A Concurrent Engineering Approach for Product Design Optimization

M. A. Seif
Mechanical Engineering Department, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL 36088, USA

Received 2 June 1997; accepted in revised form 20 January 1998

Abstract: Concurrent engineering is a parallel approach that is intended to maximize quality, reduce lead time, and lower costs. In this
work, the concurrent engineering methodology has been adopted to ensure design optimization of mechanical systems. Design optimization
problems have been synthesized based on the nature of the relation between the parameters and the restrictions imposed by virtue of op-
erational conditions and the complexity of weighting the competitiveness of design objectives Solution methodologies have been developed
for explicit and implicit relationships. Moreover, the concept of modeling has been used to develop a set of attnbutes that provides the best
possible solution These approaches are devised to warrant optimum performance of mechanical components, subsystems, and systems.
Examples pertaining to these solution methodologies are presented. These examples cover a wide range of applications in mechanical sys-
tems and would help clarify the overall framework of problem-solution schemes frequently encountered in the design of mechanical sys-
tems.

Key Words: concurrent engineering, design optimization, product design, competing objectives, constraints, weighting factors, modeling,
multiphase optimization

1. Introduction mization process. The optimization process extends beyond

Concurrent engineering is a very important concept
terms of the state of global economy in existence at present.
It is a philosophy that is bound to sharpen the competitive
edge of an already successful company and to boost the com-
petitiveness of a sluggish company as well [ 1 ]. The adoption
of concurrent engineering has a strong influence on a compa-
ny’s operating costs, product quality, product development
time, and profitability [2-4]. CE is a paralleled approach that
replaces the time-consuming linear process of serial engi-
neering and expensive prove-outs. Figure 1 (a) shows a se-
the mathematical analysis of a certain problem. In a sense
in that maximizing or minimizing governing mathematical
functions does not conclude the optimization procedure, it
also does not ensure maximum performance. On the other
hand, an overall evaluation of the importance of the contrib-
uting parameters, both in isolation and collectively, does in-
spire, to a great extent, a successful procedure.
In order to establish an efficient optimization procedure, it
is essential to analyze the various factors affecting the proce-
dure and deal with optimization problems in view of the pro-
cess parameters and the extent of the complexity of their in-

quential one-way flow (conventional product design and
manufacturing flow), which does not allow mutual two-way
communication between divisions. In concurrent engineer-
ing, Figure l(b), simultaneous or concurrent decision mak-
ing of factors concerning product design and manufacturing
is cooperatively performed helping to acquire design propos-
als and/or design alternatives. This is intended to elicit the
product developers, from the outset, to consider the &dquo;total
job&dquo; (including company’s support functions) [4].
Optimization is the ultimate goal of any design that aims to
obtain a maximum gain out of a system at minimum expense
within a framework of physical laws that restrict absolute
multi-aspect gains. The classical approach in tackling opti-
mization problems calls for the separate consideration of the
factors interfering within a design-operation process and the
isolation of individual effects if possible [5-13]. Such an ap-
proach lacks the deep understanding of the nature of the opti-
terrelation. One should also thoroughly consider the
influence of each parameter from a totalitarian perspective
bounded by the constraints imposed upon the problem by the
final competitive factors [ 14]. In general, the goal is to obtain
an efficient balance between parameters and restrictions to
optimize performance, robustness, and product reliability.
In this work, concurrent engineering has been utilized
to develop an optimization methodology that facilitates
flow of information between components, subsystems,
and systems. The ultimate goal is to achieve an optimum
system in record time and cost. A primary advantage of
such an approach is that it formalizes and exposes errors
and inefficiencies that may be overlooked with the com-
plexity of the product realization process. Moreover, it
provides the degree of objectivity that is essential for
manufacturing precision, system assembly, customer sat-
isfaction, or company profitability.

Volume 6 Number 2 June 1998 101

1063-293X/98/02 0101-10 $10 00/0
©1998 Technomic Publishing Co , Inc
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
102

Figure 1. Flow of information m (a) sequential and (b) concurrent engineering.

2. Concurrent Design Optimization
The purpose here is to attempt to bridge the gap between
optimization theory and its practical application. A new de-
sign optimization philosophy to ensure optimum perform-
ance of mechanical systems is developed. The approach is
dynamic and the optimization process starts from a paramet-
ric part to a complex system that is composed of several hun-
dred assemblies of parts. Figure 2 shows the information
flow and the optimization methodology in a concurrent envi-
ronment. Based on the nature of the system, three optimiza-
tion methodologies are proposed: direct (explicit), interact-
ing (implicit), and comparative (modeling). The implementa-
tion of the optimization methodology on parts, components,
subsystems, and system is shown in Figure 3. The direct opti-
mization method is suitable for parts, components, and simple
subsystems. Interacting optimization plays a major role in op-
timizing components, subsystems, and systems. Comparative
optimization allows the designer to choose the best design for
the task and helps in establishing corrective steps analytically
to ensure optimum performance while the design is still con-
ceptual.

Figure 2. The concurrent design optimization methodology.

Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015

 103

Figure 3. The implementation of the optimization methodology on parts, components,

subsystems, and systems.

3. Direct (Explicit) Optimization where

The various contributing parameters or design variables in

direct (explicit) optimization problems do exhibit a direct re-
lation and can be expressed in explicit mathematical form. In
most cases, such problems are either unconstrained or
bounded by constraints that do not obstruct a classical mathe-
matical approach (Figure 4). To ensure robustness, analytical
and mathematical models of the design in terms of its vari-
ables (problem parameters) are formulated. These models,
such as a set of equations, a computer program, or a proce-
dure that relates an output response to a set of control or input
variables, are examples of an explicit model of a design.
The general mathematical formulation of this class may be
expressed as:
Minimize: (D(X) Objective Function
An example, to demonstrate such problems, is the design op-
timization of power screws.
3.1 Optimization of Power Screws
Power screws, sometimes called linear actuators or trans-
lation screws, are used to convert rotary motion to relatively
slow linear motion of the mating member along the axis.
( l a) Power screws, as load-carrying members, have various de-
sign configurations and are applied to a wide range of ma-
chine components to obtain a great mechanical advantage.
The goal in this analysis is to reduce the overall power con-
sumption by maximizing the load-carrying efficiency.
The efficiency of the ACME screw threads can be de-
scribed by [15]:

Figure 4. Direct (classical) optimization problems

Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015

104
Figure 5. Design optimization of acme power screw threads
where
where, 1] is the efficiency, f is the coefficient of friction, A is
the helix angle, and a&dquo; is the thread angle.
A self-locking screw is one that requires a positive torque
to lower the load; an overhauling screw is one that has low
enough friction to enable the load to lower itself; that is, a
negative external lowering torque must be maintained to
keep the load from lowering. Equation (3) shows that a screw
is self-locking if
The is to maximize the efficiency of the
design objective
power screw, t7, while the design variables are the helix an-
gale, ..1., and the coefficient of friction, f. The relation between
the parameters here is of explicit nature, which benefits a di-
Table 1. Optimum helix angle and the corresponding
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
rect mathematical approach regardless of the constraint (rep-
resented by the self-locking condition). The plots of 77 versus
Z, at different values off (Figure 5) suggest that the efficiency
is maximized with decreasing values off Optimum values of
A, iopi, at different values off can be obtained either analyti-
cally or numerically.
The optimum values are summarized in Table 1 for self-
locking and overhauling conditions. From the table, it is ap-
parent that the overhauling condition possesses a higher effi-
ciency over the self-locking one. The drawback is the de-
signer has to provide a special locking device to prevent
screws from overhauling. In both cases, optimum values are
presented and the designer choice has to be based on the na-
ture of the application. In the case of square threads, the
thread angle a&dquo; 0 and the optimum values are higher by less
=
than 1 % when compared with the above values.
4. Interacting (implicit) Optimization
This approach is suitable for optimizing components,
subsystems, and systems that are characterized by a com-
plex interaction between the contributing factors and the
diverse necessities of the multiple competing objectives.
efficiency for acme screw threads.

In this class of optimization problems, the governing
equations, relating the variables, are presented in implicit
expressions. This is attributed to the physical constraints
imposed by the multitude of parameters or to the multi-
inter influential nature of the constituents. In such prob-
lems, an educated compromise is inescapable and a
mathematical reformulation is essential.
The solution methodology relies heavily on the value
characteristics matrices (VCM) management (Figure 2). In
CE, VCM management provides a measure of estimating
fielded (system level) performances through examining the
interactions among the design for x-ability (DFX) matrices
such as reliability, maintainability, and supportability value
characteristics [14]. What is needed is a synthesis environ-
ment to facilitate flow of information between applications,
languages, and computer platforms. With the advent of
feature-based parametric CAD systems (e.g., Pro-Engineer,
Ideas, EDS/Unigraphics, etc.) and parametric or variational
FEA (ANSYS, Nastran, Ideas, etc.), optimum design process
isbecoming much easier to implement. When these systems
are linked with a classical optimization theory, they provide a
soft-prototyping capability.
The plan of the solution of this class of problems can be
summarized as follows (Figure 6):
Step 1: Define the independent parameters (design
ables).
Step 2: Identify the reference parameters (parameters that
are given or can be precisely controlled).
Step 3: Normalize the independent parameters using the ref-
erence ones.
Step 4: Formulate closed form expressions representing the
behavior of the system as explicit functions of the
new normalized parameters.
Step 5: Define different competing objectives to suit various
design applications.
Step 6: Adopt the method of multiplying objectives and
raising to different exponents and solve for the opti-
Figure 6. The solution methodology for interacting optimization problems.
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
105
mum independent parameters. The value of a given
exponent is a designer choice and depends on the ap-
plication.
Step 7: Apply a suitable optimization routine to obtain the
optimum design parameters.
This novel approach has been utilized to optimize the fi-
nite journal-bearing performance under steady loading con-
ditions. The importance of this approach is that the current
selection of the main bearing parameters relies heavily on
empirical guidelines. This is primarily due to the complexity
of the interaction between the different parameters governing
the behavior of such bearings.
4.1 Hydrodynamic Journal-Bearing Optimization
Considerable attention has been given in the literature to
the design and performance of hydrodynamically lubricated
journal bearings. Little has been devoted, so far, to the deter-
mination of the bearing design parameters based on optimum
performance [16-18]. Although there are many aspects of
bearings performance under steady and dynamic loading
which have been experimentally, numerically, and theoreti-
cally investigated, an actual design procedure based on opti-
mal conditions has not yet been concluded. In addition, some
vari- of these investigations are still somewhat in disagreement
with experimental findings either because of the difficulty in
introducing exact boundary conditions or in the assumptions
made to solve the governing differential equations.
The present work represents a novel approach to optimiz-
ing finite journal-bearing performance under steady loads
and puts forward a computational technique to aid designers
in assigning bearing geometry and design parameters. The
solution makes use of the previously computed numerical
values of the bearing performance characteristics [19-20]
and develops an explicit formulas to help in finding optimum
conditions. The optimization treats competing objectives to
suit various design applications. Moreover, the need for
106

complex tradeoffs for more than two competing objectives 2. The eccentricity ratio can take the form:
may be avoided.
Following the above-mentioned procedure, the solution
steps can be represented as follows:
where
Step 1: The main independent parameters for this problem
are

and A, is the function of L only.

3. The minimum film thickness equation is:

where L is bearing length, C is radial clearance, and

I is oil viscosity.
Step 2: In formulating the problem, it will be assumed that which in nondimensional form becomes:
the given parameters are

where H is the normalized minimum film thick-

ness.
4. The normalized frictional power loss is:

where D is bearing diameter, N is rotational speed,

and W is load.
Step 3: In a nondimensional form and employing the diame-
ter D for length, rotational speed N for time, and the
load W for mass normalization, we get whereof) is thepolynomial function of E.
5. Oil flow side leakage can be represented as:

whereAL) depends only on L

where X is the normalized design vector, L is length to 6. The normalized oil temperature rise takes the fol-
diameter ratio (L/ D), C is radial clearance ratio lowing form:
(2C/D), and À is a viscosity representation (ÀNIJ2/W).
Step 4: The equations governing the behavior of the bearing
in this study are developed by curve fittings. These
equations are used for the calculation of minimum
oil film thickness, frictional loss, oil flow, tempera-
Step 5: Determine the different design objectives. Some of
ture rise, etc. Taking into consideration the new non-
the possible design objectives are:
dimensional groups of bearing parameters, new
.
Maximize the minimum oil film thickness (H)
characteristic variables related to the bearing per-
.
Minimize the bearing power loss (F)
formance can be found.
.
Minimize the oil flow rate required for adequate
1. The load criterion (A) is usually given by the re-
lubrication (Q)
lation [20]:
.
Minimize the oil temperature rise in the bearing (T)
.
Minimize the size of the bearing (L)
Step 6: The general objective function is formulated by mul-
tiplying some of the aforementioned design objec-
tives for minimization and dividing by those for
In terms of the new nondimensional design vari- maximization [21]. Also, raising to different expo-
ables, it then takes the form: nents is a useful tool for relative emphasis. The gen-
eral objective function and the importance of each
factor can be considered such that:

Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015

 107

Figure 7. Optimum results compared with Raimondi and Boyd (minimum power loss and
maximum load are considered).

where a, b, r, and s are weighting factors which de-
pend on the applications and the importance of each
term in the objective function.
Step 7: Apply a suitable optimization routine to obtain the op-
timum design parameters. In formulating a problem
for automated design, careful attention must be given
to the search method adopted (numerical techniques).
It should suit the designer domain and the criterion un-
der consideration. These search techniques are usually
modified whenever necessary to produce the best pos-
sible results with minimum effort.
In this study, the grid method is used. It is very
gives direct results from the first view, and presents an addi-
tional study to the total design space. This is particularly use-
ful, especially when this space cannot be predicted in ad-
vance. A constraint on the value of E not to exceed 0.95 has
been imposed to prevent the possibility of solid contact.
It should be noted that, by considering only one objective
at a time, Raimondi and Boyd [ 19] obtained the maximum-
minimum film thickness (maximum load) curve and the
minimum friction traction curve. It was suggested that the
optimum solution should lie in between these two curves,
Figure 7. The optimum values attained in the present study
by considering both objectives come within this design area.
The present analysis, therefore, is more advantageous since it
gives definite values of the optimum design parameters. Fur-
thermore, other objective functions are considered and com-
simple, parative results can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparative results of different objective functions.

Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015

108
Based on this approach the following conclusions
outlined:
~
By giving weight to the objective of minimum power loss,
more improvements on the side leakage and temperature
rise are noticed.
~ Minimum power loss may come at the expense of the
maximum-minimum film thickness. Hence, more accurate
machining is required.
~ If minimal power loss is required, the attained results
showed that very low viscosity fluids should be used to-
gether with high accuracy and minimum radial clearance.
In this context, it is recommended that gas bearing may be
beneficial.
~
Optimization with respect to only one of the performance
characteristics would eventually render non-practical re-
sults (e.g., minimum power loss and/or minimum tem-
perature rise are attained theoretically at eccentricity ratio
equals one, while maximum lubricant film thickness
and/or minimum side leakage are achieved at zero eccen-
tricity ratio).
~ The different proposed objective functions may be com-
peting design objectives. By way of example, to optimize
the bearing with the objective of minimum power loss, this
may come at the expense of the maximum-minimum film
thickness and vice versa. Nevertheless, minimizing the
power loss will help in minimizing the other most practical
objectives.
5. Comparative (Modeling) Optimization
Modeling is very important in evaluating the integrity of
completed designs. Modeling may require concentrating on
the performance trade-off and overall coordination of the
product functionality. This type of analysis is particularly
suited to the emerging CE environment [14]. When more
work is done in parallel, the coordination and control of com-
puter support system becomes increasingly important. An
expert relies on accurate product and process modeling to ac-
curately predict any product or process queries [22].
Knowledge-based optimization involves three things [14]:
1. A knowledge-based feature model
2. Formulation of design problem as an optimization prob-
lem
3. An optimization algorithm to guide the design to reach a
feasible solution
Modeling and simulation facilitate the process of making
complex changes to product design and development. The
approach is dynamic, and the model can be iterated through
the various responsible work groups until a set of attributes
that provides the best possible (feasible) solution.
In this approach, the presence of a dominating final objec-
tive dictates the attitude towards the solution to the extent
that the optimum performance of a mechanical system is
viewed as independent of the intermediate path towards the
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
can be final goal. For instance, optimizing each component in a de-
vice does not necessarily mean optimum performance. The
approach to such problems is non-classical and depends to a
great extent on the ability of reducing the whole problem to
solving a realistic physical model representing the condi-
tional behavior of the system in the desired optimized mode.
Through modeling, the objective can be achieved by com-
parison between all the possible operating systems based on
the characteristic of the preset requirements. The modeling
concept is demonstrated by the following example.
5.1 Loading Mechanisms
In the present work, two designs for the application of nor-
mal load for pin-on-disc tribosystems are investigated. One
of those is the &dquo;dead weight&dquo; technique; the other is essen-
tially the &dquo;governor mechanism.&dquo; With the dead weight de-
sign the normal load is applied to a rotating disc through a
pivoted lever. With the governor, instead of controlling
speed by means of displacement, the normal force applied to
the rotating disc is established by controlling the speed of an
independently driven motor. With both systems the rotating
disc contacts a stationary pin.
The objective here is defined in terms of the &dquo;dynamic
stiffness&dquo; [23]. That is, the tribotester apparatus should be
designed so that when contact between pin and disc is lost
there is an immediate tendency for the triboelements to &dquo;re-
engage.&dquo; This is obvious since invariant contact conditions
should be maintained to the maximum extent possible.
In order to analyze the dynamic interaction between pin
and disc it is necessary to model the pin and its supports, as
well as the disc and the mechanisms, which are used to pro-
vide the normal load. These models are represented in terms
of lumped parameters (i.e., equivalent mass meq, equivalent
damping Ceq, equivalent stiffness ke9, and equivalent force
Fe). Also, for purposes of analysis and of comparison be-
tween the two alternative designs, the initial conditions con-
sisted of a normal separation between pin and disc, and a zero
approach velocity. In tribotesting, such an event might occur
with the removal of a relatively large piece of wear debris.
Subsequent motion consists of alternating separations and
impacts, and the solution methodology is given in Reference
[23].
The dynamic response of both governor and lever mecha-
nisms is summarized in Table 3. These results are tabulated
for conditions of high and low load (nominal contact stress)
and for light and heavy damping. In addition, two initial step
(A) sizes are investigated and the objective is to determine
the time required for each system to achieve &dquo;re-contact&dquo; fol-
lowing such initial step disturbances. In this analysis, it is im-
portant to recognize that the purpose is to compare two dif-
ferent mechanical systems in terms of &dquo;dynamic stiffness.&dquo;
From the table, it is apparent that the governor mechanism
possesses a superior dynamic stiffness in all cases. That is,
the time required for contact to be re-established is faster for
the governor than for the lever. Thus, the governor system is

Table 3. Dynamic response of the two mechanisms.
significantly more responsive to wear-induced perturbations
than is the lever mechanism.
6. Decision
The optimization process extends beyond the mathemati-
cal analysis. Maximizing or minimizing governing mathe-
matical functions does not conclude the optimization proce-
dure, nor does it ensure maximum performance. The purpose
here is to close the gap between optimization theory and its
practical application to ensure optimum performance. This
requires analyzing the various factors affecting the procedure
and &dquo;reorganizing&dquo; optimization problems in view of the
process parameters and the extent of complexity of their in-
terrelation.
The proposed classification of optimization problems and
the suggested methodology of solution of each class provide
a practical and powerful tool to assure optimum performance
of any mechanical system. Three classes of optimization
problems are proposed: direct (explicit), interacting (im-
plicit), and comparative (modeling).
Direct problems represent cases in which the mathemati-
cal formulas relating the constituents of the problem are of
explicit nature that does not obstruct a traditional mathemati-
cal approach, even in the presence of constraints. This class
can be handled from a solid mathematical perspective, rather
than an interaction between mathematics and experience.
Interactive problems represent a class or more complex
problems, in which objectives, factors, and constraints are
inter-influential. Isolating the independent parameters, iden-
tifying the reference parameters, normalizing the governing
equations, and careful screening of the objectives are key
steps toward the mathematical formulation of the problems.
Weighting the extent of the influence of each objective and
how it affects the ultimate design goal also should be consid-
ered. It has been observed that optimization with respect to
only one of the performance characteristics would eventually
render nonpractical results. Therefore, combination of com-
peting objectives through multiplication and raising to dif-
ferent exponents have been utilized. This procedure renders
practical and reasonable optimum parameters as demon-
strated by the hydrodynamic journal bearing example.
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
109
Moreover, the whole bearing design domain was examined
and, hence, an absolute optimum could be achieved.
A new concept in handling optimization problems on the
basis of system modeling was also introduced. This concept
offers a powerful key in selecting an optimum system among
available ones. Through modeling, the objective can be
achieved by comparison between all the possible operating
systems based on a characteristic preset requirement.
The given examples represent a wide range of applications
in mechanical systems and vary from a simple design prob-
lem solved by differentiating an objective function, power
screws, to a more complex problem of optimizing a hydrody-
namic journal bearing. Finally, the modeling approach to
solve a comparative optimization problem in loading appli-
cation is detailed.
The clear advantage of such approach is that changes or
improvements to the total product and process design can be
made earlier, when costs of such changes are less. Among the
other contributions are the following:
~
Capture the knowledge of the design intent.
~ Define the problem in a set of parameters, constraints, and
objective functions.
~
Identify conflicts between different design parameters.
~
Analyze the design for structural considerations under a
range of field conditions such as stress, heat, impact, vi-
bration, and other real world situations.
~
Provide feedback based on incremental analysis of design
as it evolves.
~ Generate comments on the design.
~
Create a library of critics to provide immediate feedback
on the design decisions as they are being made.
~
Help designers make their product better, more reliable,
and durable.
7. Conclusions
A new design philosophy to ensure optimum performance
of mechanical systems using concurrent engineering ap-
proach has been developed. Based on the nature of the sys-
tem, the relation between the design parameters, and the con-
straints, three optimization approaches are introduced: direct
110
(explicit), interacting (implicit), and comparative (modeling)
optimizations. The suitability of each approach, its merit, and
how these approaches are implemented concurrently have
been discussed in detail. Examples are carefully chosen to
cover a wide range of applications in mechanical systems
and to demonstrate the solution methodology. It has been ob-
served that the proposed methodology renders practical and
reasonable optimum parameters. In dealing with interacting
and comparative problems, the designer’s own understand-
ing and judgment are key factors toward practical solutions.
Moreover, optimization should be viewed as an interaction
between mathematics and experiences and should not be
handled from a solid mathematical perspective.
References
1. C. Poly & R. J. Graves, "Return Your Competitive Edge with
Concurrent Engineering," Controls and Systems, 1992, Vol.
39, pp. 29-31.
2. J. L. Tourino, "Managing Concurrent Engineering: Buying
Time to a Market: A Definitive Guide to Improved Competi-
tiveness in Electronics Design and Manufacturing," New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.
3. J. R. Hartley, "Concurrent Engineering: Shortening Lead
Times, Raising Quality and Lowering Costs," Cambridge, MA:
Productivity Press, 1992.
4. B. Prasad, "Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated
Product and Process Organization," Volume I, Prentice Hall,
1996.
5. R. T. Haftka, "Elements of Structural Optimization," Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1990.
6. P. Y. Papalambros & D. J. Wilde, "Principles of Optimal De-
sign : Modeling and Computation," Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
7. W. Stadler, "Multicriteria Optimization in Engineering and in
the Sciences," New York: Plenum Press, 1988.
8. G. N. Vanderplaats, "Numerical Optimization Techniques for
Engineering Design: With Application," McGraw Hill, 1984.
Downloaded from cer.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 10, 2015
9. R. L. Fox, "Optimization Methods for Engineering Design,"
Addison-Wesley, 1971.
10. D. J. Wilde & C. B. Beighter, "Foundation of Optimization,"
Prentice-Hall, 1967.
11. G. R. Walsh, "Methods of Optimization," Wiley, 1975.
12. R. W. Mayne & K. M. Ragsdell (eds.), "Progress in Engineer-
ing Optimization 1981," ASME, 1981.
13. J. Zhou & R. W. Mayne, "Interactive Computing in the Appli-
cation of Monotonicity Analysis to Design Optimization,"
ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automa-
tion in Design, 1983, Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 181-187.
14. B. Prasad, "Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated
Product Development," Volume II, Prentice Hall, 1997.
15. R. C. Juvinall & K. M. Marshek, "Fundamentals of Machine
Component Design," John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
16. A. Seireg & H. Ezzat, "Optimum Design of Hydrodynamic
Journal Bearings," ASME Journal of Lubrication Technology,
1969, pp. 516-523.
17. H. Moes & R. Bosma, "Design Charts for Optimum Bearing
Configurations: 1-The Full Journal Bearing," ASME Journal of
Lubrication Technology, 1971, vol. 93, pp. 302-306.
18. D. L. Bartel & R. W. Marks, "The Optimum Design of Me-
chanical Systems with Competing Design Objectives," ASME,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, 1974, pp. 171-178.
19. A. A. Raimondi & J. Boyd, "A Solution for the Finite Journal
Bearing and its Application to Analysis and Design," Part I, II,
and III, ASME Lubrication conference, 1957.
20. O. Pinkus & B. Sternlicht, "Theory of Hydrodynamic Lubrica-
tion," McGraw Hill, 1961.
21. S. M. Metwalli, G. S. A. Shawki, M. O. A. Mokhtar, & M. A.
Seif, "Multiple Design Objectives in Hydrodynamic Journal
Bearing Optimizations," Trans. ASME, J. Mechanisms, Trans-
missions, and Automation in Design, 1984, Vol. 106, pp.
54-60.
22. H. S. Abdalla & J. Knight, "Expert System for Concurrent
Product and Process Design of Mechanical Parts," Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 1994, Vol. 208, No. B3, pp.
167-172.
23. M. A. Seif, F. A. Moslehy & S. L. Rice. "Dynamic Stiffness
Analysis in Tribocontact," Wear, 1987, Vol. 119, No. 3, pp.
353-368.