ME 42104 : OPTIMIZATION

TECHNIQUES
Lecture 1
G. N. Kotwal

Formulation of typical
constraints on systems
behaviour
Constraints can be imposed on:
equivalent stress
critical buckling load (local and global), can include
postbuckling characteristics
frequency of vibrations (can be several)
cost
etc.

Choice of design
variables
Design variables are selected to uniquely identify a
design. They have to be be mutually independent.

35

Typical examples:
Area of cross section of bars in a truss structure
Number of a specific steel section in a catalogue of
UB sections
Coordinates of poles of B-splines defining the shape
of an aerofoil , etc.

MATHEMATICAL
OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
A formal mathematical optimization problem: to find components of the vector x of design
variables:

where F(x) is the objective function, gj(x) are the

constraint functions, the last set of inequality
conditions defines the side constraints.

Unconstrained Optimization
problems
Some optimization problems do not involve any constraints and can
be stated as:

Such problems are called unconstrained optimization

problems.

Constrained optimization
problem.
An optimization problem can be stated as follows.

where X is an n-dimensional vector called the design vector, /(X) is

termed the objective Junction, and gj (X) and Ij (X) are known as
inequality and equality constraints, respectively. The number of
variables n and the number of constraints m and/or/? need not be related
in any way. The problem stated in Eq. above is called a constrained
optimization problem.

Criteria of systems
efficiency
Criteria of structural efficiency are described by the objective function F(x). Typical
examples:

cost
weight
use of resources (fuel, etc.)
stress concentration
etc.

Example of a discrete
problem
Optimization of a steel structure where some of the members are described by 10 design
variables. Each design variable represents a number of a UB section from a catalogue of 10
available sections.

One full structural analysis of each design takes 1 sec. on a computer.

Question: how much time would it take to check all the combinations of cross-sections in
order to guarantee the optimum solution?

Answer: 317 years

Difficulty in solving a
discrete problem

41

Mathematical Modeling Examples

New consumer research indicates that people like to drink about 0.5
liter of soda at a time during the summer months. The fabrication
cost of the redesigned soda can is proportional to the surface area
and can be estimated at $1.0 per square meter of the material
used. A circular cross section is the most plausible given current
tooling available for manufacture. For aesthetic reasons , the height
must be at least twice the diameter. Studies indicate that holding
comfort requires a diameter between 6 and 9 cm.
Design variables : Sizes : d,h,t
Assumptions : t is small , ignored in the calculation of volume of
can.
Only Cyl. Surface considered for vol. calculations, not the ends.
Typically , change in parameters will cause the solution to be
recomputed.
Design parameter: C (Cost / unit area 1 C. per sq. cm. )
The design functions will include : computation of the volume
enclosed by the can and the surface area of the cylindrical section.
volume in the can = d2h/4.
surface area = dh
aesthetic constraint : h >= 2d
side constraints on Dia. : on diameter 6 9 cm.

Search Procedure
Nonlinear

Problems:
Solution searched by
search / num. / iterative
(Stepwise algorithm)
methods.
Proper initial guess is
necessary, thro
experience.
Getting closer to the
solution Convergence
Initial guess - x0 nonfeasible. Goto x1 by
identifying a search
direction. Sl (vector
from x0 to x1).
X1 is better than x0
feasible but nonoptimal.
In same diretion, Sl can
give x1 at BSl

Complete algorithm decides ways of finding S and

Cantilever Beam
A cantilever beam needs to be designed to carrying a point load F at
the end of the beam of length L. The cross section of the beam
wiII be in the shape of the letter I beam should meet prescribed
failure criteria. There is also a Iimit on its deflecti on. A beam of
minimum mass is required to be designed.
Ac, Qc, Ic = C/s area, 1st moment of area, M.O.I.

Sizing
optimization
Tractor-trailer
combination
Objective: to
improve the ride
characteristics
Design variables:
properties of the
suspension system

48

Sizing
optimizati
on
Flight simulator
Kinematic optimization of a
Stewart platform manipulator
for a flight simulator.
The goal of optimization is to
design a manipulator with
maximum workspace whose
characteristics are defined
according to the manoeuvres of
an aircraft.

49

Sizing
optimization
Flight simulator (cont.)
Kinematic optimization of a
Stewart platform manipulator for a
flight simulator.

50

Sizing
Flight simulator
optimization
Six design variables define the configuration of the platform.

51

Sizing optimization
problems
Stirling engine
Objective: to improve the
thermodynamic efficiency.
Constraint: power output.
Design variables: parameters of
the engine.

52

Shape
optimization
Optimization of a spanner

53

Shape
optimization
Optimization of a spanner

A CAD model of a structure. Moves of the boundary are

allowed at the indicated points

54

Shape
optimizatio
n
Optimization of a spanner

Initial and final designs. Courtesy of J. Rassmusen

55

Shape optimization
problems

56

Shape optimization
problems

57

Shape optimization
problems

58

EXAMPLES: SHAPE OPTIMIZATION

Optimization of an aerofoil

B-spline representation of the NACA 0012 aerofoil. The B-spline poles are
numbered from 1 to 25. Design variables: x and y coordinates of 22 B-spline poles (N =
44).

W.A. Wright, C.M.E. Holden, Sowerby Research Centre,

British Aerospace (1998)

59

Problem definition (aerofoil,

cont.)
EXAMPLES: SHAPE OPTIMIZATION

Problem formulation:

Objective function (to be minimized): drag coefficient at Mach 0.73 and Mach 0.76:
F0 (x) = 2.0 Cd total (M=0.73) + 1.0 Cd total (M=0.76)

Constraints: on lift and other operational requirements (sufficient space for holding
fuel, etc.)
Techniques used:
Powells Direct Search (PDS)

Genetic Algorithm (GA)

MARS
Carren M.E. Holden
Sowerby Research Centre, British Aerospace, UK

60

EXAMPLES: SHAPE OPTIMIZATION

Results (aerofoil, cont.)

Results of MARS. Initial (dashed) and obtained (solid) configurations

61

Specific Features of Shape

Optimization
CAD model generation is done once

Optimization process modifies this CAD model and returns

a valid CAD model that needs to be analysed

The CAD model allows for the use of automatic tools

(mesh generator, adaptive FE, etc)
Example. Linking a FE mesh directly to optimization can
violate the basic assumptions the model is based on:

62

Problem definition
(optimization of a shell)
A shell is described by a square reference plan. The mid-surface is described using
square patches. At the keypoints the out-of-plane coordinate and its derivatives with respect
to the in-plane coordinates have been specified.

63

Problem definition
(optimization of a shell,
cont.)
The geometry is assumed to be symmetric with respect to the diagonals. The design
variables are the out-of-plane coordinates of the keypoints and the corresponding derivatives
(12 in total). The out-of-plane coordinates of the corners are fixed. Also, the thickness of the
shell is taken as a design variable. The shell is supported at its corner nodes, for which all
displacement components are prescribed. The shell is loaded by a uniform out-of-plane load.
The optimization problem is formulated as minimization of the maximum displacement while
the volume remains below the specified limit.
Numerical studiy showed that this optimization problem has several local optima. Two
designs corresponding to almost equally good optima are shown in the figures below.

64

Problem definition
(optimization of a
shell, cont.)

First design, normalized constraint equals 0.993

65

Problem definition
(optimization of a shell,
cont.)

Second design, normalized constraint equals 0.998

66

Three-bay by four-bay
by four-storey structure
Discrete variables are
numbers of sections from
a catalogue

67

Optimization
of front wing
of J3 Jaguar
Racing
Formula 1
car

68

Optimization of front
wing of J3 Jaguar Racing
Formula 1 car

69

Genetic
Algorithm

Front wing of J3
Jaguar Racing
Formula 1 car

70

Genetic
Algorithm

Schematic layup
of the composite
structure of the
wing

71

Optimization problem: minimize mass subject to displacement constraints (FIA and

aerodynamics)
Result of optimization by a genetic algorithm (GA):
Obtained design weight: 4.95 Kg
Baseline design weight: 5.2 Kg
Improvement: 4.8%

72

Material optimization
problem
(O. Sigmund, TU of
Denmark)

Design of a negative Poisson's ratio material (expands vertically when stretched

horizontally) using topology optimization. Left: base cell. Centre: Periodic
material composed of repeated base cells. Right: Test beam manufactured by
Microelektronik Centret (Denmark)

73

Material optimization
problem (O. Sigmund, TU of
Denmark)

Design of a material with negative thermal expansion. It is composed of two

materials with different thermal expansion coefficients 1 = 1 (blue) and 2
=10 (red) and voids. The effective thermal expansion coefficient is 0= - 4.17.
Left: base cell. Centre: thermal displacement of microstructure subjected to
heating. Right: periodic material composed of repeated base cells.

74