Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A modified multidisciplinary feasible formulation for MDO using integrated coupled approximate models

  • Choi, Eun-Ho (School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Cho, Jin-Rae (School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Lim, O-Kaung (School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2013.11.12
  • Accepted : 2014.07.20
  • Published : 2014.10.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the modification of multidisciplinary feasible formulation for MDO problems using the integrated coupled approximate models. A drawback of conventional MDFs is the numerical difficulty in decomposing the design variables and deriving the coupled equations of state. To overcome such a drawback of conventional methods, the coupling in analysis and design is resolved by approximating the state variables in each discipline by the response surface method and by modifying the optimization formulation using the corresponding integrated coupled approximate models. The validity, reliability and effectiveness of the proposed method are illustrated and verified through two optimization problems, a mathematical MDF problem and the multidisciplinary optimum design of suspension unit of wheeled armored vehicle.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Pusan National University

References

  1. Alexandrov, N.M. and Lewis, R.M. (1999), "Comparative properties of collaborative optimization approaches to MDO", Proceedings of the First ASMO UK/ISSMO Conferences on Engineering Design Optimization, July.
  2. Anitescu, M. and Hart, G.D. (2004), "A fixed-point iteration approach for multibody dynamics with contact and small friction", Math. Prog., 101(1), 3-32.
  3. Balling, R.J. and Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. (1994), "Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approaches", AIAA Papers 94-4339.
  4. Berkes, U.L. (1990), "Efficient optimization of aircraft structures with a large number of design variables", J. Aircraft, 27, 1073-1078. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45984
  5. Box, G.E.P. and Wilson, K.B. (1951), "On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions", J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B, 13(1), 1-38.
  6. Braun, R.D. and Kroo, I.M. (1997), "Development and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary environment, Multidisciplinary design optimization state of the art", SIAM Ser., Proc. Appl. Math., 80, 98-116.
  7. Bucher, C. and Most, T.A. (2008), "A comparison of approximate response functions in structural reliability analysis", Probab. Eng. Mech., 23(2-3), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2007.12.022
  8. Cho, J.R., Jeong, H.S. and Yoo, W.S. (2002), "Multi-objective optimization of tire carcass contours using a systematic aspiration-level adjustment procedure", Comput. Mech., 29, 498-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-002-0359-2
  9. Choi, E.H., Ryoo, J.B., Cho, J.R. and Lim, O.K. (2010), "Optimum suspension unit design for enhancing the mobility of wheeled armored vehicles", J. Mech. Sci. Tech., 24, 323-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-009-1102-0
  10. Coelho, R.F., Breitkopf, P. and Knopf-Lenoir, C. (2008), "Model reduction for multidisciplinary optimization - application to a 2D wing", Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 37, 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0212-5
  11. Cramer, E.J., Dennis, J.E., Frank, P.D., Lewis, R.M. and Shubin, G.R. (1993), "Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization", The AIAA Symposium on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization CRPCTR93334.
  12. Cramer, E.J., Frank, P.D., Shubin, G.R. and Dennis, J.E. (1992), "On alternative problem formulations for multidisciplinary design optimization", 4th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Cleveland, OH.
  13. Creighton, D.C. (1985), Revised Vehicle Dynamics Module: User's Guide for Computer Program Vehdyn II, Department of the Army, USA.
  14. Guita, A.A. and Watson, L.T. (1998), "A comparison of approximate modeling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating models", Proceedings of 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design, St. Louis, MO, USA.
  15. Haftka, R.T. (1985), "Simultaneous analysis and design", AIAA J., 23, 1099-1103. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.9043
  16. Haftka, R.T., Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. and Padula, S.L. (1992), "On options for interdisciplinary analysis and design optimization", Struct. Optim., 4, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01759919
  17. Hulme, K.F. and Bloebaum, C.L. (2000), "A simulation-based comparison of multidisciplinary design optimization solution strategies using CASCADE", Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 19, 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050083
  18. James, M.L., Smith, G.M., Wolford, J.C. and Whaley, P.W. (1994), Vibration of Mechanical and Structural Systems: with Microcomputer Applications, Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.
  19. Lim, O.K. and Arora, J.S. (1986), "An active set RQP algorithm for optimal design", Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 57, 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(86)90070-8
  20. Mcallister, C.D., Simpson, T.W., Hacker, K., Lewis, K. and Messac, A. (2005), "Integrating linear physical programming within collaborative optimization for multiobjective multidisciplinary design optimization", Struct. Multidisc. Opt., 29, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0481-1
  21. Sellar, R.S., Batill, S.M. and Renaud, J.E. (1996), "Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design", AIAA Paper 96-0714.
  22. Sharp, R.S. and Crolla, D.A. (1987), "Road vehicle suspension system design - review", Veh. Syst. Dyn., 16, 167-192.
  23. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. (1982), "A linear decomposition method for optimization problems - Blueprint for development", NASA Technical Memorandum 83248.
  24. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. (1990), "The sensitivity of complex, internally coupled systems", AIAA J., 28, 153-160. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10366
  25. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. (1998), "Optimization by decomposition; a step from hierarchic to nonhierarchic systems", NASA Technical Report CP-3031.
  26. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J., Agte, J. and Sandusky, R. (1998), "Bi-level integrated system synthesis (BLISS)", NASA Technical Report TM-1998-208715, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia.
  27. Sleeper, R.K. and Dreher, R.C. (1980), "Tire Stiffness and Damping Determined from Static and Freevibration Tests", NASA Technical Paper.

Cited by

  1. Generic parameter penalty architecture vol.58, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-1979-2