Advertisement

Structural optimization

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 64–66 | Cite as

A study of direct vs. approximation methods in structural optimization

  • Y. -S. Park
  • S. -H. Lee
  • G. -J. Park
Brief Notes

Abstract

This note discusses the performances and applications of two methods generally used in structural optimization. One is the direct method which applies a nonlinear programming (NLP) algorithm directly to the structural optimization problem. The other is the approximation method which utilizes the engineering sense very well. The two methods are compared through standard structural optimization problems with truss and beam elements. The results are analysed based on the convergence performances, the number of function calculations, the quality of the cost functions, etc. The applications of both methods are also discussed.

Keywords

Cost Function Civil Engineer Approximation Method Nonlinear Programming Structural Optimization 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arora, J.S. 1979:Introduction to optimum design. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora, J.S. 1985: A user's manual for truss design problems with IDESIGN 3.3.Technical Report No. ODL 85.6, Department of Civil Engineering, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, J.S.; Tseng, C.H. 1986:IDESIGN user's manual. Optimal Design Laboratory. College of Engineering, University of IowaGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthelemy, J.-F.M.; Haftka, R.T. 1993: Approximation concepts for optimum structural design — a review.Struct. Optim. 5, 129–144Google Scholar
  5. Haug, E.J.; Arora, J.S. 1979:Applied optimal design. New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  6. Mills-Curran, W.C.; Lust, R.V.; Schmit, L.A. 1983: Approximation method for space frame synthesis.AIAA J. 21, 1571–1580Google Scholar
  7. Park, G.J.; Park Y.S.; Lee, S.H. 1993: Comparisons of the direct method and approximation method in structural optimization. Pan-Pacific Conference of Computer EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  8. Park, Y.S.; Lee, S.H.; Park, G.J. 1994: A study of performances between direct method and approximation method in structural optimization.KSME J. 18, 313–322 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  9. Schmit, L.A.; Miura, H. 1976: A new structural analysis/synthesis capability — ACCESS 1.AIAA J. 14, 661–671Google Scholar
  10. Schmit, L.A.; Farshi, B. 1974: Some approximation concepts for structural synthesis.AIAA J. 12, 692–699Google Scholar
  11. Thomas, H.L.; Vanderplaats, G.N.; Shyy, Y.-K. 1992: A study of move limit adjustment strategies in the approximation concepts approach to structural synthesis.Proc. 4th AIAA/USAF/NASA/OAI Symp. on Multi-Analysis & Optimization, pp. 507–512Google Scholar
  12. Vanderplaats, G.N. 1985:ADS — A FORTRAN program for automated design synthesis. Version 1.10 (public domain program). Santa Barbara, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Vanderplaats, G.N.; Salajegheh, E. 1989: New approximation method for stress constraints in structural synthesis.AIAA J. 27, 352–358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. -S. Park
    • 1
  • S. -H. Lee
    • 1
  • G. -J. Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Design and Production Engineering, College of EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations