Structural optimization

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 81–89 | Cite as

CONLIN: An efficient dual optimizer based on convex approximation concepts

  • C. Fleury


The Convex Linearization method (CONLIN) exhibits many interesting features and it is applicable to a broad class of structural optimization problems. The method employs mixed design variables (either direct or reciprocal) in order to get first order, conservative approximations to the objective function and to the constraints. The primary optimization problem is therefore replaced with a sequence of explicit approximate problems having a simple algebraic structure. The explicit subproblems are convex and separable, and they can be solved efficiently by using a dual method approach.

In this paper, a special purpose dual optimizer is proposed to solve the explicit subproblem generated by the CONLIN strategy. The maximum of the dual function is sought in a sequence of dual subspaces of variable dimensionality. The primary dual problem is itself replaced with a sequence of approximate quadratic subproblems with non-negativity constraints on the dual variables. Because each quadratic subproblem is restricted to the current subspace of non zero dual variables, its dimensionality is usually reasonably small. Clearly, the Hessian matrix does not need to be inverted (it can in fact be singular), and no line search process is necessary.

An important advantage of the proposed maximization method lies in the fact that most of the computational effort in the iterative process is performed with reduced sets of primal variables and dual variables. Furthermore, an appropriate active set strategy has been devised, that yields a highly reliable dual optimizer.


Line Search Dual Variable Approximation Concept Approximate Problem Convex Approximation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Braibant, V.; Fleury, C. 1985: An approximation concepts approach to shape optimal design.Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 53, 119–148Google Scholar
  2. Braibant, V.; Geradin, M. 1985: Optimum path planning of robot arms.LTAS Report RA-2, University of Liége, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  3. Fleury, C. 1979: Structural weight optimization by dual methods of convex programming.Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 14, 1761–1783Google Scholar
  4. Fleury, C. 1982: Reconciliation of mathematical programming and optimality criteria approaches to structural optimization. In: Morris, A.J. (ed.)Foundations of structural optimization: a unified approach pp. 363–404. Chichester: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleury, C. 1987: Computer aided optimal design of elastic structures. In: Mota Soares, C.A. (ed.)Computer aided optimal design: structural and mechanical systems, pp. 832–900. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleury, C. 1986: Shape optimal design by the convex linearization method. In: Bennett, J.; Botkin, M. (eds.)The optimum shape: automated structural design, pp. 297–326. New York: Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleury, C.; Braibant, V. 1986: Structural optimization: a new dual method using mixed variables.Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 23, 409–428Google Scholar
  8. Fleury, C.; Schmit, L.A. 1980: Dual methods and approximation concepts in structural synthesis.NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR 3226Google Scholar
  9. Kuritz, S.P.; Fleury, C. 1989: Mixed variable structural optimization using convex linearization techniques.Eng. Opt. (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. Lasdon, L.S. 1970:Optimization theory for large systems. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  11. Liefooghe, D.; Shyy, Y.K.; Fleury, C. 1989: Shape sensitivity analysis using low and high order elements.Eng. with Computers 4, 213–228Google Scholar
  12. Lootsma, F.A. 1989: A comparative study of primal and dual approaches for solving separable and partially separable nonlinear optimization problems.Struct. Opt. 1, 73–79Google Scholar
  13. Morris, A.J. 1982:Foundations of structural optimization: a unified approach. Chichester: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagendra, G.K.; Fleury, C. 1989: Sensitivity and optimization of large scale composite structures.Finite Elements in Analysis and Design (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. Nguyen, V.H.; Fleury, C.; Strodiot, J.J. 1987: A mathematical convergence analysis of the convex linearization method for engineering design optimization.Eng. Opt. 11, 195–216Google Scholar
  16. Olhoff, N. 1988: Optimal structural design via bound formulation and mathematical programming.Proc. GAMM Seminar Discretization Methods and Structural Optimization (held in Siegen, FRG). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. Schmit, L.A.; Miura, H. 1976: Approximation concepts for efficient structural synthesis.NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR 2552Google Scholar
  18. Schmit, L.A.; Fleury, C. 1980: Structural synthesis by combining approximation concepts and dual methods.AIAA J. 18, 1252–1260Google Scholar
  19. Starnes, J.H.; Haftka, R.T. 1979: Preliminary design of composite wings for buckling, stress and displacement constraints.J. Aircraft 16, 564–570Google Scholar
  20. Svanberg, K. 1987: Method of moving asymptotes — a new method for structural optimization.Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 24, 359–373Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Fleury
    • 1
  1. 1.Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations