A Hybrid Multi-objective Evolutionary Approach to Engineering Shape Design
Evolutionary optimization algorithms work with a population of solutions, instead of a single solution. Since multi-objective optimization problems give rise to a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, evolutionary optimization algorithms are ideal for handling multi-objective optimization problems. Over many years of research and application studies have produced a number of efficient multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs), which are ready to be applied to real-world problems. In this paper, we propose a practical approach, which will enable an user to move closer to the true Pareto-optimal front and simultaneously reduce the size of the obtained non-dominated solution set. The efficacy of the proposed approach is demonstrated in solving a number of mechanical shape optimization problems, including a simply-supported plate design, a cantilever plate design, a hoister design, and a bicycle frame design. The results are interesting and suggest immediate application of the proposed technique in more complex engineering design problems.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agrawal, S. and Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Technical Report No. 2000001. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India.Google Scholar
- 4.Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., Meyarivan, T. (2000). A Fast Elitist Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. Proceedings of the Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI Conference, pp. 849–858.Google Scholar
- 6.Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J. (1993). Genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization: Formulation, discussion, and generalization. Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer-ence on Genetic Algorithms. 416–423.Google Scholar
- 8.Hamada, H. and Schoenauer, M. (2000). Adaptive techniques for evolutionary optimum de-sign. Proceedings of the Evolutionary Design and Manufacture., pp. 123–136.Google Scholar
- 10.Horn, J. and Nafploitis, N., and Goldberg, D. E. (1994). A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. 82–87.Google Scholar
- 13.Kim, H., Querin, O. M., and Steven, G. P. (2000). Post-processing of the two-dimensional evolutionary structural optimization topologies. In I. Parmee (Ed.) Evolutionary Design and Manufacture, London: Springer. pp. 33–44.Google Scholar
- 14.Knowles, J. and Corne, D. (1999) The Pareto archived evolution strategy: A new baseline algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Piscataway: New Jersey: IEEE Service Center, 98–105.Google Scholar
- 15.Sandgren, E., Jensen, E, and Welton, J. (1990). Topological design of structural components using genetic optimization methods. Proceedings of the Winter Annual Meeting of the Amer-ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
- 16.Srinivas, N. and Deb, K. (1995). Multi-Objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation(2), 221–248.Google Scholar
- 17.Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L. (1998). An evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective optimiza-tion: The strength Pareto approach. Technical Report No. 43 (May 1998). Zürich: Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, Switzerland.Google Scholar