No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A TOPOLOGICAL FORMALISM FOR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DESIGN SPACES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2021
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The objective of this paper is to present a mathematically grounded description of the two topological spaces for the design problem and the design solution. These spaces are derived in a generalized form such that they can be applied by researchers studying engineering design and developing new methods or engineers seeking to understand the influence that changes in the problem space have on the solution space. In addition to the formal definitions of the spaces, including assumptions and limitations, three types of supported reasoning are presented to demonstrate the potential uses. These include similarity analysis to compare spaces, an approach to sensitivity analysis of the solution space to changes in the problem space, and finally a distance measure to determine how far a current proposal is to the feasible solution space. This paper is presented to establish a common vocabulary for researchers when discussing, studying, and supporting the dyadic nature of engineering design (problem-solution co-evolution).
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Anandan, S., Teegavarapu, S. and Summers, J.D. (2006), “Issues of similarity in engineering design”, in: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Vol. 4255, pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
Blonder, B. (2018), “Hypervolume concepts in niche-and trait-based ecology”, Ecography, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 1441–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, J. and Dittmar, A. (2017), “Formal definitions for design spaces and traces”, in: 2017 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), IEEE, pp. 600–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinar, M., Shah, J., Hunt, G., Campana, E. and Langley, P. (2011), “Towards a formal representation model of problem formulation in design”, in: International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 54860, pp. 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function–behaviour–structure framework”, Design studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1992), “The structure of design problem spaces”, Cognitive science, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. and Jarvis, A. (2005), “Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas”, International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 25 No. 15, pp. 1965–1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshorn, S.R., Voss, L.D. and Bromley, L.K. (2017), Nasa systems engineering handbook, Technical Report NASA/SP-2016-6105 REV 2, NASA.Google Scholar
INCOSE (2015), “Guide for writing requirements”, Version 2. Prepared by: Requirements Working Group.Google Scholar
Jaccard, P. (1912), “The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. 1”, New phytologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Bellotti, V.M. and Moran, T.P. (1991), “Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis”, Human–computer interaction, Vol. 6 No. 3-4, pp. 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M.L., Poon, J. and Boulanger, S. (1996), “Formalising design exploration as co-evolution”, in: Advances in formal design methods for CAD, Springer, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Pérez, L., Messager, L., Gaitzsch, J., Joseph, A., Sutto, L., Gervasio, F.L. and Battaglia, G. (2016), “Molecular engineering of polymersome surface topology”, Science advances, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. e1500948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schätz, B., Hölzl, F. and Lundkvist, T. (2010), “Design-space exploration through constraint-based model-transformation”, in: 2010 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, IEEE, pp. 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddique, Z. and Rosen, D.W. (2001), “On combinatorial design spaces for the configuration design of product families”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G.G. (1943), “Mammals and the nature of continents”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 241 No. 1, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taura, T. and Yoshikawa, H. (1994), “Managing function concepts in the design process”, in: Management of Design, Springer, pp. 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, L. (2018), “Topological data analysis”, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, Vol. 5, pp. 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, J. and Gao, T. (2016), Topology optimization in engineering structure design, Elsevier.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access