Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 379–391 | Cite as

Reduced representations of vector-valued coupling variables in decomposition-based design optimization

  • Michael J. AlexanderEmail author
  • James T. Allison
  • Panos Y. Papalambros
Research Paper


Decomposition-based optimization strategies decouple a system design problem and introduce coupling variables as decision variables that manage communication among subproblems. The computational cost of such approaches is comparable to that of the equivalent, yet usually unsuccessful, attempts to solve the coupled system directly when the coupling variables consist of a small, finite number of scalars. When the coupling variables are infinite-dimensional quantities, such as functional data, implementing decomposition-based optimization strategies may become computationally challenging. Discretization is typically applied, transforming infinite-dimensional variables into finite-dimensional ones represented as vectors. A large number of discretized points is often necessary to ensure a sufficiently accurate representation of the functional data, and so the dimensionality of these vector-valued coupling variables (VVCVs) can become prohibitively large for decomposition-based design optimization. Therefore, it is desirable to approximate the VVCVs with a reduced dimension representation that improves optimization efficiency while preserving sufficient accuracy. We investigate two VVCV representation techniques, radial-basis function artificial neural networks and proper orthogonal decomposition, and implement each in an analytical target cascading problem formulation for electric vehicle powertrain system optimization. Specifically, both techniques are applied to VVCVs associated with motor boundary torque curves and power loss maps and are assessed in terms of dimensionality reduction, computational expense, and accuracy.


Decomposition-based design optimization Analytical target cascading Coupling variables Dimensionality Reduced representation Vector-valued target 



This research was partially supported by the Automotive Research Center, which is a U.S. Army Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan. It was also funded by the U.S. National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science, Inc., as well as a University of Michigan Rackham Merit Fellowship. This support is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Abramson MA (2007) NOMADm version 4.5 user’s guide. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed N, Goldstein MH (1975) Orthogonal transforms for digital signal processing. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander MJ (2008) Analytical target cascading optimization of an electric vehicle powertrain system. Thesis, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander MJ (2011) Management of functional data variables in decomposition-based design optimization. Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander MJ, Papalambros, PY (2010) An accuracy assessment method for two-dimensional functional data in simulation-based design. In: Proceedings of the 13th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander MJ, Allison JT, Papalambros, PY (2009) Reduced representations of vector-valued coupling variables in decomposition-based design optimization. In: Proceedings of the 8th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexander MJ, Allison JT, Papalambros PY (2010a) Decomposition-based design optimization of electric vehicle powertrains using proper orthogonal decomposition. Int J Powertrains (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Alexander MJ, Allison JT, Papalambros PY, Gorsich DJ (2010b) Constraint management of reduced representation variables in decomposition-based design optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ASME international design engineering technical conferences, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-28788Google Scholar
  9. Allison J (2008) Optimal partitioning and coordination decisions in decomposition-based design optimization. Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  10. Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Box GEP, Hunter JS (1957) Multi-factor experimental designs for exploring response surfaces. Ann Math Stat 28:195–241MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bretscher O (2005) Linear algebra with applications, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Bui-Thanh T, Damodaran M, Wilcox K (2004) Aerodynamic reconstruction and inverse design using proper orthogonal decomposition. AIAA J 42(8):1505–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burkhardt J, Du Q, Gunzburger M, Lee HC (2003) Reduced order modeling of complex systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th biennial conference on numerical analysis, Dundee, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen S, Cowan CFN, Grant PM (1991) Orthogonal least squares learning algorithm for radial basis function networks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2(2):302–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (2009) MATLAB® neural network toolboxTM version 6 .0.2 user’s guide. The MathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  17. George P, Ogot MM (2006) A compromise experimental design method for parametric polynomial response surface approximation. J Appl Stat 33(10):1037–1050MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glasbey CA, Mardia KV (1998) A review of image warping methods. J Appl Stat 25(2):155–172zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karhunen K (1946) Zur spektral theorie stochastischer prozesse. Ann Acad Sci Fen 34Google Scholar
  20. Kim HM (2001) Target cascading in optimal system design. Dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim HM, Michelena NF, Papalambros PY, Jiang T (2003) Target cascading in optimal system design. ASME J Mech Des 125(3):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kokkolaras M, Louca LS, Delagrammatikas GJ, Michelena NF, Filipi ZS, Papalambros PY, Stein JL, Assanis DN (2004) Simulation-based optimal design of heavy trucks by model-based decomposition: an extensive analytical target cascading case study. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 11(3–4):402–431Google Scholar
  23. LeGresley PA, Alonso JJ (2004) Improving the performance of design decomposition methods with POD. In: Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, AIAA 2004–4465Google Scholar
  24. Loeve M (1945) Functions aleatoire de second ordre. C R Academie des Sciences, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucia DJ, Beran PS, Silva WA (2003) Reduced order modeling: new approaches for computational physics. Prog Aerosp Sci 40: 51–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meade AJ, Kokkolaras M (1996) Enhancement of a viscous-inviscid-interaction airfoil analysis code using the parallel direct search algorithm. Technical report CRPC TR96711-S. Rice UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Sansone G, Hille E (2004) Orthogonal functions, revised English ed. Dover, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  28. Sendur P, Stein JL, Louca LS, Peng H (2002) A model accuracy and validation algorithm. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  29. Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I – coherent structures. II – symmetries and transformations. III – dynamics and scaling. Quart Appl Math 43:561–571–573–590MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Sobieski I, Kroo I (1996) Aircraft design using collaborative optimization. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 34th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NVGoogle Scholar
  31. Stegmann MB (2001) Image warping. Technical report. Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Tax DMJ, Duin RPW (1999a) Data domain description using support vectors. Proceedings of the european symposium on artificial neural networks. Bruges, Belgium, pp 251–256Google Scholar
  33. Tax DMJ, Duin RPW (1999b) Support vector domain description. Pattern Recognit Lett 20:1191–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toal DJJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2008) Geometric filtration using POD for aerodynamic design optimization. In: Proceedings of the 26th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference. Honolulu, HI, AIAA, pp 2008–6584Google Scholar
  35. Tosserams S, Etman LFP, Papalambros PY, Rooda JE (2006) An augmented Lagrangian relaxation for analytical target cascading using the alternating direction method of multipliers. Struct Multidiscip Optim 31:176–189MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner TC, Papalambros PY (1993) A general framework for decomposition analysis in optimal design. In: ASME advances in design automation, vol 65. Albuquerque, NM, pp 315–325Google Scholar
  37. Wilcox K (2005) An introduction to model reduction for large scale applications. In: Aerospace computational design laboratory seminar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Alexander
    • 1
    Email author
  • James T. Allison
    • 2
  • Panos Y. Papalambros
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.The MathWorks, Inc.NatickUSA

Personalised recommendations