the elaboration of the

corresponded information and the delivery of the directive action to the subordinate objects. For

the realization of decision making function, each local organ enters in informative interchange

with the other decision making organs. As a result of this interchange the actions of the different

systems are conciliated to each other. In Fig. 3 a graphic with the representation of this

structure it is offered.

Fig. 3 Scattered - conciliated structure

Example 2: Conciliation among the thermal regime in methodical furnaces and deformation regime of the

steel in laminating mills

Let be a computational system aiding the design of calibrations mills for laminating profiles [4, 17]. This system

allows, among other things, to elaborate functions E L (T, p) which characterize the necessary energy to deform 1

ton of billets up the required profile as a function of the lamination’s starting temperature (end of heating) and

productivity.

A second system [4, 17] should elaborate the thermal regime for a heating furnace in such a way to minimize the

total energy when heating and deforming each ton of billets made.

Formulation of the conciliation task

Minimize

E T = E H (T, p) + E L (T, p) (9)

Assuring:

min
Tsup (T, p)  Tsup (10)

Ts.c.  Tsmax
,c (11)

Where:

21
EH (T, p): Necessary energy for heating each ton of billets from the surrounding temperature to temperature T,

with productivity p.

EL (T, p): Necessary energy for conforming 1 ton of billets from it initial dimension to the finish ones .

Tsup: Calculated temperature on the steel surface when coming out from the furnace.
.
min
Tsup : Minimal established value for Tsup

Ts.c:. Calculated difference of temperature between the surface and the center of the billet when it leaves the

furnace..

Tsmax
,c : Highest established value for T s.c.

The solution to the formulated optimization task, by some of the iterative non lineal programming methods,

constitutes the solution to the task of operation conciliating of both systems in keeping with the scattered-

conciliated structure.

Let be the structure of the model (2):

Min { Z(u1 (x1), ..., un ( xn)) / g(u1(x1), ..., un ( xn ))  0} (12)

Then, it solution is equivalent to the solution of the optimization task in "aggregated" variables

us:

Min { Z(u1 , ..., un) / g(u1 , ..., un)  0} (13)

The solution of (12) in original variables is determined by the algebraic expressions:

us(xs) = us* ; s S (14)

Where:

us*: Adopted by us value in the solution to (13).

If the structure of the direction task has the form or it is close to (1.12), then it can be solved

by means of the solution search to the task in aggregated variables (13) and of the values of the

decision variables for each system element system associated to the found solution.

In this case a decision making organ is required that solves the task (13) and the n tasks (14),

what doesn't denies the possibility of establish subsystems for elements specialized in the

calculation of (14). This task is denominated directly aggregable. The most appropriate

organizational structure of the system is denominated direct centralized structure (see Fig. 4)

22
and it is characterized by the centralized decision making by the central system and it direct

implementation to the elements of the system - object.

Fig. 4 Direct Centralized Structure

Example 3: Production planning of a group of parallel working workshops

It is started from the supposition that the effectivenes s of the whole managerial system basically depends from

the assignment of production volumes to be executed by the different elemen ts of the productive system ,

considering the general expenses in comple ting the productive task as unique efficiency indicator and the

unitary product costs, productivity and available work time in each shop, independently of the volume and the

conditions of realization of the productive process. For the case the capacity of the company is determ ined by

a group of parallel working shops, obviating the multiple criteria charac ter of the problem, the following Lineal

Program ming model could be used.

i j
Minimize c u ij ij (15)
i
1 j 1

uij
Assuring: p 
T j , j 1, ..., j ,  (16)
i ij

u ij 
di , i 1, ..., i  (17)
j

Where:

cij: Cost coefficient for the fabrication of the product i en the workshop j.

pij: Nominal productivi ty during the fabrication of the product i en the workshop j.

Tj: Nomina l time available in the workshop j.

uij: Produc tion to be planned of the product i in the workshop j.

di : Existent demand of the product i.

Restrictions (16) limit the used by every one of the workshops , while (17) assure the fulfillment of the

assumed by the enterprise commitments by each one of the different produc ts. To the model could be added
23
restrictions to any of other resources. With the purpose of taking in consideration the existent dependence of

the parameters of the model with regard to the variables values , the author has successfully used, in this and

other applic ations, the algorithmic outline shown in the figure 5. The rectif ication of the model parameters is

made by the iterative searching solution of implicit calculation procedures methods.

In fact the results of the work of the group of shops depend not only of the appropriate distribution of

production volumes, but also of the quality of execution of the tasks u ij established for each shop j of the company.

In the example 6 the influence of the execution of the productive task sequences in the different shops on the

general efficiency the productive system is studied.

The generalization of this outline is applicable to the use of optimization procedures for solving complex

engineering tasks using methods guided to models with specific structure, such as the studied by the classic

Mathematical Analysis, the Lineal, Quadratic and Geometric Programming, among other, as solution tools by

successive approximations.

Let be the structure of the model (2):

Min { Z(Z 1(u1, x1), ..., Zn(un , xn ) / h(u)  0; g s (us, xs )  0; s S} (18)

24
 That is to say, the efficiency and the operation conditions of the whole system and of each

one of it elements depend on the values of all and each one of the decision variables of the

whole system and of each component element. Two possible outlines are used:

a) The solution to (18) could be approximate to the solution of:

Min { Z(Q 1(u1 ), ...,Q n(un)) / h(u)  0} (19)

Where:

Qs(us) = Min { Zs(us, x s ) / g s (us, xs)  0} ; s S, u/ h(u)  0 (20)

xs = x s(uopt) (21)

If the structure of the direction task adopts the form (18) then it can be approximately solved by

means of:

o Searching solution to (20), for each s system element, for admissible discretized values of

the coordination variables u (or all it acceptable values, in the case of u discrete).

o Finding approximation functions Qs(u), x s = xs(uopt) .

o The solution of the approximate model (19) with the purpose of finding close to optimal

values of u = (u1 , u2 ,..., uk) corresponding to the established by the central system values to the

decision making systems of all and every one of the system elements. .

o The calculation of xsopt(u), for u = uopt

This task is called indirectly aggregable. The most appropriate organizational system structure is

denominated by many authors Hierarchical Structure and it is also characterized by the

centralized decision making by the central system and it implementation helped by local

systems. The quality of operation of this structure depends on the quality of elaboration of the

approximation functions (20) and (21). These last ones constitute behavior rules of the lower

level systems (see Chapter 2). The author of this work makes extensive the denomination of

Centralized Structure to this organizational form. Likely as for the Scattered-conciliated Structure

the solution of direction tasks, by this structure, is carried out for the cases of small dimensions

of the vector us. This is given by the complexity of elaboration of the approximation functions

25
Qs(us), xs = xs (usopt) with acceptable errors of estimation, for dimensions of us higher than 4 (for

each s S).

In figure 6 the way of operation of this variant of the centralized structure is illustrated: the

upper level system elaborates directive actions that are of obligatory execution for the lower level

systems [3, 4, 17, 23]. Each element of the lower level search the action xs more appropriate to

the received us from the upper level, taking in consideration only own objectives and restrictions.

For an efficient operation of this structure the use of approximation functions of optimal actions of

the systems of the lower level, that depend of the directive action of the upper level, it is

required. This structure type is very frequently appropriate, among other, for the processes

control systems and military organizations, where the time for preparing and making decisions is

very limited 
45, 48, 53, 58, 66
. The quality of operation of the system depends on the quality of

elaboration of the mentioned approximation functions that constitute behavior rules 

3, 17, 23of

the system.

Fig. 6 Centralized Structure

Example 4: Automated operation of the thermal regime in methodical heating furnace making up

lamination’s workshops

Study of this task begins from the upper level’s direction task from which it is a part as a subtask. The direction

system of the lamination’s workshop must solve the task of conciliating the work of various aggregates at the

workshop at the rhythm of the productive process, and ensure the fulfillment of the operational working graph set

up for the system of entrepreneurial management. The work aim of the workshop’s managerial system consists in

minimizing the entire expenditure in metal heating and lamination, thus ensuring the fulfillment of certain productive

task (the established productivity) and the mechanical properties foreseen for the various production heats.

26
The solution to the mathematical model (9) - (11) for different p values allows to find approximate functions (that is,

close for it numeric values) to optimal values of T = (T 1,…, Tn ) in regard to p, where Ti is the temperature

established for zone i of the furnace. These approximate functions constitute behavioral rules, which can be carried

out separately for each steel type. Thus, a given number of functions Ti,r(p) is obtained each of which determines

the value to be assigned to temperature T of each furnace’s zone, on account of the productivity that has been set

up by the upper level of the centralized structure studied, for each type of steel being laminated [4, 17
.

Example 5: Optimal operation of disecant wheels

The energy, economic and environmental advantages of the modern dehumidification technology based on

desiccant wheels have determined the increment of its applications, in the last years, in diverse industrial

.
processes, services and air conditioning systems [23, 29, 30

t is required to elaborate an automated system for the operation of desiccant wheels, taking in consideration

that it cost is of the same order than a personal computer, for what the system for the operation of the wheel has to

be sufficiently simple to be able to implement integrated with the control in the same electronic circuit. For the

solution of the operation of these wheels task should be considerer the following composition of variables:



 Variables associated with the necessity to satisfy:.

Mpi: Process air flow that is determined by the operation requirements of air conditioned system, coupled to the

wheel
requerido
Wpo : Required humidity of the air at the exit of the wheel, determined by the conditions of the concrete

application.



 Indicator that characterizes the efficiency of the wheel

Tpo: Minimal temperature of the air at the exit of the wheel, corresponding to the air conditioning minimal

energy consumption.

 Restrictions to take into account.

req
Must be assured the required humidity ( Wpo ) at the exit of the wheel

Must be fulfilled the energetic balance of the wheel

 Decision variables.

rph: Rotation speed of the desiccant wheel

TR: Temperature of the regeneration air.

Under manual operation conditions, the values of both variables are established by the operator looking for the

best heat and mass transfer process. For the operation automation it is required to elaborate a procedure that

allows the determination of its optimal values without the human intervention.



 Entry data:.

27
 Tpi: Process air temperature at the entry to the desiccant wheel

Wpi: Humidity of the process air at the entry to the desiccant wheel

Both data are determined by the environmental conditions and should be measured for a correct operation

This way, the operation task of the desiccant wheels can be expressed by the following optimization model

Minimize: Tpo

Assuring: (22)

Wpo = Wpo req

Energy at the entrance = Energy at the output

The realization of an experimental plan allows elaborating approximation functions of Tpo and Wpo depending

on the entrances values of the process. These functions are used to solve the previous mathematical model helped

by known Non lineal Programming numeric methods. As a result of the prosecution of the obtained solutions of the

optimization model, approximation functions with the following structure are obtained:
opt opt req
rph = rph (Tpi, Wpi, W po , Mpi)
(23)
opt opt req
TR = TR (Tpi, Wpi, Wpo , Mpi)

Functions (23) allow calculating, with a well-known error determined by the standard errors of the obtained

equations, the optimal values of both decision variables as functions of the operation conditions. The

implementation of both expressions allows establishing a centralized structure of the operation system in which the
req
central level establishes the values W po , Mpi and each one of the two systems of the lower level calculates the

required values of rph and TR for measured values of Tpi, Wpi. In the elaboration of this kind of functions the

author assiduously uses logarithmic posinomial or logarithmic-signomial functions 

4, 17, 23
. In the case that the

precision of the functions (23) it is less than the established requirements, instead these functions could be

implemented operation algorithms based on commands type "if condition then action" starting from the obtained

results from the outline solution of the mathematical model (22), or to implement an extremal system for searching,

in the environments determined by the trust intervals of both variables, its optimal values (of minimum energy

consumption), starting from the values calculated by both behavior rules.

b) It solution is equivalent to:

Min { Z(Z1 (u1 *, x1), ..., Zn(un* , xn )) / h(u*, x)  0; xs Xs; s S}, (24)

Where:

u* = arg { Min [ Z(Q1 (u1 ), ..., Qn(un)) / h(u)  0]} (25)

Q s(us) = Min { Z s(us, xs ) / gs (u, xs)  0} ; s S, u/ h(u)  0 (26)

Xs= { xs / Zsmín Zs(us*, xs) Zsmín + }

28
 (27)
Zsmín = Min[Zs(us*, xs) / g s (us*, xs) 0]

The direction task with the form (18) could be solved by means of searching solution to (24),

for u* values found while solving approximate optimization model (25). In the determination of

the functions Q s(us), involved in this model, the optimal values of the functions zs(us, xs) are

approximated in the existence space of each s system element. So, the Qs(us) function reflects

the influence of the studied system element on the upper level system from which it is a

component part. The spaces of solution search are constituted by the set Xs of solutions close

to local optimal solution of each s system element. The most appropriate organizational

structure of the system is denominated hierarchical structure and it is characterized by the

centralized decision making in "aggregate" variables, that allow to carry out a previous

conciliation of the local existence spaces and the search of the best commitment solution given

by the values of the decision variables of the lower level systems that better satisfy the interests

of the whole system. The quality of operation of this structure depends on the quality of

elaboration of the approximate model (25), on the generation of sufficiently complete spaces Xs,

for given parameter  and on the use of appropriate methods for selecting the best options

combination among the lower level elements by means of the solution search to the model (24).

The author of this work frequently denominates participative hierarchical structure to this type of

systems organization to differentiate it from the one previously studied.

Fig. 7 Hierarchical Participative Structure

29
In this structure (Fig. 7), the higher level system elaborate directive actions to each lower level

system element that generalize the whole system operation. Every lower system element find

alternatives for the fulfillment of received action ordered according local efficiency indicators and

gives these actions, in quality of proposals, to the higher level system. In a third stage the higher

level system select such a proposals combination that better satisfy the generalized efficiency

indicator of the whole system [3]. This kind of structure is very often appropriate for the

organizational character systems. The optimality of the adopted decisions by means of the

solution of the system (24) - (27) it is demonstrated in the work 

35and in en 
3, 4and the

calculation algorithms of the error of an approximate solution are deduced.

Example 6: conciliation of production’s graphics of sets of workshops that work in parallel.

Let S = (1, 2,…, so ) be a group of production workshops operating in parallel, that is, having a common sources of

raw materials supply and common prospective customers of finish products. Thus, none of the workshops of the

group use up the output of the others directly or indirectly. To each one of these workshops is assigned a volumetric

production’s plan of different kinds of products by the upper (entrepreneurial) level. It is necessary to make sequences

of all the workshops carrying out in the plan established with as little as possible entrepreneurial costs. Let be the

output demand of the group of workshops stated as:

A(t) = { A1(t),…, Am(t),…, Am0 (t)} (28)

Each element of S must to fulfill a plan set up by the enterprise of each m product from the set M of products to be

achieved by the group of workshops from the upper level system, expressed as quantities of production from each

one of the products to execute in each one of the shops in the planned period (corresponding to the values uij in the

example 3).

Solution is attempted for the task of reaching -optimal combinations of all the workshops’ working sequences. It

is supposed that for each isolated workshop there is a method for bringing about -optimal sequences for carrying out

the task it has been assigned, while in so doing, taking the internal restrictions of the workshops in account. Let the

set of -optimal sequences of each workshops be:

K s = (1, 2, …, k, …, ks), (29)

Ordered by the values of losses at the workshop:

Z1s Z s2 ... Zks ... Z sks (30)

Given the product of sets:

E = K1 x … x Ks x … x Kso , (31)

30
To minimize an objective-function it is required . On account of this last one, the sum-total of local losses plus

systematic losses is adopted:

Z Z ks ( ek ) ; ek E (32)

sS

The elements of the series of losses associated to the different options of graphics can be constituted by vector

magnitudes. In that case, expression (32) constitutes a vector of functions.

This task is faced for the first time by the author of this work 
3. Later on, it has been worked intensely by many

authors  . In the examples 10, 11, 12 and 14 of this work, solution outlines to high complexity engineering
34, 71, 72

tasks, using the decomposition outline characteristic of this structure are proposed.

In hierarchical structure the decisions are prepared jointly by the center (decisions making

system of the whole object) and by the lower level decisions making systems (occupied in the

decisions making of all and each one of the component elements of the complex object), with

the particularity that the center solves tasks in aggregated variables, while each system of the

lower level acts on the corresponding element with complete independence, pursuing an local

objective and assuring the execution of the corresponding aggregated decision of the center.

The process of spaces Xs ,  s  S, generation, constitutes a preparing decisions process,

while the selection of the more appropriate combination of decisions process constitutes a

decisions making process.

In systems organized in hierarchical participative structures with three levels, the determination

of the directive action u, of the whole system, it obeys to the same approach, being the whole

preparing and making decisions process as follows:

 Starting from the directive action w, coming from the first level, in the second level is

generated, helped by the mathematical model (27), corresponding to this decision making

stage, the space Uof possible options of the studied system.

 It is selected, by the more span (first level) system, the option that better satisfies the best

commitment among the efficiency indicators at that level, considering the group of systems

that there are in the second level.

 Delivery of the directive actions us to the systems at the 3er level.

31
 Generation of the spaces Xs,  s  S by the 3rd level systems and delivery it to the 2nd

(upper) level system.

 Selection by the upper level system (at the second level) of that options combination that

better satisfies the preferences at that level.

In such a way, it takes place a process of step by step determination of decision variables

values from the highest aggregation level to the lowest aggregation level.

The engineering systems are dedicated to the solution of preparing and making decisions

tasks, related with the engineer's activity in productive institutions. These tasks are

characterized by the global character of the decisions that require getting ready. Isolated

engineering tasks don't exist and, therefore, the solutions prepared by different engineering

systems require, in the general case, to be conciliated to each other.

By mentioned reasons the principles for the engineering systems synthesis are

subordinated to the general laws of Systems Theory 

48, 52, 64, 68, 69
. Particularly, the task of

conciliation of the operation of these systems obeys the general laws of systems conciliation.

Likewise, the definition of the tasks to be solved obeys the general laws of complex objects

direction tasks decomposition.

This way, it is very important the study of appropriate approaches for the conciliation of the

decisions making tasks, in particular, for the organization of the decisions making in hierarchical

systems. Later on, the outlines of organization of the preparing and making decisions structures

studied previously, on the base of the mathematical models structure of the corresponding

decision making processes are used.

It is required, therefore, to define which tasks must be solved and how these tasks are

related. In other words, it is required having practical methodologies that allow to insert the

study task in the environment where it should be solved and to decompose it in component

subtasks.

32
I.2 Decomposition principles of the decisions making tasks of complex objects

In the literature dedicated to the topic of the managerial administration could be found an

immense quantity of works that face the essence of this problem. However, very few among

them 
44, 50analyze the linkage among the space, functional, multiple criterial and the timely

aspects, in the establishment of decisions making tasks hierarchies. With the purpose of

defining the content of these tasks in organizational and technological complexes and the

existent mutual relationships, the principles were enunciated which practical application to the

real, organizational character, objects, conduce to similar tasks structures to those that has

being conforming in the organizational systems as a result of it historical evolution.

In keeping with these principles 

3, 4, 15the decisions making task is firstly broken down

spatially. The direction system of the whole object leads the direction systems of each

component comprising it. At each level of space decomposition takes place a functional

decomposition and, at each level of functional decomposition brings about decomposition as the

time goes by. As a result of such decomposition, a hierarchy of interrelated tasks as well as the

very structure of the system is obtained.

The practical application of these principles to the industrial enterprises leads to a given

conception for organizing of managerial its decisions making structures consistent in the

following:


 Spatial decomposition of decisions making task determines the existence of the

enterprise's decisions making system of a whole and, subordinate to it, there is a system of

local management for each one of the workshops taking part in material production.


 Decomposition of direction’s task of management’s systems by functions allows giving out

this task by subsystems rationally, stemming from the following reasoning: an enterprise's

productive process is summed up as the preparation of certain resources to be changed

into finished output, which it is, thereafter made tangible sale device. Resources, on

account of its nature, are divided into material, technical, human and financial ones. So, the

whole enterprise’s managerial system is broken down into the following functional systems:
33
 o Managerial System of material resources;

o Managerial System of technical resources;

o Managerial System of human resources;

o Managerial System of financial resources;

o Managerial System of production;

Harmonizing the operation of the aforementioned systems as well as its link to other outer

systems can be regarded as an additional managerial task. The system in charge of fulfilling

this operation can be defined, for example, as enterprise's technical-economic managerial

system, coordination system, etc.


 Decomposition in time of each one of these functions leads to determine the tasks to be

solved. In figure 8 the hierarchy of industrial enterprise’s decisions making production in

industrial enterprises tasks as a result of breaking down in the time the operation of

production decisions making, starting from annual perspective is shown. From the system of

annual planning the predicted for the year production quantities, distributed by trimesters are

received. The real behavior of the economic indicators and of the market can, and it usually

takes place, to condition the modification of these volumes during the year. These volumes

are rectified by trimesters and months.

The entrepreneurial decision making level should assure the balance of the material flows

among the elements of it spatial decomposition in time. The fact that the demand is rectified,

in general, for every month (and, occasionally, it is rectified several times in the month), it

imposes the necessity to elaborate the work sequences of the shops monthly and to rectify

periodically these sequences during the month. The sequences should be coordinated to

each other, since only this way it can make sure their viability and the achievement of an

appropriate level of general system efficiency.

The concrete sequences that guarantee the execution of the monthly task of each

shop, are emitted, in quality of proposals, by the corresponding local decision making

systems (at shops level). The selection of a combination of sequences is carried out in the

34
upper level, by the corresponding system In the solution of mentioned tasks, besides the

consideration of the material relations, it occupies an important place the consideration of

the parameters generated by the direction system of technical resources: machines where

the production should be manufactured, duration of the technological operations, etc.

Entrepreneurial dispatching system (in the big enterprises, of course) assures the

balance, at the process rhythm, of all the shops and areas. One of the most important tasks

that are solved at this level consists on the appropriate selection of the lots of intermediate

products for its later transformation in finished production. The achievement of high levels

of economic efficiency depends of the rational solution of this task, in an important grade.

At the lower level of the hierarchy (shops), it is carried out the internal coordination of

the work of the areas and the aggregates. In other words, the direction of the operations of

the shops takes place. At this level the operative proposals to the system of centralized

dispatching of the Enterprise get ready. The decision making of the operations it is closely

related with the conduction of the technological processes, since the operative decisions of

productive character, constitutes directive actions to the decisions making systems of the

technological processes. In such a way, the Automated System of Operation and Control of

each aggregate in a shop it is under functional subordination of the dispatching system of

the given shop.

The operation and control systems of the aggregates, areas and shops give primary

information that is stored, classified and accumulated by the Production Control System, it

transfers the information required for rectifying the decisions at each level in the time.

The production planning at each decomposition level in the time has to consider the

restrictions that impose all the functional systems related with the decisions making about

the different types of resources and for the direction system of sales. As the duration of the

planning period decreases so the indetermination in the behavior of all type of parameters

and indicators decreases too. This way, the annual planning tasks must take in

consideration restrictions of readiness of work time and perhaps of other few resources, the

35
 prospective behavior of the market, etc. The quarterly and monthly planning tasks, in spite

of also having a volumetric distribution character, operate with information more specific. In

the generation and productive sequences conciliation stage there are taken in

consideration the detailed behavior of all the resources and the detailed graph of delivery of

the finished production.

Decomposition linked to technological design comes about easier than that linked to

entrepreneurial decisions making. In fact, the different component parts of workshops,

aggregates, devices, etc specialize in fulfillment certain operations so that, both spatial and

functional decomposition generally coincides 

74
. On the other hand, technological design is

carried out for indefinite time periods while conditions for performing this design are in force,

thereof, decomposition in time is senseless. Nevertheless, this information is used by the

production direction system, which should select the more appropriate technology to

manufacture each article in the proper technological aggregate.

Thus, decomposition of the tasks dealing with technologies design is executed by component

elements of aggregates, workshops and equipment, for which designs are made.

Likewise, design of complex facilities and equipment is broken down into design tasks for

each of its component parts. So, for instance, the design of a car is broken down into tasks for

designing the engine, clutch system, the brake system, etc. In all the cases, independently of it

nature, the design of the complex systems must include the solutions generation of a group of

design subtasks and of the conciliation of the design of the complex system as a whole.

The same way, the design of facilities and complex equipment breaks down into the design

tasks of each one of the elements that conform its. For example, the design of an automobile

breaks down into the design tasks of the engine, clutch system, etc. In all the cases,

independently of its nature, the synthesis of the complex system requires of the solution of a

group of design subtasks and of the conciliation of the design of the complex system in its

integrity.

36
Exempla 7: Integration of the design, technologies generation and production planning of machined and

cutted pieces

The problem studied in the present example has been the object of investigation, not always successfully, in

numerous works. Among them it can be mentioned 

2, 4, 18, 28, 39, 48, 53, 71and many other.

The tasks of integration of CAD/CAPP/CAP/CAM computed aided systems for the design (CAD), technologies

generation or process planning (CAPP), production planning (CAP) and manufacturing (CAM) obey the same

principles that the remaining systems. This way, it is studied, in a first phase, the more span direction task, to which

the design of the piece, tool, installation, etc. that must be fabricated; it is subordinated, in quality of subtask. In a

second stage it is carried out the analysis of the design task. The process planning task it is subordinated,

necessarily, to the design of the product to manufacture. This subordination necessarily obeys the principles of

organization of the centralized structure, since it is required to manufacture exactly what was designed. The CAPP

system it is in charge of generating the different technologies of production options of the product for being

manufactured in the aggregates of the shop, for what it gives proposals to the production direction system of the

37
shop. The proposal selected for each given production phase of each product in each technological aggregate

should be implemented in the moment settled down by the production direction system (CAP) of the shop. The

execution of the productive tasks should be carried out by transfer of the directive information from the CAPP to the

technological aggregate associated.

From the decomposition in the time of the production direction task, illustrated in figure 8, the existence of transfer

of directive information among the direction system of technical resources and the elaboration of production

sequences, it is deduced as it is shown in figure 9. The decisions making system of technical resources generates

options of technologies, for being used by the production decisions making system in the stage of generation of

productive sequences. Ones selected the appropriate option of technology the manufacturing system uses the

corresponding information to manufacture the product (machined piece, in this example). This way, the direction

system of technical resources includes the design of the piece (CAD System), the generation of options of

production technologies (CAPP System) and the transfer of the information to the CAM System for the fabrication,

for the option of technology selected by the production direction system (CAP System).

In figure 10 the general structure of the CAD/CAPP/CAM integration including the relationship of exchange of

directive information between this system and the production planning system (CAP) in the examples of

manufacturing machined pieces in machine tools and cutting in sheets plane pieces of irregular configuration are

shown. In figure 10 as CNC is understood the computerized numeric control. This relationship consists on the

delivery, by the CAPP system of technologies of fabrication options, in different machinery of each one of the

programmed pieces and the selection, by CAP system of the must appropriate fabrication option, taking in

consideration the operative complexities arisen in the shop. Once defined the must appropriate fabrication option,

the CAPP system send the necessary information to the CAM System to make the production.

In the examples 11 and 14 solution outlines are presented to the problems of production of pieces machined

in lathes and of plane pieces in court machines, respectively.

38
 In this example some results obtained in applied researches carried out with the participation of the author of

this work are reflected.

I.3 Analysis of decisions making systems by tasks

The tasks of preparing decisions derived from the application of the principles of decomposition

enunciated previously undergo external and internal analysis (Fig. 11). The necessity in the

realization of these analysis stages is based on the Norbert Wiener principles of Cybernetic

Approach 
69completed with own research results.

The Internal Analysis consists of the following stages:

39
 Study of the more span task. The higher task to which the system under analysis is

subordinated is studied. Only this way it can make sure that the system under analysis is

appropriately inserted in the "environment" in which it will work. Those decision variables

of the more span task, which determine the connection with the studied task, are

denominated coordination variables. In other words, the coordination variables are those

variables which values are determined during the solution of another, more span (in the

space, the function and/or the time) decisions making task with regard to which the task

under analysis constitutes a subtask.

Fig. 11 Classification of the information involved in preparing and making decisions process



 Determination of efficiency indicators. There are those indicators that characterize the

quality of possible solutions to the studied task, in which the potential user of the system

could be interested. These indicators are called efficiency indicators. They are

determined by means of studying the related bibliography, surveys among managers and

specialists linked with the studied class tasks. These indicators could be formalized

(quantifiable, calculable) or subjectively evaluated.

Examples of quantifiable indicators are:

o Production Cost

o Durability (of a product, tool, construction, etc.)

o Indicators of mechanical resistance

o Prospective utility

o Other quantifiable indicators

Examples of non quantifiable indicators there are:

40
 o Comfort using a product, tool, etc.

o Feasibility of production

o Aesthetic value of a product

o Other indicators of subjective character

The evaluation of non quantifiable efficiency indicators is related, generally, with the

observation of the graphic images associated to the different solution alternatives

generated by the system, or helped by detailed simulation based on models no included in

the basic optimization model used.


Initial estimation of the composition of the decision variables and of the entrance

data of the task. The decision variables are those that can be modified to will by the

user of the system with the purpose of obtaining the best possible commitment among

the efficiency indicators. This better commitment is conditioned by the relative

importance that the user grants to each indicator. The entrance data are constituted by

parameters characteristic of the process that adopt well-known values, with well-known

probability distribution or that can be, even, unknown.


Verification of the mutual independence of the entries. In the analysis process the

independence should be verified for each one of the variables considered as entrance,

with regard to the remaining ones. If any of supposed entries could be calculated as a

function of other, then it becomes to be considered as an intermediated calculable

variable.

 Determination of intermediate variables of interest. There are those which values

could influence in the final decision of the decider, including those that should be

restricted superior or inferiorly.

 Decomposition studied task by component elements. This phase prepares the

analyst for the later study of the adequate solutions composition (or decisions

conciliation) structure that is carried out in the later phases of system analysis and

synthesis.

41
 
 Elaboration of the conceptual model of preparing and making decisions process.

Starting from the external analysis of the studied engineering task it is defined the set of

quantifiable indicators to optimize, the set of intermediate variables to restrict and the set

of indicators of subjective character to evaluate. This way, in correspondence with the

formulation (2), it is formulated the conceptual model of preparing and making decisions.

min z1( x1 , ..., xn ; y 1 , ..., y m ; g 1, ..., g r ) 

x

. 

.  (33 )
. 

min zm ( x1 , ..., x n ; y 1 , ..., y m ; g1 , ..., g r )
x 

Assuring the fulfillment of:

ginf sup
i g i ( x1, ..., x n ; y1, ..., y m; g1, ..., g r ) g i ; i (1, ..., r )
(34)
x inf
i x1 x sup
i ; i (1, ..., n).

Where:

zj(u, x) = j yj(u,x),

1 if the indicator yj(u, x) must to be minimized

j =
-1 if the indicator yj(u, x) must to be maximized

g inf sup : Inferior and superior limits that could adopt the j intermediate restricted
i , gi

variable.

x inf sup
i , xi : Inferior and superior limits that could adopt xi decision variable.

Once the external analysis conclude the internal analysis is executed. This last one conclude

with the determination of the most rational algorithm to calculate the quantifiable efficiency

indicators and the interesting intermediate variables for any possible solution, including the

generated in any iteration of the optimization procedure as a component part of the algorithm of

options generation, as well as the complementary simulation procedures that allow to precise

the behavior of the generated variables, one by one, and the generation of the graphic
42
imagines necessary for the evaluation with effectiveness the non quantifiable indicators starting

from the entrance variables, as well as of the procedures for the generation of the necessary

graphic images to evaluate with effectiveness the non quantifiable efficiency indicators.

The internal analysis consists of the following phases:


 Mathematical modeling. In this phase the relationships that allow to explain the exits

(efficiency indicators), starting from the entrances to the process (coordination variables,

decision variables, entry data) are determined. In this phase the entry data, that are

constituted by all constant parameters and all kinds of information not directly associated

with calculations, included the information linked with needed graphical representations

of the task, are specified.


 Rational Organization of calculation procedures. In numerous calculation

procedures some ambiguity exists in the composition of the decision and intermediate

variables and even efficiency indicators, being able to be substituted ones for others,

influencing such substitution over the complexity of the calculation procedures. In this

phase the composition of the decision variables and the order of the calculations that

lead to procedures with the smallest possible quantity of cycles are finally defined, being

defined too the calculation algorithms of the process. Here different methods are used,

from the foundational works of D.F. Rudd and Ch. C. Watson 

60
, who contributed the

basic principles for the solution of this problem and the first method developed, until the

most modern methods as the reflected in  , based on Dichromatic Graphs 

47 47
.


 Identification of all and each one of the components of the conceptual

mathematical model of preparing and making decisions. It is carried out the detailed

description of the basic calculation procedure to be inserted in the options generation

procedure that allows calculating the exits yj(x), gi(x) and the determination of the graphic

and complementary simulation procedures that contribute the information required by the

decider to specify the behavior, one by one, of the solution options generated. The final

43
 result of the internal analysis is the starting point for the elaboration of the synthesis of

the decision making system, including it computing tools support.

The internal analysis could require of deep bibliographical revisions on the topic, the realization

of researches guided to complete the mathematical description of the process, the organization

of efficient simulation procedures, etc. The separation of the Analysis process in two parts is

conventional: once the internal analysis it is carried out, you must to return to the external with

the purpose of specifying the variables composition. The analysis process could require of

several iterations.

The exposed analysis methodology doesn't subtract validity to others, presented in the works of

a great number of authors (see, by example, 

22
), in the Computer science's field, but rather

supplement them.

Example 8: External analysis of the simple and progressive cutting and punching dies design task

Study of the more spam task

Pieces fabrication by cutting and punching, as well as by other conforming technologies, is subordinated to the

general task of pieces fabrication technologies design. The pieces could be manufactured by a given sequence of

technologies or for a specific technology 

37, 65, 67 
.

Indeed, a design of piece system, may require, for example, of the technology generation for the production of a

particular conformed in cold piece, specifically by cutting and punching helped, in the studied in this example case,

of simple and progressive dies. As decisive elements of the technology generations are, necessarily, the

distribution of the pieces in the foil and the design of the appropriate die to manufacture the required piece. The die

design task has to be conciliated with the task of piece distribution on the plate, what determines the dimension of

the intermediate product to be used. There are, also, other defined parameters of the technology, such as the

productivity of the conforming installation, the number of useful careers, the work force to be used (depending on

the decided automation level) , the useful life of the tool, etc.

This way, the design simple and progressive cutting and punching dies task is subordinated to the general tasks of

piece fabrication. The last one includes the determination of optimal production sequences, assignment, in a first

stage, of concrete technologies generation tasks to particular systems conceived for this purpose (for machinery,

foundry, lamination, extrusion, etc.). In the process of concrete technologies generation the lower level systems

generate, in a second stage, technology options, which include proposals of the intermediate pieces for the
44
continuation of it production by other technologies. In a third stage, the upper level system (the fabrication one)

selects the combination of options that better satisfies the general requirements for the fabrication of the finished

piece.

Piece Design

Development of
manufacturing
technology

Foundry Forge Welding Machination ...

Pieces Die
distribution design

Fig. 12 Hierarchy of technological processes

In figure 12 the hierarchy of the tasks for preparing decisions associated to tools design for cold conforming, in

general, and for cutting and punching particularly it is shown. As it can be observed in this hierarchy, the

configuration and technical specifications of the piece to manufacture are processed by a system, which must

determine the production sequence and the most appropriate technological manufacture operations. The systems,

which must generate different particular technologies and the associate tool design, elaborate the corresponding

manufacturing phases. In the case of cold cutting and punching, stands out as key tasks, indissoluble linked the

distribution of the piece in the plate and the die design tasks.

Analysis of the piece distribution task.

The analysis of the task will be carried out starting from the study of the composition of entrance and exit variables

and its decomposition in objectives (efficiency indicators) and decision variables.

Efficiency indicators

1 Use of the plate Apch

Decision variables

1 Axis X displacement between pieces DespX

45
2 Axis Y displacement between pieces DespY

3 Pieces positioning variant VarN

Fig. 13 Pieces mutual distribution

In the solution of the distribution of pieces on the foil task an heuristic algorithm based on the exploration method of

the Non lineal programming is used for each one of the possible outlines of mutual pieces distribution illustrated in

Piece distribution on the foil and simple and progressive cutting dies design conciliation task.

From the carried out study it is inferred that the simple and progressive cutting and punching dies design task is

directly linked to the piece distribution on the foil task. There are, in fact, two mutually related tasks, for what it is

required to define a rational outline for decision conciliating between them. The adopted conciliating outline

consists on the generation of an orderly option series of piece distribution on the foil and the selection, among

these, that one which assures the best reasonable commitment among the efficiency indicators of the whole

process. In other words, in the solution of both tasks a scattered dispersed structure of conciliation is used.

This way, in a first stage an orderly series of options is generated that satisfies a local efficiency criterion while in a

second stage, to the different distribution options indexes are attributed the character of possible values of a

decision variable of the dies design task. The preference criterion used in the second stage may have a more

general character that in the first one. Indeed, during the piece distribution on the plate it can be influenced directly

only in the use of the foil and on the associated expenses, while in the second stage it is influenced directly on

other indicators: total production costs, cutting precision, energy consumption, etc.

46
External analysis of the die design task

Cutting and punching dies of plates are widely used tools in mechanical industry for making plane parts of various

configurations.

From the study carried out about the system of more spans coordination variables stand out the following: the

configuration of the finished piece, the technical specifications of the piece, and the size of the lot to be produced.

Starting from surveys carried out with the participation of specialists and managers dedicated to the design and the

production of dies, the following efficiency indicators for the specific case of the simple and progressive cutting and

punching dies were defined.

Efficiency indicators

Use of the plate Apro

Press's productivity Prod

Cutting forces Fuer

Die cost Cost

Die durability Dura

Surface finish Itac

For acting over the possible values of the efficiency indicators the decider (or the aiding decisions system) can

modify the values of the following decision variables.

1. Die type TTroq

[3 possible solutions]

2. Distribution of the pieces on the foil [1,2,3,4] (the optimal DpCh

solutions for each variant of pieces distribution, previously

found

3. Side cutter [included or not] ReLat

4. Cutting type [ 2 possibilities] TiCor

5. Number of cutting attempts [1 or 2] NuPas

6. Feeding system [2 possibilities]. SiAli

47
 7. Centerpiece element [3 possibilities] ElCen

8. Type of matrix and cutting edge [4 possibilities] MaPar

9. Positioning Elements

 Guide Rule [included or not] ReGui

 Side pressurer [included or not] PreLa

10. Material of the matrix [consecutive number of

available materials] MatMa

11. Material of the cutter [consecutive number of MatPu

available materials]

12. Type of the base [casted or laminated] BasTip

Position of the columns [4 possibilities] PoCol

Form of the columns [4 possibilities] TiCol

That means, all variables are discrete and constitute general decisions that determine the design die configuration.

The internal analysis includes an entire methodology of engineering calculations characteristic of this specialty

and the graphic and finite elements simulation procedures that must allow completing the evaluation of the decider

for different solution options generated later on by the system that must be synthesized.

I.4 Synthesis of the engineering systems

I.4.1 Preparing decisions in engineering Systems organized in hierarchical

participative structures

According the analyzed in the epigraph I.1, as the content of the preparing decisions function in

engineering systems organized in hierarchical participative structures the generation of  -

optimal decisions options in the presence of multiple objectives it is understood, starting from

the following definition.

Let the task of simultaneous minimization of m calculable criteria z1, ..., zr defined in a space D.

The space of solutions Dj  D, j (1, r) it is called space of j - optimal solutions and the

solution xiD j – optimal solution if

x i D  z j 
x i z id
j x i j

48
where:

= (1, ..., r)

D = { xX / gk(x bk; k(1, ..., m)}

Parameters j values determine the j – optimal solutions of the mentioned task minimizing

only the criterion zj or, in other words, the sacrifice that the decider is willing to assume on the

criterion zj(x) in order to find the best possible commitment among all the efficiency indicators

included those with non-quantifiable (subjective) character.

The j values should be selected higher enough for obtaining a set D of solutions among

which the decider may choose that decision that satisfies his own complete preferences system.

In the practice, could be generated a predetermined number of close to the decider preference

solutions, what necessarily corresponds to an ahead ignored j value.

In absence of non-quantifiable, subjective character efficiency indicators, the decider’s

preferences system is satisfied, evidently, by some solution from the set N. The same situation

takes place in case when decisions conciliating among the given system with other systems

from the same hierarchical level are not required. The set N may be sampled by some of the

multiple objective optimization iterative procedures that use lexicographical or augmented

Tchebycheff programs which appear in literature [32, 40, 41, 43, 51, 63, 70].

In presence of indicators with non-quantifiable (subjective) character, the problem consists on

generating solutions close to the best commitment among indicators with quantifiable character,

as it is illustrated in figure 14.

49
 Criterion Space Z is determined by means generation - optimal solutions helped by

Tchebycheff, lexicographical or augmented Tchebycheff programs, for values given by

= max {wjjs /j(1,...,r)} ,


Where js = j – z j


z j criterion’s j value in efficient solution selected by decider, that is to say, by

means of generating the values of x associated to all the values of such that:

min  min + 

where:

min: value in the optimal solution to the Tchebycheff, lexicographical or augmented

Tchebycheff programs.

m
On the other hand, the solution space associated to Z  is the space D  Di . By this, the
i 1

space for searching the best commitment solution among efficiency indicators of the multiple

objective optimization tasks is constituted by the intersection among j –optimal solution spaces

for all and each optimality criteria (see fig. 14).

This statement is illustrated in figure 14 and was demonstrated with all thoroughness by V. R.

Jachaturov [38].

Searching the best commitment among quantifiable efficiency indicators

The problem of searching the best commitment among the quantifiable efficiency indicators

constitutes a problem of sampling the efficient solutions region of the associated multiple criteria

optimization problem by anyone of the iterative methods that appear in the literature [32, 40, 43,

70]. Some of these methods presuppose the existence of an analyst in charge of presenting

different options to a decider, who chooses the solution that prefers, or shows indifference

among some of them, from a set of presented options. The search is limited to the region of

efficient solutions. In this work it is started, however, from the supposition that for the decider,

50
although there are important the values that acquire the quantifiable efficiency indicators, are

not less important the behavior of other indicators that cannot be presented as optimization

criteria. For this reason, he uses an engineering system, helped by which he makes a sampling

of the efficient solutions region, with the purpose of approaching to the best commitment among

the quantifiable efficiency indicators and generates, later on, a set of options even not efficient,

close to the one selected with the only consideration of quantifiable indicators, among which he

should choose, helped by graphic and simulation of the behavior of the associated process

procedures, that solution, or set of solutions, that fully satisfies him.

Without denying the rightness of the iterative methods pointed out in the literature, the author of

this work has successfully experienced the following procedure, based on the idea of the

Wierzbicki aspiration vector approach method [44]:


 Generation of the efficient solution z i , corresponding to similar values for all and

every weighted coefficients wi,  i  (1, ..., m). Found this way solution will be called

realistic solution.

51
  Determination of desirable values zid of each quantifiable efficiency indicator


starting from the knowledge of it ideal ziid and of the realistic solutions z i values i

(1, ..., m).

 If the difference zid - ziid is higher that a predetermined value, the substitution ziid =

zid is made and will be needed to return to the beginning of the procedure. Otherwise,

the decider improves one by one the indicators values by means the increment of the

corresponding wj weight. Under these conditions the remaining weights are rectified

by the algorithm: wi = wi x cte , cte = (1 - val) / (1 – oldval) , where val means the new

value assigned to wj and oldval means it previous value.

In many practical tasks the decider can, from the first iteration, determine the values zid >

ziid, starting from the previous knowledge he has about the studied problem.

Example 9: Optimal under multiple criteria refractory and isolating walls design

It is required to determine the material and thickness of each one and all of n layers of a refractory or isolating

wall made up of bricks assuring the best possible commitment between the efficiency indicators: Total

thickness (z1 ), material cost (z2), heat flow density thru the wall (z3 ) and external temperature of the wall (z4)

In figure 16 the external analysis of this task is reflected.

In quality of coordination variables were found: temperature of the isolated object that is close to the internal

temperature of the wall (T max ) and elected number of layers (n)

1

In quality of decision variables were found: thickness of the i layer (xi ) and material from which layer i must be

constructed (M i)

Mathematical formalization of the preparing decisions task.

Minimize:

52
 
 z1 z1
d
z2 z2
d
z3 z3
d
z 4 z4
d


Z max w1 d
,w 2 d
,w 3 d
,w 4  (35)

 z 1 z 2 z 3 z4d 

where:

w1, w2 , w3 , w4 coefficients that reflect the importance granted to efficiency indicators z1 , z2 , z 3, z 4 , respectively

z1d , z d2 , z3d , zd4 wished values of the indicators z1, z 2 , z3 , z4 , respectively

z1 (x)= x1 + x2 + ... + xn total thickness

z2 (x)=c 1 x1 + c 2 x2 + ... + cn xn material cost

z3 (x)=q heat flow density thru the wall

z4 (x)=T n+1 external temperature of the wall

ci - cost of volume unit of the material used in layer i

It is required to assure the following restrictions

T i T i max ( M i ) , i 2, ... , n (36)

0 xi x imax , i 1, ..., n (37)

x i  ( d i1 , ..., d ik i ), i 1, ... , n (38)

Where:

Ti internal temperature of the nearest point to the isolated environment of i layer

x max
i , Ti
max
(M i) thickness and temperature maximal values respectively of the material M i of the wall

dik thickness of the layer i of the wall in the k variant of bricks disposition.

Restrictions (36) establish that cannot be overcome the maximal temperature value of the layer i without

affectation physical properties of the material Mi.

Restrictions (37) establish that the thickness of the layers must be between allowed values.

Restrictions (38) establish that the thickness of each one of the layers must adopt one of the k i possible values

according allowed variants of bricks disposition.

The determination of q and Ti , = 1, …, n, for known xi values, is made helped by an implicit calculation

procedure.

The minimum possible values of the thickness of the layers and of the material cost of the wall are, evidently,

equal to zero and belong together with the nonexistence of refractory wall, for what the decider always could

(and should) to choose desirable minimum values of these magnitudes. Similarly, the minimum possible values

of the heat flow density through the wall and of the external temperature are, evidently, similar to zero and

53
belong together with the existence of an infinitely big wall, for what the decider always could (and should) to

choose desirable minimum values of these magnitudes.

Starting from the initially selected desirable values, the decider sample the set of efficient solutions specifying,

in every iteration, renewed desirable values for these magnitudes. Once found the best commitment solution

among the quantifiable indicators, the decider generates the space of close to it solutions with the purpose of

selecting the definitive solution considering non quantifiable indicators.

A solution algorithm to this task is exposed, step by step, in [4], to this task with another objective function in

which various continuous and discrete optimization methods are combined.

Summarizing, the preparation of decisions pursues the objective of generating a set of

solution options achieving close to the best commitment among the different efficiency

indicators of the lower level systems in a hierarchical structure. This commitment could be,

in the general case, expressed by a function of the vector of criteria z = (z1 , z2 , ..., zn ) and of

a vector of coefficients that reflect the importance granted by the user (decider) to each

criterion w = (w1, w2 , ..., wn ). Such a function constitutes an approximation to the utility

function:

= (z, w) (39)

As function (39) could be successfully used weighted Tchebycheff distance from ideal

solution to the criteria space or an approximation to this distance.

In the function (39) are included only quantifiable criteria (efficiency indicators) while

subjective character indicators could be taken in consideration only by selection definitive

solution among a set of options by individual evaluation. This evaluation is done by more

detailed (and precise) simulation procedures then the one used in the algorithm

implemented in the preparing decision process and as a result of the observation of graphic

images that characterize individual solutions.

54
 In the generation of solution options could be used, in principle, all the Mathematical

Programming methods, especially, the iterative methods of Non lineal and Discrete

Programming, as well as the modern metaheuristics.

The analysis of the graphic images and the realization of special simulation processes

should allow the user to evaluate the non quantifiable indicators. In this stage subjective

analysis of the adaptation is made from the prepared solutions to the user’s necessities and

there is carried out, in the needed cases, the necessary modifications. It is possible that the

user decides that the relative importance granted to the quantifiable efficiency indicators

should be modified repeating, in this case, the whole procedure.

I.4.2 Decisions making in discrete hierarchical systems

As could be deduced from the previously realized study, the decision making in discrete

hierarchical systems consists on the selection, by the decisions making level of the whole

system (higher level system), of that combination of local solutions from the lower level

subsystems, given by the sets Xs, sS, in a such way to solve (24). Depending upon the

character of the components of Z(u*, x), two different cases could be presented:

1. All and each system objectives could be expressed as the sum of their components

by subsystems plus a systemic component zj(x) = zj(u*,x) = szj(xs) + 

j(x), j J.

2. At least one of the objectives cannot be expressed as a separable by subsystems

function plus a systemic component.

In both cases the selection of the local solutions could be carried out according the Tchebycheff

Program, the Lexicographical or the Augmented Tchebycheff Programs. Here the formulation of

the selection by Tchebycheff Program is presented. It extension to the other two formulations

doesn't introduces difficulties

Case of separable objective

Let be each element of the finite set S = (1, 2, ... , s, ... , n) corresponds an orderly series,

monotonous growing of real positive numbers:

55
 1s < 2 s < …< is < …; is R + (40)

Element i of (40) corresponds to the solution vector xis = (xi1s, ..., xims) generated by system

associated to the s  S task. Each solution is evaluated by the set of functions zj,

jJ = (1, …, r) , with the particularity that:

is max
j J
w j
s
z j ( x i )  z sid, j , wj(0, 1) ,  w j 1 (41)
jJ

Where:

zsid, j min z j ( x is ) Ideal value of the j indicator of the s system element

i

z j ( x i s ) Reached by j indicator value in xis solution of the s system element

Series (40) it is characterized by the set Is = (1, 2, ... , i, ... ) of indexes of it elements.

The possible combinations of indexes are determined by the elements:

ek = (k 1 , k 2 , ... , ks , ... , kn ),

of the Cartesian product of the sets:

E = I1 x I2 x ... x In ( 42)

It is supposed that for each ek E, could be obtained

k

j( e ) 0 (43)

It is required to find an element e E that would be solution of

Min { } (44)

Where:

 z ( x ) e z

 s k id


max  wj j k j j  
j J  
 sS 

max 


j J  s S

w j  z j ( xk s ) z id
sj j e

k 


 
 

 ks max w j j e k
jJ
  ; zjid= zsjid (45)
s S sS

56
So, the solution of Tchebycheff Program during the selection of the best combination options

among lower level elements of a complex system (or among the derived subtasks from a

complex discrete optimization task decomposition) it is reduced to the search of a such

combination of options for the different subsystems that minimizes the function (44 The first

term of (44) it is constituted by the sum of the Tchebycheff distances from the local ideal

solutions to the solution options that entry into each ek combination studied (  ks ). Those
sS

distances have the physical sense of local losses of the different subsystems. The second term,

constituted by the value


= max w j j ek
j J
 , (46)

has the physical sense of systemic losses, that means, those losses that are the result of the

interaction between the different system elements.

Selection of Proposals Task

Let be each element of the finite set S = (1, 2, ... , s, ... , n) corresponds an orderly series,

monotonous growing real numbers:

Z1s Z 2s  Z si Z is 

This series is characterized by the set of indexes Is = (1, 2, ... , i, ... ) of it elements.

The possible combinations of indexes are determined by the elements

ek = (k1 , k2 , ... , ks , ... , kn ) of the Cartesian product of sets E = I1 x I2 x ... x In

It is supposed that for each ek E, could be obtained


j( e ) 0
k

It is required to find an element e E that minimizes de function:

Z (e k ) Z ks (e k ) ; ek E

s S

Starting from the carried out formulation the properties of this task were studied and elaborated

the exact solution method, that it is exposed in the book 

3. With posteriori approximation

functions were found to estimate the convergence of the method as functions of the parameters

57
of the task to solve  . In 
11, 16 3, 4, 11, 16among other many works, the topic of the solution

options composition between complex tasks using this method and associated algorithm is

developed, what can be appreciated in the mentioned sources and in the following examples.

Example 10: Optimal multiple objective air conditioning conduit nets design

More span system

CAD system for air conditioning conduits nets design is subordinated to a higher system, devoted to the civil

constructions design with its all component elements, to which will lend service the designed air conditioning nets

(see figure 17). In such a way, the CAD under study receives, in quality of directive information, the drawings of the

construction; in those all the constructive details of the locals that must be acclimatized are specified 
27, 28
.

CAPP system should receive from the CAD the indispensable information to plan the production process for the

non-standard elements of the air conditioning net 

27, 28
.

Decomposition of the conduit nets design task in component subtasks

In such a way, the conduit nets design task consists on the construction of the air distribution net for all and each of

the branches that assure the air flows to the locals, with all its constructive elements, accessories and air exits,

satisfying a general efficiency criterion. This way, a hierarchical structure arises which central task consists on the

whole net design. For all and each one of the branches it is required to solve design tasks of every individual

branch to the assigned locals. In figure 18 the structure of the design system of the studied conduits net is

illustrated.

Civil construction
Project

Civil Electric Hydraulic Sanitary Air conditioning

Construction Nets Nets Nets Conduits Nets

Fig. 17 More span decision making system.

58
External analysis of the system

Coordination variables are derived from the more span system task and are given by the construction’s project, the

restrictions of coexistence with other nets, the requirements related with the fluid magnitude and speed in the

entrances of air supply to the locals. Among the most important variables are:

 Local i of the branch j = i of the net designation: Design i, j

 Flow values required for each of the locals, that are calculated starting from the constructive and functional

characteristics of the locals, as well as of their orientation: FluLocR i, j

 Speed values recommended for the locals according to their designation and to the conduit function:

VelcR(Desig i, j)

 Permissible maximum height for the tract h, in the local i in the branch j of the net determined by the

construction: AltMaxTra h, i, j

Starting from interviews made to numerous specialists and managers linked to civil construction projects and the

conduits nets projection for civil edifications, it prevailed, in quality of efficiency indicators for the design air

conditioning conduits nets, the following ones:


 Minimum cost of the installation considering the materials used and the labor expenses: C.


 Minimum level of pressure losses in the conduit when giving air to the locals under conditions of full

consumption: P.


 Minimum level of noise produced by the system: R.

59
 
 Maximum “satisfaction” of the investor about the designed net in general and the solutions of each

of the locals and branches, including the introduction of possible solution options that are of his interest

(indicator with non-quantitative character).


 Satisfaction about the restrictions imposed by coordination variables.

From the study of the air conditioning nets design task are defined, in quality of decision variables, the following

ones:

 Quantity of branches in the net: jt

 Quantity of local in the branch j: ij

 Number of the branch to which the local i belongs: i

 Trajectory followed by the net inside the local i in the branch j: Trayi, j (CantSal i, j);  i j = { i / j = i } ;

j= 1, ..., jt

 Profile of the tract h of the local i in the branch j of the net: Perf h, i, j; (h = 1,.., ht(Tray i, j ); i  j ;

j = 1, ..., jt

 Material from which the conduit is made in the tract h in the local i in the branch j of the net: Mat h, i, j ;

h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ); i j ; j = 1, ..., jt

 Exit of air devices type (diffusers) to be used in the local i of the branch j of the net: SalLoc i, j;  i  j ;

j = 1, ..., jt

 Upward direction changes of the trajectory in the tract h in the local i in the branch j of the net:

DesSup h, i, j; h = 1, ..., ht (Tray i, j ); i j ; j = 1, ..., jt (boolean variable that adopts 0 value in absence of

upward change and 1 in it presence).

 Descending direction changes of the trajectory in the tract h in the local i in the branch j of the net:

DesInf h, i, j ; h = 1, ..., ht (Tray i, j ); i  j ; j = 1, ..., j (boolean variable that adopts 0 value in absence of

descending change and 1 in it presence).

 Accessories types on the tract h in the local i in the branch j of the net: Acc m, h, i, j ;

m = 1, 2; h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ) ; i j ; j= 1, ..., jt.

 Trajectory’s derivations and transformations on the tract h in the local i in the branch j of the net:

DerTra h, i, j ; h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ); i j ; j= 1, ..., jt.

 Elbow type for the elbow k foreseen in the tract h, of the local i in the branch j of the net: TipoCodo k, h, i, j ;

k = 1, … , CantCod h (Tray i, j ); h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ) ; i j ; j = 1, ..., jt.

Among the most important entrance data stands out:

 Air exit and entrance devices readiness and their costs.

60
  Accessories readiness and its costs.

 Derivations and transformations readiness and its costs.

 Available elbows types and its costs.

 Available materials for the conduits and its costs.

 Local longitude on the axis X: DisXLoc i, j

 Local longitude on the axis Y: DisYLoc i, j

 Local longitude on the axis Z: DisZLoci, j

 Standardized flow magnitudes of each diffuser type FluDif (SalLoc i, j)

 Number of ways for the air exit of the diffuser: NumVias(SalLoc i, j)

 Acceptable maximum flow for each diffuser via: FluMaxVia

 Acceptable temperature difference ºC for different values of roof height of the local: DifTemp i, j

 Air minimum scope that comes out for each diffuser: AlcDifMin (SalLoc i, j)

 Air maximum scope that comes out for each diffuser: AlcDifMax (SalLoc i, j)

 Length of the prismatic diffuser for the air exit: LarDif (SalLoc i, j)

 Diffuser width for prismatic diffuser and diameter for circular diffuser: AncDif (SalLoc i, j)

 Standardized thickness of the conduit EspS

 Standardized diameters for circular conduits: Days

 Supply unitary cost of the component elements of the conduit.

 Labor unitary costs for the assembly.

 Noise normalized maximum levels for locals, by designation.

 Conduit axis level in each tract measured regarding to the air exit axis in the equipment of flow impeller:

Level h, i, j (Tray i, j)

 Superficial ruggedness characteristic of each material according to their state: Rugo h, i, j

 Densities of the materials used in the conduits construction: Dens(Mat)

 Static pressure value in the team of flow impeller: Psmaq

Internal analysis

The internal analysis includes a complex calculation methodology of great number of intermediate variables and

efficiency indicators, which are related with the fluid behavior in conduits. For evaluating the efficiency indicators

with non-quantitative character the planes of the intermediate and final solutions are generated. They are

associated to different stages of the preparing decisions process.

61
General mathematical formulation of associated processes

The following mathematical formalization is based on the supposition that the decider determines, by himself, the

quantity of branches in the net (jt), the quantity of locals in each branch j (ij), the number of the branch to which

each local i belongs (i ), the trajectories of the branches until the entrance of each local (Tray i, j, for i = 0), the

upward and descending direction changes of the trajectory (DesSup h, i, j and DesInf h, i,j), so the values of

these variables are considered well-known.

The preparing decisions require, above all, the definition of the general mathematical model of the air conditioning

conduits net design task. Starting from the internal analysis [26] one can deduce, for the set of branches that are

part of the net that will be submitted optimization, the following structure of general mathematical model according

Tchebycheff Program:

 
Minimize 
 
x max  
wr  
zr , j x j 0 ,r 


x / x D
 (47)
r

 j 



Where:

C( x ) P(x) R( x ) d
(z1  d , z2  d , z3  d )  3 : Vector of efficiency indicators of the net design. All z r values and
C P R

constant and equal to 1, by this it don’t appear in (47).

C (x ) , P(x ) , R (x ) : Cost, pressure losses and magnitude of noises in the net, determined by the design

variables “x” values of the net.

C d , P d , R d : Decider wished values of the cost, pressure losses and magnitude of noises in the net

C j (x j ) Pj ( x j ) R j (x j )
(z1, j  d , z2, j  d , z3 ,j  d )  3 : Vector of efficiency indicators of the design of the branch j
Cj Pj Rj

of the net

C j ( x j ) , Pj ( x j ) , R j ( x j ) : Cost, pressure losses and magnitude of noise in the branch j net, determined by

values xj of the design variables

C dj , Pj d , R dj Decider wished values of the cost, pressure losses and magnitude of noises in the branch j of the

net

C( x ) P( x ) R( x ) 3

( 0,1  d , 0 ,2  d
, 0,3  d
)  vector of the net efficiency indicators values increment
C P R

caused by the entrance intersections to the branches, the introduction of noise amortization elements, etc.,

required to make compatible each of the different net branches.

62
x = (x1 ,…, xj, …, x jt ) Vector of decision variables corresponding to the net design by branches

Dj = { x j / gk(x j ) 0 ; xj Xj } solution space of design variables of the branch j

Xj : set of admissible values for each variable vector xj = (x1,j ,…, xI,j, …, xit,j )

gk(x j ) b k symbolize the restrictions to the design

For each j branch it is required to solve the design task of each one of the locals associated to this branch. So, it is

required to solve the Tchebycheff Program:

  

Minimize: j 
x max  
wr ,j  z r , j ,i 
x j ,i r ,j 
xj
/ x j D j 
 (48)
r
 i 

Where:

C j ,i ( x j ,i ) P j ,i ( x j ,i ) R j ,i ( x j ,i )
( z1, j ,i  d
, z 2 , j ,i  d
, z3, j ,i  d
)  3: Vector of quantifiable efficiency indicators of the
C j ,i Pj ,i R j ,i

design of the local i of the branch j of the net. All z dr , j values are constant and equal to 1, by this it doesn’t appear in

(48).

C j ( x j ) Pj ( x j ) R j ( x j ) 3
( 1, j  d
,2, j  d
, 3 , j  d
)  : Vector of the branch j of the net efficiency indicators
Cj Pj Rj

values increment caused by the entrance intersections to the locals, the introduction of noise amortization

elements, etc., required to make compatible each of the different branch locals

xj = (x1,j ,…, xI,j, …, xit,j ): Vector of decision variables corresponding to the branch j of the net design by locals .

DI,j = { xI,j / gk(xI,j ) 0 ; xI,jX I,j }: Solution space of design variables of the local i of the branch j of the net
.

XI,j: Set of admissible values for each variable vector xj = (x1,j ,…, xi,j, …, xit,j )

gk(xI,j ) bk : Symbolize the restrictions to the design of the locals of the branch j.

Variables xI,j correspond, respectively, to Tray i, j , Perf h, i, j , Mat h, i, j, SalLoc h, i, j , Acc m, h, i, j , DerTra h, i, j ,

TipoCodo h, i, j (Tray i, j ) which adopt integer values associated to different trajectory solutions generated by auxiliary

empiric algorithm, based on design norms and experience. For each Tray i, j values, depending upon the

dimensions of the local DisXLoc i, j , DisYLoci, j y DisZLoc i, j, are determined, algorithmically the quantity of tracts h,

h = 1, ..., ht (Tray i, j), it lengths LongTra h (Tray i, j), number of elbows CantCod h (Tray i, j ) , number of air outputs

in the tracts CantSal h (Tray i, j ) and the length of each section of the conduct Longk,h (Tray i, j ).

In the internal analysis [26] the C, P, and R calculation methods are exposed. For the procedures of calculation

of these efficiency indicators, one can affirm that the objective function and restrictions of the formulated task are

determined by means of great complexity calculation procedures and have non-lineal and discrete character. From

63
external analysis it is deduced that for a branch that contains 10 locals, included the corridor, an average of 10

tracts for local, one has a total of around 650 discreet variables. For a net that has 10 branches the number of

variables reaches some 6500 variables. The direct solution of the formulated task is extremely complex, for what its

decomposition in a subtask series is required.

The structure of the models (47) and (48) fully corresponds to the just exposed Selection of Proposals under

multiple criteria task, for which solution could be applied the classic algorithm of the Selection of Proposals

method with the studied adaptations. The indicated structure allows the solution search to each one of these

tasks among the - optimal solutions of the component subtasks.

In quality of subtask of (47) one understands each of the jt optimization subtask (48) corresponding to each

one of the net branches. In quality of subtask of (48) one understands the /Ij / design optimization tasks of each k

of the local nets belonging to the corresponding branch:

Minimize max
r
w r ,i , j ,k zri ,j ,k 
xi , j ,k / xi , j ,k X i , j ,k  (50)

For the design of each branch it is required to find the -optimal designs for each one of the locals of the

branch and for the design of the net it is required to find the -optimal designs of each branch of the net. In

practice could be enough the generation of a predetermined number of solutions close to the optimal for each

decomposition level, what belongs together with an value.

The importance granted by the decider to each one of the efficiency criteria in each local of a branch can

differ to the one granted for the whole branch. For this reason, the coefficients wr,i,j can be different to the

corresponding wr,i,j,k. Theoretically, for the design of each branch it is required to find the - optimal designs of

each one of the locals of the branch, and for the design of the net it is required to find the - optimal designs of

each one of the branches of the net. Practically, it is enough to find, for each one of the conciliation stages, the

optimal solutions combination) among a predetermined number of solution options close to the local optimal (or to

the decider preferences system).

So, in the solution of the optimization task (47) it is required to use a double decomposition procedure: of the

net in branches and of the branch in locals for each corresponding subtask.

Outline for preparing decisions. Basic solutions generation by locals

The solutions generating process that will be presented as -optimal solutions for each local is made by exhaustive

search and it is carried out in the following way:

Coding decision variables:

64
Perfh, i, j adopts a specific value for each profile type.

Prismatic profile: 1

Circular profile: 0

Mat h, i, j adopts a specific code for each material.

Steel: 100

Galvanized Zn: 010

PerSystem: 001

Climaver Plus: 110

Fiberglas: 011

In a similar way the possible values of the remaining variables of decision are coded, SalLoc h, i, j , Acc m, h, i, j ,

DerTra h, i, j, TipoCodo h, i, j. This way, the general code is created for the design solutions, with a 34 bits extension,

the one that contains the information about the concrete value that adopts each decision variable in the studing

solution. As it is observed in the example shown below, in one conduit tract can coexist up to three types of air

exits (SalLoc1, SalLoc2, SalLoc3) and up to two accessories (Acc1, Acc2), (See / 7 /).

[ Perfil ][ Material ][ SalLoc1 ][ SalLoc2 ][ SalLoc3 ][ Acc1 ][ Acc2 ][ DerTra ][ Codos ]

[ 1 ][ 3 ][ 5 ] [ 5 ][ 5 ] [ 4 ] [ 4 ][ 4 ] [ 3 ] = 34

2 3
o
Fig. 19 Construction outline of a 90 derivation at a conduit.

For each conduit tracts intersection, a general group of candidates to -optimal solutions is generated. This way, in

the outline of derivations shown in the fig. 19 converge: tract 1 (that arrives to the intersection), tract 2 (that leaves

from the intersection on the same line with the first one), tract 3 (that leaves perpendicularly from to the first one), it

is initially formed a set with four possible tracts profile combinations 1, 2 and 3 {(1 1 1), (0 0 0), (1 0 1), (0 1 0)}.

Each profile combination is linked with the different possible material values to obtain a new group of combinations

and so forth, in its order, all the possible values of the remaining decision variables are linked until completing each

solution code format.

For example:

65
 1 010 00010 10010 XXXXX 0100 1100 00100 000

Profile (Perf): Prismatic.

Material (Mat): galvanized Zn

Air Input - Outputs (SalLoc): prismatic diffuser (DFP)

Prismatic exit up

Doesn't exist third exit

Accessories (Acc): Fire breaker

Muffler

Profile derivations and transformations (DerTra): Centered Transformation

Elbows (TipoCodo): Without specification

Methodology for optimal multiple objective design

According to the Selection of Proposals method algorithm, adequate to the particularities of the studied task, for

known Tray j values for the set of jt branches until the entrance to the local i belonging to the branch j = i the

adopted outline of decision preparation is completed in the following steps:

Methodology for multiple objective design

Step 1. For each one of the locals that belong to the studied branch are generated, by exhaustive search, all

possible value combinations of the variables Trayi, j , Perfh, i, j, Mat h, i, j, SalLoc h, i, j, Acc m, h, i, j , DerTra h, i, j ,

TipoCodo h, i, j; m = 1, 2, h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ) . The efficiency indicators and multiple objective function i, j values

are calculated for each combination of variables values and -optimal solutions of the local are selected.

66
Step 2. The decider eliminates, among the -optimal solutions generated, those that don't satisfy his preference

system, considering subjective character criteria.

Step 3. For the local corridor, and the trajectory Tray i, j, previously built using system’s graphic edition tools [26,

27], all the possible combinations of variables Perf h, i, j , Mat h, i, j, SalLoc h, i, j, Acc m, h, i, j, DerTra h, i, j ,

TipoCodo h, i, j ;  m = 1, 2, h = 1, ..., ht(Tray i, j ) values are determined by exhaustive search. The efficiency

indicators and the multiple objective value function j are calculated for each variables values combination and -

optimal solutions of the local corridor are selected. The trajectory Tray 0, j, during the exhaustive search, is made in

inverse to the airflow direction, contrary to the outline described in Step 1 of this methodology.

Step 4. The decider eliminates, among -optimal solutions generated, those that don't satisfy its preference

system, considering subjective character criteria, and, in this way, the orderly set of local corridor solutions are

defined.

Step 5. Between the best solutions chosen by the user for each local including the corridor, the multiple objective

value function (49) calculation is made, in order to evaluate the different unions combinations, applying the method

of selection of proposals, the -optimal solutions for the branch are obtained.

Step 6. The decider eliminates, among -optimal solutions generated, those that don't satisfy his preference

system, considering subjective character criteria. This way the orderly set of solutions for the studied branch is

defined.

Step 7. The procedure described is repeated from steps 1 to the 6 for each of the branches that belong to the

studied net.

Step 8. Once selected the -optimal solutions for each net branch, the calculation of the efficiency indicators is

made according to the function (48) for evaluating different combinations of unions among the branches and are

obtained, applying the method of Selection of Proposals, the -optimal solutions of the net.

Step 9. The procedure described is repeated from steps 1 to the 8 for each of the nets that belongs to the studied

air conditioning system

Example 11: Optimal under multiple criteria technologies generation of pieces machination in lathes with

on-line numeric control (CNC)

More spam system

The concrete technologies generation for pieces fabrication, particularly by machination in lathes, is subordinated

to the general task of pieces fabrication, that includes the determination of the optimal production sequences, the

assignment, in a first stage, of concrete technologies generation tasks to particular systems conceived with this
67
objective (for machination, foundry, hot and cold conforming, lamination, extrusion, etc.). In the process of

concrete technologies generation the lower level system propose, in a second stage, options of technologies,

including proposals of intermediate pieces for the continuation of its production by other technologies. In a third

stage the upper level (production planning level) selects that combination of production options that better satisfy

the general production requirements of the finished piece (figure 21).

As a result, the concrete technologies generation tasks receive from the upper level the drawings of the

finished pieces and of the initial raw product as well as the technical specifications of both. By this reason, the

coordination variables of the technologies generation tasks are constituted by this information [4, 18, 39, 53, 71].

Fig. 21 Technological processes hierarchy

Decomposition of the machination in lathes task by component elements

The piece machination is executed in different phases denominated machination operations. The machination in

lathes is carried out in different placements. In each placement it is manufactured a set of form elements

completely, being able to establish, for the next placement from the orderly set of necessary placements for

manufacturing the piece, the conclusion of a given form element. In each manufacture form element is carried

out a concrete technological step to which corresponds certain volume to be removed .

In practice, the machination is carried out, during each placement, for a resulting from the previous placement

raw product. Starting from the geometric form elements the manufacture form elements must be elaborated;

being necessary to take into account the required stages of piece manufacturing. In a given placement it is

completely carried out the machination of a certain number of form elements. This way, in each placement it is

concluded the machination of the form elements involved in that placement. For a given orderly set of

placements it becomes necessary to search that machination technology of the form elements that complete the

given piece, considering that this technology ensures a reasonable commitment among the different efficiency

indicators that are of the Specialist interest. That is to say, it is required to determine the set of passes and the

machination regime more appropriated for each pass, considering a set of efficiency indicators for the production

of the whole piece.

68
External analysis of the pieces machination task

The external analysis of the machination task is made for the technologies generation of a particular lathe and for

an orderly set of placements defined by the user. This set determines the different volumes to be removed on the

raw product. It is, in fact, the definition of the most rational way of making this removal.

The coordination variables are given by the design of the form elements of the manufactured piece in each

placement, of the raw product to be used in it production and the technical specificities of both:

Geometry, material, dimensions, superficial finish, adjust, form and position tolerances. All this information is

contained in the piece and raw product form elements.

Starting from surveys carried out among specialists and managers dedicated to pieces production, were defined

the following efficiency indicators during pieces machination:

Machination time (or productivity)

Total energy consumed during machination

Production cost

Assurance of all and each one of the coordination variables and restricted functions values established for the

selected machine and tools.

The decision variables of the task are determined starting from the carried out decomposition of the machination

task in component elements:

Used machine 

Placement of the piece 

e
Inserts type to be used, among the available ones, in each form element e: . Each inserts type is

characterized by the following parameters: Material , Geometry , Form , Subjection , Dimension ,

Thickness , Width of the bevel , Angle of the bevel .

Each material it is characterized by a set of parameters that defines it properties: hardness, fluency limit,

chemical composition and others.

e
Holder type to be used, among the available ones in each form element e: m . Each holder type is

characterized by the parameter that determines the position angle of the cutting tool.

Amount of passes lfe of the form element e; e = 1, …, ef

Court regime, for each passing i of the form element e:

e,l
o Court speed Vc for each pass i of the form element e
e,l
o Advance S for each pass i of the form element e
e,l
o Cutting depth t for each passing i of the form element e
69
The entrance data are constituted by:

Recommended ranges for court regimes

Unitary costs of materials, inserts, machines, energy, work forces.

Readiness of resources: materials, machines, subjection elements, inserts, holders, etc..

Machines data: maximum power, dimensions of the work area, revolutions of the screw, etc.

 Inserts data: Radius of the tip  of each insert Length of the insert L from the set of available ones .

All the above-mentioned data it is contained in the database of the CAPP system.

In quality of intermediate variables of interest stand out:

e
The volumes to remove Q0 , associated to each manufacture elements and determining the corresponding
e
technological steps  necessary to manufacture all and each one of the geometric form elements. The concepts

manufacture element and geometric form element constitute, in this work, abstractions derived from the element

form concept that it is used to mean the manufacturing and geometric information derived from the objects called

form elements.

The variables e can adopt the following values: heavy, medium, finish and extra finish rough maching. The

operations to carry out during the machination of a form element are determined during the creation of the unique

model of the piece.

Elements of the internal analysis

Starting from the existent in the specialized literature calculation methodologies as 

4, 18, 39it is needed to

calculate:

Duration of the machination of one piece: Tu = Tm + T p + T a + T n

Where:

Tm : Time of the material manipulation.

Tn:: Time lost changing tools required by technology, transiting from the previous to the present pass.

Ta: Time used changing Tools determined by the wear away in the cutting process

Tp : Main time of piece cutting.

The time of the material manipulation T m has to do with the machine tool and the montage scheme 

selected for the piece machination. The main time by the volumes to be removed in each i pass. The time lost for

tools changes as a result or its wear during the machination Ta, it is a function of the main time used Tp and of the

useful life of the tool (insert). The required by technology time lost Tn , it is associated to the type of selected
e,l
insert  for each pass of each form element.

By this, the machination time of the i pass of a form element e of a piece could be formulated as:
e,l e,l e,l e,l
Tu = T p + Ta N + Tn , e = 1, …, ef ; l=1, …, lf e
70
Where:
e,l
Tu : Needed time for machination the form element e.
e,l
Tp : Main time of form element e cutting during the I pass..
e,l
N = T p / T: represents the number of sharp tools, straight cutting tools or wear inserts for processing i pass.
e,l
Ta : Time used changing tool, determined by straight cutting tools or wear inserts.
e,l
Tn : Time lost by required by technology tool change, while passing from previous to the present pass, that

depends on the selected inserts in the previous and present passings.

T : Time of the useful life of the inserts.

Previous expression it is equivalent to:

e,l e,l e,l e,l
Tu = Tp (1+ Ta /T) + Tn , e = 1, …, ef ; l=1, …, lfe

In the general case several passings are needed to produce the form element whished. As the i-th passing of the
e,l e,l e,l
e form element will be processed by the cutting regime t , V c ,S could be expressed that:
e,l e,l e,l e,l e,l
Tp = Q0 /t V c S , e = 1, …, ef ; l =1, …, lfe

where:
e,l 3
Q0 : Volume of the material to remove in the passing i of the form element e [mm ].
e,l
t : Court depth [mm].
e,l
Vc : Cutting speed [mm/min].
e,l
S : Advance [mm/rev].

To machine a form element the time is required:

lf e
Tu =
e
 (Q
l
1
0
e,l
/t
e,l
Vc
e,l
S
e,l
) (1 + Ta / h (V c
e,l
/ V 15 ) ) + Tn
e,l
.

The total time to machine the piece in the lathe is calculated as:

et
Tu = T m + T u
e

e 1

Necessary energy to machine a piece

t is calculated starting from the power consumed in each passing of each form element
e,l e,l e,l e,l e,l e,l e,l 0.29
sen  )
3
Pot = (t Vc S Kc0.04 / 60.10 ) (0.4 / S

Where:
e,l
Pot : Power required for the operation [kW].
e,l
Kc0. 4 : Specific force for a chip thickness 0.4 mm [N].

The total energy machining a piece it is::

71
 et M
E= E
e
1 l
1
e,l

Where:
e,l e,l
E = Pot Tp : Power consumed in the i passing of the form element e.

Cost for machining a piece

The cost of a piece it is expressed according the following expression:

Cpieza = CMat + CSalario + CEnergi + CAmortz

Where:

Cpieza,, C Mat , C Energi, : Costs of the piece, of the del material used and the energy consumed, respectively,

machining the piece.

CSalario: Salary expenses to machine the piece.

CAmortz : Expenses in paying-off the equipment, attributable to the piece.

The preparing decisions process requires of the general mathematical model definition of the general

machining technology generation task of the form elements that conform a piece, and that are a part of a given

assembly. Starting from the exposed internal analysis deduced previously, for givens  machine tool and 

montage scheme, the following general mathematical model, corresponding to Tchebycheff Program:

 ef 

Minimize:  = max  
wr  r ( x) / x D 
ze ,r (xe )   (51)
r
 e1 


Where:

C( x ) E( x) T( x ) 3
(Z1 (x) = d
, Z2 (x) = d
, Z3(xe) = d
)   : Vector of efficiency indicator reached by the machining
C E T

regime

wr : Coefficient that reflects the importance granted by the decider to the r efficiency indicator reached while

machining the piece.

Ce ( xe ) Ee ( xe ) Te ( xe ) 3
(Ze,1 (xe ) = d
, Z e,2 (xe) = d
, Z e,2 (xe ) = d
)   : Vector of efficiency indicators reached while
Ce Ee Te

machining the e form element of the piece.

me
ze,r (xe ) = z e,l(xe,l) + e (xe) : r indicator value reached in the e form element
l
1

72
 Ce ,i ( xe ,i ) Ee ,i (xe ,i ) T e , i ( x e ,i )
3
Ze,i,1 (xe,i) = , Ze,i,2 (xe ) = , Ze,i,2 (xe ) = d )  : Vector of efficiency indicators of
C e,i
d
Ee , i
d
T e .i

the machining regime while the i passing of the e form element.

3

e (xe,l) = (Ce , E e , Te)   : Vector of the efficiency indicators values increment caused by the technology

determined inserts changes, during the machine of the e form element of the piece.

x = (
, , x1 ,…, x e , …, xef ): Vector of the decision variables corresponding to the machining technology of the

piece.
e e
xe = ( , m , lf e, xe1, x e2,…, xel, …, xelf): Vector of the decision variables corresponding to the e form element.
e,l e,l e,l
xe,l = (V c , S , t ): Vector of the decision variables corresponding to the i passing of the e form element.
3

(x) = ( C,  E, T)   : Component of the objective function value corresponding to the technologically

determined inserts changes while passing by different form elements required for machining the piece.

De = De,l : Space of the possible values of the decision variables for an e form element.

De,l = {xe,l / ge(xe,l) 0 ; xe,lXe,l}: Set of the possible solutions that satisfy the established in the internal analysis

restrictions and, additionally, the intervals of definition of the decision variables.

min
Also, must be fulfilled that: lfe lfe .

The developed solution outline is exposed below:

Step 1. There are eliminated, from the set of available inserts, those that cannot be used, for its mechanical

properties (parameter ) or for their form (parameter ) to machine the e form element, e = 1, …, ef.

Step 2. After obtaining the inserts forms, there are eliminated the available holders, that cannot be used by its

mechanical properties (parameter ), restrictions of accessibility, sense of the cutting to machine the e form

element., e = 1, …, ef.

Step 3. For each one of the tools options of the form elements being processed the steps are executed the steps
th th
from 4 to 8 .
st nd
Step 4. The quantity of passes lfe is calculated for each tools option Prp obtained in the 1 and 2 steps, for each e

form element.

Step 5. An initial machining regime is selected (recommended S, t, Vc values) starting from the corresponding

data base tables. This procedure is followed for each Prp tools for each form element e = 1, …, ef, for each

passing i.

Step 6. The consumed power of each passing is calculated for a machining regime (recommended S, t, Vc

values). This procedure is made for each tools option Prp, of each form element e, e = 1, …, ef, in each

passing i.

73
Step 7. The inferior and superior limits of the model restrictions are evaluated. This procedure is made for each

option Prp, each form element e, e = 1, …, ef, in each passing i.

The 6th and 7th steps are executed until the restrictions are fulfilled. If the power restriction is not fulfilled, then the

court depth value is modified in such a way for reducing it and the calculated power (for the passing) with the

recommended values become smaller than the nominal power of the machine.

Step 8. For every analyzed tools option Prp to be used in the production of a form element e a feasible machine

regime is selected (initial values of S, t, Vc), that is posterior submitted to an optimization process by the Complex

method of Non lineal Programming. The optimization of the cotting regime for machinning all the passes of the form

element e. The following mathematical model is used:

. Minimize:

 lef 

e = max   r (xe ) 
w r  ze,l ,r ( xe,l )   (52)
 l 1 
r


Assuring the fulfillment of the restrictions:

e,l
t min  t e,l  t e,l max ; l (1, lfe ) (53)

e,l
s min  s e,l  s e,l max ; l (1, lfe -1 ) (54)
e,l
v min  v e,l  v e,l max ; l (1, lf e ) (55)

e,l
n min  n e,l  n e,l max ; l (1, lf e ) (56)
e,l
0  Pot  Pot e,l max ; l (1, lf e ) (57)


e,lfe
 8 Ra10
3
0 s (58)

lfe

(D 1 –D 2 ) / 2 = 
e
1
t
e
(59)

Restrictions (59) assure the dimensions of the processed design of the form element, taking into account the

specified over measures.

For lfe = 1 the model (52)–(59), describe the one passing model. As could be appreciated the multiple passes

model was formulated by the same functional expressions as the one pass model, but including more number of

variables.

The particularities of the studied task make possible the determination of one feasible initial cutting regime,

witch it is expressed as:

e,l
v c = v c0
e,l
t c = t0
e,l
s c = s0

74
 e,l e,l e,l
For every i passing, in every form element e, the magnitudes v c , t c , s c represent the initial

recommended values.
e
Step 9. Generation of inserts and machining regime options, ordered by the value of  (xe ), for being used in all

and every one of the passes of the form element e, e = 1, …, ef. The generated inserts options belong together

with a certain value of lfe.

Step 10. The Tchebycheff Program (51) is solved by the Selection of Proposals algorithm. Anyway, the

optimization of the cutting regimens is presupposed for all and each one of the machine form elements, for each

tool code with its angles determined by the mentioned algorithm.

Case of non separable objectives

This is the case when at least one of the objectives can’t be expressed as a separable by

subsystems function plus a systemic component and the case when, by convergence reasons,

the Selection of Proposals method become not a convenient algorithm (comparatively high

values of (x)). In this case the formulation of the decision making problems it is reduce to the

following.

Let be each element of the finite set S = (1, 2, ... , s, ... , n) corresponds an orderly series,

monotonous growing integer numbers:

I s = (1, 2, ... , i, ... ), s S (60)

Series (60) represents different solution options to each one of the subtasks s S.

The possible combinations of the sets (60) elements are determined by the elements

ek = (k1 , k2 , ... , ks , ... , kn ) of the Cartesian product of the sets E = I1  I 2  ...  In

It is required to find an element e E that would be solution of

Min { } (61)

Where:

jJ

max w j z j ( e k ) z id
j  (62)

assuring the fulfillment of a set of restrictions:

75
 g j ( e k ) b j ; j 1, ..., m (63)

This task is called the Generalized Selection of Proposals Task and for it solution was

developed by the author of this work the Integration of Variables method, the last one

presupposes the evolution of solution codes populations helped by different operators.

I.5 The Integration of Variables Method

The concept of the Integration of Variables Method it is linked to the evolution of the required

quantity of codes helped by any set of operators to upgrade the members of a solutions

population [12]. The general features of this method are the following (Fig. 22).


 The possible solution variants are coded in one or more variables - codes


 It is generated, according to a procedure characteristic for each particular application of

the method, a set of n solutions close to the optimal one. Particularly, the different

procedures which are characteristic of iterative methods of Nonlinear and Discreet

Programming applied to the solution codes can be used, with selected search

environments in a random, deterministic or combined way. Each particular procedure of

generation and upgrading populations have to do with a concrete application variant of

the method. A particular case of procedure is constituted by a given sequence of genetic

operators applied to an initial population, what leads to the Genetic Algorithms method.


 Although the selection of the Stop Criteria obeys, in general, to the particularities of each

concrete application, in most applications the condition to achieve a certain amount of

iterations without alteration of the population must be effective (or, what is equivalent,

don't vary the value of the quality function of the population's worse element).

76
So, the application of any heuristic derived from the Integration of Variables Method requires

the definition of the following problems:


 A coding system for the possible solutions representation of the studied problem


 A method for creating an initial population


 A quality (fitness) function that allows ordering the codes according the objective function

values.


 Operators that allow varying the composition of solutions codes in the successive

populations.


 Parameters values required by the algorithm used (population's size, probabilities

associated with the application of certain operators, etc.)

It is necessary to clear up that although the author propossed for the first time, explicity, the

concept of the Integration of Variables Method and its distinctive particularities, this concept

was in fact applied to numerous works that appeared in recent years in specialized literature.

So, in the work presented by Michalewicz [51], some evolutionary algorithms, applied to

Constrained Non-Linear Optimization Problems are explained, which contribute with new

operators to the Integration of Variables Method. Particularly, in this group the methods

appeared in Section 3.1 may be included. On the other hand, Structured and other complex

77
GA constitute particular cases of using set of codes for describing solution options [31]. The

Selection of Proposals Method [3, 11] constitute another example of using multiple variable

– codes for describing solutions.

Despite the general acceptance received in the last decades by Genetic Algorithms in many

particular cases difficulties have appeared in its application to optimization problems due to

the following causes:


 Depending on the nature of the objective functions, very bad chromosomes can be

generated by combining good building blocks. This causes failures of the building block

hypothesis [31].


 There is not guarantee of obtaining the global optimal solution by using GA although it

has the tendency to do so. This tendency is reduced when there is a loss of population

diversity, which can lead to final populations of low quality [10, 51, 66].


 Genetic Algorithms encounters difficulties in the search of solution to Constrained

Nonlinear Programming Problems [51]


 An important restriction for using GA is the frequent slowness of searching process of this

method in comparison with others [31].

These difficulties may propitiate the substitution of the GA in many of it current applications

for other characteristic of the Integration of Variables method algortihms.

I.5.1 Searching by Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a

Variable Code

In figure 23 the practical application of the Integration of Variables method to the concrete

case, when the searching procedure of local minima of a function of a variable code of

possible solutions to the given discrete optimization task with random variation of serch

intervals for upgrading the successive solutions populations is illustrated [12, 14].

As it can be observed in the figure 23, in each iteration it is carried out the search of the

minimum of a function of a variable code (that constitute the values, in the decimal system of

78
numeration, of the variable-code of the looked for solution). The initial variable code values

are generated aleatorily inside the interval of possible values of the solution variable code.

Searching solutions is carried out by the Non lineal Programming method of Localization of

the minimum of the function of one independent variable. The quality function Z can be

interpreted in the same way that Genetic Algorithms do, as fitness, and it could include the

result of the calculation of a penalty function for the no fulfillment of the restrictions. As a

particular case of penalty functions the rejection of non feasible solutions could be used. In

each localization iteration it is included in the population the found solutions, while the

population's size is smaller than the established one (CSol) or the population is upgraded in

case it already reached the established size. As upgrading it is understood the comparison

of the objective function value of the solutions generated in the given step, and in the case

the fitness of the just generated solution is better that the worse in the population solution

this last one is substituted by the just generated one. Once the foreseen precision is reached

the process of generation of x random values it is restarted.

In figure 24 the execution of a localization step by the proposed algorithm is illustrated. Two

variable codes are aleatory generated in the interval xinf -xsup. Of the three obtained

subintervals it is eliminated that one which contains the higher Z value and there are again

generated other two values inside the obtained subinterval. The process is repeated while

the longitude of the interval xinf-xsup is higher to a given precision. While the population's size

is inferior to settled down one, it is added into the population, in each step, the generated

solutions. Once reached the population's required size the Z values of both generated

solutions are compared with the Z value of the worst population solution, and in the event of

having smaller value of Z, the corresponding solution substitutes the worst in the population.

Once reached the precision (for the discrete case xsup-xinf 2) there are assigned to the

variables xsup and xinf its initial values. The process is repeated until a serial number of times

longer than a predetermined value, non population's solution is substituted.

79
The maximum value required for the variable code could be calculated, for a total of m

m
variable of the studied optimization problem as: Inter  MaxCod (i )
0
i 1

Where:

Inter0 = xsup: Initial longitude of the search interval.

MaxCod(i): Maximum number of foreseen solution options of the i variable.

For calculating the Z value according the associated procedure for each x generated

value it is required to convert that code value in solution options of each one of the m
80
 variables of the original task. A possible algorithm for decoding the generated values of any

variable code x it is the following one:

For i = 1 to m

Cod (i) = x mod MaxCod(i) + 1

x = [ x / MaxCod(i)]

Next i

Where:

Cod (i) : Serial number of solution option of the ith variable.

[a] : integer value of a.

Fig. 24. Illustration of the execution of one localization step.

Example 12: Optimal under multiple criteria design close hydraulic nets

The hydraulic nets are present in many engineering applications. Its design solutions require elaborated on the

base of high integration of the information related during the analysis the study process and of the application task,

of the modern methods of preparing and making decisions, as well as of the rational organization of the calculation

procedures. The hydraulic nets are much extended in engineering areas 

35
.

External analysis of the hydraulic nets design

The decision variables of the more spam system, associated to the given system constitute the coordination

variables of the studied design system:

 Space location of the net nodes.

 Node type (supply, consumption, mixed).

81
  Service destination of the net (flow type: oil, water, etc.).

 Type of the net (industrial, urban, etc.).

 Minimal adequate pressure in each node.

 Maximal necessary consumption in each node.

 Smaller and longer permissible perimeters in the circuits of the close net.

 Perimeters uniformity of the circuits of the net.

As efficiency indicators are settle down the following:

 Minimum value of energy losses.

 Minimal total cost of the net.

The decision variables of the system are the following ones::

 Tracts presence among nodes

 Pipe diameter in each tract.

 Height of pressure in each supply node

There are intermediate variables of the decider interest the following:

 Liquid speed in each tract.

 Height of pressure in the nodes.

Among the entrance data there are the following ones:

 Liquid temperature.

 Cinematic viscosity (according the liquid type) an temperature.

 Material of the pipe.

 Equivalent ruggedness (according the material of the pipe).

 Local resistance coefficient (according the accessory type).

 Unitary costs of all the elements involved in the economic calculations (materials, operations, etc.).

 Minimal and maximal of the speed and pressure values (according to the service destination of the

net).

Internal analysis of the hydraulic nets design task

Calculation of the system quality function

The minimization of the Tchebycheff distance from a wished solution until the criteria space is settled down as an

approximation to the utility multiple objective function. This allows seek adequate for generating solutions, close to

the decider preference system, efficient solutions modifying the corresponding weights.

Keeping in mind the efficiency indicators energy losses and total cost in the net, the pondered Tchebycheff

distance is minimized affecting each parameter for a weight settled down by the decider.

82
  E E id C C 
id
Z max 
w id
,
1w  id  (64)
 E C 
Where:
id
E, E ,: Total ideal and calculated energy losses in the net, respectively.
id
C, C : Total ideal and calculated costs of the construction of the net, respectively.

All hydraulic nets must satisfy restrictions related to the height of pressure in the nodes and speed of the flow in the

tracts
inf sup
Pi Pi Pi , i 1, ..., m (65)

inf sup
Vel j Vel j Vel j , j 1, ..., n (66)

Where:

Pi , Pi inf , Pi sup : Calculated pressure and lower and upper limits to the pressure settled down for the node i of the

net, respectively.

.Vel j , Vel j ,Vel sup

inf
j : Calculated speed and lower and upper limits to the speed settled down for the tract j of the

net, respectively.

The previous restrictions are taken in consideration by means of the calculation of the penalization function value

Pen according to the method of J. N. Kelley [ 29].

Keeping in mind the above-mentioned penalizations settled down for the no fulfillment of the restrictions to the

parameters of the net.

   
m m
Pen 10 25i Piinf Pi 10 25 i Pi Pi sup 
i 1 i 1

   
n n
10 25j Vel inf
j
Vel j 10 25j Vel j Vel sup
j
( 67 )
j 1 j 1

Where::


1If Pi Pi inf 
1 If Pi Pi sup
i  ; i  ;
0 in other case
 0 in other case


 inf
1If Vel j Vel j
  sup
1If Vel j Vel j

j  ; i  ;


0 in other case 

0 in other case

The generalized efficiency indicator for each net variant is calculated starting from the quality function plus the

penalization associated to non fulfillment of permissible speeds and pressures.

83
Generalized efficiency indicator

Z´ = Z + Pen (68)

Where:

Z´ : Generalized efficiency indicator for each net design variant.

Methodology to satisfy the preferences system of a potential decider:

1. Determination of the arrangement of the net with higher quantity of circuits.

2. Determination of the prioritized minimal net.

3. Generation of trajectory options of closed nets when modifying the one obtained in the step 1 and that contain

the one obtained in the step 2.

4. Generation of efficient hydraulic design solutions, close to the decider preference system

5. Selection of that solution that satisfies in the best way the complete decider preferences system

6. Elaboration of all the required technical information: drawings, reports and technical data charts.
25
The coefficient 10 in the expression (67) it is settled down with the objective of forcing to the strict execution

of the restrictions in expression (67). This value could, for selected restrictions, be reduced to very inferior values

(1000 - 10000) admitting its slight no fulfillments or, in other word, of taking in account, indirectly, its soft, fuzzy

character. The selection of one or another u among the generated options is carried out, under these conditions,

starting from the convenience or not of accepting certain "no fulfillments", in addition to the remaining subjective

factors to take in consideration.

Generation of nets trajectories variants

During the digitalization process and making the basic drawing, one should be sure about the correct organization

of the information that could be useful during the design process, which will be located in it respective layers, so

that it due classification was achieved for it later use [5, 30, 32, 48].

Keeping in mind the information contained in the drawing can be carried out the analysis of possible

trajectories variants of the hydraulic net, starting from the definition of the elements that will be part of the net.

The creation of the hydraulic net is carried out starting from the incorporation on the digitalized drawing of the

involved in the design process objects. These elements are drawing entities created by the CAD system options

that are related to each other, starting from a relationship entity diagram that guarantees the information

exchanging and searching during the automation of the calculation procedures and methods in the different stages

of the project.

Making the trajectory of the net with higher quantity of edges should be defined by the planner, keeping in

mind the subjective factors that allow integrating the design task to the more span system. The definition of the

prioritized net should keep in mind the connection of all the consumption and supply nodes, as well as the

84
convenience to the requirements of the more span system. In the figure 25 the prioritized net is shown according a

system proposal. It can be modified by the designer according own or customers´ criteria and subjective character

analysis [4, 34].

Considerations of priority could be considered as a function of proximity to industrial or tourist, as well as to

commercial centers, schools and hospitals areas trajectories. In the case of industrial nets the definition of more

priority pipes tracts must be considered as a function of the type of fluids, possibility of chemical accidents, among

others.

Starting from the net with higher quantity of edges the possibility is analyzed of eliminating those tracts that

don't belong to the prioritized net, maintaining the condition of meshed net, that means that the resulting net will

continue being closed [34] (Fig.26).

Fig. 25 Example of a minimal extension tree solution

Fig. 26 Example of a meshed trajectory variant

The decomposition by sectors is established to break into fragments the net in sectors of smaller size, with the

objective of guaranteeing appropriate system operability with view to repairs, rationalization of the supply or for the

rational organization of the system. With this end can could be used the listing of materials by sectors. This

operation is carried out creating new layers in AutoCAD and moving toward these layers the pipes tracts that are

wished according the specialist's opinion.

85
Generation of solutions population of hydraulic nets designs

The diameters could assume just discrete values given by the used norms and the available inventory. Starting

from dialogues for upgrading there are defined the possible combinations of diameters for each one of the tracts

that belong to the trajectory variant that is wanted to include in the design process. Just the previous non existent,

submitted to definition, tracts are shown. In this process it is possible to exempt of the variants analysis those tracts

of the net that, according the specialist's opinion, must be established recommended diameter value for belonging

to a branch or to be an exit of a supply source, or for any other reason.

Once chosen the trajectory, starting from multiple criteria and points of view and defined the combination of

diameters for each one of the tracts of the net, the Integration of Variables method is applied, using as search

algorithm the just studied Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a Variable Code. As a result it is

generated a population of solutions of hydraulic designs, solving, for each studied by the algorithm variant, the

system of equations that determine the hydraulic balance of the net, starting from technical criteria while minimizing

the energy losses obtained and from economic criteria while minimizing the costs associated to materials,

operations, etc. The priority of each one of the efficiency indicators: energy losses and cost is defined by the

planner (designer).

The representation of the results of the hydraulic calculation is carried out starting from a colors scale

keeping in mind the minimal, intermediate and maximal speed and pressure values required. This way the designer

will be able to examine each one of the population's solutions and to evaluate multiple criteria including the energy

losses and cost values of analyzed variant.

Besides showing all the hydraulic calculations, exit files are made for being able to load in other computational

systems showing, graphically, all the conceived in AutoCAD, including the technical parameters of each object [48].

This way all the hydraulic calculations carried out in the system could be validated by other, internationally

recognized, simulation systems.

Example 13: Comparison GA - Searching by Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a

Variable Code in the example of the optimal multiple objective design cutting and punching

dies

From the analysis presented in the epigraph I.3, example 8, it was illustrated the composition of the variables

involved in the optimal cutting and punching dies design task. Ahead, elements of the carried out synthesis work

on the associated system using AG and Searching by Random Localization of the Extreme of a Function of a

Variable Code algorithms as well as the comparison between the behaviors of both algorithms are exposed.

86
 In quality of objective - function the augmented Tchebycheff distance between the ideal to the criteria space is

adopted:

Z max w
i
i id
y i y i
id

/ y i  y i y i
i
id id
/ yi

Where:

id
Where y i, yi , wi : calculated and ideal values of the i efficiency indicator and the importance granted by the
user to each of them.

: small scalar

Multiple objective design using GA

In quality of solution algorithm a genetic algorithm is used 

10, 12, 46
.

For solving this task was determined:

 Coding system for all and each of the decision variables in binary character chains. The resulting
chain from the union of gene (variables) chains determines the code of the chromosomes
(solutions).

 The initial population generation procedure and it size.

 Fitness evaluating method

 Populations crossing and mutation procedure.

 .Stop criteria

Optimal multiple objective design using Random Localization of the Extremes of a Function of a Variable

Code algorithm (RLEVCA)

In the solution of the optimal multiple objective cutting and punching simple and progressive dies task was also

used the Localization of the Extremes of a Function of a Variable Code Algorithm (RLEVCA). According to the

formulated task, for the production of a given piece, a total of 131072 possible designs of dies exist, which

corresponds to different solution codes described in 

46
. For this reason the maximum value of the variable –

code used is equal to 131072.

With the purpose of maintaining similar conditions that in the case of using GA, the penalization function consists,

also in this case, in the rejection of the non feasible solutions.

Stop Criteria

The search procedure is repeated until reaching some of the following criteria



 The difference of the fitness values between the first and the last population solution overcomes 0.15.

87


 There are carried out 225 iterations without changing the fitness value of the population's last element.

For both algorithms the population's size is selected equal to 30.

Each x value generated by RLEVCA algorithm is converted to binary code and for this code all the indicators yi ,

the value of the utility multiple objective function Z and of the fitness value 1/Z are calculated and, if it is

required, the graphical 3 D and 2 D images are generated.

Numerical experiments

For carrying out the necessary experiments that allowed comparing both methods the TROQUEL 2003 System

was developed. In this system are applied both compared algorithms in the solution of the formulated task. In

figure 27 the functional outline obtained as a result of the synthesis of the system, that generates dies design

options close to the global optima of the utility function for both methods is shown.

Dies Designs members of the Populations were generated by 100 different executions of the GA and EAPSV

algorithms described for a concrete piece. As indicators of the operation efficiency of both algorithms the

following ones were considered:



 Total quantity of calculations (QC) of the objective function performed before reaching the final population



 Average minimum value reached by augmented Tchebycheff (AMTR) distance by the optimal solution for

different designs



 Average mean Tchebycheff distance value (AMTD) reached by the final population (



 Population's genetic diversity (GD) estimated as the sum of the normalized absolute deviations among the

solution codes generated with regard to its half value, according to the expression:

1 n x x
i
GD  
n i 1 x

The obtained results are shown in the following chart:

Indicators QC AMTR AMTD GD

Methods

GA 4560 0.32 0.43 0.1

RLEVCA 4443 0.31 0.41 0.3

As can be observed, the number of needed calculations of the objective function by RLEVCA it is of the same

order as by GA, reaching similar average objective function value, so for the best solution in the populations as

for its average values, although the genetic diversity turned out to be better for the case of the RLEVCA, what

88
 means that the decider could in practice choose among more different solutions with similar efficiency level.

For the same number of calculations of the objective function, the convergence speed for the RLEVCA

algorithm is really higher, because the quantity and complexity of the operations carried out by each objective

function calculation it is much inferior to by GA

I.5.2 Searching by Random Exploration of the Extreme of a Function of a Variable Code

In this case, instead of making evolve a variable code, several codes are simultaneously

made evolving. As by the previous algorithm random partitions are made but for each

combination of the internal points of the partitions the corresponding solutions by each

variable code is decoded and selected the component that belongs together with the

combination having the best objective function value. It is eliminated the subinterval of each
89
variable code that doesn't contain the component of the best solution among the 2n

evaluated ones. In each step the current variation interval of any variable code that fulfill the

condition that it is equal or less than 2 is totally opened up. This algorithm wil be called

REEVCA algorithm.

The same as for the previous algortihm, a solutions population is created and upgraded,

composed in this case by concrete values of n codes and of the objective function value.

The objective function value of the population's worst solution is compared with the

corresponding value of each solution generated in the search process and it is substituted,

in the case when the recently generated one improves it.

In the figure 28 the procedure of generation of codes combinations is illustrated for the

particular case of two variable codes. For each generated and decoded solutions

combination the objective function is calculated. The generated codes combination is

determined to which the smallest value of this function it is associated and the search

subinterval of each variable code is eliminated that doesn't contain the component of the

solution with this smaller value. The same as for the previous algorithm, the process stops

lapsed a number of successive iterations without improving the solutions quality.

90
Example 14: Irregular configuration pieces distribution on foils

This task is a part of the general irregular pieces fabrication on foils task, presented in the example 7 of this work in

its integration to the pieces design, technologies generation and production planning.

Conglomerates of pieces, restricted by the limits of the proper foil or for the fact of not existence of new pieces

to locate are created and evaluated. When being coupled two pieces a conglomerate it is settled down, which is

considered as a new piece for it later coupling with another, from the set of pieces candidates to conform it vicinity.

In the figure 29 the process of creation of three pieces conglomerate is illustrated.

Fig. 29 Conglomerates of pieces formation.

A bicriterial objective function is used that represents a commitment among the quality of the pieces coupling

and the quality of its insertion on the foil, with the particularity that the weight of the second indicator increases with

the increment of the dimensions of the conglomerate.

Pieces positioning on the foil

For the whole solution codes variation interval (serial numbers of the pieces) by the REEVCA algorithm a

population of pairs of coupled in conglomerates pieces is generated, orderly of according the objective function
91
values. Later on, successive populations of conglomerates are created by means the addition of a new piece using

the RLEVCA algorithm until a stop criterion is fulfilled. For each generated pieces distribution on the foil solution,

the cutting sequence optimization task is solved. Decider selects that solution that better satisfies its complete

preferences system.

The detailed solution to this task and it theoretical foundations will shortly appear published in the specialized

literature.

I.6 Some other investigations linked to the presented work

It becomes possible the enumeration of the following, among others, investigations of the author

and his collaborators, linked to the exposed results.

Basics:

 Procedures and corresponding software development for the approximate accumulative,

logarithmic posinomial and logarithmic signomial functions for processes identification.

 Heuristic procedure for searching in the environment for discrete great dimensional tasks,

particularly for the solution of clustering tasks.

Applied:

 Reactive power compensation in industrial electric supply nets.

 Sequence of cylinders changes in profiles lamination mills.

 Elaboration of regimes of mineral lixiviation processes operation.

 Elaboration of preventive maintenance planning graphics.

 Optimization of the destination of the heat produced in metallurgical plants.

 Substitution of Mn based ferroalloys by concentrate of Mn mineral in micro alloyed steel

production in electric arch furnaces (HAF).

II Conclusions

From the carried out work could be extracted, in the author's opinion, at least the following

conclusions:

92
 The results obtained in the field of Systems Theory allow facing appropriately and

rationally the systems analysis and synthesis problems with the application of effective

decisions making tasks decomposition procedures in linked subtasks.

 The most rational structure of the decisions making and preparing systems in complex

objects depends on the mathematical model structure that describes it.

 The carried out validation of the analysis and synthesis of engineering systems for the

preparing and making decisions under multiple criteria methodology proposed in an

important number of practical applications characteristic of several engineering areas allow

to expect it applicability to a wide group of other engineering tasks.

 The decisions making processes in great complexity systems could, at least in an

important number of cases, be separated into the stage of options generation processes of

the component subtasks and the later stage of options selection among these subtasks

solution populations. In the solution of the options selection tasks, depending on the

particularities of each concrete case, some of the studied algorithms of the Integration of

Variables method or another method among the available in the bibliography ones could be

used.

 Starting from the concept of the Integration of Variables method a wide road opens up for

the development of a family of new heuristics that can allow facing a great number of

applications associated to Non lineal and discrete optimization tasks in science and the

engineering areas.

 The Integration of Variables method and, particularly, the Random Localization of the

Extremes of a Function of a Variable Code Algorithm (RLEVCA) and for Random

Exploration Extremes of a Function of a Variable Code Algorithm (REEVCA) could be

considered as new tools added to the arsenal of the available optimization methods. The

algorithmic simplicity and the obtained numeric results show that the developed algorithms

can compete successfully with other heuristics, including the Genetic Algorithms.

93
III Bibliografía

1. ABELN, O. y D. KRAUSE. “The References Models for CAD Systems–on the way to a new
architecture”. Proceedings of ICED’95. Edition Heurista. Zurich, Suiza, 1995.
2. AHMAD, NAFIS. “Current Trend In Computer Aided Process Planning”. Proceedings of the
7th Annual Paper Meet and 2nd Intern. Conf. Bangladesh. Mech. Eng. Division 25-27, Paper
No. 10, October, 2001. pp. 81-92.
3. ARZOLA J. Selección de Propuestas, Editorial Científico Técnica, La Habana, 1989
4. ARZOLA J. Sistemas de Ingeniería, Editorial Felix Varela, La Habana, 2000.
5. ARZOLA J. Y O. MARTÍNEZ . “Selección Óptima bajo Criterios Múltiples de Aislamientos
Térmicos”, Proceeding del IV Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería IV
SELASI, La Habana, 2008
6. ARZOLA J. “Búsqueda Aleatoria del Extremo de una Función de un Código Variable”,
Proceeding del Congreso Internacional de Matemática y Computación COMPUMAT 2007,
Holguin, 2007.
7. ARZOLA J. , FIOL A. “Mathematical Formulation and system analysis of Engineering
Decision Making Tasks based on Principles of Cybernetic Approach”, Proceeding del III
Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería III SELASI, Curicó, Chile, 2007.
8. ARZOLA J. , G ONZÁLEZ I. Y OTROS . “Optimización de indicadores de calidad de la energía
en redes de suministro eléctrico industriales”, Proceeding del Congreso Internacional de
Energía Renovable CIER 2007, La Habana, 2007.
9. ARZOLA R. J. Y MOREJÓN V. G. “Diseño óptimo multiobjetivo orientado a la ingeniería
inversa en el ejemplo de los motores hidráulicos”. Proceeding de la XI Conferencia Latino -
Ibero americana de Investigación Operativa, Santiago de Chile, 2002.
10.ARZOLA R. J., SIMEÓN R.E. “Aplicación de los Algoritmos Genéticos al Diseño Óptimo
Multiobjetivo de Troqueles de Corte y Punzonado Simples y Progresivos”. Revista
Latinoamericana de Metalurgia y Materiales, Vol 22, N2, Caracas, 2003.
11.ARZOLA R. J. “La tarea de Selección de Propuestas bajo Criterios Múltiples. Métodos de
Solución”, Revista de Matemática, Vol. XI, N1, San José de Costa Rica, 2003.
12.ARZOLA R. J., SIMEÓN R.E, MACEO A.: “El Método de Integración de Variables: una
generalización de los Algoritmos Genéticos”, Proceeding del Intensive Workshop: Optimal
Design of Materials and Structures, París, Francia, 2003.
13. ARZOLA R. J.: “Búsqueda Aleatoria del Extremo de una Función de un Código Variable”,
Proceeding de la XII Conferencia Latino Ibero Americana de Investigación de Operaciones,
La Habana, 2004.
14. ARZOLA J., R. SIMEÓN: “Random Exploration of the Extremes of a Function of a Variable
Code: an application of the Integration of Variables Method”, Proceeding del I Seminario
Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería I SELASI, Trujillo, Perú, 2005.
15. ARZOLA J. “Análisis y Síntesis de Sistemas de Ingeniería para la preparación y toma de
decisiones bajo criterios múltiples”. Revista de Matemática (1), San José de Costa Rica,
2002.
16. Arzola J. “Aplicación del Método de Selección de Propuestas a la Descomposición de
Tareas Complejas de Optimización Discreta”. Proceeding de la X Conferencia Ibero
Latinoamericana de Investigación de Operaciones y Sistemas. Mexico, Sept. 2000.
17. ARZOLA J. Y L. SUÁREZ. Reglas de Conducta en la proyección y conducción de procesos
de calentamiento del acero. Rev. Argos (3), Saltillo, México, 1992.
18. AVILA R. Planeación optima Multiobjetivo del Maquinado en Tornos con CNC. Tesis en
opción al grado Científico de Doctor en Ciencias Técnicas, Holguín, 1999
19.ASHBY, W. R. Introduction to Cybernetics. Methuen, London, 1956.
20.BANA , C. A. E COSTA ED: Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer Verlag,
Berlin-Heidelberg, 1990.
21.BIN, WU. CAD “Interaction with CAPP”. Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis. Ed.
Chapman & Hall. Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, 1994.

94
22.BLANCHARD, B. S. Ingeniería de sistemas. Ed. Isdefe, Madrid, 1995.
23.CARBONELL T., J. ARZOLA Y O. MARTÍNEZ . Modelación de la operación de ruedas
desecantes razón 3:1 con silica gel en climas tropicales. Proceeding del IV Seminario Euro
Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería IV SELASI, La Habana, 2008.
24. B. CASALS Y J. ARZOLA. “Use of the explosion in materials technology” Proceeding of the
II International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials Technology, Sao Paolo, Brazil,
1997.
25. CASTILLO R. Y J. ARZOLA . “Modelación matemática de procesos de lixiviación de
minerales piríticos”. Proceeding de la IX Conferencia Internacional de Ingeniería y
Arquitectura, La Habana , 1998.
26.CHAKRABARTY, S. Y COL . A Structure-Oriented Approach to Assembly Sequence Planning.
Department of Computer Sciences, Texas A&M University, 1995.
27. CORDOVÉS A., ARZOLA J. “Diseño óptimo multiobjetivo de redes de conductos de
climatización”, Proceeding de la Convención Internacional de la Industria Metal Mecánica
Metánica 2007, La Habana, 2007
28. CORDOVÉS A., A. LASTRES, J. ARZOLA : “Diseño Optimo Multiobjetivo de Conductos de
Climatizacion”, Proceeding del I Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería
(I SELASI), Trujillo, Perú, 2005.
29. DAOU ,
K.; W ANG R. Z, XIA Z. Z.: "Renewable desiccant cooling air conditioning": a review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews XX, 1-23, 2004.
30.Dehumidification for all requirements. http://www.muntersamerica.com, 2002.
31. DÍAZ, A. Y OTROS: Optimización heurística y redes neuronales. Ed. Paraninfo, Madrid,
1996.
32. G ARDINER, L. R. AND R. E. STEUER : “Unified interactive multiple objective programming”.
Eur. J. Opl. Research 74, 1994.
33. G E, T. S.; Y. LI , R. Z. W ANG, Y. J. DAI. "A review of the mathematical models for predicting
rotary desiccant wheels". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12 1485–1528,
2008.
34. G UAN, Q. Y COL. “A Concurrent Hierarchical Evolution Approach to Assembly Process
Planning”, Int. J. Prod. Res., 2002. pp. 3357–3374.
35.HECHAVARRÍA J., J. ARZOLA Y A. CORDOVÉS . “Optimización bajo Criterios Múltiples del
Trazado y de la Dimensión de los Conductos de Redes Hidráulicas Cerradas”. Proceeding
del IV Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería (IV SELASI), La Habana,
2008.
36. HU, D. Y COL. "Mechanical Product Disassembly Sequence and Path Planning Based on
Knowledge and Geometric Reasoning". Intl. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 19, 2002. pp. 688-696.
37. HUANG, K.; H. S. I SMAIL, K. B. HON. “Automated design of progressive dies”. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, v 210 n B4,
1996.
38. JACHATUROV , V. Métodos matemáticos de la programación regional (en ruso). Ed.
Naúka, Moscú, 1989.
39. JWATA , K. Knowledge based computer aided process planning in intelligent
manufacturing systems. Ed. V. R. Milacic, Amsterdam, 1986.
40. KARAINOVA, J. N.: S. C. Narula and V. Vassilev. “An interactive procedure for multi-
objective integer programming”. Eur. J. Opl. Research 68, 1993.
41. KORHONEN , P. AND R. E. STEUER : An Heuristic For Estimating Nadir Criterion Values
in Multiple Objective Linear Programming. Graduate Programs in Management Science.
University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia, 1993.
42. LEE, D. H. Y COL. "Disassembly Sheduling for Products with Assembly Structure:
Integer Programming Approach". SFIT, Suiza, 2001.
43. LEWANDOWSKI, A. AND A. P. WIERZBICKI : Aspiration Based Decision Support Systems.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.

95
44. LUHMANN , N. Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Frankfurt,
Suhrkamp, 1984.
45. MACKI, J. AND A. STRAUSS: Introduction to Optimal Control Theory. Springer, New York,
1982.
46. MAN, K. F.; K. S. TANG AND S. KWONG . “Genetic Algorithms: Concepts and Applications”.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 1996; 43 (5):519-533.
47. Martínez, J., J. Llamos, A. García, T. Ortiz. “Rational Design Automation by Di-
chromatic Graphs”. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers in Engineering Conference (Paper DETC2001/DAC-21050), Pittsburgh,
USA, 2001.
48.MERTINS, K. AND B. WIENEKE: “State of the art in flexible manufacturing systems design”,
Production Planning and Control, vol. 2, Berlin, Alemania, 1991.
49. MESAROVIC, M. D.; D. MACKO, Y. TAKAHARA . Theory of hierarchical, multilevel systems.
Academic Press, New York-London, 1970.
50. MEYER, J., AND W. SCOTT. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality: Beverly
Hills, 1983
51. MICHALEWICZ , Z. AND M. SCHOENAUER. „Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained
Parameter Optimization Problems”. Evolutionary Computation 1996, 4(1): 1-32.
52. MILNER, D. A. AND VASILIOU . “The integration of CAD and CAM”. Computer–Aided
Engineering for Manufacture. Ed. Kogan Page Ltd, London, UK, 1994.
53. MITCHELL F. H. CIM Systems. An introduction to Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Ed.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991.
54.MOREJÓN G., J. ARZOLA : Desarrollo de productos orientados a una capacidad tecnológica
disponible, en el ejemplo de Hidromotores de alto par, Proceeding del I Seminario Euro
Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería (I SELASI), Trujillo, Perú, 2005.
55.NAVAS E. Y ARZOLA J. “System Análisis of the task of the use of Mn mineral as a
substitute of ferroalloys in steel production in Electric Arc Furnaces”, Proceeding del III
Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería (III SELASI), Curicó, Chile,
2007.
56.PERALTA J. ,HERNANDEZ A., ARZOLA J. Y MOREJÓN G. “Una aplicación de los Grafos
Dicromáticos en el modelamiento matemático del drenaje de acuíferos subterraneos”,
Proceeding del III Seminario Euro Latinoamericano de Sistemas de Ingeniería (III SELASI),
Curicó, Chile, 2007.
57.ROLLER, D. AND P. BRUNET. CAD Systems Development. Tools and Methods. University
of Sttugart, Germany, 1997.
58.OGATA, K. Ingeniería de control moderna. Ed. Prentice Hall, México D.F., 1990.
59.ROY, B. Méthodologie Multicritere a la Decision: Méthodes et. Cas, Economica, Paris,
1993.
60.RUDD, D. F. AND CH. C. WATSON. Strategy of Process Engineering. John Wil ley, New
York, 1968.
61. SAATY, T. L. “Exploring the interface between hierarchies, multiple objectives and fuzzy
sets”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1978):57-68.
62. SANTANA R. Y J. ARZOLA . “Diseño de herramientas de forja bajo criterios múltiples”.
Proceeding de la VI Conferencia Internacional de software de ingeniería. Holguin, 1995.
63. STEUER, R. E. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Applications.
Willey, New York, 1986.
64. VON BERTALANFFY , L. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications.
New York, George Braziller, 1968.
65. W ANG, F.; XIAO , X.; LI , J. “Development of intelligent CAD/CAM systems for progressive
dies”. Proceeding of Int. Conference on Intelligent Manufacturing. Wuhan, República
Popular China, 1995.
66. W ANG, P. AND D. P. KOWK. “Optimal design of pid process controllers based on genetic
algorithms”. Contr. Eng. Practice 1994, 2 (4):641-648.

96
67. W ECK, M.; W. KONIG, J. LAUSCHER. “Assimilation of a common CAD/CAM system into
dies and molds manufacturing”. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Production
Engineering Division V32 Pub by ASME. New York, 1992. pp. 119-133.
68. W EINBERG, G. M. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Dorset House
Publishing, 2002.
69. W IENER, N. Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and Machine.
Willey, N. Y., 1949.
70. W IERZBICKI, A. P. “The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization”. En
Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Theory and Application (G. Fandel y T. Gal) Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1980. pp. 468-486.
71. W ILLIAMS. D. J. Manufacturing Systems. And introduction to the technologies. Chapman-
Hall. UK, 1994.
72.YIN, Z. P. Y COL. “A Connector-Based Hierarchical Approach to Sequence Planning for
Mechanical Assemblies”. Computer Aided Design, N3, 2003.
73. Z ADEH, L. "Biological application of the theory of fuzzy sets and systems" Proceedings of
an International Symposium on Biocybernetics of the Central Nervous System. Little Brown,
Boston, 1969. pp. 199-206.
74. Z EID, I. CAD/CAM Theory and Practice. McGraw Hill. USA, 1991.
75. Z ELENY, M. Multiple Criteria decision-making, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.
76. Z HANG, H. AND L. ALTIN . Computarized Manufacturing Process Planning Systems.
Chapman & Hall. USA, 1994.

97
 Author data

Address(es) Edif. 72, Apto. 23, Rpto. Alberro, Cotorro, C. Habana, Cuba.
Telephone(s) (+536) 266 3754, (+536) 881 44 01
Fax(es) 053-260 – 4618
E-mail jararzola@ceter.cujae.edu.cu
Nationality Cuban
th
Date of birth Septerber, 16 , 1945
Gender Male
Research Professor
Work experience 37 years
Dates 1971 to 2008
Occupation or position held Professor and Researcher.
Main activities and responsibilities Research and PhD tutorship.
Name and address of employer Instituto Superior Politécnico “José Antonio Echeverría”,

Graduated in Metallurgical Engineering in April 1971 in Polytechnic Institute of Leningrad, USSR, he has occupied
different occupations in Antillana de Acero Steel Plant, in Havana, Cuba, during 20 year, Professor and Researcher
of Instituto Superior Politécnico of Havana, Cuba, where created the pregraduate and post graduate courses on
Engineering Systems for Preparing and Making Decisions under Multiple Criteria. He has imparted some other
pregraduate and postgraduate courses in Cuba and in foreign countries. He is a Member of the National Comission
of Scientific Degrees (Ph. D.’s) in Metallurgical Engineering of Cuba. He is consultant and asesor in several
universities. Has obtained several national awards, has been tutor of several M. Sc. and Ph. D. theses, has
organized and executed several national and international research projects.

98