Target cascading is a key challenge in the early product development stages of large complex artifacts: how to propagate the desirable top level design specifications (or targets) to appropriate specifications for the various subsystems and components in a consistent and efficient manner. Consistency means that all parts of the designed system should work well together, while efficiency means that the process itself should avoid iterations at later stages, which are costly in time and resources. In the present article target cascading is formalized by a process modeled as a multilevel optimal design problem. Design targets are cascaded down to lower levels using partitioning of the original problem into a hierarchical set of subproblems. For each design problem at a given level, an optimization problem is formulated to minimize deviations from the propagated targets and thus achieve intersystem compatibility. A coordination strategy links all subproblem decisions so that the overall system performance targets are met. The process is illustrated with an explicit analytical problem and a simple automotive chassis design model that demonstrates how the process can be applied in practice.

1.
Kodiyalam
,
S.
, and
Sobiesczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
,
2000
, “
Bilevel Integrated System Synthesis with Response Surfaces
,”
AIAA J.
,
38
(
8
), pp.
1479
1485
.
2.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
,
J.
,
James
,
B.
, and
Riley
,
M.
,
1987
, “
Structural Sizing by Generalized, Multilevel Optimization
,”
AIAA J.
,
25
(
1
), pp.
139
145
.
3.
Cramer
,
E.
,
Dennis
,
J.
,
Frank
,
P.
,
Lewis
,
R.
, and
Shubin
,
G.
,
1994
, “
Problem Formulation for Multidisciplinary Optimization
,”
SIAM J. Control Optim.
,
4
(
4
), pp.
754
776
.
4.
Braun, R., 1996, Collaborative Optimization: An Architecture For Large-Scale Distributed Design, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
5.
Braun, R., Moore, A., and Kroo, I., 1996, “Use of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture for Launch Vehicle Design,” Proceedings of the 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA-96-4018, Bellevue, WA.
6.
Tappeta
,
R.
, and
Renaud
,
J.
,
1997
, “
Multiobjective Collaborative Optimization
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
119
(
3
), pp.
403
411
.
7.
Alexandrov
,
N. M.
, and
Lewis
,
R. M.
,
2002
, “
Analytical and Computational Aspects of Collaborative Optimization for Multidisciplinary Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
40
(
2
), pp.
301
309
.
8.
Bazaraa, M. S., Sherali, H. D., and Shetty, C. M., 1993, Nonlinear Programming, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons.
9.
Kim, H. M., 2001, “Target Cascading in Optimal System Design,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
10.
Michelena
,
N. F.
,
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
Park
,
H. A.
, and
Kulkarni
,
D.
,
1999
, “
Hierarchical Overlapping Coordination for Large-Scale Optimization by Decomposition
,”
AIAA J.
,
37
(
7
), pp.
890
896
.
11.
Michelena, N. F., Park, H. A. and Papalambros, P. Y., 2002, “Convergence Properties of Analytical Target Cascading,” Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, AIAA-2002-5506, Atlanta, GA.
12.
Park
,
H. A.
,
Michelena
,
N. F.
,
Kulkarni
,
D.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2000
, “
Convergence Criteria for Overlapping Coordination Under Linear Constraints
,”
Journal of Computational Optimization and Applications
,
18
(
3
), pp.
273
293
.
13.
Papalambros, P. Y., and Wilde, D., 2000, Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation (2nd Ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York.
14.
Wagner, T. C., 1993, “A General Decomposition Methodology for Optimal System Design,” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
15.
Michelena
,
N. F.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
1995
, “
Optimal Model-Based Decomposition of Powertrain System Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
117
(
4
), pp.
499
505
.
16.
Krishnamachari
,
R. S.
, and
Papalambros
,
P.
,
1997
, “
Optimal Hierarchical Decomposition Synthesis Using Integer Programming
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
119
(
4
), pp.
440
447
.
17.
Beightler, C. S., and Phillips, D. T., 1976, Applied Geometric Programming, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
You do not currently have access to this content.