Design Optimization: Past, Present

and Future
By Bruce Jenkins
December 1, 2016

Size optimization with Tosca Structure done on a vehicle model developed by The
National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) of The George Washington University under a
contract with the FHWA and NHTSA of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Image courtesy
of Dassault Systèmes.

Design space exploration and design optimization software tools let

engineers systematically and automatically investigate very large
numbers of design alternatives to identify those with the most optimal
performance parameters. Many of the quantitative and algorithmic
methods that underpin design exploration and optimization have been
long known—and sometimes applied—in cases where the attendant
costs in expertise, time and labor could be justified. What’s changing
now is the way that fresh software technologies are transforming
these powerful but formerly difficult-to-apply methods into practical,
everyday engineering aids.

Reaching Functional Maturity

Many design exploration and optimization software products
originated as solutions for a comparatively narrow set of user
requirements. Some focused on a specific application such as
multidisciplinary design optimization. Others began as environments
for integrating customers’ existing simulation software tools then
building on those chained data flows to automate the setup and
execution of analysis and optimization problems. Over time, most
evolved to offer all the primary functions of design
exploration/optimization software environments—design of
experiments and various kinds of optimization, supported by
simulation process automation and multi-tool integration.

Faster Implementation from Off-the-Shelf Integration

Design exploration and optimization software typically works by
exercising digital product models and simulation/analysis solver
codes across a range of parameter values and defined functional
conditions to characterize and optimize the performance of a design.
Adoption of the technology was long hampered by the difficulty of
integrating it with user organizations’ existing modeling, simulation
and analysis tools. Indeed, the expense of developing those
integrations on a custom basis, and the consequent long, slow
implementation cycles, soured many early adopters on the experience
in the 1990s and early 2000s. Accordingly, today’s software vendors
make it a point to offer off-the-shelf integration with as many product
modeling environments and simulation/analysis codes as their
development budgets will allow, often presenting their list of ready-
to-go integrations as a key selling point.
Making design space exploration software speak the language of
engineers instead of mathematicians has been a focus of development
since the industry’s inception. Fortunately for practitioners,
developers have made great strides on this front in the past handful of
years. Parameter tuning, manual selection of statistical search
methods and other problem setup requirements that long made the
tools intimidating to learn and painful to use are today being
minimized and even almost eliminated. They are being replaced by
increasingly capable and intelligent software aids that let engineers
characterize design problems in more natural ways, then have the
software select appropriate settings and solution algorithms. New
developments in self-adapting solution search techniques are
delivering still more progress on this front.

Foundations in PIDO: Process Integration and Design

Optimization
Design space exploration as an engineering formalism originated in
the embedded systems industry as a set of methodologies for
hardware/software co-design, configuration of software product lines
and real-time software synthesis. In mechanical engineering, design
space exploration is rooted in the technological domain often referred
to as process integration and design optimization (PIDO) first
identified and defined in 2001 (by this article’s author) as software
and methods that help automate and manage the setup and execution
of digital simulation and analysis tasks; coordinate and integrate
simulation results from multiple disciplines and domains to produce a
more holistic virtual model of product performance; and optimize one
or more aspects of the design by iterating analyses across a range of
parameter values toward specified target conditions while observing
defined problem constraints.

Current capabilities of design optimization and design space exploration. Image courtesy
of Ora Research.
Core capabilities of today’s commercial software offerings in this
domain typically include:

• Design of experiments (DOE)

• Response surface modeling (RSM)
• Design optimization
◦ Geometry optimization
◦ Parameter optimization
◦ Multidisciplinary optimization (MDO)
◦ Multi-objective (Pareto) optimization
◦ Robustness-and-reliability (stochastic) optimization
◦ Systems-level optimization
• Process automation
• Multi-tool integration

Design of Experiments (DOE)

Design of experiments (DOE) studies are used to predict design
sensitivities and/or gain a better understanding of the design space.
Their aim is to extract the maximum amount of information quickly
with the least computational or experimental effort. In a DOE study,
an analysis model is automatically evaluated multiple times, with the
design variables set to different values in each iteration. The results
identify which variable(s) affect the design the most, and which the
least. This allows variables that are not important to be ignored
subsequently, or set to values that are most convenient or least costly.
More specifically, a designed experiment is a structured set of tests of
a system or process. Integral to a designed experiment are response(s),
factor(s) and a model.
• A response is a measurable result: fuel mileage (automotive),
deposition rate (semiconductor), reaction yield (chemical process).
• A factor is any variable that the experimenter judges may affect a
response of interest. Common factor types include continuous (may
take any value on an interval; e.g., octane rating), categorical (having
a discrete number of levels; e.g., a specific company or brand) and
blocking (categorical, but not generally reproducible; e.g., automobile
driver-to-driver variability).
• A model is a mathematical surrogate for the system or process.
The experiment consists of exercising the model across some range of
values assigned to the defined factors. In deciding what values to
use—more precisely, in deciding a strategy for choosing values—the
goal is to achieve coverage of the design space that yields maximum
information about its characteristics with the least possible
experimental (computational) effort, and with confidence that the set
of points sampled gives a representative picture of the entire design
space. Numerous sampling methods exist to do this. Which to use
depends on the nature of the problem being studied, and on the
resources available: time, computational capacity and how much is
already known about the problem.

Response Surface Modeling (RSM)

The results of a DOE sampling process can be used to generate an
approximate model of the system being studied, generally called a
response surface model (RSM). The RSM is generated by
interpolating between the discrete DOE results to create a continuous
surface map or model. These models are very convenient for
visualizing the design space, examining relationships among variables
and their effects on key responses, and rapidly evaluating design
alternatives without performing additional expensive CAE
evaluations or experiments.

Design Optimization
Topology optimization is the first thing many people think of when
they hear the term “optimization” in the context of engineering design.
But topology optimization is just one kind of geometry
optimization—and that, in turn, is only one of six broad classes of
optimization technology commercially available today. (Editor’s
Note: See “The Six Types of Optimization Defined” section below.)
The power of all the various numerical methods is their ability to
rationally, rapidly and automatically search through large numbers of
design alternatives for the best possible design(s). Parameters in a
design that can be varied to search for a top design are design
variables. Given these, design can be structured as the process of
finding the minimum or maximum of some attribute, termed the
objective function. For a design to be acceptable, it also must satisfy
certain requirements, or design constraints. Optimization is the
process of automatically changing the design variables to identify the
minimum or maximum of the objective function while satisfying all
the required design constraints.

Simulation Process Automation

The power of PIDO is grounded in chained simulation process flows,
in which parameters and results from one software tool are
automatically provided as inputs to another. Beyond eliminating the
time and error penalties of manual data extraction and reentry,
automating the manipulation and mapping of data between process
steps makes it feasible to combine simulation models and applications
from multiple disciplines and physical domains for a holistic model of
product performance, then automate their execution across a range of
values hundreds or thousands of times to explore and map the
potential design space.

The Six Types of Optimization Defined

1. Geometry optimization denotes automated, software-driven
optimization of a structure’s topology, shape, size, topography or
topometry to satisfy operating limits imposed on the response of the
structure—which response is typically calculated either by structural
analysis, or by CFD analysis—and by further limits imposed on the
values that the structural parameters can assume.
Topology optimization tools work by optimizing material layout
within a given physical design volume, for a given set of loads and
boundary conditions, so that the resulting layout meets prescribed
targets for strength, stiffness and/or other performance attributes. This
is often used to identify a conceptual design that best meets specified
design requirements, which is then refined for performance and
manufacturability. It frequently yields biomorphic-appearing shapes
better suited to additive than subtractive manufacturing, requiring
modification for conventional manufacturing.
Shape optimization software optimizes structural shapes by adjusting
the surface shape of a 2D or 3D solid to minimize volume while
satisfying stress and/or displacement constraints (generically termed a
cost functional). In many cases, solving the functional consists of
solving a given partial differential equation defined on the variable
domain.
Size optimization applications work by modifying size-related
properties of structural elements such as shell thickness, beam cross-
sectional properties, spring stiffness and mass to solve the
optimization problem.
Topometry optimization is similar to topology optimization but
applied to 2D elements, with the variables restricted to the element-
wise thicknesses.
Topography optimization, like topometry optimization, is applicable
only to 2D or shell elements, and aims at finding the optimum bead
pattern for a component.

2. Parameter optimization, in some respects a more generalized

version of geometry optimization, is a procedure for finding values
for any parameter(s) in a design—not just geometric parameters—that
are optimal in some defined respect, such as minimization of a
specified objective function over a defined data set.

3. Multidisciplinary optimization (MDO) incorporates all relevant

disciplines—structural (linear or nonlinear, static or dynamic, bulk
materials or composites), fluid, thermal, acoustic, NVH (noise,
vibration and harshness), multibody dynamics, or any combination—
simultaneously in an optimization problem. By exploiting interactions
among different disciplines, MDO can identify design solutions that
are superior to those arrived at by optimizing each discipline
sequentially, and at substantially lower costs in time and labor.

4. Multi-objective (Pareto) optimization is a numerical method for

addressing the fact that real-world optimization problems usually
have more than one objective. In optimizing a structural design, for
example, the desired design would be both lightweight and rigid.
Because these two objectives conflict, a tradeoff must be made. The
set of tradeoff designs that cannot be improved on according to one
criterion without harming another criterion is called the Pareto set.
For the example shown on the facing page, the curve plotting the best
design candidates’ inlet pressure against velocity difference is the
Pareto frontier.

Multi-objective (Pareto) optimization. Image courtesy of Noesis Solutions.

A design is judged to be Pareto-optimal, Pareto-efficient or in the

Pareto set if it is not dominated by any other design. Once the Pareto
set has been identified, the action of comparing the various Pareto-
optimal solutions to choose the preferred solution for the specific case
under consideration is based on exogenous factors (outside the
computer model), and is carried out by human decision-makers.

5. Robustness-and-reliability (stochastic) optimization tools address

the reality that product designs are nominal, while manufacturing and
operating conditions are real data. Finite geometric tolerances,
variations in material properties, uncertainty in loading conditions and
other variances encountered by a product in either production or use
can cause it to perform slightly differently from its nominal, as-
designed values. Therefore, robustness and reliability as design
objectives beyond the nominal design are often desirable.
Performance of robust and reliable designs is less affected by these
expected variations, and remains at or above specified acceptable
levels in all conditions.
Robust design optimization. Image courtesy of OptiY.

To evaluate the robustness and reliability of a design during

simulation, its variables and system inputs are made stochastic—that
is, defined in terms of both a mean value and a statistical distribution
function. The resulting system performance characteristics are then
measured in terms of a mean value and its variance.
6. Systems-level optimization is becoming increasingly practical
through integration among design exploration and optimization
software applications, and systems modeling and 0D/1D simulation
tools. Systems modeling software consists of tools and languages for
systems engineering—the specification, analysis, design, verification
and validation of systems and systems-of-systems—while 0D/1D
simulation software uses the time dimension only (0D), or time plus a
single spatial dimension (1D). Together, systems modeling and
0D/1D simulation are used early to make a product’s crucial high-
level functional and architectural decisions.
Design Space Exploration and Design Optimization Software
Vendors and Products

1 Altair Engineering Inc. HyperStudy, OptiStruct, solidThinking Inspire

2 ANSYS Inc. DesignXplorer, Adjoint Solver, Optimetrics
3 Autodesk Inc. Inventor Shape Generator, Simulation Mechanical Design
Optimization, Simulation CFD Design Study Environment, Within,
Project Dreamcatcher
4 CEI Inc. EnSight
5 Cenaero ASBL Minamo
6 Collier Research Corporation HyperSizer
7 Comet Solutions Inc. SimApps, SimApp Authoring Workspace
8 COMSOL Inc. Multiphysics Optimization Module
9 Concepts NREC TurboOPT II
10 DATADVANCE LLC pSeven, pSeven Core, pSeven Cloud
11 DecisionVis ExplorerDV
12 divis intelligent solutions GmbH ClearVu Global Optimizer
13 Dynamic Design Solutions NV FEMtools Optimization
14 Dynardo GmbH optiSLang
15 eArtius Inc. eArtius Pareto Explorer
16 ESI Group ESI MINESET Predictive Analytics Solution, Virtual
Performance Solution Multi-domain Optimization, Adjoint Optimization
Solver
17 ESTECO s.p.a. modeFRONTIER, SOMO
18 Exa Corporation PowerFLOW Optimization Solution
19 FEA-Opt Technology Co. Ltd. SmartDO
20 FINNOPT Oy FINNOPT Platform
21 FRIENDSHIP SYSTEMS AG CAESES
22 FunctionBay, Inc. RecurDyn/AutoDesign
23 Gamma Technologies LLC GT-SUITE DOE Design Tool, DOE-POST,
Optimization Algorithms
24 iChrome Ltd. Nexus
25 InModelia Neuro Pex
26 INTES GmbH PERMAS-OPT, PERMAS-TOPO
27 LIONlab LIONsolver
28 LSTC LS-OPT
29 Maplesoft Maple Optimization Package
30 MathWorks Simulink Design Optimization
31 MSC Software Corporation MSC Nastran Multi-run & Design Space
Exploration, MSC Nastran Design Optimization
32 NASA Glenn Research Center OpenMDAO
33 NISA Software CSIL NISAOPT
34 Noesis Solutions NV Optimus, id8
35 nTopology Inc. Element
36 Optimal Solutions Software, LLC Sculptor
37 OptiY GmbH OptiY
38 Phoenix Integration, Inc. ModelCenter Integrate, ModelCenter Explore,
ModelCenter Organize
39 PIDOTECH, Inc. PIAnO
40 POLOPT Technologies GmbH POLOPT/Optim
41 PTC Creo BMX (Behavioral Modeling Extension)
42 Quint Corporation OPTISHAPE-TS
43 RAMDO Solutions LLC RAMDO (Reliability Analysis &
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization)
44 RBF Morph RBF Morph
45 Sandia National Laboratories Dakota
46 SciArt, LLC CloudTopOpt, ParetoWorks
47 Siemens PLM Software, Inc. Geometry Optimization, FE Parameter
Optimization, LMS Amesim Design Exploration, STAR-CCM+
/Enabling Optimate, STAR-CCM+ /Enabling Optimate+, HEEDS MDO,
HEEDS NP, HEEDS POST
48 Sigma Technology IOSO
49 SIMULIA (Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA Corp.) Isight, Tosca Structure,
Simulation Process & Optimization (SPI)
50 SmartUQ LLC SmartUQ
51 SOLIDWORKS (Dassault Systèmes SOLIDWORKS Corp.)
SOLIDWORKS Simulation Structural Optimization
52 TechnoSoft Inc. Adaptive Modeling Language (AML)
53 Tecplot Inc. Tecplot Chorus
54 Vanderplaats Research & Development Inc. GENESIS, DOT, BIGDOT,
VisualDOC
55 Virtual.PYXIS GmbH Virtual.PYXIS

— This list is representative but not exhaustive. HEEDS MDO,

HEEDS NP, HEEDS POST was accidentally edited out of the
author’s original submission. The editors regret the omission.