Advertisement

Structural optimization

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–10 | Cite as

First and second order convex approximation strategies in structural optimization

  • C. Fleury
Originals

Abstract

In this paper, various methods based on convex approximation schemes are discussed, that have demonstrated strong potential for efficient solution of structural optimization problems. First, theconvex linearization method (CONLIN) is briefly described, as well as one of its recent generalizations, themethod of moving asymptotes (MMA). Both CONLIN and MMA can be interpreted as first order convex approximation methods, that attempt to estimate the curvature of the problem functions on the basis of semi-empirical rules. Attention is next directed toward methods that use diagonal second derivatives in order to provide a sound basis for building up high quality explicit approximations of the behaviour constraints. In particular, it is shown how second order information can be effectively used without demanding a prohibitive computational cost. Various first and second order approaches are compared by applying them to simple problems that have a closed form solution.

Keywords

Form Solution Approximation Scheme Structural Optimization Closed Form Solution Efficient Solution 
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. Fletcher, R. 1981: Practical methods of optimization.Constrained Optimization 2, Chichester: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  2. Fleury, C. 1986: Shape optimal design by the convex linearization method. In: Bennett, J.; Botkin, M. (eds.)The optimum shape: automated structural design, 297–326, New York: Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Fleury, C. 1988: Efficient approximation concepts using second order information.Proc. AIAA/ASME/ASCE 29th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1685–1695Google Scholar
  4. Fleury, C.; Braibant, V. 1986: Structural optimization — a new dual method using mixed variables.Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 23, 409–428Google Scholar
  5. Smaoui, H.; Fleury, C.; Schmit, L.A. 1988: Advances in dual algorithms and convex approximation methods.Proc. AIAA/ASME/ASCE 29th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1339–1347Google Scholar
  6. Starnes, J.H.; Haftka, R.T. 1979: Preliminary design of composite wings for buckling, stress and displacement constraints.J. Aircraft 16, 564–570Google Scholar
  7. Svanberg, K. 1987: Method of moving asymptotes — a new method for structural optimization.Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng. 24, 359–373Google Scholar
  8. Woo, T.H. 1986: Space frame optimization subject to frequency constraints.Proc. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 27th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 103–115Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Fleury
    • 1
  1. 1.Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering DepartmentUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations