Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computer-Aided Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cad

A computerized optimization framework for the morphological matrix applied to

aircraft conceptual design
Johan Ölvander a,∗ , Björn Lundén a , Hampus Gavel b
a
Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden
b
Saab Aerosystems, SE-58188 Linköping, Sweden

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a formal mathematical framework for the use of the morphological matrix in a
Received 15 August 2006 computerized conceptual design framework. Within the presented framework, the matrix is quantified
Accepted 2 June 2008 so that each solution principle is associated with a set of characteristics such as weight, cost, performance,
etc. Selection of individual solutions is modeled with decision variables and an optimization problem is
Keywords: formulated. The applications are the conceptual design of subsystems for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Morphological matrix
and an aircraft fuel transfer system. Both the system models and the mathematical framework are
Optimization
Conceptual design
implemented in MS Excel.
Design automation © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background classification tree, to use the nomenclature in [6]. The usual

Engineering design is a special form of problem solving where
a set of frequently unclear objectives must be balanced without
violating a set of constraints. On the basis of this statement it might
be said that design is essentially an optimization process, as stated
by Herbert Simon [1] as long ago as 1967. By employing modern
modeling, simulation, and optimization techniques, it is possible
to achieve vast improvements, even at the conceptual stage of the
design process.
A great deal of research has been done in the field of
engineering design that has led to different design processes and
methods. Various authors present different models of the design
process, see Refs. [2–6]. They all describe a phase-type process of
different granularity with phases such as: Clarification of the task,
Conceptual design, Embodiment design, and Detail design, to use
the nomenclature from [3]. The focus of the method presented in
this paper is to support the conceptual design phase not only in
terms of concept generation but also in concept selection.
Several authors propose different methods to be used to
support concept generation. For example, both Pahl and Beitz [3]
and Ullrich and Eppinger [6] use a ‘black box’ in order to break
down an overall function into sub-functions. These sub-functions
can be arranged in a functional structure as proposed in [3,5,7].
Different solution principles for each sub-function might then be
presented in a function-means tree as described in [8], or in a
∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 13 281711.
E-mail addresses: johan.olvander@liu.se (J. Ölvander), bjorn.lunden@liu.se
(B. Lundén), hampus.gavel@saabgroup.com (H. Gavel).
0010-4485/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.005
approach in early conceptual design is to first generate concepts
and then to screen inferior concepts by means of assessment
and approximate calculations. The remaining concepts are later
subjected to deeper analysis followed by active selection rather
than screening.
The generation of concept solutions is a central element
in engineering design. However, most designs are actually
modifications of already existing products, as stated in [2]
page 7. The so-called morphological matrix exploits this and
encourages the designer to identify novel combinations of existing
solution principles. The approach presented in this paper is to
rationalize these first steps in conceptual design by combining the
morphological matrix with optimization methods.
1.1. Matrix methods
Different matrix based tools and methods have been developed
to support the design process. The matrices are typically used to
map and visualize relations between properties of the product
and/or activities in the design process, and one example of such
a matrix method is the House of Quality from Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) where customer requirements are mapped to
engineering characteristics [9].
Other matrix methods include the Incidence Matrix [10] and the
similar Design Structure Matrix [11]. By applying different matrix
operators, the dependencies can be analyzed, and the activities can
be reorganized and optimized. Another matrix is the Design Matrix,
originating out of Suh’s axiomatic design [4].
The matrix methods above have all been combined with
optimization methods; in [12], for example, customer satisfaction
188 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 1. Morphological matrix for a motor cycle.
is optimized in QFD. Incidence matrices are used together with
optimization in [10] and DSM is commonly used to structure
multidisciplinary optimization problems, see [13–15]. And in [16],
the design matrix from Axiomatic design is combined with
optimization. However, little work has been done on combining
the morphological matrix with optimization techniques.
The remainder of the paper starts with a description of the
morphological matrix and how it has been quantified. A formal
mathematical framework is then presented, which eventually
yields an optimization formulation. The next section describes
the application of the method to the conceptual design of an
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and to the design of an aircraft
fuel system. The paper concludes with optimization results and a
discussion.
2. Morphological matrix
Morphology is a method of thinking introduced by the
astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974). One of the ideas of
morphology is to systematically search for a solution to a problem
by trying out all possible combinations in a matrix. Zwicky
named the matrix a ‘morphologic box’, but it is also known as
a morphological matrix or morphological chart. The fact that the
search will also reveal unorthodox combinations is one of the basic
ingredients of creativity, which is also similar to the theory of
inventive problem solving, [17]. Zwicky’s early work can be found
in, for example, [18–20]. It is also referred to, for example, in Pahl
& Beitz [3], pp. 94–98, and Suh [4], p. 11. Ulrich and Eppinger [6]
use instead the term concept combination table, while Ullman [5]
uses the word morphology to essentially describe Zwicky’s ideas.
The morphological matrix is created by decomposing the main
function of the product into sub-functions which are listed on the
vertical axis of the matrix. Possible solution principles for each
function are then listed on the horizontal axis. Different concepts
are created by combining various solution principles to form a
complete system concept.
Zwicky did not use the words functions and solutions but calls
both functions and solutions parameters. In the design literature
you will find different names for these quantities; in this paper,
for example, we sometimes have sub-systems on the vertical
axes instead of functions. However, the basic principle of the
morphological matrix stays the same; to span all possible solutions
to a problem.
An example of a morphological matrix for a motorcycle
is shown in Fig. 1. There are three alternative solutions for
propulsion: an ordinary combustion engine, an electrical motor,
and a hybrid system combining both. Electrical energy could be
stored in lead, NiCd or Li-ion batteries. Two different concepts have
been highlighted: to the left, a more conventional motorcycle and
to the right a modern environmentally friendly concept.
The morphological matrix is a means to structure the concept
generation process and encourage creativity. The major deficiency
of the method is the large number of possible concepts that
arise from already relatively small matrices. If there are m1
possible solutions to function f1 and m2 solutions for function
f2 and so on, there are a total of N = m1 · m2 · · · mn possible
concept combinations. The small matrix in Fig. 1 will already
give the designer 162 possible concept combinations to choose
from. Another issue is that many sub-solutions are not compatible
with each other or require other sub-solutions to be selected
as well. An example from Fig. 1 is that a combustion engine
requires a gasoline tank. These deficiencies will be addressed
by introducing the quantified matrix together with a formal
mathematical framework.
Other approaches in the literature that address some of these
deficiencies include a web based morphological matrix that
supports collaborative engineering design [21], and computerized
morphological analysis applied to scenario development and
strategy analysis by the Swedish Defence Research Agency [22].
In [23], a framework is presented where the performance of
solution principles is ranked from 5 to 0 and ‘optimal’ concepts are
generated by selecting the solution principles that yield the highest
ranking. This is a very crude quantification of the properties of
the solution principles and the optimization is not mathematically
formalized.
2.1. Quantified morphological matrix
The quantified matrix is a conventional morphological matrix
that has built-in mathematical models for the solution principles.
Pahl and Beitz [3] state on p. 168 that: ‘Combining solutions
using mathematical methods is only possible for working principles
whose properties can be quantified. However, this is seldom possible
at this early stage’. In the framework presented here, we focus
on properties that can be quantified, such as weight, cost and
power consumption. Furthermore, it is the authors’ opinion that
quantified models should be used as early as possible in the design
process.
The quantified matrix gives the engineer immediate access to
approximated properties of the complete system. Every potential
sub-solution is described either with physical or statistical
equations, or a combination of these. Useful measures of merits are
thereby quantified for each solution alternative. By aggregating the
properties for the chosen sub-solutions a quantified value of the
complete system can be obtained.
The first step in creating the quantified matrix is to establish
mathematical models of the solution principles as functions of the
requirements and other parameters. The properties of a solution
element are also often dependent on other solution elements
within the chosen concept, and one solution principle might
require or exclude other solution principles for other functions.
The morphological matrix in Fig. 1 will be used to exemplify these
relations.
Let us assume that properties such as Cost (C ), Performance
(P ) and Emissions (E ) are vital in the conceptual design of the
motorcycle. Models then need to be developed for each solution
principle so that values can be calculated for the properties of
the individual solution principles and the product as a whole. For
example, the cost of each solution principle might be a function of
the size of that component, e.g. the cost of the combustion engine
is a function of its horsepower, Ccomb.eng . = f1 (hp). The cost of the
complete motorcycle is then obtained by adding up the cost of all
solution principles included in that particular concept.
The motorcycle’s emissions are naturally dependent on both the
chosen propulsion system and the weight of the motorcycle, so
models for the weight of each solution principle are also necessary,
e.g. Wcomb.eng . = f2 (hp). Hence, the emissions could be calculated
as a function of the aggregated weight for the motorcycle and the
 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196 189

chosen propulsion system E = f3 (Wmotorcycle , prop.sys.). There is n X

X m

thus a set of underlying models for each solution principle, but min wij xij
there are also models for calculating the overall objectives on i=1 j=1

a system level depending on the chosen concept. These models m

X
range from simple summation, as for the cost, to more complex s.t. xij = 1, i = 1, . . . , n (5)
models, for example the calculation of emissions. The strength j =1
of the quantified morphological matrix is that it facilitates the wij = wij (y, X)
interconnection of these different models. If the quantified matrix
xij ∈ {0, 1} .
is implemented in a computerized environment, optimization
algorithms could be used to search for a set of ‘‘optimal’’ concepts. Many combinations in the morphological matrix will, naturally,
In the next section, a mathematical framework is presented that yield infeasible solutions. We therefore introduce the set of feasible
facilitates the formulation of the optimization problem. solutions, S, in which to search for the optimal solution. Simple
cases such as ‘mean xab is not compatible with xcd ’ could be
3. Mathematical framework expressed according to Eq. (6). A relation like ‘mean xef requires
that both mean xgh and xij are within the concept’ could be modeled
Consider a morphological matrix, X, with n different functions according to Eq. (7). Naturally, if there are only mi available
and m solution principles for each function. In reality, one could solutions for function i, the remaining elements xmi+1 − xm should
have a different number of solutions for each function; we be set to 0, see (8). These equations need to be appended to the
therefore create the matrix with m equal to the number of solutions problem description in (5)
for the functions with the highest number of solutions xab + xcd ≤ 1 (6)
x
11 ··· ··· x1m
 2xef − xgh − xij ≤ 0 (7)
.. ..

. x22 .
 xij = 0, i = 1, . . . , n, j = mi+1 , . . . , m. (8)
X= . (1)
 
.. .. .. Furthermore, there might be many characteristics that need to
. . .
 
be taken into account when evaluating different concepts. In the
xn1 ··· ··· xnm UAV example described later, the cost, C , of the concepts is also
A concept is created by selecting one solution principle to fulfill studied, and is calculated in the same manner as the weight. If both
each function. This is modeled mathematically by letting xij equal these objectives are aggregated to an overall objective function, the
1 if solution j is selected to implement function i and 0 otherwise. problem could be stated as shown in Eq. (9), where α1 and α2 are
Thus, there can be only one element different from zero at each row linear weights for the objectives
in the matrix, X. The equality constraint in Eq. (2) models exactly X m
n X n X
X m
this min α1 wij xij + α2 cij xij
m
X i =1 j =1 i=1 j=1
xij = 1, i = 1, . . . , n m
(2)
X
j =1 s.t. xij = 1, i = 1, . . . , n
xij ∈ {0, 1} . j =1
(9)
In order to evaluate different concepts, the characteristics for wij = wij (y, X)
the whole concept are obtained by aggregating the characteristics cij = cij (y, X)
for the solution principles included in the concept. For example,
xij = 0, i = 1, . . . , n, j = mi+1 , . . . , m
the weight, W , of a concept is calculated by adding up the weight
for each solution principle included in the concept, as expressed in xij ∈ {0, 1}
Eq. (3) X ∈ S.
n X
X m An alternative formulation is obtained if one decision variable
W = wij xij . (3) is used for each function, i.e. for each row in the matrix there is
i =1 j =1 one optimization variable that can take a number of integer values
The weight of a particular solution (wij ) is calculated as a representing the different solution principles for that function.
function of the requirements on the system as well as system There are thus n decision variables which can take integer values
specific parameters represented by the vector y. However, the from 1 to mi , where mi is the number of solution principles for
weight is also a function of the chosen concept X. The later function i, see (10)
dependency makes it possible to handle issues such that the weight xi ∈ {1, 2, . . . , mi } , i = 1, 2, . . . , n
of one solution is dependent on the other solutions included in the (10)
concept. One example from the motorcycle case is that the weight x = [x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ]T .
of the battery is dependent on the propulsion system (represented Using this formulation the problem will have n integer variables
in X), and the required range (represented in y). Hence, a concept instead of n · m binary variables.
with an electrical motor and long range will require a larger The weight, W , of a concept is calculated by summing up the
battery than a concept with a combustion engine. The weight of weights for each of the functions. Once again, observe that the
a particular solution could thus be calculated according to Eq. weight required to realize function i is naturally a function of the
(4). Please note that the combination of Eqs. (3) and (4) yields a solution principle used, i.e. wi = wi (xi ). However, it could also
non-linear expression for the total weight, W (X, y). Also note that depend on the other solution principles included in the concept,
Eq. (4) guarantees that the solutions meet the requirements stated i.e. wi = wi (x). Finally, the weight is also a function of external
in y requirements y, so that wi = wi (x, y), see Eq. (11)
wij = wij (X, y) . (4) n
X
Finally, if the objective is to find the concept that minimizes W = wi
the weight of the system, the optimization problem could be i=1 (11)
formulated as wi = wi (x, y) .
190 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196

The problem of finding the concept with the lowest possible weight
could thus be formulated according to Eq. (12)
n
X
min wi
i=1

s.t.
(12)
wi = wi (x, y)
xi ∈ {1, 2, . . . , mi } , i = 1, 2, . . . , n
x = [x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ]T .
Naturally, there may be many characteristics that need to be
taken into account when evaluating different concepts. In the
design studies, other important properties include electrical power
consumption Pel (x, y), compressed air consumption Pair (x, y), and
Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF). Power consumption and air
consumption are calculated in the same way as the weight, i.e. as
straight sums. The MTBF for the complete system, λtot , is calculated Fig. 2. Illustration of the optimization process. The sine wave curves indicate
by aggregating the MTBF of the particular solution principle that is probabilistic variables.
included in the concepts, see Eq. (13)
1 conceptual design and optimization. The optimization process is
λtot = n
. (13) schematically illustrated in Fig. 2 and includes support not only for
1 design optimization, but also for probabilistic analysis which will
P
λi (xi )
i =1 be described in more detail in later sections.
If all objectives are aggregated to an overall objective function, the As illustrated in the figure, an optimization algorithm modifies
problem can be stated as shown in Eq. (14), where αj are weights the optimization variables in order to optimize the system
for the different objectives represented by the model. Model responses are computed and
become inputs to the objective function, which then becomes input
n n n
X X X to the next iteration of the optimization algorithm. This is a typical
min α1 wi (x, y) + α2 P eli (x, y) + α3 P air i (x, y) design optimization process but its uniqueness is that the model
i =1 i=1 i=1 includes a morphological matrix, which facilitates automation of
1 the conceptual phase of the design process.
+ α4 n
+Ψ
P 1
The model is a combination of both the morphological matrix
λi (xi ) and traditional equations. Each solution principle is represented
i =1
by a set of equations used to calculate the characteristics of
s.t. (14) that specific solution principle. As described in the previous

0 x∈S sections, the morphological matrix is a discrete representation
Ψ =
>0 x 6∈ S and, depending on which solution principles are currently selected,
different sets of equations are activated and used to calculate the
xi ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . . , mi } , i = 1, 2, . . . , n properties of the complete concept.
w er upper
xlo
j ≤ xj ≤ xj , j = n + 1, . . . , N If the size and complexity of the composed model increase, it
is important to be very strict when defining the interfaces to each
x = [x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xN ]T . model for the solution principles. Since the morphological matrix
In (14) there is also a penalty function ψ which is 0 if the creates a large number of alternative concepts to evaluate, it is
concept is within the feasible solution space and >0 otherwise. The important that the models for all valid concepts can be integrated
number of design variables has also been increased to include a set and calculated. Another dimension of the optimization problem
of continuous variables needed to parameterize each concept. In is that the solution principles themselves may have parameters
the example of the motorcycle design, the continuous parameters that need to be optimized. In this case, it is necessary to select
might represent the horsepower of the engine, the voltage of the an optimization algorithm that handles these types of problem
battery, etc. The problem described in (14) is a mixed integer efficiently.
non-linear programming problem. Hence, solving these types of For the framework presented in this paper, the risk analysis
problem to optimality is a difficult and challenging task. software Crystal Ball [24] with the optimization toolbox OptQuest
Depending on the characteristics of the problem and the opti- is used. OptQuest is commercial software that implements a Tabu
mization method used to solve it, a binary or integer representation search algorithm [25] that solves non-linear simulation based
might be the best choice. Using a binary representation yields more problems with linear constraints and both continuous and discrete
decision variables, but, on the other hand, it is easier to represent decision variables, see [26].
the feasible solution space as outlined in (6) and (7). In the next Another powerful analysis methodology available through
section, an MS Excel implementation of the mathematical frame- Crystal Ball is probabilistic analysis, which is also useful in com-
work is presented and two design applications are then discussed, bination with optimization. Besides optimization of the solution
one using the binary representation and the other using integer selection, it is also of interest to be able to analyze uncertainties in
decision variables. parameters, and to be able to combine probabilistic analysis with
optimization, as illustrated in Fig. 2. With this process, the impact
3.1. Implementation of the optimization framework of the uncertainties can be included in the objective function, and
the optimization algorithm could, for example, be used to mini-
The mathematical framework introduced in the previous mize the influence of uncertain parameters. Crystal Ball enables
sections is implemented in a generic computerized framework for optimization in combination with uncertainty analysis and is fully
 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 3. An illustrative example of concept selection of systems in the MEA project.
integrated with the OptQuest optimization software and also with
the MS Excel spreadsheet. This makes the connection to the in-
teractive morphological matrix straightforward to implement. In
the following section, two illustrative design applications are pre-
sented.
4. Design applications
In this section we will study two conceptual aircraft design
examples. The first is a system design for an Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) and the second is the design of an aircraft fuel
system. From a hierarchical perspective, the first application is on
system level conceptual design, whereas the second application
considers conceptual design of one of the sub-systems. In addition,
the first application uses a binary representation whereas the
second utilizes integer decision variables.
4.1. UAV conceptual design
The specific aircraft type for this design application is an
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) using More Electric Aircraft (MEA)
technology. The design task is vaguely defined and parameters
such as the size and type of the UAV are unspecified and are
allowed to vary within a wide range. Parametrical models and a
morphological matrix have been developed for this system, which
will be described in the following sections.
4.1.1. The More Electric Aircraft system
The More Electric Aircraft Project (MEA) is a study that focuses
on selecting and integrating electric systems to a larger extent
in future aircraft. The rationales for a MEA design are to gain
performance, get lower weight, and reduce maintenance. The
potential for improvement is considerable since about 30% of
the weight and maintenance are related to systems where MEA
technology can be applied.
The impact of one system on another system is considerable and
this is why the analysis must be performed at the aircraft level. It is
primarily the electric power system, the flight control system and
the environmental control system that are affected but the severe
impact is on the hydraulic system that can be fully replaced.
Fig. 3 illustrates an important part of the task. This concerns
the selection of systems and components based on different
technologies. In order to analyze the selection of different concepts
based on computational models, it is important that the system
models are modular and that interfaces between the models
correspond to the physical interfaces.
These models are based on component data, information from
vendors, and product catalogs. Essential inputs to the different
191
subsystem models are aircraft weight, maximum speed, and flight
altitude. It is important to be able to modify these parameters on
a system level and evaluate the effect on sub-system weight and
cost at an early stage.
4.1.2. System models
The models that are implemented for the MEA system study
include equations that calculate outputs from the inputs. The
equations are more or less detailed depending on whether
physical relations are available, or if responses are estimated from
simplified equations and/or trend lines. The implemented modules
are described below. See also Figs. 4 and 5.
• Cooling system. Includes characteristics for compressor, heat
exchanger, etc. The weight, cost, and required electrical power
are computed from required cooling power and technology
selection.
• Actuation system. An electromechanical or electrohydraulic
actuation system including electric motor and mechanical or
hydraulic system. The module computes weight, cost, and
required electrical power from required performance and
selected technology.
• Fuel system. Includes fuel tank, electric motor, fuel pump, and
piping. Computes weight and required electrical power.
• Electric power system. Includes batteries, generators, wiring, etc.
This module includes algorithms for how the cost and weight of
the electric power system depend on the selected technology
and parameters such as frequency and voltage level.
The models are implemented in a modular manner as Visual
Basic functions that can be accessed directly from Excel. In
Fig. 4, the modules are visualized in a block diagram where
the inputs and outputs of each module are represented. This
also shows that some properties are directly calculated from the
inputs, whereas some properties such as cooling power require
a calculation loop. The figure also shows how cost and weight
of, for example, the electrical sub-system are depending on all
other sub-systems, which is in accordance with Eq. (4). For further
reference, a description of the models, and details about different
implementations, see [27,28].
4.1.3. Interactive morphological matrix
It is of interest to have a tool that enables evaluation of the
impact of different technology selections. The sub-system models
presented in the previous section enable discrete technology
selections in combination with continuous parameters as input.
By controlling the input to the sub-system models from the
spreadsheet, it is straightforward to evaluate different technology
selections. Since the spreadsheet has extensive functionality for
matrices and tables, an interactive morphological matrix has also
been implemented as a tool for concept selection, see Fig. 5.
Important to note is that the nomenclature is slightly different
from the one used in the previous sections. For example, the term
function used in the theoretical formulation corresponds to the
term system or sub-system in this example.
In the upper left part of the matrix, the different systems in the
study are represented, one for each row. For example, the cooling
system has two sub-systems: a compressor and a heat exchanger.
At the upper right part of the matrix, the alternative solutions for
the specific systems are stated. For example, the heat exchanger
for the cooling system could either be realized using the solution
referred to as ‘Flat’, or the technology referred to as ‘Microchannel’.
The column in the upper middle section denoted ‘Selected
Solution’ indicates which solution is currently selected. The values
of the fields in this column could easily be changed between the
different technologies in the upper right part of the matrix.
192 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 4. Computational models for calculation of system characteristics depending on selection of solution principle.
Fig. 5. Morphological matrix for the UAV system with interactive controls for solution selection.
Fig. 6. Controls for top-level aircraft parameters.
When the selected solution is changed, the computational
modules behind the interface are triggered and evaluated and the
result of the evaluated module is presented in the lower part of the
matrix. With this functionality, the impact of the selected solution
can be viewed immediately.
4.1.4. Controls for continuous design parameters
Besides the discrete solution alternatives defined in the
morphological matrix, other controls and parameters are also
necessary. For each sub-system module, not only technology
selections but also continuous parameters can be set as inputs.
For example, the electrical system has continuous parameters
for voltage level and frequency, which applies to all alternative
solutions. Both parameters for aircraft type and continuous
parameters for empty weight, and maximum altitude can also be
used in combination with the morphological matrix, see Fig. 6.
4.1.5. Results from the UAV case study
In this section, some illustrative results from the UAV design
application are presented. Four cases have been selected, and
the purpose of the presented results is primarily to illustrate the
approach and implementation rather than the essential result of
the specific design task.
In this example, the design objective is to minimize both the
weight and the cost of the system. Two simple objective functions
have therefore been created. The first takes only system weight
into consideration and summarizes the weight of the subsystems;
the second is a weighted function between both weight and cost,
see Eqs. (5) and (9) respectively. The design variables are limited to
the discrete solution selections represented in the morphological
matrix in Fig. 5, and correspond to the set X in Eq. (1).
Constraints are used in the optimization to ensure that only
one solution is selected for each function/system. This follows
the theory described earlier and is defined in Eq. (2). Constraints
are also used to represent incompatible solutions as well as
solutions that require another specific solution to be selected.
These constraints are formulated according to Eqs. (6) and (7).
For example, a conventional actuation system requires a hydraulic
system to be selected.
Case 1: High aircraft weight: Minimize sub-system weight The
first case considers finding an optimal system configuration for a
large UAV. In this case, the weight of the UAV has a fixed reference
value of 8000 kg, which is equivalent to the weight of a small
modern conventional fighter aircraft. The graph in Fig. 7 shows
the optimization convergence and matrix (15) shows the optimal
solution. In order to understand the solution, the matrix should be
mapped to the morphological matrix in Fig. 5. For example, in the
first row of the matrix, it can be seen that the algorithm chooses
a joule cycle for the cooling system. Further, in the third row, an
electrohydraulic actuation system is selected and at the fifth and
 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 7. Convergence of the optimization when minimizing system weight.
sixth row, a wild-frequency electrical system principle is selected
together with lithium ion batteries
0 0 1
 
0 1 
1
 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 1
.
X=
1
0 0 0 

0 1
 1
 X=

0 1
 1
0 1
Case 2: Low aircraft weight: Minimize sub-system weight The
second case considers finding an optimal system configuration for
a smaller UAV with a reference weight of 2000 kg.
In this case, the optimization algorithm selects the electrome-
chanical actuation system (EMA) instead of the EHA that was se-
lected for the heavier aircraft. The results from this optimization
indicate that the selection of the actuation system is dependent
on the reference weight of the aircraft and that the EMA is most
weight efficient for lighter systems.
Case 3: Uniform probability distribution of the weight In
this UAV design study, the aircraft weight is considered a very
uncertain parameter. This is because the size of the UAV has not
yet been fixed, and different sizes are under consideration. The task
for the system designer is therefore to find a system configuration
that is as robust as possible to changes in the aircraft weight.
In this case, a uniform distribution is entered for the aircraft
weight. This means that in each step of the optimization, a Monte
Carlo simulation is conducted where the model is executed a
great many times and the aircraft weight is varied randomly
between 2000 kg and 8000 kg. The same objective function is used
and evaluated in each simulation, but instead of a deterministic
value, the mean value of the objective function is returned to the
optimization algorithm.
The result from this probabilistic analysis is the same as in
Case 1, where the reference weight is high. This indicates that this
solution is more robust to changes in the reference weight.
Case 4: High aircraft weight: Minimize weight and cost In this
final case, an objective function including both weight and cost has
been used in order to find a solution that has both reasonably low
weight and cost. However, this is typically a conflicting objective.
The result from this optimization is visualized in matrix (16).
In this case, several selections have changed compared to the
ones where only the weight is included in the objective function.
For example, the Tesla compressor and the Microchannel heat
193
Fig. 8. The tank layout of Saab 39 Gripen.
exchanger are selected
0 1 0
 
0 1 
(15) 0 1 0

 
0 0 0 0 0
. (16)
0 0 0 
 
0 1 
0 1
 
0 1
4.2. Design of an aircraft fuel system
In this section, the second design application will be presented.
In this application, the synthesis of an aircraft fuel system
is conducted with multiple and conflicting objectives. Both
parametrical models and a morphological matrix have been
developed to support the design of the fuel system. Most aircraft
fuel systems consist of several tanks for reasons of structure,
slosh, center of gravity (CG) management or safety. The tank
configuration of the Saab fighter Gripen is shown in Fig. 8.
The general fuel system layout consists of one or more boost
pumps that feed fuel to the engine from a collector tank, usually
a fuselage tank placed close to the CG. There are several methods
of ensuring fuel feed to the engine, many of which rely on a
full engine feed tank that helps to keep the engine feeder pump
constantly submerged. The engine feed tank is refilled by a fuel
transfer system, pumping or siphoning fuel from the transfer tanks.
Transfer tanks may be other fuselage, wing or drop tanks. There
is also a vent system that ingests air during a dive or defueling
and expels air during a climb or refueling in order to maintain
desired tank pressure. The system could be pressurized to avoid
pump cavitation or spontaneous fuel boiling at high altitude, or to
provide a means of fuel transfer by siphoning. The fuel system’s
complexity varies from the small home-built aircraft with low
system complexity up to the modern fighter where the fuel system
might be critical for CG reasons and therefore very extensive with
triple redundancy. If pressure refueling is required, a refueling
system with some complexity must be added. The fuel may also
sometimes serve as a heat sink, which adds a subsystem for cooling.
Some of the fuel subsystems that may be identified in modern
aircraft are:
• Engine feed system
• Fuel transfer system
• Vent and pressurization system
• Refueling system
194 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 9. The morphological matrix, above, and the quantified system properties, below, for an aircraft fuel transfer system.
• Measurement and management system
• Cooling system
• Explosion protection system
Aircraft fuel system principles and design are described in
greater detail in [29,30] or [31].
4.2.1. Interactive and quantified morphological matrix
Let us first take a look at the morphological matrix for the
aircraft fuel system shown in Fig. 9. The column to the right shows
a proposed system combination for a small or mid-sized combat
aircraft. The model outcome is displayed in the matrix below. The
quantified properties are weight, electrical power and compressed
air consumption, and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF).
The top level requirements are shown in Fig. 10, which needs to
be filled with data for altitude, descent rate, engine consumption,
load factor, and density of the fuel used.
The spreadsheet model contains underlying sheets for each
sub-system with design parameters that need to be chosen; these
might be pipe diameters, pressurization level, pump characteris-
tics, tank volumes, etc. The quantified system characteristics are
then derived by physical models, rules of thumb, statistics, or com-
binations of these. The actual equations, their origin, and the im-
plementation in MS Excel are thoroughly described in Refs. [32,33].
4.2.2. Optimization result for fuel transfer system design
In this example, the design objective is to minimize weight,
power and compressed air consumption, and maximize the MTBF
of the system. An objective function was therefore created where
the sub-objectives are aggregated to form a weighted sum that,
together with the penalty function, is minimized, see Eq. (14). The
sub-objectives are normalized against a datum concept proposal,
which in this case is the concept that is considered the most
promising before starting the optimization.
Design variables are the discrete solution selections, the set x
in Eq. (14), and also tank pressure levels, which are continuous.
Constraints against incompatible solutions are handled by means
of a penalty function. For instance, siphon transfer may not be
combined with a non-pressurized system. The case investigated
here is a mid-sized combat aircraft where both the objective
function and the top requirements are altered.
Case 1: Datum concept Conventional conceptual design has
been in progress in parallel with the work of formulating
the optimization problem. This is inevitable, and it is the
authors’ opinion that optimization will never replace conventional
conceptual design, but merely make it more rational. The concept
considered as the most promising at this point is used as reference
and is shown in Fig. 9.
Case 2: Minimum weight An optimization run was made with
the objective function set to minimum weight. It showed that the
datum concept was also optimal in this case, but the weight was
reduced by about 0.5 kg by lowering the tank pressurization level.
The similarity to the datum concept is hardly surprising since much
of the focus in aircraft design is on weight.
Case 3: Minimum power The objective function was altered to
minimize electrical power consumption. The model suggested air
pressure siphoning for fuel transfer instead of electrical pump
transfer, which seems logical. The power consumption decreased
from 3.7 kW to just under 1 kW, as shown in Fig. 11. However, the
concept is penalized by increased weight, from 100 kg to 183 kg,
and by an increase in compressed air outtake from 241 g/s to
281 g/s.
 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
Fig. 10. Top-level requirements for the fuel transfer system.
Fig. 11. Optimization convergence with the objective to minimize the electrical
power consumption.
Case 4: Multi-objective In order to enable multi-objective
optimization the sub-objectives are normalized with the datum
concept, resulting in a single objective function where all sub-
objectives contribute equally much to the overall objective. The
suggested concept is siphon transfer from the fuselage and wings
combined with pump transfer from the drop tank. Pressure levels
are 24 kPa in the fuselage and wings and 44 kPa in the drop
tank. This is not the orthodox type system combination. One
common way to solve this design problem is the other way around,
with pumps internally and siphoning from external tanks. This
is probably because the drop tanks are just drop tanks, and it is
considered wasteful to equip them with expensive components.
Perhaps the tanks are not dropped that often so this might be an
attractive alternative after all?
5. Discussion
The results presented in the application examples illustrate
how the morphological matrix could be quantified by introducing
equation based models for the solution principles and then
optimizing the matrix by combining it with a Tabu search
based optimization strategy. Even if these examples demonstrate
simplified industry cases, it is evident that the presented approach
enables a large number of concepts to be evaluated in a formal and
efficient way.
Furthermore, the mathematical framework presented is one
step towards more formal and computerized methods in concep-
tual phases of the design process. In conceptual design, there are
many activities and aspects that cannot be formalized (e.g. aes-
thetics) that require human or unquantifiable judgment. However,
the automation of activities that could be formalized is an impor-
tant step to increase the efficiency of the design process, mak-
ing more time and resources available for activities that cannot be
formalized.
195
Aspects that cannot be quantified could be addressed before
or after the proposed method. First, the matrix should not
be populated with solution principles that do not meet the
requirements regarding these aspects. Second, combinations
that yield solutions with presumed low performance (e.g. bad
aesthetics) should be included in the infeasible set in the
optimization. Finally, all concepts suggested by the optimization
should be screened considering the aspects that have not been
included in the optimization.
The outcome of the proposed methods consists of more than
just the optimization result. Important knowledge is gathered
during the process of quantifying the matrix and formulating the
problem. For example, the quantified matrix has proved useful for
a first assessment of fuel system characteristics in the conceptual
phase of the design of the aircraft itself. Furthermore, formulating
the problem and elaborating with the objective function enhance
our understanding of the system being designed but also elucidate
our expectations of the system, and our priorities among the
objectives.
Objective function formulation is a central issue when using
optimization in conceptual design, where models are rough and
requirements are vague. It is not realistic to believe that one
optimal solution could be found at this stage. The advantage is
rather to be able to find a group of concepts that are promising for
further evaluation. The objectives are also often conflicting, and it
is not clear which objective is the most important. Techniques for
multi-objective optimization could therefore be applicable where a
group of concepts are selected which are all optimal depending on
the relative importance of the objectives. This is a matter for future
work and would be an interesting continuation of this paper.
The quantified matrix is useful in the beginning of the
conceptual design phase. Making more detailed models is not
meaningful at this stage due to the large number of assumptions
and uncertainties. As the number of evaluated concepts decreases
later in the conceptual phase, more refined evaluation techniques
and models are more appropriate. In addition, quantifying the
morphological matrix as described in this paper has the advantage
of introducing automation early on in the design process and thus
rationalizing the conceptual work and at the same time increasing
understanding of the design problem. It also minimizes the number
of concepts derived by the use of morphology that need to be
subjected to more detailed analysis.
References
[1] Simon H. The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press; 1969.
[2] Cross N. Engineering design methods. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
[3] Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design — a systematic approach. Springer-Verlag;
1996.
[4] Suh N. Axiomatic design — advances and applications. Oxford University Press;
2001.
[5] Ullman D. The mechanical design process. McGraw-Hill; 1992.
[6] Ullrich KT, Eppinger SD. Product design and development. 2nd ed. McGraw-
Hill; 2000.
[7] Stone R, Wood K. Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of
Mechanical Design 2000;122(4):359–70.
[8] Andreasen MM. Syntesmetoder på systemgrundlag — Bidrag till en konstruk-
tionsteori. Ph.D. thesis. Lund (Sweden): Lund Institute of Technology; 1980
[in Danish].
[9] Hauser JR, Clausing D. The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 1988;
63–73.
[10] Kusiak A. Engineering design: Products, processes and systems. Academic
Press; 1999.
[11] Eppinger S, Whitney D, Smith R, Gebala D. A model-based method for
organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design
1994;6(1):1–13.
[12] Lai X, Xie M, Tan K-C. QFD optimization using linear physical programming.
Engineering Optimization 2006;38(5):593–607.
[13] Michelena N, Papalambros P, Park HA, Kulkarni D. Hierarchical overlapping
coordination for large-scale optimization by decomposition. AIAA Journal
1999;37(7):890–6.
[14] Braun RD. Collaborative optimization: An architecture for large-scale dis-
tributed design. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University; 1996.
196 J. Ölvander et al. / Computer-Aided Design 41 (2009) 187–196
[15] Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT. Multidisciplinary aerospace design
optimization: survey of recent developments. Structural Optimization 1997;
14(1):1–23.
[16] Thielman J, Ge P. Applying axiomatic design theory to the evaluation and
optimization of large-scale engineering systems. Journal of Engineering Design
2006;17(1):1–16.
[17] Altshuller G. Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Branch Publishers;
1984.
[18] Zwicky F. The morphological method of analysis and construction. Courant,
anniversary volume. New York: Intersciences; 1948. pp. 461–470.
[19] Zwicky F. Morphological astronomy. The Observatory 1948;68(845):121–43.
[20] Zwicky F. Entdecken, Erfinden, Forschen im Morphologischen Weltbild.
Glarus: Verlag Baeschlin; 1966.
[21] Huang GQ, Mak KL. Web-based morphological charts for concept design
in collaborative product development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
1999;10:267–78.
[22] Ritchey T. Strategic decision support using computerised morphological
analysis. In: 9th international command and control research and technology
symposium. 2004 [presented].
[23] Weiss M, Gilboa Y. More on synthesis of concepts as an optimal combination
of solution principles. In: Proceedings of the design 2004. 8th international
design conference. 2004.
[24] Crystal Ball. http://www.decisioneering.com.
[25] Glover F, Laguna M. Tabu search. Kluwer Academic; 1997.
[26] Glover F, Kelly JP, Laguna M. The crystal ball approach to crystal ball simulation
optimization. Graduate School of Business, University of Colorado; 1998.
http://www.crystalball.com/optquest/methodology.html.
[27] Johansson B, Austrin L, Engdahl G, Krus P. Tools and methodology for
collaborative systems design applied on more electric aircraft. In: Proceedings
of international council of the aeronautical sciences. 2004.
[28] Johansson B, Jouannet C, Krus P. Distributed aircraft analysis using web service
technology. SAE 2003 Transactions Journal of Aerospace, 2004; 445–453.
[29] Gavel H. Aircraft fuel system conceptual design. Technical report LiTH-IKP-R-
1330. Linköping: Dept. of Mech. Eng. Linköping University; 2003.
[30] JSSG 2009 Appendix E, Joint service specification guide. USA. 1998.
[31] Navair 06-5-504. Fuel and fuel systems. Coordinating research council (CRC).
USA. 1967.
[32] Svahn C. A quantified interactive morphological matrix — An automated
approach to aircraft fuel system synthesis. Master thesis. Linköping:
Department of Mechanical Engineering. Linköping University; 2006.
[33] Gavel H, Ölvander J, Johansson B. An algorithmic morphology matrix for fuel
system conceptual design. In: Proceedings of 25th congress of international
council of the aeronautical sciences. 2006.