Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “multicriteria decision making”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Fuzzy set methods for object recognition in space applications

Progress on the following tasks is reported: (1) fuzzy set-based decision making methodologies; (2) feature calculation; (3) clustering for curve and surface fitting; and (4) acquisition of images. The general structure for networks based on fuzzy set connectives which are being used for information fusion and decision making in space applications is described. The structure and training techniques for such networks consisting of generalized means and gamma-operators are described. The use of other hybrid operators in multicriteria decision making is currently being examined. Numerous classical features on image regions such as gray level statistics, edge and curve primitives, texture measures from cooccurrance matrix, and size and shape parameters were implemented. Several fractal geometric features which may have a considerable impact on characterizing cluttered background, such as clouds, dense star patterns, or some planetary surfaces, were used. A new approach to a fuzzy C-shell algorithm is addressed. NASA personnel are in the process of acquiring suitable simulation data and hopefully videotaped actual shuttle imagery. Photographs have been digitized to use in the algorithms. Also, a model of the shuttle was assembled and a mechanism to orient this model in 3-D to digitize for experiments on pose estimation is being constructed.

Keller, James M.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Advanced timeline systems

The Mission Planning Division of the Mission Operations Laboratory at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for scheduling experiment activities for space missions controlled at MSFC. In order to draw statistically relevant conclusions, all experiments must be scheduled at least once and may have repeated performances during the mission. An experiment consists of a series of steps which, when performed, provide results pertinent to the experiment's functional objective. Since these experiments require a set of resources such as crew and power, the task of creating a timeline of experiment activities for the mission is one of resource constrained scheduling. For each experiment, a computer model with detailed information of the steps involved in running the experiment, including crew requirements, processing times, and resource requirements is created. These models are then loaded into the Experiment Scheduling Program (ESP) which attempts to create a schedule which satisfies all resource constraints. ESP uses a depth-first search technique to place each experiment into a time interval, and a scoring function to evaluate the schedule. The mission planners generate several schedules and choose one with a high value of the scoring function to send through the approval process. The process of approving a mission timeline can take several months. Each timeline must meet the requirements of the scientists, the crew, and various engineering departments as well as enforce all resource restrictions. No single objective is considered in creating a timeline. The experiment scheduling problem is: given a set of experiments, place each experiment along the mission timeline so that all resource requirements and temporal constraints are met and the timeline is acceptable to all who must approve it. Much work has been done on multicriteria decision making (MCDM). When there are two criteria, schedules which perform well with respect to one criterion will often perform poorly with respect to the other. One schedule dominates another if it performs strictly better on one criterion, and no worse on the other. Clearly, dominated schedules are undesireable. A nondominated schedule can be generated by some sort of optimization problem. Generally there are two approaches: the first is a hierarchical approach while the second requires optimizing a weighting or scoring function.

Bulfin, R. L.↗
NASA NTRS2005

A Method for Aircraft Concept Selection Using Multicriteria Interactive Genetic Algorithms

The problem of aircraft concept selection has become increasingly difficult in recent years as a result of a change from performance as the primary evaluation criteria of aircraft concepts to the current situation in which environmental effects, economics, and aesthetics must also be evaluated and considered in the earliest stages of the decision-making process. This has prompted a shift from design using historical data regression techniques for metric prediction to the use of physics-based analysis tools that are capable of analyzing designs outside of the historical database. The use of optimization methods with these physics-based tools, however, has proven difficult because of the tendency of optimizers to exploit assumptions present in the models and drive the design towards a solution which, while promising to the computer, may be infeasible due to factors not considered by the computer codes. In addition to this difficulty, the number of discrete options available at this stage may be unmanageable due to the combinatorial nature of the concept selection problem, leading the analyst to arbitrarily choose a sub-optimum baseline vehicle. These concept decisions such as the type of control surface scheme to use, though extremely important, are frequently made without sufficient understanding of their impact on the important system metrics because of a lack of computational resources or analysis tools. This paper describes a hybrid subjective/quantitative optimization method and its application to the concept selection of a Small Supersonic Transport. The method uses Genetic Algorithms to operate on a population of designs and promote improvement by varying more than sixty parameters governing the vehicle geometry, mission, and requirements. In addition to using computer codes for evaluation of quantitative criteria such as gross weight, expert input is also considered to account for criteria such as aeroelasticity or manufacturability which may be impossible or too computationally expensive to consider explicitly in the analysis. Results indicate that concepts resulting from the use of this method represent designs which are promising to both the computer and the analyst, and that a mapping between concepts and requirements that would not otherwise be apparent is revealed.

Buonanno, Michael↗