Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU
Publications Research

2010

Optimization, an Important Stage of Engineering

Design
Todd R. Kelley
Purdue University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications

Part of the Engineering Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Kelley, T. R. (2010). Optimization, an important stage of engineering design. The Technology Teacher, 69(5), 18-23.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research at
DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications
by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
 Optimization, an Important Stage of
Engineering Design
By Todd R. Kelley

Teaching middle and high

school students how to weigh
constraints and criteria against
various design solutions in
order to select the best possible Charles Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis: An Example in Optimization.
solution is an important skill
and optimization are employed before any prototype work is
necessary for engineering, as started.

well as for life. Recently, the author conducted research to examine the
status of technology education regarding the infusion of
engineering design concepts (Kelley, 2008). Participants
from this study revealed that technology education
curriculum content currently does not emphasize
optimization techniques as a part of the engineering design
process. One of lowest-ranking survey items for time per
Introduction typical use was the item: use optimization techniques to
A number of leaders in technology education have indicated determine optimum solutions to problems, mean of 1.82
that a major difference between the technological design using a 5-point Likert scale. In the author’s search to
process and the engineering design process is analysis understand why technology educators have not emphasized
and optimization (Hailey, et al., 2005; Hill, 2006; Gattie this phase of the engineering design process to a greater
& Wicklein, 2007). The analysis stage of the engineering degree, the author discovered that there was very little
design process is when mathematical models and scientific in engineering design textbooks or engineering design
principles are employed to help the designer predict design curriculum at the secondary level regarding optimization.
results. The optimization stage of the engineering design One of the few pre-engineering sources that broached the
process is a systematic process using design constraints subject, Engineering Your Future, (Gomez, Oakes, & Leone,
and criteria to allow the designer to locate the optimal 2006) dedicated only one page to optimization. However,
solution. In an engineering design approach, both analysis the members of the National Center for Engineering

18 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

Spirit of St. Louis photographed at National Air and Space Museum.

and Technology Education (NCETE) have identified or condition” (p. 610). The purpose of optimization is to
optimization as an important concept in engineering design achieve the “best” design relative to a set of prioritized
(Merrill, Custer, Daugherty, Westrick, & Zeng, 2007). criteria or constraints. These include maximizing factors
such as productivity, strength, reliability, longevity,
NCETE members have identified three specific core design efficiency, and utilization. (Merrill, Custer, Daugherty,
concepts important in the engineering design process and Westrick, & Zeng, 2007). Engineers are often assigned
have termed these concepts Constraints, Optimization, design projects that require them to seek a solution that
and Predictive Analysis or COPA. The COPA concept has efficiently locates a design that meets the identified criteria
been used to help technology education teachers quickly within the given constraints. Koen (2003) defines the
identify the core concepts of engineering design. NCETE engineering method as “the strategy for causing the best
has developed some activities designed to deliver COPA change in a poorly understood situation within the available
in technology education. This article will focus specifically resources” (p. 7). Engineers are often forced to identify a
on Optimization as a way to inform technology educators few appropriate design solutions and then decide which
about the concept and provide an example of optimization one best meets the need of the client. This decision-making
through the case of Charles Lindbergh’s famous 1929 flight process is known as optimization.
from New York to Paris. The author will present a historical
case using Lindbergh’s own words from his biography, Lindbergh and The Spirit of St Louis: An Example
The Spirit of St. Louis (1953), to illustrate that he used an
optimization process to make design decisions about his
in Optimization
plane and flight, which led to his success much more than When Lindbergh set out to win the Orteg prize for being
just being “Lucky Lindy.” the first aviator to fly nonstop from New York to Paris,
the aviation technology was available to accomplish
Optimization Defined such a goal. However, other aviators more experienced
One of the simplest definitions for optimization is “doing than Lindbergh (Byrd, Davis and Wooster, Fokker, and
the most with the least” (Gomez, et al. p. 301, 2006). Nungesser) attempted the nonstop flight, resulting in
Lockhart and Johnson (1996) define optimization as “the crashes at takeoff or losses at sea (Lindbergh, 1953). These
process of finding the most effective or favorable value failures did not occur because the famous flyers lacked

19 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

 The first constraint, keeping weight of the plane down,
directly correlates to the design criteria ample reserve of
fuel. In order to keep weight down, Lindbergh’s first design
choice was something the other aviators never considered,
a single-engine monoplane. When challenged by financial
backers to consider a multiengine plane, Lindbergh
responded, “I’m not sure three engines would really add
much to safety on a flight like that (over water). There’d be
three times the chance of engine failure; and if one of them
stopped over the ocean, you probably couldn’t get back to
land with the other two. A multiengined plane is awfully big
and heavy” (Lindbergh, 1953, p.26). Lindbergh also chose a
monoplane over a biplane. When asked about this decision,
Lindbergh said, “it [monoplane] is more efficient than a
biplane, there’s more room in the wing for gasoline, and it
can carry more ice (on the wing)” (p. 103).
Another decision made by Lindbergh to keep the weight
down was to fly the plane solo. Clearly the greatest risk in
Lindbergh’s plan was flying solo for over 33 hours and 30
The Spirit of St. Louis: close-up of the right side of the fuselage.
minutes. However, Lindbergh believed flying alone was
his greatest asset. “By flying alone, I’ve gained in range, in
time, in flexibility; and above all, I’ve gained in freedom”
the advanced technology of the time or because they were (p. 192). By flying alone, Lindbergh was able to add more
unskilled fliers. Money was not an issue: aviators such weight in the form of additional fuel necessary to make the
as Byrd, Fonck, Davis, and Nungesser poured thousands transatlantic flight and ensure that he had a safety cushion of
of dollars into multiple-engine airplanes, some of which extra fuel in case of a navigational error or if forced to turn
never lifted off the ground. Why was Lindbergh successful? back due to inclement weather. This decision addressed all
He optimized for the best available solution (The Spirit of the major constraints and criteria: (1) keeping weight down,
St Louis) under the given constraints and conditions—a (2) safety during flight, and (3) ample reserve of fuel.
technique Lindbergh learned as an engineering student
at the University of Wisconsin. There were many issues Lindbergh made some decisions about what to carry and,
for Charles Lindbergh to consider as he planned for his more specifically, what not to carry, that might cause
nonstop transcontinental flight. At the forefront of all of his some to wonder if he had carefully considered his own
concerns was, of course, his safety. Lindbergh (1953) writes: safety during flight. For example, Lindbergh chose not to
carry an aircraft radio, a parachute, or a sextant (tool for
“Safety at the start of my flight means holding down navigation). These items seem necessary for a pilot’s safety.
weight for the takeoff. Safety during my flight requires However, through the optimization process, Lindbergh
plenty of emergency equipment. Safety at the end of my rationalized that these items would cost more in added
flight demands ample reserve of fuel. It is impossible to weight to the plane than they would be worth in practical
increase safety at one point without detracting from it at usage. The parachute was a tough item to reject; however,
another. I must weigh all these elements in my mind, and Lindbergh provides a logical rationale for not carrying one.
attempt to strike some balance” (p.97). “I considered carrying a parachute, but decided against it.
A parachute would have cost twenty pounds—a third of an
What Lindbergh illustrates through these words is that to hour of fuel—enough food and water for many days” (pp.
engineer anything requires decision making and balancing 212-213). Lindbergh also supported his decision to not
constraints and criteria to implement the best possible carry a parachute with the rationale that he could only use
solution. Let’s review the final decisions that Lindbergh a parachute in one part of the journey (over Nova Scotia).
made for the design of his aircraft and the plans of his flight Lindbergh’s flight pattern had him flying too low for a
assessed against the constraints and criteria he listed above: parachute (over Long Island and New England), over water,
(1) keeping weight down, (2) safety during flight, and (3) or (over Europe) when the plane would be light enough for a
ample reserve of fuel. safe stall-landing.

20 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

Lindbergh chose not to carry a naval radio because, at the simple with no fancy extras, and as a result, his budget was
time, these instruments were very heavy, difficult to use, and under $15,000 compared to others such as Davis, who spent
were unreliable. Lindbergh wrote: “I find that naval radios $100,000 on his plane.
are much too heavy for my single-engine plane, and that
their value on a flight like mine is doubtful” (p. 96). Optimization in the Classroom
There are many teaching strategies that can be employed to
He addresses the issue of not carrying a sextant when he
include the optimization process in a technology education
wrote: “I couldn’t possibly use a sextant . . . I couldn’t take
program. Certainly, any technology education program
a sight and fly the plane at the same time. The slightest
that includes engineering design projects should include
turn throws the bubble off. The Spirit of St Louis won’t
an optimization phase of the design process. This can be
hold a straight course for two seconds by itself. Besides,
accomplished by requiring students to keep records of
there’s the weight—you can’t carry everything on a record
their design thinking and decision making in an engineer’s
flight” (p.237). “If we’d tried to carry every safeguard, the
notebook. The technology education teacher could require
plane couldn’t have gotten off the ground—dump valves,
that students list possible solutions and provide rationale for
parachute, radio, sextant” (p.237). In fact, that is certainly
why they selected their final design solution, which would
one reason why Byrd, Fonck, Davis, and Nungesser crashed
require students to carefully think through the various
on takeoff; they all tried to carry more weight than the
options and how each option impacts the design solution.
plane could handle. Lindbergh rationalized these decisions
Thinking optimally is a skill that must be developed.
by determining what he gained by giving up these items.
He wrote: “We’ll trade radio and sextant weight for extra Technology education teachers could help students develop
gasoline. What I lose in navigational accuracy, I hope to gain these skills by conducting an in-class discussion about
twice over in total range” (p. 96). a technological problem as a way to work through the
optimization process. For example, an in-class discussion
Lindbergh did choose to carry some items for personal
about the rising cost of gasoline could be an interesting
safety, including a rubber boat, red flares, emergency food
technological problem to explore through the optimization
rations, and an extra gallon of drinking water. In all, these
process. Students could brainstorm possible solutions, and
items weighed over 30 lbs; equivalent to over a half an
as a class they could seek to locate multiple solutions that
hour of flying time in fuel weight. These items, Lindbergh
meet class-defined constraints and criteria, and discuss
considered, were optimal options for the conditions he
the potential benefits and pitfalls until the class locates the
would be under during his flight.
optimal solution. If the class explored all of the positive
Lindbergh had aeronautical engineers working with him, and negative impacts fossil fuel-based technologies have
as Ryan Air custom designed and built The Spirit of St. on society, the economy, politics, and the environment,
Louis. Lindbergh made final decisions on how the plane was then the exercise would address Standards 4, 5, and 6
designed. One unique feature of the aircraft was the location of Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the
of the cockpit behind the gas tank. Lindbergh believed that Study of Technology. (ITEA 2000/2002/2007). Classroom
locating the cockpit behind the gas tank gave him a better exercises like the one described here can be very beneficial
chance in case of a crash landing. This was a very abnormal for students to learn how to systematically make decisions
design that placed the gas tank in the view of the pilot. That based upon identified constraints and defined design
fact was no issue to Lindbergh; he decided to design the criteria. Decision making is a very important skill for life
plane without a windshield. He writes: “There is not much and, let’s face it, middle and high school students often lack
need to see ahead in normal flight. I won’t be following any the ability to make important informed decisions.
airways . . . All I need is a window on each side to see out
through. The top of the fuselage could be the top of the Closing
cockpit. A cockpit like that wouldn’t add any resistance at Proponents of engineering design have challenged
all” (p.87). Remember, Lindbergh, like all good engineers, technology educators to move away from the trial-and-error
made decisions based upon defined criteria and identified approach of testing design solutions in favor of employing
constraints. In this case, Lindbergh, in his own words writes, analysis (using mathematical models and science concepts
“I think we ought to give first consideration to efficiency to predict design results) and optimization (systematic
in flight; second to protection in a crack-up; third, to pilot process using design constraints and criteria to locate the
comfort (p. 99). Lindbergh also had to consider keeping optimal design) (Hailey, et al., 2005; Hill, 2006; Gattie &
costs down, so he chose to keep the design of the plane very Wicklein, 2007).

21 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

 Classical Engineering Design Process Grades 9-12 STL Design Process
(From introductory engineering text by Eide, et al.) (from Standards for Technological Literacy)
1. Identify the need 1. Defining a problem
2. Define problem 2. Brainstorming
3. Search for information 3. Researching and generating ideas
4. Identify constraints 4. Identifying criteria and specifying constraints
5. Specify evaluation criteria 5. Exploring possibilities
6. Generate alternative solutions 6. Select an approach and develop a design proposal
7. Engineering Analysis 7. Building a model or prototype
8. Optimization 8. Testing & evaluating the design using specifications
9. Decision 9. Refining the design
10. Design Specification 10. Creating or making it
11. Communication 11. Communicating process and results
Table 1. Comparison of an Introductory Engineering Design Process with the STL Standard 8 Design process

Charles Lindbergh and the design of The Spirit of St. Table 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of an
Louis provides an example of how an engineer weighs engineering design process and the technological
constraints and design criteria to locate the optimum literacy design process, revealing major differences in
solution. The author hopes that, through this example, the two approaches to design, highlighted here in bold.
technology education teachers will be inspired to use The engineering analysis and optimization stages of the
pedagogical approaches that implement optimization engineering design process provide the designer with
techniques. Several suggested approaches to optimization decision-making “tools” for making informed decisions
for technology education include using an engineer’s design about design solutions before a final design is selected and a
notebook to record design thinking and decision making, prototype is built.
and leading class discussions on the impact of technology,
allowing students to optimize the best solution with the References
fewest negative impacts. Another optimization technique Gomez, A. G., Oakes, W. C., & Leone, L. L. (2006).
is using a decision matrix that allows students to assign Engineering your future: A project-based introduction to
weights to constraints and criteria as a way to systematically engineering. Wildwood, MO: Great Lakes Press, Inc.
locate the optimum design solution. (See http://deseng. Hailey, C. E., Erickson, T., Becker, K., & Thomas, T.
ryerson.ca/xiki/Learning/Main:Decision_matrix for details (2005). National center for engineering and technology
about creating a decision matrix.). In order for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(5), 23-26.
education to move toward an engineering design focus, it International Technology Education Association.
is critical to employ these optimization techniques that are (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy:
recognized as authentic engineering design strategies. Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Kelley, T. R. (2008). Examination of engineering design
The efforts taken here to explain the term optimization curriculum content and assessment practices of secondary
have been made using simple design terminology—not to technology education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
trivialize the optimization process but to provide a simple University of Georgia, Athens.
example. In the engineering discipline, optimization can Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the
involve many complicated mathematical formulas necessary engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford
for locating optimal solutions to complex engineering University Press.
problems. However, teaching middle and high school Lockhart, S. D. & Johnson, C. (1996). Engineering design
students how to weigh constraints and criteria against communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
various design solutions in order to select the best possible Lindbergh, C. A. (1953). The Spirit of St. Louis. New York:
solution is an important skill necessary for engineering as Charles Scribner’s Sons.
well as for life.

22 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

Merrill, C., Custer, R., Daugherty, J.,
Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2007).
Delivering core engineering concepts
to secondary level students. American
Society for Engineering Education
Conference Paper.
Salustri, F. A. (2008). Decision matrix.
Retrieved November 18th 2008.
from http://deseng.ryerson.ca/xiki/
Learning/Main:Decision_matrix.

Resource
www.charleslindbergh.com/hall/spirit.
pdf
The technical report for the Lindbergh
flight, created by Ryan Air. It shows all
the calculations that were done to locate
optimal air speed, gas mixture ration,
etc. Teachers could use the airplane
design as an engineering case for their
class to study.

Todd R. Kelley, Ph.D.,

is an assistant professor
in the College of
Technology at Purdue
University. He is a
member of Purdue’s
P-12 sTEm initiative focused on
research in STEM education. He can be
reached at [email protected].
This is a refereed article.

23 • The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her • Februar y 2010

Copyright of Technology Teacher is the property of International Technology Education Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.