Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework for sequential approximate optimization

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An object-oriented framework for sequential approximate optimization (SAO) is proposed. The framework aims to provide an open environment for the specification and implementation of SAO strategies. The framework is based on the Python programming language and contains a toolbox of Python classes, methods, and interfaces to external software. The framework distinguishes modules related to the optimization problem, the SAO sequence, and the numerical routines used in the SAO approach. The problem-related modules specify the optimization problem, including the simulation model for the evaluation of the objective function and constraints. The sequence-related modules specify the sequence of SAO steps. The routine-related modules represent numerical routines used in the SAO steps as “black-box” functions with predefined input and output, e.g., from external software libraries. The framework enables the user to (re-) specify or extend the SAO dependent modules, which is generally impossible in most available SAO implementations. This is highly advantageous since many SAO approaches are application-domain specific due to the type of approximation functions used. A ten-bar truss design problem with fixed loads as well as uncertain loads is used as an illustration and demonstrates the flexibility of the framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexandrov, N.M.; Dennis, J.E.; Lewis, R.M.; Torczon, V. 1998: A trust region framework for managing use of approximation models in optimization. Struct. Optim.15, 16–23

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barthelemy, J.F.M.; Haftka, R.T. 1993: Approximation concepts for optimum structural design: a review. Struct. Optim.5, 129–144

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bisschop, J.; Roelofs, M. 2002: AIMMS – The user’s guide. Paragon Decision Technology, Haarlem, The Netherlands, http://www.aimms.com

  4. Brekelmans, R.; Driessen, L.; Hamers, H.; Den Hertog, D. 2004: Constrained optimimization involving expensive function evaluations: a sequential approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res., in press

  5. Brooke, A.; Kendrick, D.; Meeraus, A.; Raman, R. 1998: GAMS – A user’s guide. GAMS, Washington, DC, http://www.gams.com

  6. Bruyneel, M.; Duysinx, P.; Fleury, C. 2002: A family of MMA approximations for structural optimization. Struct. Optim.24, 263–276

    Google Scholar 

  7. Craig, K.J.; Stander, N. 2003a: An improved version of DYNAMIC-Q for simulation-based optimization using response surface gradients and an adaptive trust region. Commun. Numer. Meth. Eng.19, 887–896

  8. Craig, K.J.; Stander, N.; Balasubramanyam, S. 2003b: Worst-case design in head impact crashworthiness optimization. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.57, 795–817

  9. Eldred, M.S.; Giunta, A.A.; van Bloemen Waanders, B.G.; Wojtkiewicz, S.F., Jr.; Hart, W.E.; Alleva, M.P. 2002: DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis. Version 3.0, users manual. Sandia Technical Report SAND2001-3796, April 2002, Albuquerque, NM, http://endo.sandia.gov/DAKOTA/

  10. Elishakoff, I.; Haftka, R.T.; Fang, J. 1994: Structural design under bounded uncertainty – optimization with anti-optimization. Comput. Struct.53, 1401–1405

    Google Scholar 

  11. Etman, L.F.P.; Adriaens, J.M.T.A.; van Slagmaat, M.T.P.; Schoofs, A.J.G. 1996: Crash worthiness design optimization using multipoint sequential linear programming Struct. Optim.12, 222–228

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fadel, G.M.; Riley, M.F.; Barthelemy, J.F.M. 1990: Two point exponential approximation method for structural optimization. Struct. Optim.2, 117–129

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fadel, G.M.; Cimtalay, S. 1993: Automatic evaluation of move-limits in structural optimization. Struct. Optim.6, 233–237

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fleury, C.; Braibant, V. 1986: Structural optimization: a new dual method using mixed variables. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.23, 409–428

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fourer, R.; Gay, D.M.; Kernighan, B.W. 1993: AMPL: a modeling language for mathematical programming. Belmont: Duxbury Press

  16. Giunta, A.A.; Eldred, M.S. 2000: Implementation of a trust region model management strategy in the DAKOTA optimization toolkit. Proc. AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, AIAA-2000-4935, September 2000

  17. Gurav, S.P.; Langelaar, M.; Goosen, J.F.L.; van Keulen, F. 2003: Different approaches to deal with bounded-but-unknown uncertainty-based design optimization: application to MEMS. Proc. 5th WCSMO, Venice, Italy 19–23 May 2003

  18. Haftka, R.T.; Nachlas, J.A.; Watson, L.A.; Rizzo, T.; Desai, R. 1987: Two point constraint approximation in structural optimization. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng.60, 289–301

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haftka, R.T.; Gürdal, Z. 1991: Elements of structural optimization, 3rd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer

  20. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. 2002: Abaqus vers. 6.3 documentation. Pawtucket, RI

  21. Koch, P.N.; Evans, J.P.; Powell, D. 2002: Interdigitation for effective design space exploration using iSIGHT. Struct. Multidisc. Optim.23, 111–126

    Google Scholar 

  22. Law, A.M.; Kelton, W.D. 2000: Simulation modeling and analysis, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill

  23. Lawrence, C.T.; Zhou, J.L.; Tits, A. 1997: User’s guide for CFSQP vers. 2.5: A C code for solving (large scale) constrained nonlinear (minimax) optimization problems, generating iterates satisfying all inequality constraints. Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, Technical Report TR-94-16r1

  24. Optimization Technology Center 2003: NEOS guide. http://www.ece.northwestern.edu/OTC/

  25. Papalambros, P.Y.; Wilde, D.J. 2000: Principles of optimal design: modeling and computation. New York: Cambridge University Press

  26. Pedersen, P. 1981: The integrated approach of FEM-SLP for solving problems of optimal design. Optimization of distributed parameter structures, Haug, E.J.; Cea, J. (eds.), Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff

  27. Pérez, V.M.; Renaud, J.E.; Watson, L.T. 2002: Interior point sequential approximate optimization methodology. Proc. 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA-2002-5505, 4–6 September 2002

  28. Phoenix Integration 2004: ModelCenter overview Blacksburg, VA, http://www.phoenix-int.com

  29. Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G. 1999: The unified modeling language reference guide. Reading: Addison-Wesley

  30. Svanberg, K. 1987: The method of moving asymptotes – a new method for structural optimization. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.24, 359–373

    Google Scholar 

  31. Svanberg, K. 1995: A globally convergent version of MMA withoug linesearch. Proc. First WCSMO, Rozvany, G.I.N.; Olhoff, N. (eds.), Goslar, Germany, 28 May–2 June 1995. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 9–16

  32. Svanberg, K. 1999: The MMA for modeling and solving optimization problems. Proc. Third WCSMO, Amhert, NY, 17–21 May 17–21 1999 (CD-ROM)

  33. Schmit, L.A.; Farshi, B. 1974: Some approximation concepts for structural synthesis. AIAA J.12, 692–699

    Google Scholar 

  34. Snyman, J.A.; Hay, A.M. 2002: The Dynamic-Q optimization method: an alternative to SQP? Comput. Math. Appl.44, 1589–1598

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stander, N.; Eggleston, T.; Craig, K.J.; Roux, W. 2003: LS-OPT user’s manual, vers. 2, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA

  36. Sterian, A. 1999: PyMat – an interface between Python and MATLAB, vers. 1.02, http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/∼steriana/Python/pymat.html

  37. The Mathworks, Inc. 2002: Using Matlab, vers. 6.5, August 2002, Natick, MA, http://www.mathworks.com/

  38. 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 Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Cleveland, OH, pp. 507–512

  39. Toropov, V.V.; Filatov, A.A.; Polynkin, A.A. 1993: Multiparameter structural optimization using FEM and multipoint explicit approximations. Struct. Optim.6, 7–14

    Google Scholar 

  40. Toropov, V.V.; van Keulen, F.; Markine, V.L.; de Boer, H. 1996: Refinements in the multi-point approximation method to reduce the effects of noisy responses. Proc. 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, pp. 941–951

  41. Trolltech AS 2001: Programming with Qt. vers. 3.0, Oslo, Norway, http://www.trolltech.com/

  42. Vanderplaats, G.N. 1976: CONMIN – A FORTRAN program for constrained function minimization: user’s manual. NASA TM X-62, p. 282

  43. Vanderplaats, G.N. 1979: Approximation concepts for numerical airfoil optimization. NASA Technical Paper 1370

  44. Van Rossum, G.; Drake, F.L. 2003a: Python reference manual http://www.python.org/doc/

  45. Van Rossum, G.; Drake, F.L. 2003b: Extending and embedding the python interpreter. http://www.python.org/doc/

  46. Wang, L.P.; Grandhi, R.V. 1995: Improved two-point function approximation for design optimization. AIAA J.33, 1720–1727

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wujek, B.A.; Renaud, J.E. 1998: New adaptive move-limit management strategy for approximate optimization, part 1. AIAA J.36, 1911–1921

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wujek, B.A.; Renaud, J.E. 1998: New adaptive move-limit management strategy for approximate optimization, part 2. AIAA J.36, 1922–1934

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Engineering Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    J.H. Jacobs, L.F.P. Etman & J.E. Rooda

  2. Structural Optimization and Computational Mechanics Group, Faculty of Design, Engineering, and Production, Mekelweg 2, 2628CD, Delft, The Netherlands

    F. van Keulen

Authors
  1. J.H. Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L.F.P. Etman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. van Keulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J.E. Rooda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.H. Jacobs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobs, J., Etman, L., van Keulen, F. et al. Framework for sequential approximate optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 27, 384–400 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0398-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0398-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation