{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98306"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98306","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Alternative design optimization formulations – developing and comparing for a vibration damping example","abstract":"Developing mathematical formulations for design problems requires determining an objective function to compare design alternatives, a set of design features and options to be included for consideration, and a predictive model that reflect any unavoidable cause and effect relationships that are relevant. There are no formal principles guiding the formulation process, and heuristics prevail. There are some instances when the level of effort required to formulate the problem and solve the problem are excessive, not worth the improvement that might be realized in the overall design objective. In other words, a hypothetically “perfect” design problem formulation that takes all possible factors into account might be so difficult to fully compose and solve that it is not worth the effort. This thesis presents a set of guidelines for formulating design problems that seeks a middle ground. The method presented defines three different tasks in the formulation process: comparison metrics, predictive model and design representation. Each task offers opportunities for the practitioner to balance the expected quality of the solution with the level of effort and time required to reach that solution. This thesis demonstrates how using the guidelines can help create alternative formulations for the same design problem, and then how the resulting solutions can be evaluated and compared. Using a vibration absorber design example, the guidelines are enumerated, explained, and used to compose six alternative optimization formulations of the problem. These alternatives formulations vary in objective functions, decision variables, and some other design formulation practices. The overall goal is to maximize surface finish quality of a machined component processed on a platform to which the vibration absorber is attached. Vibrations of the platform can have a detrimental effect on surface quality. The goal of the vibration absorber system is to minimize these detrimental effects. The six alternative optimization formulations are subsequently solved, and their scores reflecting their complexity, computational time and solution quality are quantified and compared. The results illustrate the unavoidable tradeoffs among these three attributes. The best formulation depends on the set of tradeoffs that are best in that situation, given the decision maker’s risk attitude and preference.","abstract_html":"Developing mathematical formulations for design problems requires determining an objective function to compare design alternatives, a set of design features and options to be included for consideration, and a predictive model that reflect any unavoidable cause and effect relationships that are relevant. There are no formal principles guiding the formulation process, and heuristics prevail. There are some instances when the level of effort required to formulate the problem and solve the problem are excessive, not worth the improvement that might be realized in the overall design objective. In other words, a hypothetically “perfect” design problem formulation that takes all possible factors into account might be so difficult to fully compose and solve that it is not worth the effort. This thesis presents a set of guidelines for formulating design problems that seeks a middle ground. The method presented defines three different tasks in the formulation process: comparison metrics, predictive model and design representation. Each task offers opportunities for the practitioner to balance the expected quality of the solution with the level of effort and time required to reach that solution. This thesis demonstrates how using the guidelines can help create alternative formulations for the same design problem, and then how the resulting solutions can be evaluated and compared. Using a vibration absorber design example, the guidelines are enumerated, explained, and used to compose six alternative optimization formulations of the problem. These alternatives formulations vary in objective functions, decision variables, and some other design formulation practices. The overall goal is to maximize surface finish quality of a machined component processed on a platform to which the vibration absorber is attached. Vibrations of the platform can have a detrimental effect on surface quality. The goal of the vibration absorber system is to minimize these detrimental effects. The six alternative optimization formulations are subsequently solved, and their scores reflecting their complexity, computational time and solution quality are quantified and compared. The results illustrate the unavoidable tradeoffs among these three attributes. The best formulation depends on the set of tradeoffs that are best in that situation, given the decision maker’s risk attitude and preference.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Luan, Siyao"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"M.S.","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Industrial Engineering","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Thurston, Deborah L."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-09-29T17:52:30Z","date_published":"2017-09-29T17:52:30Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z","subjects":["Optimization formulation","Design guidelines"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2017 Siyao Luan"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98306","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Thurston, Deborah L."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Luan, Siyao"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2017-09-29T17:52:30Z","2019-09-30T09:15:29Z","2017-07-20","2017-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Industrial Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Optimization formulation","Design guidelines"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2017 Siyao Luan"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98306"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Developing mathematical formulations for design problems requires determining an objective function to compare design alternatives, a set of design features and options to be included for consideration, and a predictive model that reflect any unavoidable cause and effect relationships that are relevant. There are no formal principles guiding the formulation process, and heuristics prevail. There are some instances when the level of effort required to formulate the problem and solve the problem are excessive, not worth the improvement that might be realized in the overall design objective. In other words, a hypothetically “perfect” design problem formulation that takes all possible factors into account might be so difficult to fully compose and solve that it is not worth the effort. This thesis presents a set of guidelines for formulating design problems that seeks a middle ground. The method presented defines three different tasks in the formulation process: comparison metrics, predictive model and design representation. Each task offers opportunities for the practitioner to balance the expected quality of the solution with the level of effort and time required to reach that solution. This thesis demonstrates how using the guidelines can help create alternative formulations for the same design problem, and then how the resulting solutions can be evaluated and compared. Using a vibration absorber design example, the guidelines are enumerated, explained, and used to compose six alternative optimization formulations of the problem. These alternatives formulations vary in objective functions, decision variables, and some other design formulation practices. The overall goal is to maximize surface finish quality of a machined component processed on a platform to which the vibration absorber is attached. Vibrations of the platform can have a detrimental effect on surface quality. The goal of the vibration absorber system is to minimize these detrimental effects. The six alternative optimization formulations are subsequently solved, and their scores reflecting their complexity, computational time and solution quality are quantified and compared. The results illustrate the unavoidable tradeoffs among these three attributes. The best formulation depends on the set of tradeoffs that are best in that situation, given the decision maker’s risk attitude and preference.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2019-08-01","The student, Siyao Luan, accepted the attached license on 2017-07-20 at 13:50.","The student, Siyao Luan, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2017-07-20 at 13:54.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2017-07-20 at 14:59.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11555 on 2017-09-29 at 11:19:58","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T17:52:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 LUAN-THESIS-2017.pdf: 1414351 bytes, checksum: f37afcb3e6789fd1f226f9502581520a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: 362a97786dbb38ee06fe093274d1c5a2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-20","Embargo set by: Colleen Fallaw for item 103514 Lift date: 2019-09-29T17:52:45Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 103514 on 2019-09-30T09:15:29Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Alternative design optimization formulations – developing and comparing for a vibration damping example"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Thurston, Deborah L."],"dc:creator":["Luan, Siyao"],"dc:date":["2017-09-29T17:52:30Z","2019-09-30T09:15:29Z","2017-07-20","2017-08"],"dc:description":["Developing mathematical formulations for design problems requires determining an objective function to compare design alternatives, a set of design features and options to be included for consideration, and a predictive model that reflect any unavoidable cause and effect relationships that are relevant. There are no formal principles guiding the formulation process, and heuristics prevail. There are some instances when the level of effort required to formulate the problem and solve the problem are excessive, not worth the improvement that might be realized in the overall design objective. In other words, a hypothetically “perfect” design problem formulation that takes all possible factors into account might be so difficult to fully compose and solve that it is not worth the effort. This thesis presents a set of guidelines for formulating design problems that seeks a middle ground. The method presented defines three different tasks in the formulation process: comparison metrics, predictive model and design representation. Each task offers opportunities for the practitioner to balance the expected quality of the solution with the level of effort and time required to reach that solution. This thesis demonstrates how using the guidelines can help create alternative formulations for the same design problem, and then how the resulting solutions can be evaluated and compared. Using a vibration absorber design example, the guidelines are enumerated, explained, and used to compose six alternative optimization formulations of the problem. These alternatives formulations vary in objective functions, decision variables, and some other design formulation practices. The overall goal is to maximize surface finish quality of a machined component processed on a platform to which the vibration absorber is attached. Vibrations of the platform can have a detrimental effect on surface quality. The goal of the vibration absorber system is to minimize these detrimental effects. The six alternative optimization formulations are subsequently solved, and their scores reflecting their complexity, computational time and solution quality are quantified and compared. The results illustrate the unavoidable tradeoffs among these three attributes. The best formulation depends on the set of tradeoffs that are best in that situation, given the decision maker’s risk attitude and preference.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2019-08-01","The student, Siyao Luan, accepted the attached license on 2017-07-20 at 13:50.","The student, Siyao Luan, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2017-07-20 at 13:54.","This Thesis was approved for publication on 2017-07-20 at 14:59.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11555 on 2017-09-29 at 11:19:58","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T17:52:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 LUAN-THESIS-2017.pdf: 1414351 bytes, checksum: f37afcb3e6789fd1f226f9502581520a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: 362a97786dbb38ee06fe093274d1c5a2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-20","Embargo set by: Colleen Fallaw for item 103514 Lift date: 2019-09-29T17:52:45Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 103514 on 2019-09-30T09:15:29Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98306"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2017 Siyao Luan"],"dc:subject":["Optimization formulation","Design guidelines"],"dc:title":["Alternative design optimization formulations – developing and comparing for a vibration damping example"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Industrial Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.S."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z"}