Advertisement

Mathematical Programming in Engineering Mechanics: Some Current Problems

  • G. Maier
  • G. Bolzon
  • F. Tin-Loi
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 50)

Abstract

The application of mathematical programming methods in a variety of practically motivated engineering mechanics problems provides a fertile field for interdisciplinary interaction between the mathematical programming and engineering communities. This paper briefly outlines several topical problems in engineering mechanics involving the use of mathematical programming techniques. The intention is to attract the attention of mathematical programming experts to some of the still open questions in the intersection of the two fields.

Keywords

Complementarity Problem Linear Complementarity Problem Mathematical Program With Equilibrium Constraint Mathematical Programming Method Cohesive Crack Model 
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. [1]
    M.Z. Cohn and G. Maier (eds.), Engineering Plasticity by Mathematical Programming, NATO Advanced Study Institute, University of Waterloo 1977, Pergamon Press, New York, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Maier and J. Munro, Mathematical programming applications to engineering plastic analysis, Applied Mechanics Reviews 35, 1982, 1631–1643.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Maier and D. Lloyd Smith, Update to “Mathematical programming applications to engineering plastic analysis”, ASME Applied Mechanics Update, 1985, 377–383.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M.C. Ferris and J.S. Pang, Engineering and economic applications of complementarity problems, SIAM Review 39, 1997, 669–713.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M.C. Ferris and J.S. Pang (eds.), Complementarity and Variational Problems: State of the Art, SIAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    V. Carvelli, Limit and Shakedown Analysis of Three-Dimensional Structures and Periodic Heterogeneous Materials, Ph.D. Thesis, Po-litecnico di Milano, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Y.G. Zhang and M.W. Lu, An algorithm for plastic limit analysis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 126, 1995, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Lubliner, Plasticity Theory, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Capsoni and L. Corradi, A finite element formulation of the rigid-plastic limit analysis problem, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 40, 1997, 2063–2086.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Corigliano, G. Maier and S. Pycko, Dynamic shakedown analysis and bounds for elastoplastic structures with nonassociative, internal variable constitutive laws, International Journal of Solids and Structures 32, 1995, 3145–3166.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Polizzotto, A unified treatment of shakedown theory and related bounding techniques, Solid Mechanics Archives 7, 1982, 19–75.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. Tin-Loi, Deflection bounding at shakedown, Proceedings ASCE, Journal of Structural Division 106, 1980, 1209–1215.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Comi, G. Maier and U. Perego, Generalized variable finite element modeling and extremum theorems in stepwise holonomic elastoplasticity with internal variables, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 96, 1992, 213–237.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    I. Kaneko, On some recent engineering applications of complementarity problems, Mathematical Programming Study 17, 1982, 111–125.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. Maier, A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear plasticity with interacting yield planes, Meccanica 5, 1970, 55–66.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Cocchetti and G. Maier, Static shakedown theorems in piecewise linearized poroplasticity, Archive of Applied Mechanics 68, 1998, 651–661.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.W. Lewis and B.A. Schrefler, The Finite Element Method in the Deformation and Consolidation of Porous Media, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1998.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    G. Bolzon, D. Ghilotti and G. Maier, Parameter identification of the cohesive crack model, in Material Identification Using Mixed Numerical Experimental Methods (H. Sol and C.W.J. Oomens, eds.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pp. 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    G. Bolzon, G. Maier and F. Tin-Loi, On multiplicity of solutions in quasi-brittle fracture computations, Computational Mechanics 19, 1997, 511–516.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    G. Bolzon, G. Maier and G. Novati, Some aspects of quasi-brittle fracture analysis as a linear complementarity problem, in Fracture and Damage in Quasibrittle Structures (Z.P. Bažant, Z. Bittnar, M. Jirásek and J. Mazars, eds.), E&FN Spon, London, 1994, pp. 159–174.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    G. Bolzon, G. Maier and F. Tin-Loi, F. Holonomic and nonholo-nomic simulations of quasi-brittle fracture: a comparative study of mathematical programming approaches, in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (F.H. Wittmann, ed.), Aedificatio Publishers, Freiburg, 1995, pp. 885–898.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    F. Tin-Loi and M.C. Ferris, Holonomic analysis of quasibrittle fracture with nonlinear softening, in Advances in Fracture Research (B.L. Karihaloo, Y.W. Mai, M.I. Ripley and R.O. Ritchie, eds.), Pergamon Press, 1997, pp. 2183–2190.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Bolzon and G. Maier, Identification of cohesive crack models for concrete on the basis of three-point-bending tests, in Computational Modelling of Concrete Structures (R. de Borst, N. Bicanic, H. Mang and G. Meschke, eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998, pp. 301–310Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R.W. Cottle, J.S. Pang and R.E. Stone, The Linear Complementarity Problem, Academic Press, 1992.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Z. Cen and G. Maier, Bifurcations and instabilities in fracture of cohesive-softening structures: a boundary element analysis, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 15, 1992, 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    G. Maier, G. Novati and Z. Cen, Symmetric Galerkin boundary element method for quasi-brittle fracture and frictional contact problems, Computational Mechanics 13, 1993, 74–89.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    G. Bolzon, Hybrid finite element approach to quasi-brittle fracture, Computers and Structures 60, 1996, 733–741.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    J.J. Judice and G. Mitra, An enumerative method for the solution of linear complementarity problems, European Journal of Operations Research 36, 1988, 122–128.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    S.P. Dirkse and M.C. Ferris, The PATH solver: a non-monotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems, Optimization Methods & Soßware 5, 1995, 123–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus and R. Raman, GAMS: A User’s Guide, Gams Development Corporation, Washington, DC 20007, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    M.C. Ferris and T.S. Munson, Complementarity problems in GAMS and the PATH solver, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 2000, 165–188.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Z.Q. Luo, J.S. Pang and D. Ralph, Mathematical Programs with Equilibrium Constraints, Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Maier, Inverse problem in engineering plasticity: a quadratic programming approach, Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, Serie VIII, vol LXX, 1981, 203–209.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    G. Maier, F. Giannessi and A. Nappi, Indirect identification of yield limits by mathematical programming, Engineering Structures 4, 1982, 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    A. Nappi, System identification for yield limits and hardening moduli in discrete elastic-plastic structures by nonlinear programming, Applied Mathematical Modelling 6, 1982, 441–448.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    H. Jiang, D. Ralph and F. Tin-Loi, Identification of yield limits as a mathematical program with equilibrium constraints, in Proceedings, 15th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials (ACMSM15) (R.H. Grzebieta, R. Al-Mahaidi and J.L. Wilson, eds.), Balkema, 1997, pp. 399–404.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    D. Ralph, A piecewise sequential quadratic programming method for mathematical programs with linear complementarity constraints, in Proceedings, 7th Conference on Computational Tech-niques and Applications (CTAC95) (A. Easton and R. May, eds.), World Scientific Press, 1995, pp. 663–668.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    F. Tin-Loi and M.C. Ferris, A simple mathematical programming method to a structural identification problem, in Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE-VII) (C.K. Choi, C.B. Yun and H.G. Kwak, eds.), Techno-Press, 1997, pp. 511–518.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    F. Facchinei, H. Jiang and L. Qi, A smoothing method for mathematical programs with equilibrium constraints, Mathematical Programming 85, 1999, 107–134.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    C. Kanzow, Some noninterior continuation methods for linear complementarity problems, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 17, 1996, 851–868.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    M.C. Ferris and F. Tin-Loi, Nonlinear programming approach for a class of inverse problems in elastoplasticity, Structural Engineering and Mechanics 6, 1998, 857–870.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    H. Jiang and D. Ralph, Smooth SQP methods for mathematical programs with nonlinear complementarity constraints, Research Report, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    L.D. Davis, Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Rein-hold, New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    S. Bittanti, G. Maier and Nappi, Inverse problems in structural elastoplasticity: a Kaiman filter approach, in Plasticity Today (A. Sawczuk and G. Bianchi, eds.), Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, 1993, pp. 311–329.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    S.P. Dirkse and M.C. Ferris, Modeling and solution environments for MPEC: GAMS & MATLAB, in Reformulation: Nons-mooth, Piecewise Smooth, Semismooth and Smoothing Methods (M. Fukushima and L. Qi, eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 127–148.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    A. Drud, CONOPT — a large-scale GRG code, ORSA Journal on Computing 6, 1994, 207–216.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Maier
    • 1
  • G. Bolzon
    • 1
  • F. Tin-Loi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Structural EngineeringTechnical University (Politecnico) of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations