×

Comparative evaluation of different optimization algorithms for structural design applications. (English) Zbl 0884.73041

The paper deals with a comparison of different optimization algorithms by using the computer code CometBoards at NASA Lewis Research Centre. CometBoards was employed to solve small, medium and large structural problems, using eight different optimizers on a Cray-YMP8E/8128 computer. None of the eight optimizers could successfully solve all the problems. For small problems, the performance of the most of the optimizers could be considered adequately. For large problems, however, three optimizers (two sequential quadratic programming routines, DNCONG of IMSL and SQP of IDESIGN, along with sequential unconstrained minimization technique (SUMT)) outperform the others. At optimum, the most optimizers capture an identical number of active displacement and frequency constraints, but the number of active stress constraints differ among the optimizers. This discrepancy can be attributed to singularity conditions in the optimization, and the alleviation of this discrepancy can improve the efficiency of optimizers.

MSC:

74P99 Optimization problems in solid mechanics
90C20 Quadratic programming
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] , , and , CometBoards User’s Manual, NASA TM-4537, 1996.
[2] and , NEWSUMT: A FORTRAN Program for Inequality Constrained Function Minimization, User’s Guide, NASA CR-159070, 1979.
[3] DOT User’s Manual, Version 2.04, VMA Engineering, 1989.
[4] IDESIGN User’s Manual, Version 3.5.2, Optimal Design Laboratory, University of Iowa, 1989.
[5] IMSL User’s Manual, MATH/LIBRARY: FORTRAN Subroutines for Mathematical Applications., Vol. 3, Chapter 8, 1987, p. 903.
[6] NAG FORTRAN Library Manual-MARK 15: E04UCF, NAG Fortran Library Routine Document, Vol. 4, 1991.
[7] and , OPT-A Nonlinear Programming Code in FORTRAN Implementing the Generalized Reduced Gradient Method, User’s Manual, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1984.
[8] and , Merits and Limitations of Optimality Criteria Method for Structural Optimization, NASA TP-3373, 1993.
[9] Thanedar, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 23 pp 2187– (1986)
[10] Tseng, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 26 pp 1365– (1988)
[11] Tseng, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 26 pp 1383– (1988)
[12] ’A numerical comparison of 13 nonlinear programming codes with randomly generated test problems’, Numer. Optim. Dyn. Systems, 213-234 (1980).
[13] Hock, Computing 30 pp 335– (1983)
[14] Schittkowski, Struct. Optim. 7 pp 1– (1994)
[15] Canfield, AIAA J. 26 pp 78– (1988)
[16] and , Automated Structural Optimization System (ASTROS). AFWAL-TR-88-3028, Wright Patterson Air Force Base vol. II- User’s Manual, 1988.
[17] ’A survey of some useful optimization methods’, in A. H. Soni and H. Atmaran (eds.), Proc. Design Engineering Technical Conference, New York, 1974, pp. 129-135.
[18] ’The evaluation of optimization software for engineering design’, Lecture Notes in Econom. and Math. Systems, Vol. 199, 1982.
[19] Pshenichny, Kibernetica 5 pp 120– (1970)
[20] Schittkowski, Ann. Oper. Res. 5 pp 485– (1986)
[21] in (ed.), Methods for Linear Constraints, Nonlinear Programming, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 99-131.
[22] in and (ed.), Methods of Nonlinear Programming, Recent Advances in Math. Programming, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 76-77.
[23] and , in (ed.), Generalization of the Wolfe Reduced Gradient Method to the Case of Nonlinear Constraints, Optimization, Academic Press, New York, 1969, p. 37.
[24] Fletcher, Comp. J. 6 pp 163– (1963) · Zbl 0132.11603 · doi:10.1093/comjnl/6.2.163
[25] Optimization Methods for Engineering Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1971.
[26] Applied Nonlinear Programming, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972. · Zbl 0241.90051
[27] Belegundu, Struct. Optim. J. 9 pp 83– (1995)
[28] and , GRG2 User’s Guide, University of Texas at Austin, 1986.
[29] ’The CONLIN program: a new capability for structural optimization within PERMAS’, Proc. of Finite Elements in Engineering Applications, Strasbourg, France, 1990.
[30] Mifle, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 10 pp 1– (1972)
[31] Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989. · Zbl 0721.68056
[32] Fleury, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 14 pp 1761– (1979)
[33] Svanberg, Int. J. numer. methods. eng. 24 pp 359– (1987)
[34] Fleury, Int. J. numer. methods. eng. 23 pp 409– (1986)
[35] and , ’ANALYZE: analysis of aerospace structures with membrane elements’, Tech. Rep. AFFDL-TR-78-170 (1978).
[36] Patnaik, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 23 pp 2205– (1986)
[37] and , ’On automated optimum design of trusses’, Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 245-265 (1976).
[38] Vanderplaats, J. Struct. Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc. 98 pp 671– (1972)
[39] and , Use of Optimality Criteria Methods for Large Scale Systems, Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab., Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1974.
[40] Optimization of Structures for Strength and Stability Requirements, Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab., Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1973.
[41] Patnaik, Int. J. numer. methods eng. 36 pp 931– (1993)
[42] , and , ’Large scale structural optimization with substructuring in a parallel computational environment’, OAI/OSC/NASA Proc. Symp. on Application of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 1994, pp. 89-105.
[43] , and , Performance Trend of Different Algorithms for Structural Design Optimization, NASA TM-4698, 1995.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.