MGA – A Mathematical Approach to Generate Design Alternatives

  • Prakash Kripakaran
  • Abhinav Gupta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4200)


Optimization methods are typically proposed to find a single solution that is optimal with respect to the modeled objectives and costs. In practice, however, this solution is not the best suited for design as mathematical models seldom include all the costs and objectives. This paper presents a technique – Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA), that instead uses optimization to generate good design alternatives, which the designer may explore with respect to the unmodeled factors. The generated alternatives are close to the optimal solution in objective space but are distant from it in decision space. An application of this technique to design of moment-resisting steel frames is illustrated.


Pareto Front Objective Space Optimization Formulation Wind Load Decision Space 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Deb, K., Gulati, S.: Design of truss-structures for minimum weight using genetic algorithms. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 37, 447–465 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasancebi, O., Erbatur, F.: Layout optimization of trusses using simulated annealing. Advances in Engineering Software 33, 681–696 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shea, K.: An approach to multiobjective optimisation for parametric synthesis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kicinger, R., Arciszewski, T., De Jong, K.D.: Evolutionary computation and structural design: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Computers and Structures 83, 1943–1978 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S.: Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26, 369–395 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grierson, D.E., Khajehpour, S.: Method for conceptual design applied to office buildings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 16, 83–103 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baugh Jr., J.W., Caldwell, S.C., Brill Jr., E.D.: A mathematical programming approach to generate alternatives in discrete structural optimization. Engineering Optimization 28, 1–31 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta, A., Kripakaran, P., Mahinthakumar, G., Baugh Jr., J.W.: Genetic Algorithm-based decision support for optimizing seismic response of piping systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 131(3), 389–398 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kripakaran, P.: Computational approaches for decision support in structural design and performance evaluation. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    AISC: Manual of Steel Construction - Load Resistance Factor Design. 3rd edn. AISC (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash Kripakaran
    • 1
  • Abhinav Gupta
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations