Abstract
Commonly available optimization methods typically produce a single optimal design as a constrained minimum of a particular objective function. However, in engineering design practice it is quite often important to explore as much of the design space as possible, with respect to many attributes, to discover what behaviors are possible and not possible within the initially adopted design concept. This paper shows that the very simple method of the sum of weighted objectives is useful for such exploration. By geometrical argument it is demonstrated that if every weighting coefficient is allowed to change its magnitude and its sign then the method returns a set of designs that are all feasible, diverse in their attributes, and include the Pareto and non-Pareto solutions, at least for convex cases. Numerical examples in the paper include the case of an aircraft wing structural box with thousands of degrees of freedom and constraints, and over 100 design variables, whose attributes are structural mass, volume, displacement, and frequency. The weighted coefficients method is inherently suitable for parallel, coarse-grained implementation that enables exploration of the design space in the elapsed time of a single structural optimization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belegundu99 Belegundu A, Chandrupatla T (1999) Optimization concepts and applications in engineering. Prentice Hall, NJ
Chen98 Chen W, Wiecek MM, Zhang J (1998) Quality utility – a compromise programing approach in robust design. Proceedings of DETC98 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, ASME, Fairfield, NJ
Das97b Das I, Dennis JE (1997) A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sum of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Struct Optim 14:63–69
Eschenauer88 Eschenauer HA (1988) Multicriteria optimization techniques in highly accurate focusing systems. In: Stadler (ed.) Multicriteria optimization in engineering and in the sciences, 3rd edn. Plenum, New York, p. 316
GENESIS01 GENESIS Version 7.0 Users Manual. Vanderplaats Research and Development, Inc., 2001
Geoffrion68 Geoffrion AM (1968) Proper efficiency and the theory of vector maximization. J Math Anal Appl 22(3):618–630
Koski88 Koski J (1988) Multicriteria truss optimization. In: Stadler (ed.) Multicriteria optimization in engineering and in the sciences, 3rd edn. Plenum, New York, p. 278
Messac96 Messac A (1996) Physical programming: effective optimization for computational design. AIAA J 34(1):149–158
Messac03 Messac A, Ismail-Yahaya A, Mattson CA (2003) The normalized normal constraint method for generating the Pareto frontier. Struct Multidisc Optim 25(2):86–98
Messac01 Messac A, Ismail-Yahaya A (2001) Required relationship between objective function and pareto frontier orders: practical implications. AIAA J 39(11):2168–2174
Messac04 Messac A, Mattson CA (2004) Normal constraint method with guarantee of even representation of complete pareto frontier. AIAA J 42(8)
Messac00 Messac A, Sundaraj JG, Tappeta RV, Renaud JE (2000) Ability of objective functions to generate points on non-convex Pareto-frontiers. AIAA J 38(6):1084–1091
Stadler88 Stadler W (1988) Multicriteria optimization in engineering and in the sciences, 3rd edn. Plenum, New York
Zeleny73 Zeleny M (1973) Compromise Programing. In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (eds) Multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 263–301
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Venter, G. Imparting desired attributes in structural design by means of multi-objective optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 29, 432–444 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0505-x
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0505-x