1 Copyright 1997 by ASME

Proceedings of DETC97:
1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
September 14-17, 1997, Sacramento, California
DETC97DAC3961
MULTIOBJECTIVE FLYWHEEL DESIGN:
A DOE-BASED CONCEPT EXPLORATION TASK
Uwe Lautenschlager and Hans A. Eschenauer
Research Center for Multidisciplinary Analysis
and Applied Structural Optimization (FOMAAS)
University of Siegen, 57068 Siegen, Germany
Email: lauten@fb5.uni-siegen.de
Email: esch@fb5.uni-siegen.de
Farrokh Mistree
Systems Realization Laboratory
G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405, U.S.A.
Email: farrokh.mistree@me.gatech.edu
ABSTRACT
In structural design, expensive function evaluations can be
replaced by accurate function approximations to facilitate the
effective solution of multiobjective problems. In this paper we
address the question: How can we solve multiobjective shape
optimization problems effectively using a Design-of-
Experiments (DOE) -based approach? To answer this question
we address issues of creating non-orthogonal experimental
designs, when dependencies among the parameters that represent
shape functions are present. A screening strategy is used to
gain knowledge about the structural behavior within the design
space and the trade-off among multiple design objectives is
efficiently modeled through employing response surfaces during
design optimization. The shape optimization of a flywheel
where two conflicting design goals are present is used to
illustrate the approach. Our focus is on the method rather than
the results per se.
KEYWORDS: multicriteria optimization, structural
design, design-of-experiments, response surface methodology,
compromise Decision Support Problem (DSP)
NOMENCLATURE
d
i

, d
i
+
deviation variables
h(r) variable disk thickness
m mass
T kinetic energy
P control point
r radius
r, , z cylindrical coordinates
material density
Poissons ratio
angular velocity
stress
stress function
()
i
,

()
o
inner, outer value
()
rr
,

()

radial, tangential component

()
r
reference value
()
adm
admissible value
()
max
, ()
min
maximum, minimum value
1 TECHNICAL FOUNDATION
1. 1 Multiobjective Optimization
The application of Vector, Multiobjective, or Multicriteria
Optimization techniques (MO-techniques) is primarily due to
the fact that nowadays the machine design does not only require
a minimization of costs, but also other objectives like
reliability, accuracy, etc. The objectives which are mostly
competitive and nonlinear do not lead to one solution point for
the optimum but rather to a "functional-efficient" (PARETO-
optimal) solution set, i.e. the decision maker selects the most
efficient compromise solution out of such a set. The use of
preference functions transforms the multicriteria optimization
problem into a scalar substitute problem. This optimization
strategy is the basic part of the optimization model (Eschenauer,
et al., 1990). MO problems can best be solved using numerical
methods based on mathematical programming. For the solution
of optimization problems in structural design, the Three-
Column-Model (Eschenauer, et al., 1993) has been applied
successfully in many cases. It consists of the three columns
2 Copyright 1997 by ASME
structural model, optimization model, and optimization
algorithms which are integrated within one optimization loop.
The general nonlinear MO problem is defined as follows
(Eschenauer, et al., 1990):
" Min"
x
n
f (x)| h(x)= 0, g(x) 0 { } , (1)
with
n
set of real numbers (n-dimensional),
f vector of the k objective functions,
x vector of the n design variables,
h vector of the q equality constraints, and
g vector of the p inequality constraints.
We have a Scalar Optimization Problem (SOP), if only one
objective is considered. In the case of an MO, objective
conflicts occur, i.e., no design variable vector allows a
simultaneous fulfillment of all objectives. MOs can be solved
through defining substitute problems and by that reducing the
MO to a SOP like the objective weighting (archimedean), the
constraint-oriented transformation (trade-off method), or
modeling different priority levels (preemptive) for the
objectives. The definition of a substitute problem then reads
(Eschenauer, et al., 1990):
{ } Min p
n
x
f x h x 0 g x 0

= [ ] ( ) | ( ) , ( ) , (2)
with the preference or substitute function p[f(x)].
1. 2 Compromise Decision Support Problem
Modeling MO problems is a key and vital issue in
concurrent design. The initial mathematical problem
description, referred to as the baseline model, can be modeled
using different design strategies with appropriate algorithms and
software available in the design domain (Mistree, et al., 1994).
In the current case study, the compromise Decision Support
Problem (DSP) is used to model engineering decisions
involving multiple trade-offs. The compromise DSP is a
hybrid multiobjective programming model (Bascaran, et al.,
1987; Mistree, et al., 1993). It incorporates concepts from both
traditional Mathematical Programming and Goal Programming
(GP). The compromise DSP is similar to GP in such a way
that the multiple objectives are formulated as system goals
(involving both system and deviation variables) and the
deviation function is solely a function of the goal deviation
variables. In the compromise formulation, the set of system
constraints and bounds define the feasible design space and the
sets of system goals define the aspiration space. For feasibility,
the system constraints and bounds must be satisfied. A
satisficing
1
solution then is that feasible point that achieves the

1
Satisficing solutions are good enough but not necessarily the best
(Simon, 1981).
system goals as far as possible. The solution to this problem
represents a trade-off between that which is desired (as modeled
by the aspiration space) and that which can be achieved (as
modeled by the design space). Two types of objective functions
are permitted. The Archimedean form is used when the relative
importance of different objectives is known and the Preemptive
form, lexicographic minimum concept (Ignizio, 1985), is
applied to model objectives at different priority levels. The
lexicographic minimum concept is appropriate for use in the
early stages of design where minimal information is available
concerning the weights of the goals. Different quality scenarios
can quickly be evaluated by changing the priority levels of the
goals to be achieved.
1. 3 DOE-based Concept Exploration
The formal techniques which support the design and
analysis of experiments are called DOE techniques. DOE is a
statistical approach for solving problems from engineering to
social science (Box, et al., 1978; Montgomery, 1991). In the
early stages of designing complex systems, it is advantageous
to explore the design space to determine a suitable range of
specifications and identify feasible starting points for design
optimization. DOE can be utilized for this purpose. Based on
DOE techniques, response function approximations are
frequently used to replace expensive function evaluations in
structural optimization (Barthelemy and Haftka, 1993; Roux, et
al., 1996; Schoofs, et al., 1992). However, the problems are
often limited in complexity. Our frame of reference for the
multiobjective design of a flywheel is a Robust Concept
Exploration Method (RCEM) where several statistical methods,
i.e., DOE techniques, response surface methodology and robust
design are integrated within the compromise DSP (Chen, et al.,
1996). The RCEM is developed as a step-by-step approach to
facilitate quick evaluation of different design alternatives and the
generation of a ranged set top-level design specifications with
quality considerations (robust design) in the early stages of
design. It is primarily useful for designing complex systems
and computationally expensive design analysis. There are four
major steps involved, namely, "classify design parameters",
"screening experiments", "elaborate the response surface
models" and "generate top-level design specifications with
quality considerations". In this paper, we are considering the
following steps in our design approach:
Step 1: DOE-based screening experiments and design
model reduction (Section 5.1),
Step 2: secondary experiments and response surface models
(Section 5.2),
Step 3: top-level design specifications through modeling
the design trade-off (Section 5.2).
3 Copyright 1997 by ASME
In Section 2 we develop the structural analysis model of a
flywheel that is used to illustrate our approach. The
formulation of the compromise DSP for the flywheel is given
in Section 3. Experimental designs for shape optimization
problems are introduced in Section 4 and in Section 5, our
approach is applied to the flywheel design and solutions are
given.
2 STRUCTURAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS
The classical design objective for a flywheel is to maximize
the capacity of the stored kinetic energy while satisfying
constraints on the mass and stress limits. This problem has
been studied extensively in the design literature, e.g., (Berger
and Porat, 1988; Bhavikatti and Ramakrishnan, 1980; Sandgren
and Ragsdell, 1983). Recent interest has been influenced by the
availability of affordable high strength, lightweight composite
materials, advancements in low loss bearings, and demands for
vehicular and electric utility energy storage (Grudkowski, et al.,
1996). The emphasis in the current study is to examine the
applicability of a DOE-based and response surface approach in a
shape optimization problem with multiple objectives. The
non-uniform flywheel profile has been represented in form of
various FOURIER series. Sandgren (Sandgren and Ragsdell,
1983) consider the shape to be described through a sine series
with one to seven coefficients. Vadde (Vadde, 1995) uses a
FOURIER series with three equal coefficients for the sine and
cosine terms. Rao and coworkers (Rao, et al., 1996) include
three sine and three cosine terms in their work. In this study,
the nonuniform profile of the flywheel is represented through
BEZIER curves. A sketch of the profile is given in Figure 1.
disk
shaft

h
(
r
)
ro
ri
r
z
Figure 1 -- Sketch of a flywheel profile
The structural analysis of the flywheel can be separated into
the analysis of the shaft and the analysis of the disk. The torque
of shaft can be transmitted into the disk with a key or a shrink
fit. The shaft and disk are both considered rigid and the system
is assumed to be stable without whirling. For the current
model the role of the shaft is neglected for simplicity, although
the shaft-disk connection is a very important aspect for the
boundary condition during disk analysis. We analyze the stress
state, the mass and the kinetic energy. The mathematical model
for calculating the stress distribution in the disk with
nonuniform profile is adopted from (Sandgren and Ragsdell,
1983). Shear stresses are neglected, therefore, the radial and
tangential stresses,
rr
and

respectively, are the principal

stresses and assumed to be uniform across the thickness. The
following equation of equilibrium
( )
d
dr
hr h hr
rr

+ =
2 2
0 (3)
is obtained from applying a force balance on a small disk
element, where h = h(r) is the variable thickness at radius r, is
the material density, and is the angular velocity. A stress
function := hr
rr
is defined such that Eq. (3) becomes
h

=
d
dr
+
2
hr
2
. (4)
Applying the material law equations and using the fact of
radial symmetry, this equation can be simplified into a second-
order differential equation in the stress function :
r
2
d
2

dr
2
+ r
d
dr
+ (3 + )
2
hr
3

r
h
dh
dr
(r
d
dr
) = 0
(5)
where is the Poissons ratio. Due to the non-constant
thickness h(r), Eq. (5) cannot be solved analytically. A fourth
order RUNGE-KUTTA method is used to solve this differential
equation numerically. Two boundary conditions for the stress
function have to be specified. They result from the
simplifying assumption that the radial stress
rr
is zero at the
inner and outer radii and therefore is also zero at both radii.
All the necessary points for the calculation have to be derived
from the BEZIER curve definition. Using a shooting method,
the solution is obtained when both boundary conditions are
satisfied. Given a numerical solution of this equation,
rr
and

are calculated as

rr
=

hr
, (6a)

=
1
h
d
dr
+
2
r
2
(6b)
respectively. If the stresses of the disk exceed an admissible
value, failure can be expected. As a failure criterion, the
reference stress
r
is used which is determined by the shear
strain energy hypothesis according to VON MISES. Once the
radial and tangential stress components are obtained, the
reference stress
r
is calculated from

r
=
1
2

rr

( )
2
+
rr
2
+

2
( )






1
2
, (7)
4 Copyright 1997 by ASME
which has to be smaller than the admissible stress
adm
. An
expression for the mass and the kinetic energy of the disk can be
derived in a simple way. The disk mass m is calculated from
m hrdr
r
r
i
o
=

2
(8)
and the kinetic energy T from
T hr dr
r
r
i
o
=

2 3 (9)
Both integrals are solved numerically using a SIMPSONs
rule, where the required points have to be derived from the
BEZIER curve definition. The analysis model is implemented
using the before mentioned numerical methods for solving the
differential equation and the integrals. The implementation of
this model is verified through a comparison of radial and
tangential stresses with the analytically derived solution for a
hollow rotating disk of constant thickness.
3 PROBLEM FORMULATI ON
The objective for the flywheel design is to store as much
kinetic energy as possible for a given angular velocity, while
limits on the allowable stress, the mass, and geometric bounds
have to be satisfied. However, a designers objectives may also
include a low system mass or low stresses. An increase in
mass will result in an increase in kinetic energy. Here, we
model the conflict between achieving low stress and high energy
storage, which represents a vector optimization problem. The
flywheel design is a shape optimization problem that can be
solved with MO-techniques.
Shape optimization is a sub-task of structural optimization
which deals with the optimal layout of structures. In contrast
to parameter optimization problems, where we search for
optimal design variable values or parameter configurations, in
solving shape optimization problems, we search for optimal
functions that describe the shape of a structure (Eschenauer, et
al., 1994). For practical solutions to shape optimization
problems, so-called direct methods transform the original shape
optimization problem into a parameter optimization problem,
usually through the introduction of special shape functions.
The choice of the shape functions is extremely important,
because the original solution space will be reduced and the
optimization result will become influenced, too. High
flexibility with a small number of free parameters to describe
surfaces or lines is preferred to render a large variety of possible
shapes during optimization. Among the most practical shape
functions are straight line segments, C
1
-connected coupled line-
arc curves, B-spline, and BEZIER curves. A BEZIER curve, as
used in this study, is controlled in a predictable way by
changing only a few simple parameters, the control point
coordinates Each control point influences the whole curve.
This is called a global control property. Control points are
usually not lying on the curve, except the first and last one.
The tangent at these points is determined through the second and
second last points (Mortenson, 1985; Weinert, 1994). In order
to solve a multicriteria shape optimization problem, it is first
transformed into an MO problem by means of a direct shape
optimization strategy. By applying a preference function, the
MO is transformed into a SOP. Here, this problem is solved
using a compromise DSP formulation.
The structural quantities to be varied are called design
variables. Here, they are geometrical dimensions of the disk and
control points of the shape function. Four control points are
used to define the disk profile (Figure 2). Each of the control
points has two degrees of freedom (r- and z-components) which
results in eight possible design variables. While the disk
dimensions, the inner and outer disk thickness (h
i
, h
o
) and radii
(r
i
, r
o
), define the coordinates of the two curve end points, the
two intermediate control point coordinates define the curvature
of the profile.

ro
ri
r
z
h
o
h
i
P1
P2 P3
P4
Figure 2 -- Profile definition with BEZIER curves
For the structural analysis and optimization, the used model
parameters include material, load, constraint and goal
parameters, which are specified in Table 1.
Table 1 -- Model parameters
Parameter Value
material density 7.85 10
-6
kg/mm
3
Poissons ratio 0.3
angular velocity 630.0 s
-1
admissible stress
adm
250.0 MPa
max. thickness h
max 100.0 mm
min. thickness h
min 20.0 mm
max. mass m
max 100.0 kg
kinetic energy target G
T 1500.0 kJ
stress target G
100.0 - 250.0 MPa
5 Copyright 1997 by ASME
The trade-off in this design problem is modeled as a
compromise DSP. Both objectives are modeled in a preemptive
formulation, i.e., on different priority levels. The priority of
these goals can then be easily switched depending on a
designers preference. Each goal has two associated deviation
variables d
i

and d
i
+
which indicate the extent of deviation from
the target. The product constraint d
i

d
i
+
= 0 ensures that at
least one of the deviation variables for a particular goal will be
zero. If the problem is solved using a vertex solution scheme
(as in the ALP-algorithm (Mistree, et al., 1993)) this condition
is automatically satisfied. The standard flywheel design
problem can now be formulated as follows:
Given
The analysis model of the flywheel; assumptions used to
model the domain of interest.
System parameters: , , ,
max
, h
max
, h
min
, m
max
, m
min
,
G
T
, G

Find
System Variables : r
i
, r
o
, h
i
, h
o
, P
2z
, P
3z
, P
2r
, P
3r
Deviation Variables : Kinetic Energy: d
1

,d
1
+
Total Stress: d
2

,d
2
+
Sati sfy
System Constraints
Maximum disk stress:
max
ri r ro
(
r
)
max
Maximum disk thickness:
max
ri r ro
(h) h
max
Minimum disk thickness:
min
ri rro
(h) h
min
Maximum disk mass: m m
max
System Goals
High goal for kinetic energy:
T
G
T
+ d
1

d
1
+
= 1
Low goal for total stress:
max(
t
)
G

+ d
2

d
2
+
= 1
Bounds
20mm r
i
50mm 0mm P
2z
,P
3z
40mm
100mm r
o
300mm 1 P
2r
*
, P
3r
*
1
20mm h
i
, h
o
100mm
d
i

d
i
+
= 0 , with d
i

, d
i
+
0
Minimize
Deviation Function (Preemptive, using lexicographic
minimum concept
2
):
Z = [ f
1
(d
1

),f
2
(d
2

, d
2
+
) ]

2
Given an ordered array f
(i)
= (f
1
,f
2
, ..., f
n
)
(i)
of non-negative elements f
k
s,
the solution given by f
(1)
is preferred to f
(2)
if f
k
(1)
< f
k
(2)
and f
i
(1)
< f
i
(2)


for
i = 1, ... , k-1; that means all higher-order elements are equal. If no other
solution is preferred to f
(1)
, then f
(1)
is the lexicographic minimum.
We introduce the relative, radial control point components
P
2r
*
and P
3r
*
, which are dependent on the values of r
i
and r
o
and
therefore have normalized bounds. These values are then
converted into the actual parameter values, P
2r
and P
3r
. Another
approach is to restrict their position through introducing
additional constraints.
Before the compromise DSP is solved, our approach
involves a design problem reduction and function
approximations with response surface models. The required
experimental designs for this procedure are introduced in the
following section.
4 EXPERI MENTS FOR SHAPE PROBLEMS
By using design of experiments, it is possible to study the
effects of parameters on the system responses. A model that
describes the data is assumed and the significance of each of the
parameter estimates can be determined through statistical
analysis after conducting a series of experiments. There exists a
trade-off between the number of experiments and the accuracy of
the estimated model or approximation. The choice of
experimental designs is up to the designer dealing with the
problem and his specific needs, time and economic constraints.
When designing complex systems, the number of design
variables can be large in the early design stages, when the
design freedom is still high and the design knowledge is low.
To improve the experimentation efficiency, a sequential strategy
of performing low order screening experiments and building
higher order response surface models based on secondary
experiments over a reduced design space is employed. After
screening, the number of variables might be reduced to the most
critical ones and a region of interest might be identified within
the whole design space.
There exists a large variety of experimental designs, e.g.,
Full and Fractional Factorial Designs, Orthogonal Arrays (OA),
or Central Composite Designs (CCD) (Box, et al., 1978;
Montgomery, 1991). In a full factorial design, all possible
combinations m
k
of factor levels are investigated, where k
factors are selected at m levels. The number of experiments
increases exponentially with the number of factors and is
therefore not always appropriate. It is possible to estimate all
main and all interaction effects. To reduce the number of
experiments to a more practical level, fractional factorial designs
of the form m
k-p
have been introduced, where the generator p
describes the fraction of the full design. It is assumed that
certain higher order interactions are negligible. As a result it is
not possible to estimate all effects separately, some effects will
be confounded. Taguchi proposed orthogonal arrays to the
engineering community. OAs are the smallest fractional
factorial design to study the main factor effects. Orthogonal
arrays are denoted by L
x
, where x represents the number of
experiments (Phadke, 1989). It is assumed that factor
interactions do not exist, therefore main effects can be
6 Copyright 1997 by ASME
confounded with two-factor interactions, which is not always
desirable. Some of the columns in an experimental design
matrix can be used to study interactions, however, a designer
does not necessarily know which interactions may exist in the
system.
In our sequential experimentation strategy, two-level
screening experiments are used to fit a linear model of the form
y = b
0
+ b
i
i =1
k

x
i
. (10)
Depending on the problem size and the available resources
for experimentation, enough experiments may be performed to
build a model that include two-factor interactions. The
experiment results are used to determine the factor significance
on the system responses and to eliminate those which are
unimportant. Another task in a sequential strategy is to find the
region of interest for fitting a higher order response surface
model (Bernardo, et al., 1992; Montgomery, 1991). In the
traditional response surface approach it is fairly simple to use a
steepest descent method to find this region of interest.
However, in a multiobjective design problem, where more than
one goal and several constraints are present this task is rather
difficult. Heuristic rules may be applied to reduce the design
space (Chen, 1996). Goals and constraints for each experiment
have to be evaluated. In this study, we also use the simple
model of Eq. (10) within a compromise DSP to find the
direction of good designs.
After screening, result evaluation and design problem
reduction (number of variables, bounds), second-order response
surface models are created to replace the original strcutural
analysis with an efficient, usually polynomial approximation.
These models include two-factor interactions and quadratic terms
to account for nonlinearity in the model. Central composite
designs are probably the most widely used designs to fit
second-order response surface models and studying second-order
effects. A CCD generally consists of a two-level full or
fractional factorial design portion, where the two levels are
coded by -1 and +1, two star points on the axis of each factor at
a distance of - and + from the center, and one or more center
points. A useful property of a CCD is that it may be built up
from first-order designs, as used for screening, by adding the star
points and center points. From the experiment results, second-
order models of the form
y = b
0
+ b
i
i
k

x
i
+ b
ii
i
k

x
i
2
+ b
ij
j

i
i<j

x
i
x
j
(11)
are fitted by means of regression analysis based on a least-square
method. It is necessary to determine the adequacy of the least
squares fit since the true functional relationship is usually
unknown. It is helpful to examine a normal probability plot
and a plot of residuals vs. fitted values (Box, et al., 1978) .
Computer experiments differ from physical experiments in that
there is no random error (Sacks, et al., 1989; Welch, et al.,
1990). Therefore the adequacy of a response surface model fitted
to the observed data is determined solely by systematic bias,
e.g., the difference between the assumed and the exact model.
The classical notions of experimental unit, blocking,
replication, and randomization are no longer relevant. Such a
response surface has to be fit for each of the state variables
describing the behavior of a system which is then used to
describe the system goals and constraints.
For the described experimental designs it is assumed that all
parameters are independent, i.e., the levels of one parameter are
independent of the levels of all other parameters. However, in
shape optimization problems this may not be the case and the
resulting designs will have completely different factor levels.
For the shape of a BEZIER curve as shown in Figure 2, the start
and end control point coordinates can be selected orbitrarily,
while coordinates of the intermediate control points are defined
through some kind of functional relationship. If factor
dependencies are present it is necessary to determine the absolute
bounds for the dependent variables. This is a problem dependent
task and based on the functional relationship.
The question to be answered is how does the factor
dependency affect the experimental designs as described before?
The advantageous property of orthogonality will be lost. In
first-order designs, orthogonality is the optimal design property
as it minimizes the variances of the regression coefficients, i.e.,
a greater precision of estimates is obtained from orthogonal
designs. In linear regression analysis the assumed model can be
written in matrix form as
y X = + , (12)
where y is the vector of responses, X is the vector of the
regressor variable levels, is the vector of the regression
coefficients, and is the vector of random errors. For finding
the least-square estimates, the inverse matrix (X
T
X)
-1
has to be
found. If experimental designs are orthogonal, (X
T
X)
-1
is
diagonal and simple to obtain computationally. Furthermore,
the estimates of all the regression coefficients are uncorrelated
and the covariance is zero.
x1
x2
-1
1
0.33
- 0.33
x1
x2
-1
1
Figure 3 -- Factorial design and CCD with parameter
dependency
7 Copyright 1997 by ASME
Factorial designs are orthogonal and CCDs can be made
orthogonal through the number of center points. Unfortunately,
if parameter dependencies are present, the designs will be non-
orthogonal and correlation between regression coefficients will
exist. The variances for the regression coefficients will be
different (Box, et al., 1978; Box and Draper, 1987).
In Figure 3, a two factor factorial and a CCD are considered
where the levels of factor x
2
depends on the levels of factor x
1
.
Factor x
1
has two levels in the factorial design, while factor x
2
has four levels. It is not necessarily the case that the difference
between the two x
2
levels is the same for each level of x
1
. In a
CCD, factor x
1
has five levels, while factor x
2
has nine levels,
one for each experiment. While standard designs can be created
initially, the now relative 1 and levels of the dependent
factor x
2
need to be transformed into their new levels. Then,
they have to be normalized again to absolute values between -1
and +1. The factor values of Figure 3 are given in Table 2.
Table 2 -- Non-orthogonal experimental designs
2
2
-Factorial CCD
Exp. x
1
x
2 Exp. x
1
x
2
1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
2 -1 0.33 2 -1 0.33
3 1 -0.33 3 1 -0.33
4 1 1 4 1 1
5 -1.41 -0.47
6 1.41 0.47
7 0 -0.94
8 0 0.94
9 0 0
The shape optimization problem of a flywheel serves as an
example to illustrate the presented approach, where non-
orthogonal, low-order screening experiments are used to reduce
the design problem and non-orthogonal, second-order response
surface models are used for efficiently modeling the trade-off
between two conflicting design objectives.
5 SOLUTION TO THE DESIGN PROBLEM
In this section, we illustrate our screening strategy to gain
knowledge about the structural behavior and our approach to
model the trade-off among two design objectives efficiently
through employing response surfaces during design
optimization. We use non-orthogonal experimental design as
introduced in Section 4 for this purpose.
5. 1 Step 1: Screening and Model Reduction
In the current model (Figure 2), the r-coordinates of control
points P
2
, P
3
can vary within specified bounds relative to P
1
and P
4
. Their relative lower and upper bounds are -1 and +1
respectively. The normalized values P
2r
*
and P
3r
*
are then
converted into their real values according to some specification.
In this model there are eight design variables x, which are
represented by geometrical dimensions and control point
coordinates. A two-level factorial design with 16 experiments
plus one experiment for the center point is selected for screening
(Step 1, see Section 1.3). For this design, the main effects are
only confounded with higher order interactions but not with
two-factor interactions. The analysis results are shown in
Table 3, where special focus has to be on the normalized levels
for P
2r
and P
3r
. Values for the disk thickness are not considered
in this evaluation, since they are obtained independently from
the geometry definition.
The results for the mass, the kinetic energy and the
maximum stress of the disk indicate a large range for each of the
responses (state variables). The statistical analysis is done
using a model for the main effects only. Various calculations,
such as the R
2
-value, analysis of variance, a table of parameter
estimates as well as visual graphs like the prediction profile and
Pareto plot for scaled parameter estimates provide an indication
of the significance of each factor. The value R
2
measures the
proportion of the variation around the mean explained by the
model . If R
2
is 1 the model fits perfect. The effects have to be
evaluated for each of the responses. For this model, considering
the main effects only, the R
2
-value ranges between 0.82 and
0.86. The fit for mass is the best (0.86), the fit for stress is the
worst (0.82). The commercial software package JMP (N.N.,
1995) is used to perform various statistical analyses.
In Figure 4, the prediction profiles for the three disk
responses are displayed. The low and high values for each factor
are shown on the horizontal axis and for each response on the
vertical axis. The lines and markers within the plots show the
prediction profile and the 95% confidence interval for the
predicted values is shown by error bars above and below each
marker. We easily see that r
o
has the largest effect on all three
responses. An increase in r
o
will result in an increase of all
responses. A stress reduction is indicated for an increase of h
o
and P
2z
, while the effect is also positive (increase) on the
kinetic energy. Horizontal prediction profiles indicate a low
effect of a factor on that response, e.g., r
i
for all three responses.
The evaluation of the screening experiments is supported
with a so-called Pareto plot of the scaled parameter estimates.
Each parameter estimate is scaled through its division by the
sum of all estimates. In a Pareto plot the parameters are ordered
by their importance, i.e., the smaller the scaled estimate, the
less its significance on the response. The values are scaled, not
normalized estimates. This means they might be correlated and
can have unequal variances (N.N., 1995). The line starting at
the first factor represents the sum of the estimates. It ends at
1.0. The scaled parameter estimates for the kinetic energy are
shown in Figure 5. Radius r
o
is the most important factor with
a vlaue greater than 0.5, thus, accounting for more than half the
8 Copyright 1997 by ASME
variation. The parameters P
2r
, P
3r
, h
i
, and r
i
have values of less
than 0.05, thus their effect is very small. The line represents
the sum of all estimates in the shown order.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ro
ho
P3z
P2z
P2r
P3r
hi
ri
0.0 1.0
scaled estimate value
Figure 5 -- Scaled estimates for kinetic energy
The significance of factors r
i
and P
2r
is very low for all
responses. These factors will be dropped from the design
model, i.e., they will be set to constant values (Step 2). We are
aware that interactions have not been taken into account, so
there is some risk involved in dropping these factors. It is a
more difficult task to reduce the bounds on the remaining factors
to narrow down the design space for developing response
surfaces. We use Eq. (10) within a compromise DSP to find a
direction for satisficing designs. With maximizing the kinetic
energy at highest priority, we obtain a design where more mass
is accumulated near the inner and outer rim, while the interior is
very thin. The outer radius r
o
is close to the upper bound,
while the control point coordinates P
2z
and P
3z
reach their lower
bound. Verifying the design point with the original model, we
Table 3 -- Experimental design results
Exp. r
i
r
o
h
i
h
o
P
2z
P
3z
P
2r
P
3r
m

(kg) T

(kJ)
r
(MPa)
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 2.5096 3.0424 24.027
2 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -0.648 -1 18.444 21.437 41.539
3 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -0.751 15.107 13.113 19.479
4 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -0.648 -0.751 11.127 11.966 18.957
5 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 0.772 0.943 64.721 483.35 234.18
6 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -0.461 0.943 137.29 1508.9 493.69
7 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 0.772 0.072 94.171 716.89 132.70
8 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -0.461 0.072 148.63 1431.9 190.31
9 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -0.42 -0.694 5.5037 7.4222 32.306
1 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -0.64 -0.694 9.475 12.701 30.982
1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -0.42 -0.85 8.3694 8.2 18.924
1 2 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -0.64 -0.85 13.679 18.024 29.295
1 3 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -0.102 0.222 103.73 835.3 242.22
1 4 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 0.222 90.922 1140.1 408.47
1 5 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -0.102 1 42.515 282.28 90.253
1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 192.82 1779.7 223.31
1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.187 -0.132 47.813 200.74 98.929
ri ro ho hi P2z P3z P2r P3r

r
T
m


192.8222
2.5096
59.22569





1779.739
3.0424
498.5347

493.6933
18.9242
137.0334
-
11
0 -
11
0 -
11
0 -
11
0 -
11
0 -
11
0 -
11
-0.1873 -
11
-0.1322
192. 822
2. 5096
1779. 74
3. 0424
493. 693
18. 9242
59. 2257
498. 535
137. 033
- 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0. 187 - 0. 132
Figure 4 -- Prediction profile of screening results
9 Copyright 1997 by ASME
identify a feasible design with a small over-estimation for all
responses. However, with stress reduction as the higher
priority, the comparison of analytical and original model results
in large discrepancies. The solution is found in a region where
the estimated model is invalid. Based on the good first results,
we will reduce the bounds to 200mm r
o
300mm and
0mm P
2z
,P
3z
20mm(Step 2). With two objectives, there
are two regions of interest, thus a design space reduction is even
more difficult.
5. 2 Steps 2 and 3: Design using Response
Surface Models
The next step (Step 3) in the design process is to
approximate the state variables kinetic energy, mass, and total
stress with second-order response surfaces (Eq. (11)) over the
reduced design space. A CCD is used and the required
experimental design contains 45 experiments for the six
remaining factors. In this design, the value for the star
points is chosen to be = 1.0. There are two reasons for this
choice: first, a value of 1would lead to infeasible designs,
and second, in structures it can be important to include factor
combinations which represent corners of the design space, where
some values might be more extreme. There is a total of 28
regression variables to be estimated for each state variable
during regression analysis. The second-order model includes
linear, quadratic and interaction terms. Two of the created
response surface models are displayed in Figure 6. Four
variables are kept constant at selected values for the plots. For
the plot of the kinetic energy, r
o
and h
o
vary within their
bounds, for the reference stress it is r
o
and h
i
. These are the
variables with the largest effects on the response.
The model adequacy is checked with the R
2
-value. For each
response surface model this value is above 0.99 which indicates
a very good fit. But this does not ensure high accuracy in the
whole design space since only a few points (27) are used to
represent the complete space. Comparing the original and
approximated models for some randomly selected points, we
identify deviations of up to about 10% for the disk stress
response. Also the stress residuals vary between 25 MPa.
This is the price we have to pay if we dont want to reduce the
design space to a smaller region and perform additional
experiments within that reduced space. In order to account for
the inaccuracies, it is important to verify the obtained design
points to see if constraints are violated.
The response surface model is exercised for changing goal
priorities (Step 4). This is done through changing the two
priority levels f
1
, f
2
in the formulation of the deviation function
in the compromise DSP (see Section 3). First, the kinetic
energy is to be maximized, second, the total stress is to be
minimized to a certain target. Once the stress target is achieved,
the kinetic energy is will be maximized on the second priority
level. The disk shape for the final design point is displayed in
Figure 7.
200.0
250.0
300.0
225.0
275.0
20.0
100.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
0.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
T

i
n

k
J
ho in mm
ro in mm
200.0
250.0
300.0
225.0
275.0
20.0
100.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
0.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0

r

i
n

M
P
a
hi in mm
ro in mm
Figure 6 -- Response surfaces for kinetic energy T
and reference stress r
We see that a large portion of the disk mass is concentrated
near the outer rim, a smaller portion around the shaft. The
interior is very thin, reaching the specified lower disk thickness.
The position of the control points is displayed, too. We obtain
the following values for the state variables (responses):
m = 100.0 kg, T = 1140.96 kJ, and
r
= 250.0 MPa. A result
comparison with the original model is given in Table 4.
r in mm
z

i
n

m
m
Figure 7 -- Optimal disk profile for maximizing
kinetic energy
10 Copyright 1997 by ASME
The stress state for the radial, tangential and total stress is
presented in Figure 8. The original model has to be analyzed to
obtain these results. A response surface model is only
developed for the reference stress. The total stress is highest at
the inner radius. Due to this reason, no more mass can be
placed further outside. The stress distribution of the total stress
agrees well with those documented in (Sandgren and Ragsdell,
1983; Vadde, 1995).
r in mm

i
n

M
P
a
rr

r
Figure 8 -- Stress states along disk radius
Previously on the second priority level, the goal for
minimizing the total stress is now placed on the first level
within the compromise DSP. On the second priority level, the
kinetic energy is maximized once the stress target is achieved.
The optimal disk profile for the stress target G

= 100.0 MPa is
displayed in Figure 9. The profile is similar but now there is
more mass accumulated near the inner rim, where the stress
maximum always occurs. The inner thickness h
i
is at its upper
bound and so is the radius r
o
. Since r
o
is at the upper bound for
both solutions, it could be set constant to that value to further
reduce the problem size.
z

i
n

m
m
r in mm
Figure 9 -- Optimal disk profile for minimizing
st ress
A comparison of the response surface model results and the
verification with the original model (Table 4) indicates
relatively high accuracy for mass and kinetic energy
approximations. However, there is a 6 to 23 MPa difference for
the stress estimation, which is within the predicted range of
residuals. A designer has to decide how much constraints can be
relaxed and what differences can be tolerated.
Table 4 -- Result comparison
Max. T Min.
r
Original RSM Original RSM
T (kJ) 1135.22 1140.96 523.79 519.15
m ( kg) 100.11 100.0 69.35 69.06

MPa 228.22 250.0 106.11 99.99
It is now easily and efficiently possible to exercise the
response surface models and model the trade-off between the two
conflicting objectives. The goal targets for the stress are
changed from G

= 100 MPa to 250 MPa. Since one objective

is to be maximized (T) and the other to be minimized (
r
), the
conflict is better illustrated when 1/T is plotted instead of T
(Figure 10). The previous profile solutions are displayed, too.
We identify a convex behavior of the functional-efficient
boundary curve. Within a wide range of stress values (
r
= 160
to 250 MPa), we achieve a high kinetic energy, but there is a
strong change between
r
= 100 and 160 MPa. When more
mass has to get transferred from the outside to the inside, the
kinetic energy drops drastically for lower stress values.
1
/
T

i
n

k
J
-
1
r in MPa
Response Surface Model
Simulation Model
Figure 10 -- Functional-efficient boundary: stress
vs. reci procal ki neti c energy
A comparison of each result indicates over- and
underestimation of the stress, depending on the design space
region for the solution point. Despite this, the results are
sufficient for the early stages and a designer gets a very good
feeling how to model the objectives and how the trade-off looks
like.
In the presented approach it is not always obvious how
many experiments to perform, which regression models to use,
11 Copyright 1997 by ASME
and how to narrow down the design space. In the current
example, even the original analysis of the flywheel only
requires a few seconds of computer time and therefore various
experimental designs have been used for screening and response
surface fitting to identify the best approach. If expensive
analyses are required, the experiments have to be chosen
carefully. As the failure for finding the region of interest (from
screening) for minimum stress indicates, success cannot be
guaranteed with a low-order model. This is part of the trade-off
between experimental efficiency and accuracy. However, the
response surface model has a much higher accuracy and the
results agree well with the original analysis.
6 CLOSURE
The work in this paper represents an approach for the early
stages in designing complex structures when multiple
objectives require to efficiently and effectively model the trade-
off between these objectives. A sequential experimental
strategy based on DOE is used to explore the design space
(screening) and response surface models are used to approximate
the structural behavior as accurate as possible for a reduced
design problem. Usually, only main factor effects are
considered during the screening process to increase
experimentation efficiency. Its a designers decision to select
good experimental designs for this purpose, because of the trade-
off between the number of experiments and the model accuracy.
When the number of factors or responses increases to large
values it might become more and more difficult to decide which
factors can be dropped from the model. Response surface
models provide an efficient means for a designer to rapidly come
up with design solutions and model the trade-off for conflicting
goals. The presented method is very powerful for the early
design stages. Its main advantages are:
effective knowledge acquisition about the global
structural behavior,
design problem reduction is facilitated,
fast approach for modeling the trade-off in the early
design stages,
robust design aspects might be included.
The task of experimentation and statistical analysis
becomes more difficult when parameter dependencies will
change the selected designs into non-orthogonal designs.
Parameter estimations are less accurate and correlated.
Furthermore, it is practically much more difficult to normalize
factor levels and handle the relative bounds. This is not easily
done in advance when designing the experiments. Aspects of
this type have to be considered in shape optimization problems,
when a DOE-based approach is applied. The flywheel design
problem is used as an application to illustrate this kind of
problem. Future work includes additional validation of the
sequential design strategy as suggested by the RCEM and the
development of general rules for this approach. Robust design
aspects, also part of the RCEM, have to be addressed in the
current model to include quality considerations and the presence
of uncertainty in the model. The statistical consequences of
non-orthogonal designs have to be evaluated in greater detail.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is funded by the German Academic Exchange
Service (DAAD) with a DAAD Post Graduate Fellowship
supported by the Second Special University Program.
REFERENCES
Barthelemy, J. F. M. and Haftka, R. T., 1993,
Approximation concepts for optimum structural design - a
review, Structural Optimization, Vol. 5, pp. 129-144.
Bascaran, E., Mistree, F. and Bannerot, R. B., 1987,
Compromise: An Effective Approach for Solving Multi-
objective Thermal Design Problems, Engineering
Optimization, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 175-189.
Berger, M. and Porat, I., 1988, Optimal design of a
rotating disk for kinetic energy storage, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.
164-170.
Bernardo, M. C., Buck, R., Liu, L., Nazaret, W. A.,
Sacks, J. and Welch, W. J., 1992, Integrated Circuit Design
Optimization Using a Sequential Strategy, IEEE Transactions
on Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 361-372.
Bhavikatti, S. S. and Ramakrishnan, C. V., 1980,
Optimum shape design of rotating disks, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 11, pp. 397-401.
Box, G., Hunter, W. and Hunter, J., 1978, Statistics for
Experimenters, Wiley, Inc., New York.
Box, G. E. P. and Draper, N. R., 1987, Empirical Model-
building and Response Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Chen, W., 1995, A Robust Concept Exploration Method
for Configuring Complex Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Chen, W., Allen, J. K., Mavris, D. and Mistree, F., 1996,
A Concept Exploration Method for Determining Robust Top-
Level Specifications, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 26, pp.
137-158.
Eschenauer, H. A., Beer, R., Lautenschlager, U. and
Hillmer, P., 1994, On the Modeling of a Pressure Gas
Insulation Component - A Multidisciplinary Engineering
Task, 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City,
Florida, pp. 423-433.
Eschenauer, H. A., Geilen, J. and Wahl, H. J., 1993,
SAPOP - An Optimization Procedure for Multicriteria
12 Copyright 1997 by ASME
Structural Design, In: Hrnlein, H. R. E. M. and Schittkowski,
K. (Eds.), 1993, Software Systems for Structural Optimization,
Birkuser Verlag, Basel, pp. 207-227.
Eschenauer, H. A., Koski, J. and Osyczka, A., 1990,
Multicriteria Design Optimization - Procedures and
Applications, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Grudkowski, T. W., Dennis, A. J., Meyer, T. G. and
Wawrzonek, P. H., 1996, Flywheels for Energy Storage,
SAMPE Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 65-69.
Hrnlein, H. R. E. M. and Schittkowski, K. (Eds.), 1993,
Software Systems for Structural Optimization, Birkuser
Verlag, Basel.
Ignizio, J. P., 1985, Multiobjective Mathematical
Programming via the MULTIPLEX Model and Algorithm,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 22, pp. 338-
346.
Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F. and Bras, B. A., 1993, The
Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive
Linear Programming Algorithm, Structural Optimization:
Status and Promise, AIAA, Washington, D.C., pp. 247-286.
Mistree, F., Patel, B. and Vadde, S., 1994, On Modeling
Multiple Objectives and Multi-Level Decisions in Concurrent
Design, ASME Advances in Design Automation,
Minneapolis, September 11-14, pp. 151-161.
Montgomery, D., 1991, Design and Analysis of
Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Mortenson, M. E., 1985, Geometric Modeling, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
N.N., 1995, JMP, Statistics and Graphics Guide, SAS
Institue Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Phadke, M. S., 1989, Quality Engineering using Robust
Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Rao, J. R. J., Badhrinath, K., Pakala, R. and Mistree, F.,
1996, A Study of Optimal Design under Conflict using
Models of Multi-Player Games, Engineering Optimization (in
press).
Roux, W. J., Stander, N. and Haftka, R. T., 1996,
Response Surface Approximations for Structural
Optimization, Sixth AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium
on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA,
pp. 565-578.
Sacks, J., Schiller, S. B. and Welch, W. J., 1989,
Designs for Computer Experiments, Technometrics, Vol. 31,
No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Sandgren, E. and Ragsdell, K. M., 1983, Optimal
Flywheel Design with a general Thickness Form
Representation, Journal of Mechanism, Transmissions, and
Automation in Design, Vol. 105, pp. 425-433.
Schoofs, A. J. G., Klink, M. B. M. and Van Campen, D.
H., 1992, Approximation of structural optimization problems
by means of designed numerical experiments, Structural
Optimization, Vol. 4, pp. 206-212.
Simon, H. A., 1981, The Sciences of the Artificial, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Vadde, S., 1995, Modeling Multiple Objectives and
Multilevel Decisions in Concurrent Design of Engineering
Systems, M.S. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Weinert, M., 1994, Sequentialle und parallele Strategien
zur optimalen Auslegung komplexer Rotationsschalen.,
Dissertation, Univerity of Siegen, Siegen, Germany.
Welch, W. J., Yu, T. K., Kang, S. M. and Wu, J., 1990,
Computer Experiments for Quality Control by Parameter
Design, Quality Technology, Vol. 22, pp. 15-22.