Multiobjective Design Optimization of Rolling

Element Bearings using NSGA II

Shantanu Gupta
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Assam India 781039
shantanu@iitg.ernet.in
November 20, 2004
Abstract
Rolling element bearings are widely used as important components in
most of the mechanical engineering applications. Be it development of automotive, manufacturing or aeronautical industy, all of them have given
a boost to advancement in design technology of rolling element bearings.
One problem of special interest in these application areas is how to design
and select rolling element bearing based on different operating conditions
to reach their excellent performance, long life and high reliability. This
invokes the interest in optimal design of rolling element to achieve these
objectives collectively, which leads us to the need of multiobjective optimization. In this report we shall handle three objectives for the roller
bearings, namely, dynamic capacity (Cd ), static capacity (Cs ) and minimum film thickness (hmin ). The design parameters are mean diameter
of rolling (Dm ), ball diameter (Db ), number of balls (Z), inner curvature
radius (fi ) and outer curvature radius (fo ).These multiple objectives (performance measures of mechanical bearing) compete among themselves,
thus giving us a trade-off region where they become simultaneously optimal, i.e. Pareto optimal. A brief look on the previous approaches,
especially the weight based combination of multiple objectives, show the
obvious drawbacks like each point of Pareto optimal surface needs one optimization run. The advanced weight based approaches cannot cover the
non-convexities of trade-off region. Therefore the need comes for an advanced multiobjective optimization algorithm: NSGA II (non dominated
sorting based genetic algorithm - II), a much acclaimed MOEA (multiobjective evolutionary algorithm) is used as an answer to all the difficulties
faced by previous appoaches. The approach gives much better results in
comparison to the previously tried approaches. We also debate the usage
of an evolutionary approach in contrast to a deterministic approach in our
context of application.

1
1.1

Introduction
Motivation

The ever growing application of rolling element bearings in the industry has been
a constant source of motivation for the design engineers to come up with a design technology that gives long lasting, more efficient and highly reliable bearing
design. The objectives are hard to satisfy, thus making it a numerically challenging problem. Further there is a need to collectively optimise them. Hence
the numerical toughness and a need to optimise them collectively demands an
application of (evolutionary) multiobjective optimization. The objective functions that are to be optimized are dynamic capacity (Cd ), static capacity (Cs )
and minimum film thickness (hmin ).

1.2

Previous work

Due to the aforementioned toughness of the problem. There have been very less
attempts to optimise the objectives simultaneously. Wan [Cha91] has proposed
separate objective functions with some specified geometric constraints. The
reported work where multiobjective optimization was implemented [Kal01] does
a weighted combination of these individual objective functions namely - dynamic
capacity, static capacity and minimum film thickness (all three of them have
to be maximized). Thus we convert our multiobjective problem into a scalar
optimization problem. But in the work done; weights for combination were
chosen randomly, and the results obtained leave room for an improvement. Both
deterministic as well as stochastic approaches are tried out in [Kal01]. Penalty
function forms the deterministic approach used while simulated annealing and
genetic algorithm form the stochastic ones. The results were found to be good
when dealt with single objectives, but inclusion of more than one objective in
the genetic algorithm formulation led to non conclusive results.

1.3

Our work

The previous approaches have multiple drawback like unknown selection of

weights for different objectives, one point obtained in one run, and incapability
to explore non-convex regions of Pareto front. Thus we need to use a good multiobjective (evolutionary) algorithm (MOEA) for solving our problem. Coello has
give a good survey of the good MOEA in [Coe]. Another good work is the doctor thesis of Zitzler [Zit99]. Because of NSGA-IIs (Elitist based non dominated
sorting based genetic algorithm) [DAPM00] low computational requirements,
elitist approach, and parameter-less sharing approach, it was chosen as the algorithm for determination of trade-off between competing performances, i.e. to
generate the Pareto front [Mie99, SGA03].
The results obtained are satisfactory, and give us a good insight into the
the trade-offs between the performance measures of roller bearings. Apart
from numerical significance of the obtained optimal solution, there remain a
few questions to be answered about the behavior of different competing objectives. These result can help us better understand/interpret the physics behind
the roller bearings.

1.4

Outline

The rest of the report is organized as follows, in the section 2 we present the
geometry and thus give a physical framework to the problem, followed by mathematical modeling of problem in section 3 as set of our objective functions,
parameters and applied constraints that restrict the feasible parameter space.
Section 5 debates the point of whether to use deterministic or stochastic approach, followed by 6 where we introduce and explain the details of used multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. Then next section 7 discusses the application
of the algorithm to our problem, and the results obtained. We end our report
with conclusions in section 8 followed by important references. In appendix we
list the implementation code overview, compilation and usage, refer [Kal01] for
the the important symbols used in this report.

Roller Bearing Design

The ball and roller bearings appear to be simple, but their internal geometry
is quite complex. Different kind of stresses, deflections, load distribution have
effect on performance and life of the bearing. The common nomenclature of a
typical ball bearing is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Nomenclature of the bearing

In the most crudest form, the geometry of a bearing can be defined by
two parameters namely, bore (d) and the outer diameter (D). More can be
learnt from the figure 2. In this figure the variables d and D (marked in blue)
show the given geometry parameters. The paramaters important to us are ball
diameter (Db ), mean diameter of pitch (dm ), inner and outer raceway curvatures
coefficient (ri /Db and ro /Db ) and the one not shown in figure but evidently
important is number of balls or rollers (Z). We will use terms fi and fo for
representing raceway curvature coefficients.

Problem formulation

Any constrained multicriteria optimization problem essentially is composed of

parameters, constraints and the objective functions (that have to be collectively
optimized). We discuss in brief these components of our problem in following
sections.

Figure 2: Geometric measures of a bearing

3.1

Parameters

The design parameters chosen in this problem are diameter of the balls (Db ),
mean diameter (Dm ), number of balls (Z), curvature radius coefficient of inner
raceway groove (fi ) and curvature radius coefficient of outer raceway groove
(fo ). The given geometries are the bearing bore (d) and the outside diameter
(D).
Apart from the varying parameters, we also have some constants defined.
Here for this problem we have six constants in total - KD min, KD max, , e, o , .
The values of these constants are fixed. All angles are measured in radians, the
distances in millimeteres (mm), force in newtons (N).
KDmin
KDmax

e
o

3.2

=
=
=
=
=
=

0.5
0.8
0.2
0.1
4.712388
0

Constraints

There are eight inequality constraints in total. Out of them six are used up to
define parametric bounds. The remaining two are kept as problem constraints,
and are supposed to be handled by the optimization algorithm. The following
are the eight problem constraints:
2Db KDmin (D d) 0

(1)

KDmax (D d) 2Db 0
Dm (0.5 e)(D + d) 0

(2)
(3)

(0.5 + e)(D + d) Dm 0
fi 0.515 0

(4)
(5)

fo 0.515 0

(6)

o
Z +10
Db
2sin1 D
m

(7)

0.5(D Dm Db ) Db 0

(8)

We can rewrite the top 6 to formulate the parametric bounds for four of the
five parameters. The remaining parameter is Z (number of balls). This is given
an intuitional bound of 6 to 50. This is based on our previous experiences.
KDmin (D d)
KDmax (D d)
Db
2
2
(0.5 e)(D + d)
Dm (0.5 + e)(D + d)
2
0.515 fi 0.6
0.515 fo 0.6

(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

The remaining 2 give problem constraints. These are the ones which are
employed to constrain the optimization.

3.3

o
Z +10
Db
2sin1 D
m

(13)

0.5(D Dm Db ) Db 0

(14)

Objective functions

As discussed earlier, we have three objective functions under our consideration

for optimization. They are dynamic capacity (Cd ), static capacity (Cs ) and
minimum film thickness (hmin ). All three have to be maximized. Please note
that though we are showing all our objective functions belonging to maximization type while in the implementation we multiply them with -1 to make them
minimization.
3.3.1

Dynamic Capacity (Cd )

This objective forms the requirement for longest fatigue life. We are going to
list the formula specific to the deep groove ball bearings. The symbols used are
explained in detail by [Kal01]. In the following equation, the factor is in a
reduced form (complete form: = Db cos/Dm , here = 0). The objective to
be maximized is Cd .

fc Z 3 Db1.8
Db 25.4mm
2
3.647fc Z 3 Db1.4 Db > 25.4mm
0.3

1.72
0.41 10
3
1
fi (2fo 1)

fc = 37.91 1 + 1.04
1+
fo (2fi 1)
0.3

0.41
(1 )1.39
2fi
1
2fi 1
(1 + ) 3
Cd =

= Db /Dm

(15)

3.3.2

Static Capacity(Cs )

Static capacity is defined for both inner as well as outer raceway. The objective
functions takes the minimum of both the values and maximizes that. In the
following equation, Cs has to be maximized, i represents the number of rows,
here i = 1, and cos = 1, as = 0 for deep groove bearing. a , b is found
by some separate equations, they are not given here to keep things concise,
read [Kal01] for more details.

C(s,i) =

23.8ZiDb2 (ai bi )3 cos

2
2
4 f1i + 1

C(s,o) =

23.8ZiDb2 (ao bo )3 cos

2
2
4 f1o 1+

Cs = min(C(s,i) , C(s,o) )
3.3.3

(16)

Minimum Film Thickness (hmin )

The third and the last objective function is minimum film thickness. This
directly refers to the longest wear life. We want least amount of wear, therefore
the optimization problem for these types of bearings is that for given sizes of the
bearing outline and operation conditions, the film thickness should be maximum.
This performance will also differ for inner and outer raceway, therefore we take
the minimum of two and maximize that. First we will list some constants apart
from global constants of the problem. For significance and more information
about these constants read [Kal01].
1
0
ni
E0
Fr

=
=
=
=
=

1 108 P a1
0.02 P a.S
5000 rpm
2.25e + 11 P a
15000 N

(17)

Some more expressions used in objective function, i is the number of rows,

Q =
R(x,i)

R(y,i)

R(x,o)

R(y,o)

5Fr
iZcos
Db /2(1 )
fi Db
2fi 1
Db /2(1 + )
fo Db
2fo 1

Finally, the complete objective function for minimum film thickness,

6

0.68
ni Dm 0 (1 2 )

120

R(y,i) 0.636
1 exp 0.703
R(x,i)

0.68
2
0.49 0.466 0.117 0.073 ni Dm 0 (1 )
= 3.631 R(x,o) E0
Q

120

R(y,o) 0.636
1 exp 0.703
R(x,o)

0.466 0.117 0.073

hmin,i = 3.6310.49 R(x,i)
E0
Q

hmin,o

hmin = min(hmin,i , hmin,o )

(18)

Weighted sum approach

In this section we will give an overview of the previous approach used to tackle
this problem. A weight based approach was used; the idea was to combine
the three objective into one single scalar function, and then use deterministic
or stochastic approach to handle this single objective. We have to normalize
the individual functions when combining them. This is required since there are
upper and lower limits on each of these objective functions and a combination
necessiates normalization. Thus it gives uniformity to the problem. To explain
normalizaton let us take a case of some objective function f (X), if it has a and
b as its lower and upper limits, then we can normalize the function as = f (X) a
f (X)
ba

(19)

The objective function obtained upon combining all three individual objectives using weights can be given as f (X) = w1

Cd a1
Cs a2
hmin a3
+ w2
+ w3
b1 a1
b2 a2
b3 a3

The weights are subjected to condition X

wi = 1

(20)

(21)

Now we can run any optimization algorithm for this particular objective
function with given parameter set and apply the constraints mentioned earlier
in this report. The biggest drawback of this approach is that we do not have
any fixed criteria for choosing the weights, and each selection will give us some
arbitary trade-off point. In contrast the MOEA used by us guarantees a good
distribution of trade-off points to cover majority of the Pareto front.

Deterministic Vs. Stochastic

The decision to choose between the deterministic and stochastic approach is one
of the most difficult ones to make. The choice has to take into account number

Deterministic
Low computation cost
Search is directed
Easy to determine the limiting
constraints
Could get stuck in local optima
in most of the cases
Convergence is guaranteed

Stochastic
High computation cost
Search is random
Not easy to determine the
limiting constraints
Random search helps us to
reach global optima
Convergence is assumed when
improvement between generations
become very low
Good with inequality constraints
Increase in complexity is not
so drastic
Sensitive genetic operating
parameters
Good for a new incompletely
specified

Good with equality constraints

Problem complexity increases
drastically with parameters num.
No sensitive operating parameters
Good when you have indepth
understanding of problem

Table 1: Comparing deterministic and stochastic approaches

of factors; the nature of problem(objectives and constraints), the resources available (time and space), and some other needs depending on the goals. Table 1
gives a more detailed account of the comparison.
Here we have at our hands a multiobjective optimization from mechanical
design domain. Almost all of the supplied constraints are inequality constraints
as given in section 3. There is no hard constrain upon the time taken to solve
the problem, as the design of roller bearing is a one time issue. If the algorithm
gives good results, then it is fine to lose a fraction on the efficiency. We also
need to rule out possibility of getting stuck at a local minima. The deterministic
approach tried in the previous work [Kal01] had problems like slow convergence
and frequent stucking at local minima (or maxima). In addition to this, determinitic approaches cannot handle the drastic increase in the complexity of
the problem as more design parameters are introduced. Considering all these
factors we have chosen evolutionary algorithm for solving our multiobjective
problem. An efficient tweaking of parameters in the stochatic approach will be
of utmost need.

NSGA II: Non-dominated sorting based genetic algorithm

As we saw in 3 the different objectives were combined with help of weighted summation. This was the approach used in the previous work [Kal01], but there is
also a need to choose well suited weights for different objectives. This is required
in order to obtain useful non-dominated points on the Pareto front [Mie99].

6.1

GA: A brief Introduction

Genetic algorithm got its name from biological concept of genes. Here we represent our solution as chromosomes, which are nothing but representation of
our sample solution as a string of values. These few initial chromosomes form
a population. The best ones from the population are chosen for mating. After
which they are probabilistically chosen to be crossed over with others. Last
step is mutation with a very smally probability. These three steps form a complete cycle or generation as termed in GA. We keep repeating these steps until
we notice very nominal improvement from one generation to the next. This is
effectively taken to be the occurence of convergence.

6.2

Multiobjective optimization and NSGA II

Over the past decade, a number of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms

(MOEAs) have been suggested. The primary reason for this is their ability
to find multiple Pareto-optimal solutions in one single run. Since the principal
reason why a problem has a multi-objective formulation is because it is not possible to have a single solution which simultaneously optimizes all objectives, an
algorithm that gives a large number of alternative solutions lying on or near the
Pareto-optimal front is of great practical value. The main issues which NSGA
II rectifies proving itself superior to other MOEA are:
High computational complexity of non-dominated sorting: The
non-dominated sorting algorithm in use uptil now is O(mN 3 ) which in case
of large population size is very expensive, especially since the population
needs to be sorted in every gen- eration.
Lack of elitism: Recent results show clearly that elitism can speed up
the performance of the GA significantly, also it helps to prevent the loss
of good solutions once they have been found.
Need for specifying the sharing parameter share : Traditional mechanisms of insuring diversity in a population so as to get a wide variety of
equivalent solutions have relied heavily on the concept of sharing. The
main problem with sharing is that it requires the specification of a sharing parameter. Though there has been some work on dynamic sizing of
the sharing parameter, a parameterless diversity preservation mechanism
is desirable.
It is hence the property of Elitism and Fast non-dominated sorting that gives
strength to NSGA II. In the following subsections, we will learn the different
components of NSGA II, this will also attempt to explain how this algorithm
takes care of the common problems faced by other MOEAs. It is ofcourse not
possible to discuss everything about algorithm, therefore we suggest a reference
to [DAPM00]. We must remember that NSGA II defines only the selection
from one generation to the other. Rest of the things like reproduction, crossover
and mutation can be defined by user as per his needs. Things like constraints
handling, representation of chromosomes as real or binary strings is also upto
us. Methods like fitness sharing, niching can be employed for higher diversity
in the population.

6.3

Extraction of non-dominated front

This is the first stage for any non-dominated sorting based algorithm. This
does a quick sorting on the solution space, and extract the set of non-dominated
points or the Pareto points.

6.4

A fast non-dominated sorting approach

In this component, we strip out the non-dominated fronts one by one from
the solution space and give them ranks. Like, the solution points belonging to
the first one, first non-dominated front, are given a rank of 1, and the those
belonging to next non-dominatet front a rank of 2, and so on. This way we get
a set of non-dominated fronts.

6.5

Density estimation

It is very important to keep the solution points well spread out, for this efficient
measures are required for controlling the crowding in one region. This basically
gives a distance measure to every solution point. This distance is an estimate of
largest cuboid enclosing that solution point without including any other solution
point. A graphical illustration is in figure 3.

10

Figure 3: Largest cuboid around a solution point

6.6

Crowded comparison operator

This operator is used to rank the individuals (solutions) on the basis of two
things,
Rank: from non-dominated front they are belonging to, front 1, rank 1,
front 2, rank 2 and so on.
Distance: Crowding distance, from previous section on density estimation.

This ranking is used for

Selecting population for next generation
For reproduction operator

6.7

Main loop

This part defines the main control loop. All the components described above
are effectively employed in this. We also show a graphical representation of the
same in figure 4. The main loop does the task of taking parent (Pt ) and child
(Qt ) population from tth generation and generating parent (Pt+1 ) and child
(Qt+1 ) of t + 1th generation. Parent population of a generation is the incoming
population from previous generation, and child population is the one obtained
after selection, crossover and mutation.

Application and Results

Our goal is to solve the multicriteria problem as specified in section 3 using

NSGA II. The application after a good thorough knowledge of NSGA II becomes very elementary. In our application, we have used real crossover and

11

Figure 4: Graphical representation of NSGA II

mutation. The reproduction operator is tournament selection. We also make
use of fitness sharing and niching. We use the code developed by KanGAL
Laboratory IIT Kanpur as base work, and add on to it. The final version is a
complete application pack suited for roller bearing designing.
Though a lot of useful combination of bearings Douter diameter and binner
diameter are possible. We have run our algorithm primarily for D = 30mm,
and d = 10mm. The first set of result show the improvements obtained on per
objective function basis (refer table 2). This is a scalar optimization, and does
not come in the purview of multiobjective optimization, still we show them as
the results were encouraging.
D = 30mm, d = 10mm
Dynamic capacity
Static capacity
Minimum film thickness

Previous
7516
4685
0.23088

New
7578
4873
0.23088

Table 2: Per objective improvement

Next comes the pairwise objective optimization. This is essentially a multiobjective optimization using two objective functions. We will handle the three
pairs i.e. dynamic capacity and static capacity, dynamic capacity and minimum
film thickness, and, static capacity and minimum film thickness separately. We
will show the transition of results with the change in genetic algorithm parame12

ters crossover probability (Xp), mutation probability (Mp), crossover distribution

index (XDi), mutation distributive index (MDi), population (P) and genarations
(G).
First we will infer the results for dynamic capacity and static capacity pair.
The resulting graphs from the algorithm are shown in figure 5. After much
variations, we got the graph shown in figure 5(c). We found that there is a
need to keep the population count more (>2000), and number of generations
less (<50). Also the distribution indices should be in a range of 10-40 to obtain
reasonable results. Crossover and mutation rates do not have much effect.
4840

4900
"sp"

"sp"

4830
4850
4820
4800

4810
4800

4750
4790
4700
4780
4770

4650

4760
4600
4750
4740
7420

7440

7460

7480

7500

7520

7540

7560

7580

4550
7200

7600

(a) Xp = 0.8, Mp = 0.1, XDi = 10,

MDi = 100, P = 1500, G = 120

7250

7300

7350

7400

7450

7500

7550

7600

(b) Xp = 0.7, Mp = 0.2, XDi = 20,

MDi = 15, P = 3000, G = 42

4900

4850
"sp"

"sp"

4850

4800

4800
4750
4750
4700
4700
4650
4650

4600

4600

4550
6800

6900

7000

7100

7200

7300

7400

7500

4550
7000

7600

(c) Xp = 0.8, Mp = 0.2, XDi

= 33, MDi = 30, P = 4000, G
= 34

7100

7200

7300

7400

7500

7600

(d) Xp = 0.8, Mp = 0.2, XDi = 33,

MDi = 30, P = 4000, G = 25

Figure 5: Dynamic capacity (x) and static capacity (y)

Coming on to the next pair, dynamic capacity and minimum film thickness.
Resulting graphs are shown in figure 6. The best plot obtained is shown in figure 6(f). The trends are similar, variations in crossover and mutation probability
do not have much effect. We can see this evidently from plot 6(e). The general
trend is to keep large value of population and an optimum value of generation
count. Concerning the distribution indicies, if kept high, then generation count
cannot be kept more than 40-50 range. If kept low, then even high values (like
100) of generation give fine results. The results obtained show a clear trade-off
between the competing objectives, the discontinuities tell that those portions of
solution space do not have non-dominated solutions.
13

The final pair is that of static capacity and minimum film thickness. The
graphs are shown by figure 7. The best solution is that from plot 7(c). We
see a huge cavity in the Pareto front. This can be analyzed to give insightful
information about bearing design. The other parameters are similar, low values
of distribution indices, high value of population, and a generation count ranging
from 30 to 80.
Obtainment of good results while using low values of distribution indices
can be interpreted in a simple way. The distribution indices represent a kind
of averaging effect while doing mutation and crossover (real mutation and real
crossover ). We want less of this averaging effect because we want less crowding
around one particular solution. We need a spread of solutions (non-dominated
points). Basically we want more of randomness in our optimization run to get
a better spread of solution and therefore we want less of sharing, i.e. less of
distribution.
For the final case, we take the optimization of all three objective functions
simultaneously. Here the results obtained have a direct basis of comparison
with the older work done. The improvement we see is significant. In fact, even
the best solution obtained by previous approach is completely dominated by
solutions obtained by our approach. The table 3 shows the final results. We
must keep in mind that while using previous approach, obtaining each solution
point meant a complete optimization run. In contrast to this our approach gives
nearly 600-700 Pareto points in one run.
Objectives
Weights Solution vector
Dynamic capacity
0.4
7393
Static capacity
0.4
4439
Minimum film thickness
0.2
0.20236
Dynamic capacity
0.4
7238
Static capacity
0.2
4623
Minimum film thickness
0.4
0.2141
Objectives
Solution number Solution vector
Dynamic capacity
7472
Static capacity
1
4773.61
Minimum film thickness
0.21397
Dynamic capacity
7330
Static capacity
2
4692
Minimum film thickness
0.2154
Dynamic capacity
...
Static capacity
..
...
Minimum film thickness
...
Dynamic capacity
7164
Static capacity
n
4830
Minimum film thickness
0.2225
Table 3: Old approach (top) only 2 solution vectors were there in previous work,
New approach (bottom) n is in the order of 600-700

14

Conclusion

In this technical report to our work, we have introduced the problem statement.
Then discussed the previous approach (weight based), pointing out the shortcomings of approaches used. Also we have debated the applicability of deterministic or stochastic approach to the problem at hand. Where we find stochastic
approach better suited for handling this multiobjective problem. Then we justify the use of NSGA II to solve the multiobjective design optimization problem
for rolling element bearings. After a brief look at NSGA II algorithm and its advantages, we give its application in our problem. The results obtained are very
encouraging for both 2 objective and 3 objective optimizations. The obtained
graphs give insightful information about rolling element bearings performance
variations.

References
[Cha91]

W. Changsen. Analysis of Rolling Element Bearings. Mechanical

Engineering Publication Ltd., London, 1991.

[Coe]

Carlos A. Coello Coello. An updated survey of ga-based multiobjective optimization techniques.

[DAPM00] Kalyanmoy Deb, Samir Agrawal, Amrit Pratab, and T. Meyarivan.

A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for MultiObjective Optimization: NSGA-II. In Marc Schoenauer, Kalyanmoy Deb, G
unter Rudolph, Xin Yao, Evelyne Lutton, J. J. Merelo,
and Hans-Paul Schwefel, editors, Proceedings of the Parallel Problem
Solving from Nature VI Conference, pages 849858, Paris, France,
2000. Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1917.
[Kal01]

Karuna Kalita. Optimal Design of Rolling Element Bearings using

Deterministic and Stochastic Methods. PhD thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
2001.

[Mie99]

Kaisa Miettinen. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999.

[SGA03]

G. Stehr, H. Graeb, , and K. Antreich. Performance trade-off analysis of analog circuits by normal-boundary intersection. In 40th
Design Automation Conference (DAC) 2003, Anaheim, CA, USA,
June 2003.

[Zit99]

E. Zitzler. Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization:

Methods and application. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH), Aachen, Germany, 1999.

15

0.23

0.205
"sp"

"sp"

0.228

0.2045

0.226
0.204
0.224
0.2035
0.222
0.203
0.22
0.2025
0.218

0.202

0.216

0.214
6400

6500

6600

6700

6800

6900

7000

7100

7200

7300

7400

0.2015
7340

7500

(a) Xp = 0.63, Mp = 0.06, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 2500, G = 250

7360

7380

7400

7420

7440

7460

7480

7500

7520

(b) Xp = 0.57, Mp = 0.08, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 1000, G = 300

0.235

0.23
"sp"

"sp"
0.228

0.23
0.226
0.225
0.224
0.22

0.222

0.22

0.215

0.218
0.21
0.216
0.205
0.214

0.2
6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

0.212
6400

7600

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

(c) Xp = 0.57, Mp = 0.08, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 1000, G = 100

(d) Xp = 0.90, Mp = 0.04, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 800, G = 50

0.235

0.235
"sp"

"sp"

0.23

0.23

0.225

0.225

0.22

0.22

0.215

0.215

0.21

0.21

0.205

0.205

0.2
5800

6000

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

0.2
6000

7600

(e) Xp = 0.85, Mp =0.54, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 5000, G = 35

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

(f) Xp = 0.85, Mp = 0.20, XDi

= 20, MDi = 10, P = 4000, G
= 100

Figure 6: Dynamic capacity (x) and minimum film thickness (y)

16

7600

0.231

0.231
"sp"

"sp"

0.2305

0.2305

0.23

0.23

0.2295

0.2295

0.229

0.229

0.2285

0.2285

0.228

0.2275
4600

0.228

4650

4700

4750

4800

4850

0.2275
4760

4900

(a) XP = 0.69,Mp = 0.10, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 1500, G = 140

4770

4780

4790

4800

4810

4820

4830

4840

4850

4870

(b) XP = 0.69,Mp = 0.07, XDi =

10, MDi = 100, P = 800, G = 80

0.231

0.231
"sp"

"sp"

0.2305

0.2305

0.23

0.23

0.2295

0.2295

0.229

0.229

0.2285

0.2285

0.228

0.228

0.2275

0.2275

0.227
4500

4860

4550

4600

4650

4700

4750

4800

4850

0.227
3900

4900

(c) XP = 0.8,Mp = 0.2, XDi

= 20, MDi = 10, P = 4000, G
= 80

4000

4100

4200

4300

4400

4500

4600

4700

4800

(d) XP = 0.8,Mp = 0.2, XDi = 20,

MDi = 10, P = 5000, G = 25

Figure 7: Static capacity (x) and minimum film thickness (y)

17

4900

Implementation

This section gives a brief overview about usage of the coding work done to get
the results shown in this report. We will explain the important code files, the
other files in the code directory can be safely ignored.
nsga2.c: Main code which describes the control flow of NSGA II algorithm.
bearing-constants.h: This is a file containing bearing constants like E, , e
etc. User can modify it if need be.
config-gen.c: This is an important file and helps in generation of inputs to be
provided to the NSGA II. Everything from mutation, crossover probability,
to parametric bounds can be modified from here.
elliptic.h: This is a file that need not be touched, it defines the common functions used for finding objective function values. Especially to find a and
b (refer section 3).
func-con.h: This file contains, the definition of objective functions, and constraints. This is most important only when user needs to modify objective
functions. This kind of need is not foreseen.
compile: One file that does it all. Run this after any kind of modification to
any part of the code, it will first do a compilation. Then it will ask for
D (outer diameter) and d (bore diameter) as bearing input. Finally, it
will ask for functions that have to be optimized, after which it will start
execution of optimization algorithm and the results will be given out in
several *.out files.
Therefore to run the optimization, just typing ./compile will do. It takes
care of all other inputs. If you want to set some parameters for optimization
manually, please edit the config-gen.c file accordingly. The settings left by
default were found to be optimum.

18