Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 1429–1446 | Cite as

Matrix-free algorithm for the optimization of multidisciplinary systems

  • Alp DenerEmail author
  • Jason E. Hicken
RESEARCH PAPER

Abstract

Multidisciplinary engineering systems are usually modeled by coupling software components that were developed for each discipline independently. The use of disparate solvers complicates the optimization of multidisciplinary systems and has been a long-standing motivation for optimization architectures that support modularity. The individual discipline feasible (IDF) formulation is particularly attractive in this respect. IDF achieves modularity by introducing optimization variables and constraints that effectively decouple the disciplinary solvers during each optimization iteration. Unfortunately, the number of variables and constraints can be significant, and the IDF constraint Jacobian required by most conventional optimization algorithms is prohibitively expensive to compute. Furthermore, limited-memory quasi-Newton approximations, commonly used for large-scale problems, exhibit linear convergence rates that can struggle with the large number of design variables introduced by the IDF formulation. In this work, we show that these challenges can be overcome using a reduced-space inexact-Newton-Krylov algorithm. The proposed algorithm avoids the need for the explicit constraint Jacobian and Hessian by using a Krylov iterative method to solve the Newton steps. The Krylov method requires matrix-vector products, which can be evaluated in a matrix-free manner using second-order adjoints. The Krylov method also needs to be preconditioned, and a key contribution of this work is a novel and effective preconditioner that is based on approximating a monolithic solution of the (linearized) multidisciplinary system. We demonstrate the efficacy of the algorithm by comparing it with the popular multidisciplinary feasible formulation on two test problems.

Keywords

Multidisciplinary design optimization Individual discipline feasible Inexact-Newton-Krylov Matrix-free Second-order adjoint Preconditioning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1332819. The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.

References

  1. Arreckx S, Lambe AB, Martins JRRA, Orban D (2016) A matrix-free augmented lagrangian algorithm with application to large-scale structural design optimization. Optim Eng 17(2):359–384CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Benzi M, Golub GH, Liesen J (2005) Numerical solution of saddle point problems. Acta Numer 14:1–137. doi: 10.1017/s0962492904000212 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Biros G, Ghattas O (2005a) Parallel lagrange–newton–krylov–schur methods for pde-constrained optimization. part i: the krylov–schur solver. SIAM J Sci Comput 27(2):687–713CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Biros G, Ghattas O (2005b) Parallel lagrange–newton–krylov–schur methods for pde-constrained optimization. part ii: the lagrange–newton solver and its application to optimal control of steady viscous flows. SIAM J Sci Comput 27(2):714–739CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloebaum C (1995) Coupling strength-based system reduction for complex engineering design. Struct Optim 10(2):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrd RH, Curtis FE, Nocedal J (2008) An inexact sqp method for equality constrained optimization. SIAM J Optim 19(1):351– 369CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrd RH, Curtis FE, Nocedal J (2010) An inexact newton method for nonconvex equality constrained optimization. Math Program 122(2):273–299CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter MH, Gottlieb D, Abarbanel S (1994) Time-stable boundary conditions for finite-difference schemes solving hyperbolic systems: methodology and application to high-order compact schemes. J Comput Phys 111(2):220–236. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1057 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Conn AR, Gould NI, Toint PL (2000) Trust region methods. SIAMGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer EJ, Dennis JE Jr, Frank PD, Lewis RM, Shubin GR (1994) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM J Optim 4(4):754–776CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenstat SC, Walker HF (1996) Choosing the forcing terms in an inexact newton method. SIAM J Sci Comput 17(1):16–32CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Felippa CA (2001) A historical outline of matrix structural analysis: a play in three acts. Comput Struct 79 (14):1313–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fletcher R, Leyffer S (2002) Nonlinear programming without a penalty function. Math Program 91 (2):239–269CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Funaro D, Gottlieb D (1988) A new method of imposing boundary conditions in pseudospectral approximations of bolic equations. Math Comput 51(184):599–613CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Gill PE, Murray W, Saunders MA (2005) Snopt: an sqp algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Rev 47(1):99– 131CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Haftka RT (1985) Simultaneous analysis and design. AIAA J 23(7):1099–1103CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Haftka RT, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Padula SL (1992) On options for interdisciplinary analysis and design optimization. Struct Optim 4(2):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinkenschloss M, Ridzal D (2008) An inexact trust-region sqp method with applications to pde-constrained optimization. In: Numerical mathematics and advanced applications. Springer, pp 613–620Google Scholar
  19. Heinkenschloss M, Ridzal D (2014) A matrix-free trust-region sqp method for equality constrained optimization. SIAM J Optim 24(3):1507–1541CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Heroux MA, Bartlett RA, Howle VE, Hoekstra RJ, Hu JJ, Kolda TG, Lehoucq RB, Long KR, Pawlowski RP, Phipps ET, Salinger AG, Thornquist HK, Tuminaro RS, Willenbring JM, Williams A, Stanley KS (2005) An overview of the trilinos project. ACM Trans Math Softw 31(3):397–423. doi: 10.1145/1089014.1089021 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Herskovits J, Mappa P, Goulart E, Soares CM (2005) Mathematical programming models and algorithms for engineering design optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(30):3244–3268CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Hicken JE, Dener A (2015) A flexible iterative solver for nonconvex, equality-constrained quadratic subproblems. SIAM J Sci Comput 37(4):A1801–A1824CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Hicken JE, Zingg DW (2013) Summation-by-parts operators and high-order quadrature. J Comput Appl Math 237(1):111–125. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2012.07.015 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Jameson A (1989) Aerodynamic design via control theory. In: Recent advances in computational fluid dynamics. Springer, pp 377– 401Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy GJ, Martins JRRA (2010) Parallel solution methods for aerostructural analysis and design optimization. In: 13th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis optimization conference, p 9308Google Scholar
  26. Kenway GKW, Kennedy GJ, Martins JRRA (2014) Scalable parallel approach for high-fidelity steady-state aeroelastic analysis and adjoint derivative computations. AIAA J 52(5):935–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knoll DA, Keyes DE (2004) Jacobian-free newton–krylov methods: a survey of approaches and applications. J Comput Phys 193(2):357–397CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimisation-some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1–2):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kreiss HO, Scherer G (1974) Finite element and finite difference methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations. In: de Boor C (ed) Mathematical aspects of finite elements in partial differential equations. Mathematics Research Center, the University of Wisconsin. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Martins JRRA, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075Google Scholar
  31. Martins JRRA, Alonso JJ, Reuther JJ (2004) High-fidelity aerostructural design optimization of a supersonic business jet. J Aircr 41(3):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mattsson K, Svärd M, Nordström J (2004) Stable and accurate artificial dissipation. J Sci Comput 21(1):57–79CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Maute K, Nikbay M, Farhat C (2001) Coupled analytical sensitivity analysis and optimization of three-dimensional nonlinear aeroelastic systems. AIAA J 39(11):2051–2061CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Maute K, Nikbay M, Farhat C (2003) Sensitivity analysis and design optimization of three-dimensional non-linear aeroelastic systems by the adjoint method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 56(6):911–933CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Nash SG, Nocedal J (1991) A numerical study of the limited memory bfgs method and the truncated-newton method for large scale optimization. SIAM J Optim 1(3):358–372CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Özkaya E, Gauger NR (2009) Single-step one-shot aerodynamic shape optimization. In: Optimal control of coupled systems of partial differential equations. Springer, pp 191–204Google Scholar
  37. Schittkowski K (1986) Nlpql: a fortran subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems. Ann Oper Res 5(2):485–500CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Steihaug T (1983) The conjugate gradient method and trust regions in large scale optimization. SIAM J Numer Anal 20(3):626–637CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Strand B (1994) Summation by parts for finite difference approximations for d/dx. J Comput Phys 110 (1):47–67. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1005 CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Ta’asan S, Kuruvila G, Salas M (1992) Aerodynamic design and optimization in one shot. In: 30th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, p 25Google Scholar
  41. Turner M (1959) The direct stiffness method of structural analysis. Boeing Airplane CompanyGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Z, Navon IM, Le Dimet F, Zou X (1992) The second order adjoint analysis: theory and applications. Meteorog Atmos Phys 50(1–3):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright S, Nocedal J (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer ScienceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear EngineeringRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations