KSME International Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 1143–1155 | Cite as

An efficient dynamic response optimization using the design sensitivities approximated within the estimate confidence radius

Materials & Fracture · Solids & Structures · Dynamics & Control · Production & Design

Abstract

In order to reduce the expensive CPU time for design sensitivity analysis in dynamic response optimization, this study introduces the design sensitivities approximated within estimated confidence radius in dynamic response optimization with ALM method. The confidence radius is estimated by the linear approximation with Hessian of quasi-Newton formula and qualifies the approximate gradient to be validly used during optimization process. In this study, if the design changes between consecutive iterations are within the estimated confidence radius, then the approximate gradients are accepted. Otherwise, the exact gradients are used such as analytical or finite differenced gradients. This hybrid design sensitivity analysis method is embedded in an in-house ALM based dynamic response optimizer, which solves three typical dynamic response optimization problems and one practical design problem for a tracked vehicle suspension system. The optimization results are compared with those of the conventional method that uses only exact gradients throughout optimization process. These comparisons show that the hybrid method is more efficient than the conventional method. Especially, in the tracked vehicle suspension system design, the proposed method yields 14 percent reduction of the total CPU time and the number of analyses than the conventional method, while giving similar optimum values.

Key Words

Dynamic Response Optimization Approximate Design Sensitivities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bae D. S., Kim H. W., Yoo H. H., and Suh M. S., 1999, “A Decoupling Method for Implicit Numerical Integration of Constrained Mechanical Systems,”Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 129–141.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Chahande A. I. and Arora J. S., 1994, “Optimization of Large Structures Subjected to Dynamic Loads with the Multiplier Method,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 37, pp. 413–430.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennis J. E. and Schnabel R B., 1996,Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations (Classies in Applied Mathematics 16). SIAM: Philadelpia, pp. 169–186.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Han J. M., Bae D. S. and Yoo H. H., 1999, “A Generalized Recursive Formulation for Constrained Mechanical Systems,”Mechanics of Structures and Machines, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Haug E. J. and Arora J. S., 1979,Applied Optimal Design. Wiley-Interscience: New York, pp. 339–354.Google Scholar
  6. Hsieh C. C. and Arora J. S., 1985, “Hybrid Formulation for Treatment of Point-wise State Variable Constraints in Dynamic Response Optimization,”Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 171–189.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim M-S and Choi D-H., 1998, “Min-Max Dynamic Response Optimization of Mechanical Systems Using Approximate Augmented Lagrangian,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering; Vol. 43, pp. 549–564.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim M.-S and Choi, D-H., 2000, “A New Penalty Parameter Update Rule in the Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Method for Dynamic Response Optimization,”KSME International Journal; Vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 1122–1130.Google Scholar
  9. Kim M-S and Choi D-H., 2001, “Direct Treatment of a Max-value Cost Function in Parametric optimization,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering; Vol. 50, pp. 169–180.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kodiyalam Srinivas 1997, “Application of Optimization and Approximation Methods for Design Automation of Aerospace Structures,”Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: State of the Art (Alexandrov NM, Hussaini MY Eds) SIAM, Philadelpia, pp. 411–431.Google Scholar
  11. Lim O. K. and Arora J. S., 1987, “Dynamic Response Optimization Using an Active Set RQP Algorithm,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 24, pp. 1827–1840.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu Ping, 1992, “Use of Approximate Gradients in Trajectory Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics. Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 1299–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paeng J. K. and Arora J. S., 1989, “Dynamic Response Optimization of Mechanical Systems with Multiplier Methods,”ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 111, pp. 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers (KSME) 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Innovative Design Optimization Technology (iDOT)Hanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations