Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 1853–1861 | Cite as

Brief note on equality constraints in pure dual SAO settings

  • Marlize Cronje
  • Marthinus N. Ras
  • Dirk P. Munro
  • Albert A. GroenwoldEmail author
Brief Note


We reflect on using equality constraints in a pure dual setting, to augment the predominant use of inequality constraints only in pure dual statements in structural optimization. Notwithstanding the fact that equalities have previously not been used in pure dual statements, their inclusion is sound from a theoretical point of view. This was already shown by Falk as early as 1965, but not really exploited in the structural optimization community. Hence, we herein mainly elaborate on some possible interesting numerical results. To overcome the difficulties associated with dual variables going to infinity if a subproblem is infeasible, we rely on the so-called bounded dual approach to achieve convergence. While the theme of this brief note is a pure dual method which can accommodate equality constraints, we depart with a sequential approximate optimization (SAO) algorithm, which provides for both equality and inequality constraints. The SAO algorithm in essence solves a sequence of approximate quadratic programs (QPs), but the approximate Hessian is diagonal. This means that the separable QP subproblems can then easily be solved using a pure dual method, which is attractive if the number of design variables nm, with m the total number of constraints. When m > n, the subproblems can efficiently be solved using a sequential quadratic programming (SQP)-like approach with an approximate diagonal Hessian matrix, but the resulting iteration paths are identical to that of the dual formulation; only the cost of solving the subproblems themselves is affected.


Duality Equality constraints Simultaneous analysis and design (SAND) Sequential approximate optimization (SAO) 



We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of a first draft of our note for their helpful and insightful comments.


  1. Achtziger W, Kanzow C, Hoheisel T (2012) On a relaxation method for mathematical programs with vanishing constraints. GAMM-Mitteilungen 35:110–130MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruggi M (2008) On an alternative approach to stress constraints relaxation in topology optimization. Struct Mult Optim 36(2):125–141MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng GD, Guo X (1997) ε-relaxed approach in structural topology optimization. Struct Optim 13(4):258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng G, Guo X (1998) A note on a jellyfish-like feasible domain in structural topology optimization. Eng Opt 31(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Etman LFP, Groenwold AA, Rooda JE (2009) On diagonal QP subproblems for sequential approximate optimization. In: Proceedings 8th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Lisboa, Portugal. Paper 1065Google Scholar
  6. Etman LFP, Groenwold AA, Rooda JE (2012) First-order sequential convex programming using approximate diagonal QP subproblems. Struct Multidisc Optim 45:479–488MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Falk JE (1965) A constrained Lagrangian approach to nonlinear programming. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Department of MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  8. Falk JE (1967) Lagrange multipliers, and nonlinear programming. J Math Anal Appls 19:141–159MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher R, Leyffer S, Toint PL (1998) On the global convergence of an SLP-filter algorithm. Technical report 00/15, Department of Mathematics, University of Namur, Namur, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher R, Leyffer S (2002) Nonlinear programming without a penalty function. Math Program 91:239–269MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Fletcher R, Gould NIM, Leyffer S, Toint PL, Wächter A (2002) Global convergence of a trust-region SQP-filter algorithm for general nonlinear programming. SIAM J Optim 13:635–659MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleury C (1979) Structural weight optimization by dual methods of convex programming. Int J Numer Meth Eng 14:1761–1783CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleury C, Braibant V (1986) Structural optimization: a new dual method using mixed variables. Int J Numer Meth Eng 23:409–428MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleury C (1989) Efficient approximation concepts using second order information. Int J Numer Meth Eng 28:2041–2058MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleury C (1989) CONLIN: An efficient dual optimizer based on convex approximation concepts. Struct Optim 1:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groenwold AA, Etman LFP (2008) Sequential approximate optimization using dual subproblems based on incomplete series expansions. Struct Multidisc Opt 36:547–570MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Groenwold AA, Wood DW, Etman LFP, Tosserams S (2009) Globally convergent optimization algorithm using conservative convex separable diagonal quadratic approximations. AIAA J 47:2649–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groenwold AA, Etman LFP, Wood DW (2010) Approximated approximations for SAO. Struct Multidisc Optim 41:39–56MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Groenwold AA, Etman LFP (2010) On the conditional acceptance of iterates in SAO algorithms based on convex separable approximations. Struct Multidisc Optim 42:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groenwold AA (2012) On the linearization of separable quadratic constraints in dual sequential convex programs. Comput Struct 102:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groenwold AA (2012) Positive definite separable quadratic programs for non-convex problems. Struct Multidisc Optim 46:795–802MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Haftka RT, Gürdal Z (1991) Elements of structural optimization, volume 11 of Solid Mechanics and its applications, 3rd. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Hock W, Schittkowski K (1981) Test examples for nonlinear programming codes, volume 187 of lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer-verlag, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Munro DP, Groenwold AA (2017) Local stress-constrained and slope-constrained sand topology optimisation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 110:420–439MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Powell MJD (2013) The lagrange method and sao with bounds on the dual variables. Optim Methods Softw 29:224–238MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Rojas-Labanda S, Stolpe M (2016) An efficient second-order SQP method for structural topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Opt 53:1315–1333MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Svanberg K (1987) The method of moving asymptotes — a new method for structural optimization. Int J Numer Meth Eng 24(2):359–373MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Svanberg K (2002) A class of globally convergent optimization methods based on conservative convex separable approximations. SIAM J Optim 12:555–573MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Svanberg K (2011) Equality constraints and the globally convergent version of the method of moving asymptotes. In: Book of abstracts, 9th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Shizuoka, Japan. Paper 232Google Scholar
  30. Toropov VV (2008) Personal discussionGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanderplaats GN (2001) Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design. Vanderplaats R&D, Inc. Collorado SpringsGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood DW, Groenwold AA, Etman LFP (2011) Bounding the dual of Falk to circumvent the requirement of relaxation in globally convergent SAO algorithms. Draft technical computing report SORG/DTCR/04/11, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch,South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood DW (2012) Dual sequential approximation methods in structural optimisation. PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, Department of Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang W, Fleury C, Duysinx P, Nguyen VH, Laschet I (1996) A generalized method of moving asymptotes (GMMA) including equality constraints. Struct Opt 12:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu C, Byrd RH, Lu P, Nocedal J (1994) l-BFGS-b: FORTRAN subroutines for large scale bound constrained optimization. Technical Report NAM-11, Northwestern University, EECS DepartmentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic EngineeringUniversity of StellenboschStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations