A Hybrid Multi-objective Evolutionary Approach to Engineering Shape Design

  • Kalyanmoy Deb
  • Tushar Goel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1993)

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chapman, C. D., Jakiela, M. J. (1996). Genetic algorithms based structural topology design with compliance and topology simplification considerations. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 118, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapman, C. D., Saitou, K., Jakiela, M. J. (1994). Genetic algorithms as an approach to configuration and topology design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 116, 1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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
  5. 5.
    Duda, J. W. and Jakiela, M. J. (1997). Generation and classification of structural topologies with genetic algorithm speciation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 119, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Goldberg, D. E., Deb, K., and Clark, J. H. (1992). Genetic algorithms, noise, and the sizing of populations. Complex Systems, 6, 333–362.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Harik, G., Cantu-paz, E. Goldberg, D. E., and Miller, B. L. (1999). The gambler’s ruin problem, genetic algorithms, and the sizing of populations. Evolutionary Computation, 7(3), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Isibuchi, M. and Murata, T. (1998). A multi-objective genetic local search algorithm and its application to flowshop scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics—— Part C: Applications and reviews, 28(3), 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jakiela, M. J., Chapman, C., Duda, J., Adewuya, A., abd Saitou, K. (2000). Continuum struc-tural topology design with genetic algorithms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 186, 339–356.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalyanmoy Deb
    • 1
  • Tushar Goel
    • 1
  1. 1.Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (KanGAL)Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations