computers & Slrucrures Vol. 64, No. I-4, pp.

97-l 12, 1997

0 1997 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
004%7949197 $17.00 + 0.00
PII: SOO45-7!849(%)00123-X

AN EFFICIENT APPROACH TO STRUCTURAL

OPTIMIZATION

K. G. Mahmoudt
Johannes Kepler Universitlt Linz, A-4040 Linz, Austria

Abstract-It is now widely recognized that structural optimization using mathematical programming
techniques c,an be employed efficiently only in conjunction with explicit approximate models. In this work
an efficient optimization methodology combining a finite element-based approximate analysis model, a
sequential quadratic programming algorithm incorporating an active set strategy and a direct method of
design sensitivity analysis is developed. The methodology involves the solution of a sequence of explicit
high-quality approximate problems subject to given move limits in the design space. A new technique for
constructing approximation functions with a high quality adaptive capability to the original functions is
proposed by using the values of the state variables (displacements and/or stresses) and their derivatives
at points obtained in the process of optimization. Other approximation techniques have been presented
and comparisons have been made using real-life automobile structures to demonstrate the power and
generality of the approximation concepts in structural optimization. 0 1997 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier
Science Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION Since the earliest applications of mathematical

Structural optimization problems considered in this
work consist of minimizing some objective functions
subject to nonliner constraints and bounds insuring
the feasibility of the structural design. Mathemat-
ically such a problem can be expressed as follows:
E’:F(p, x) = Min!,
i optimization algorithms require a very large number
subject to
hj (P, X) = 0.1 j=l,...,M.,
gj(P, x) Q 0, j=M.+l,...,M,
x:<xt<x;, k= l,...) N,
XER~,
where F(p, x) is the objective function to be
minimized with respect to the design variables vector
x, h,(p, x) is a typical equality constraint, g,(p, x) is
a typical inequality constraint, Me is the number of
equality constraints, M is the total number of
constraints, p is the state variable vector (displace-
ment and/or stresses) and x1 and x” are side
constraints which provide lower and upper bounds to
the N design variables based on various consider-
ations such as manufacturing limitations, physical
practicability and aesthetics.
t Current address: AVL GmbH, Kleiststr. 48, A-8020
Graz, Austria.
programming methods to structural design [l], a
variety of methods for attacking the structural
optimization problem, P, can be found in the
literature. During the 1980s Schmit [2] and Vander-
plaats [3] reviewed these developments. Extensive
review of finite element-based structural optimization
is given in Ref. [4]. All of the known structural
(1)
of evaluations of the relevant functions such as
displacements and stresses. These quantities are in
general implicit functions with a high degree of
nonlinearity with respect to the control variables
(design variables). The evaluation of these functions
requires a reanalysis of the structure for every move
in the design space. Moses [S] reviewed the rapid
development of mathematical programming ap-
proach to structural design optimization and
(2) concluded that the application of mathematical
programming methods to the optimum design of
structural elements and simple components is a
well-established and profitable technique. He indi-
cates that a major effort in structural optimization
should be dedicated to reduce the number of
analyses.
For efficient structural synthesis, the approxi-
mation concepts method is widely used. Therefore, in
this work, attention has been focused on reviewing
and extending the approximation concepts approach
which is used in structural optimization to reduce the
number of analyses.
In late 70s and early 80s approximate represen-
tations for constraints and objective functions were
generated using a first-order Taylor series expansion

97
98 K. G. Mahmoud

in terms of direct or reciprocal design variables [6-91.
More accurate approximations can be constructed
using intermediate design variables and intermediate
response quantities. The intermediate design vari-
ables and response quantities ideas have been
successfully applied [lO-141. Recently, Sepulveda and
Schmit [15] presented an optimization strategy for
structural synthesis based on approximation con-
cepts. The approximate design optimization problem
is constructed using first-order approximations of
selected intermediate quantities in terms of intermedi-
ate design variables.
The research work reported in Ref. [16] was
devoted to dealing with the linear constraints which
may result from the constraints direct linear
approximation. One important conclusion obtained
was that further research was needed to make the
explicit constraints convex. The concept of hybrid
approximation proposed in Ref. [17] and later
exploited in Refs [18, 191, was rediscovered with the
spirit of achieving convexity. The original idea set
forth to obtain a conservative approximation to the
behavior constraints by restoring to mixed direct/re-
ciprocal variables in the linearization process [ 18, 191.
This constitutes the basis for the convex linearization
method proposed in Ref. [lo], where the method
employs reciprocal variables in the linearization
process, but also uses direct variables, depending
upon the sign of the first derivatives of the function
being approximated.
Fleury and Smaoui [20] discussed two methods
based on convex approximation schemes. In these
methods, the key idea is to replace the implicit
problem with a sequence of convex explicit
subproblems having a simple algebraic form. They
described the “convex linearization” method (CON-
LIN) [lo] as well as the “method of moving
asymptotes” (MMA) [21]. They successfully tested
these two approximation techniques on simple
problems that can be solved in closed form. Mahnken

INITIAL DESIGN PARAMETERS &

DESIGN CRITERIA”

I
FINITE ELEMENT*
ANALYSIS

F& G EVALUATION** ’

DESIGN SENSITIVITY**
x’

l
MSC/NASTRAN modules U Displacement vector
l* SQPNAS modules x’ Optimum design vector of
F Objective function the approximate model
G Constraints Vector (T stress vector
Fig. 1. Flow diagram for structural optimization using approximate model.
 Structural optimization 99
range of coupling

one point

prescribed deformation (clearance)

Fz = 9.05 kN
Fig. 2. Load and boundary conditions.

et al. [22] presented a modified version of the MMA
by incorporating a line search into the global
iteration algorithm.
Recently Shih and Sandgren [23] coupled the finite
element package NISA and the optimization software
package OPT and used the direct method of
linear approximation to replace the original implicit
structural optimization problem with a sequence
of explicit approximate problems. They used
truss and frame structure examples to demonstrate
their approach and they recommended the extension
of this work to include plate, shell and solid
elements to enhance the potential application of the
method.
The objectives of this work are as follows: (1)
develop an efficient structural optimization method-
ology based on replacing the actual design optimiz-
ation problem by a sequence of explicit approximate
subproblems based on efficient sensitivity analysis
method; (2) use a high-quality explicit analysis
model based on quadratic approximation of the
state variables and a region of trust in which the
approximate mode1 is still valid; (3) apply this
methodology on real-life automobile structures to
demonstrate the power and generality of the
approximation concepts in structural optimization.
After the mathematical background is given in
Section 2 the structural optimization methodolgoy
is described in Section 3. In Section 4 the
approximation concepts approach is applied to
real-life automobile structures and a comparison
with the finite element analysis-optimization direct
coupling method, which is still commonly used, is
made.
2. APPROXIMATION TECHNIQUES
Most of the approximate structural analysis
techniques are based on Taylor series expansions. For
any function f(xk ) an infinite series about a known

Fig. 3. Uniform thickness subdomains.

100 K. G. Mahmoud

Fig. 4. Finite element model.

value f(xf) in terms of the independent
(Axk = xk - xj) can be written as
df
flxk”+ Axk) = f(x: ) + -dx 1.y;. Axl,
variable optimization phase. The new proposed structure is
then analyzed and the process is repeated until
convergence to an optimum is achieved. Direct linear,
reciprocal linear, mixed linear and quadratic approxi-
mations are examples of the approximation tech-
niques which are used in structural optimization.

+Jq~o.!%+ . . . . (3)
dx; ‘h 2! 2.1. Direct linear approximation
This consists of replacing the structure measure
The design approach is based on performing a function by a first-order Taylor series expansion at
detailed finite element analysis and creating an the original design. Since all terms of order Vi and
explicit structural optimization subproblem. This higher have been omitted, the error in the
subproblem is based on the value and the gradients approximation is of the order V: . The error increases
of the function at the original design (x0). This with increasing values of (V.I. Of course, the
approximate subproblem is then used in the approximation is exact if the function is linear.

Table 1. Comparison of final designs for example 1

Trust region = 0.25 x x0 Trust region = 0.15 x x0

DL RL ML QD DL RL ML QD DC
CPU 1:19:55 0:22:46 0:22:48 0:25:37 0:32:00 0:35:50 0:36:32 0~36120 1:04:40
NOC 25 7 7 7 10 11 11 10 18
F 12896.2 12920.4 12922.8 12908.7 12906.2 12916.1 12917.5 12916.2 12916.0
G msi -3.6 -2.50 -0.12 -0.240 -3.00 -0.06 -0.02 -2.2 -0.5
Design vector 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
5.70 5.62 5.61 5.68 5.67 5.64 5.63 5.66 5.63
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
8.86 9.07 9.11 8.65 8.93 9.02 9.05 8.93 9.04
10.71 10.57 10.56 10.65 10.68 10.64 10.63 10.63 10.65
5.97 6.88 6.81 6.85 6.42 6.70 6.69 6.67 6.78
21.94 16.77 16.24 18.46 19.14 17.87 16.90 18.49 16.27
14.34 12.35 12.2 12.76 13.80 13.47 13.20 14.11 13.72
12.51 12.63 12.64 12.57 12.54 12.57 12.58 12.54 12.56
7.33 7.23 7.29 7.33 7.32 7.31 7.31 7.32 7.31
12.44 12.38 12.45 12.41 12.42 12.41 12.40 12.43 12.41
6.80 6.82 6.83 6.81 6.83 6.81 6.83 6.80 6.80
6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.05 6.09 6.05 6.05 6.09
NOC = number of optimization cycles.
F = objective function (mm’).
G,., = maximum constraints violation x 10’.
DL = direct linear approximation.
RL = reciprocal linear approximation.
ML = mixed linear approximation (direct and reciprocal).
QD = quadratic approximation.
DC = direct coupling of the optimization model with finite element analysis,
 Structural optimization
3.0
Volume
_..-.._.._..-..-. Constraint
2.6
Fig. 5. Optimization history using direct coupling, example 1.
2.2. Reciprocal linear approximation
In this case the structure measure function is
approximated in terms of an intermediate variable.
This variable is defmed by the reciprocal of the design
variable. A typical example is the general form
yk=x:, (4)
where m is a predetermined parameter. The reciprocal
of X~is one of the popular intermediate variables [6]:
Jk=$
The reason for this is that the displacement and stress
constraints for determinate structures are often linear
functions of the reciprocal design variables.
2.3. Mixed linear approximation
It is important to recognize that reciprocal
linearization yields a convex approximation only if all
the first derivatives V&p, x0) are non-negative. This
feature cannot be controlled and therefore a hybrid
form of the direct and reciprocal approximations
which is more conservative than either can be
introduced [lo].
101
2.0
violations
0.4
Iterations
2.4. Quadratic approximation
The structural optimization problem P may be
approached by representing the state variables vector
p(x) in terms of the design variables x using quadratic
approximation, obtained using Taylor series.
p(x) x p(x”) + AxTV,p(xO) + ;AxT~P(x~)Ax, (6)
where p(x) is the state variables vector, V.p(x”) is the
gradient of the state variables p(x) with respect to
design variables vector x and Vip is the second
derivative of the state variables vector p(x) with
respect to vector x. The use of the quadratic
approximation involves calculating the gradient and
Hessian matrix or matrix of second partial deriva-
tives, V:p(x). The gradients are calculated using the
direct method of sensitivity analysis which is
incorporated in the finite element code (see Ref. [24]
for more details). The most popular two methods for
computing the Hessian matrix (matrix of second
partial derivatives B = V:p) are the finite difference
method and the quasi-Newton formula. In this work
the Broydon-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS)
[25--291 technique is used to update the Hessian
matrix.
102 K. G. Mahmoud

It is worthwhile to note here that the state variables
(displacement and/or stresses) and not the structure
constraints are approximated quadratically. If the
latter is approximated and the active set strategy is
incorporated in the optimization technique, the
quadratic term (which is always positive) may change
the status of the constraint from active to nonactive.
3. STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION
For the initial design, using the finite element and
design sensitivity results, the objective function,
constraints and their gradients are evaluated and then
an optimizer uses this information to improve the
design. The new design variables are used for new
finite element and design sensitivity analyses and
these steps are repeated until convergence is achieved.
This structural optimization methodology is still
commonly used.

In the structural optimization problem P, either the

objective function F(p, x) or the constraints h(p, x)
and g(p, x) may be nonlinear functions of the design
variables vector x. This problem has been ap-
proached using two optimization methods. In the first
approach, the optimizer is linked directly with the
finite element and design sensitivity analysis models.
3.1. Convergence criteriu
Because the structural optimization problem is an
iterative process, a set of optimization criteria are
used to determine when the overall process has
converged. The convergence criteria used in the first
methodology, the direct coupling of the finite element

3.0 1.0

2.6 0.8

_..-..-..-..-.._. Constraint violations

2.2 0.6

1.8

2.6 0.8

0.6

1.8

5 10 15
Optimization cycle
Fig. 6. Convergence history (DL).
 Structural optimization 103

3.0 1.0

2.6 0.8

_..-,,_..-..- .._. Constraint violations

2.2 0.6

1.8 0.4

“g 1.4 0.2
G
7
0
dX 1.0 0

g 3.0 1.0
T-d
>
2.6 0.8

2.2 0.6

1.8 0.4

1.4 0.2

1.0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 7. Convergence history (RL).

analysis and the optimizer are the Kuhn-Tucker to constraint j and (x*) is the optimum design vector.
optimality conditions: As discussed in the previous sections, this approach
can create difficulties caused by too many finite
x* is feasible, (7) element analyses which result in a long computing
run time.
h&(X*)=0, and A,>O,j=M,+l,..., M, In the second approach, the structural optimiz-
ation problem P is solved by sequentially solving
(8)
subproblems F” which are generated by approxi-
mation of both the objective function f(x) and
the constraints h(x) = [h,(x), . . . , II,(x)]~ and
VF(x*) + 2 A,Vhj(X*) + 5 3,Va(x*) = 0, , gY(x)lT. In the sequel, the
,=I ,=M,+I g(x)=Lgu,+I(x),...
approximated functions are denoted by
(9) p” h’“(x) = [h?‘(x) , hticWI’ and g’“(x) =
Isi. + , (x), . . . , g&$, respectively. It should be
ijiOo, j=M,+l,...,M, (10) recognized that the approximation is in some
instances very gross and must be used with great
where Aj is the Lagrangian multiplier corresponding caution. One way to ensure the approximation is
104 K. G. Mahmoud

adequate is to impose limits on the accepted where

increments in the design variables. That is for each
subproblem in a region of trust should be x min = max(xf) - Axl!), XL), (13)
constructed. In this case the resulting subproblem is
written as x max = min(xf’ + Ax”’
k, x”)
k, (14)

Pen:P(p, x) = Min!, (11) Ax,$’= a(xl:” _ xt I’), (15)

I
subject to c( = is a move limit (0 < CI< 0.25). (lo)

h:“(P, x) = 0, j=l,...,M,, 3.2. Convergence criteria

g:“(P, x) G 0,
x min < xl’ < x max
k k ’
XER~,
In the second methodology there are two levels at
j=M,+l,...,M, which convergence is tested: the first level is the
optimizer level and this is the lower level; the second
k=l,...,N, level is the overall design cycles level, the global level.
The convergence at the optimizer level is denoted
(12) “local” convergence and at the design cycles level is

3.0 1.0

2.6 ( Volume 0.8

-. Constraint violations
2.2 _..-..- ..-..-.. 0.6

1.8 0.4

0.2
-8 le4
7
2 0
X 1.0

i! 3.0
E
9
2.6

2.2

1.8

5i $i .\
1.0 iif. :1: ;. " ,G, ;-,, ,. A I I 0

.o 2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 8. Convergence history (ML).
 Structural optimization

2.6 Volume 0.8

_.._,. -..-..- ..-. Constraint violations

0.6

1.8

2.6 0.8

0.6

1.8

1.4

1.0
2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 9. Convergence history (QD).

denoted “model” convergence. The local convergence
criteria are the previously mentioned Kuhn-Tucker
optimality conditions and the model convergence
criteria are
max(Izy)(x)) < e2, j = 1, . . . , Me,
max&$‘(x)) l: ~2, j = Me + 1, . . . , M,
where i is the design optimization cycle number; LI is
the tolerance value (e.g. L, = 10e4); c2 is a tolerance
value which is may be different from 6,. In both of
these optimization methodologies, MSC/NASTRAN
finite element analysis modules [30] are coupled with
the sensitivity analysis and optimization modules,
SQPNAS, developed in this work and the work
presented in Ref. [24].
As one can see from Fig. 1, finite element and design
(17) sensitivity analyses are performed at the beginning of
each design cycle. An approximate model is then
(18) constructed. This subproblem is then used in the
optimization phase. Once an optimum design for the
(19) approximate subproblem is found, the new design is
submitted for another finite element analysis to deter-
mine the true response, thus marking the beginning of
the next design cycle. This cycle may be repeated as
necessary until “model” convergence is achieved.
106 K. G. Mahmoud

Table 2. Comparison of final designs for example 2

Trust region = 0.25 x xo Trust region = 0.15 x xo

DL RL ML QD DL RL ML OD DC
CPU 0:19:55 0:24:02 0:20:06 0:23:31 0:35:46 0:32:40 0:23:40 0:35:25 1:18:20
NOC 6 7 6 6 11 10 7 9 22
F 72.6 72.6 72.5 72.6 12.6 72.5 75.8 72.6 72.9
G mrr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Design vector 5.24 5.26 5.23 5.23 5.26 5.25 5.33 5.27 5.28
8.06 8.06 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.06 8.21 8.06 8.12
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
9.00 8.99 8.99 9.0 9.00 9.01 9.10 8.99 8.99
13.60 13.60 13.61 13.63 13.61 13.60 13.58 13.60 13.56
8.81 8.77 8.77 8.78 8.76 8.82 9.92 8.77 9.22
28.16 28.90 28.88 28.67 28.72 27.89 19.66 28.92 23.48
18.56 18.62 18.64 18.57 18.60 18.55 18.29 18.65 19.35
15.72 15.75 15.70 15.68 15.74 15.75 15.84 15.82 15.89
12.57 12.56 13.67 12.67 12.56 12.61 12.16 12.56 12.53
22.00 22.00 22.00 22.01 22.00 21.99 22.03 22.00 22.00
8.18 8.18 8.18 8.16 8.18 8.18 8.37 8.18 8.14
7.18 7.07 7.17 7.21 7.07 7.10 8.98 6.95 6.96

4. TEST PROBLEMS AND RESULTS
In the context of structural optimization, the
evaluation of an approximate analysis model should
be assessed from two viewpoints: quality and
efficiency. The quality of the model is determined by
comparing the values of the structural measure
function provide by the model to its exact value.
Efficiency is more straightforward. Efficiency can be
estimated by testing the approximate model in the

2.0

1;;jliilrr_ili
-..- ‘-‘.-..-..-. Constraint violations

1.6

1.2

90 0.8

70 0.4

L
..-.,
\
\
\
50 0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Iterations
Fig. 10. Optimization history using direct coupling, example 2.
 Structural optimization
150
130
_..-..-..- ..-..-.
110
2 4
Optimization
Fig. 11. Convergence history (DL).
optimization process and checking how well the
structure is optimized.
The structural optimization strategy described in
Fig. 1 has been implemented by coupling the finite
element analysis-blased approximate model with the
direct method for design sensitivity analysis and a
sequential quadratic optimization algorithm [31]. The
techniques discussed in the approximation techniques
section have been experimented on a large-scale
automobile structure example. The tests are used to
demonstrate the validity and the efficiency of the
approximation concepts approach for large-scale
structural optimization and to compare between
different approximation techniques from one side and
between an approximation concept approach and a
finite element ana.lysis-optimization direct coupling
from the other side.
107
1.0
Stress function 0.8
Constraint violations
0.6
1 0.6
6 8 10 12
cycle
4.1. Example: unit injector rocker arm
Figure 2 shows the loading and boundary
conditions for a unit injector (U.I.) rocker arm that
has been used elsewhere as an example [24,32]. This
problem came from the company AVL-List GmbH
(Graz). The two-dimensional domain of the rocker
arm is divided into 13 subdomains; each subdomain
is assumed to have a uniform thickness, and the
thickness of each subdomain is considered as a design
variable.
Figure 3 shows the 13 subdomains of uniform
thickness, where the numbers given in the subregions
represent the component number in the design
variables vector. Figure 4 presents the finite
element model of the rocker arm. The domain is
divided into 396 QUAD4 and one TRIA3 elements,
respectively. For a steel unit injector rocker arm,
108 K. G. Mahmoud

Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are 110 GPa von Mises stress (2.50 MPa). In this example the
and 0.3, respectively. thicknesses of the design previously used by the
Two optimization test examples have been carried AVL-List are used as initial values of the design
out using finite element analysis-optimization direct variables:
coupling and four different approximation tech-
niques. The first example is formulated as follows: x = [12.0, 16.0, 5.5, 7.0, 14.0, 23.0, 10.0,

Minimize Volume (20) 17.0, 33.0, 26.0, 15.0, 25.5, 28.01T.

such that
Classically, the convergence history is presented in a
weight vs iterations diagram. In this study the
a, -l<O, j=l,..., NLM, (21) objective function and the sum of constraint
umax
violations vs iterations/optimization cycles are pre-
5 mm < xk < 35 mm, k = 1, . . , N, (22) sented in graphs. The results obtained are also
presented in tables because graphs and numbers may
where: N is the number of design variables; NLM is give a better judgment.
the number of elements; cmaris a maximum allowable Table 1 shows a comparison between the CPU

150 1.0

130 Stress function 0.8

_.,-..-..-..-..-. Constraint violations

110 0.6

90 0.4

70 0.2

a = 0.15

50 m n” m f-.
” m
” r\
” m
” e” m

150

130 0.8

110 _ 0.6

90 _ 0.4

70 _ 0.2

50 Ii n m
” ”
m n
”
m
”
n
”
I I I 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 12. Convergencehistory (RL).
 Structural optimization 109

1.0

Stress function 0.8

_..-..- .._..-..-. Constraint violations

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 13. Convergence history (ML).

required to optimize this problem on a VAX 4000-60
work station. The number of design optimization
cycles, NOC, the objective function values, F, the
maximum constraints violation, G,.. , and the design
variables vector in five different approaches: finite
element analysis-optimization direct coupling; direct
linear approximation; reciprocal linear approxi-
mation; mixed linear approximation; and quadratic
approximation of the state variables are presented.
Two moving limits (trust regions) are used, namely
E = 0.25 and tl = 01.15. At each optimization cycle
finite element and structural design sensitivity
analyses are performed.
From Table 1, one can see that there is no great
difference between the values of the objective
function obtained in each of the previously
mentioned approaches. In each of the following two
parts-figures the upper part is produced at a moving
limit a = 0.15 and the lower part at a = 0.25. In case
of linear approximation, one can see from Fig. 5 that
the objective function reaches its minimum in about
four iterations, at a = 0.25, and because of the
constraints violation the solution oscillates about the
optimum. Better results are obtained at the lower
moving limit, a = 0.15. Reducing the moving limit
overcomes the oscillation and improves the direct
linear approximation convergence rate, but slows
down the convergence rate in the case of the other
approximation approaches. One can see this from
Table 1 and Figs 5-9. One can also notice that the
quadratic approximation takes more CPU time than
the other approaches for the same number of
iterations. This is due to the time used in updating,
saving and retrieving the Hessian matrix.
110 IL G. Mahmoud

In the second example, the objective is to minimize used in this example); umaris a maximum allowable
F,, where von Mises stress (250 MPa).
The initial design variables used in the previous
NLM example are also used here. The results obtained
F,= c (23) are presented in Table 2 and Figs 10-14. From
j=l
this table and these figures, one can see that
the quadratic approximation gives quite good
such that results in spite of the time required to update
the Hessian matrix. The hybrid linear approxi-
mation converge after seven iterations at moving
;;di-l<O, j=l,_.., NLM, (24) limit a = 0.15 to a design space near the design
space obtained by the other approaches (local
5mm<xk<35mm, k=l,..., N, (25) minimum). This can be seen from the values
given in Table 2. It is worth recalling that the
where N is the number of design variables; NLM is quality of the results and the efficiency of the
the number of elements; u, is von Mises stress of calculations are two conflicting factors that should
element j; go is a prescribed stress value (120 MPa is be considered in selecting an approximate analysis

150 1.0

Stress function 0.8

____._.,_,._____ Constraint violations

1 cr = 0.15
i I
A
u m ”n ”m ”r\ ”m ”n ”m ”r.

_ 0.6

_ 0.4
a = 0.25

” 0 _ 0.2
I
i
50 i 0 m m
" n m
" I I _ 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Optimization cycle
Fig. 14. Convergence history (QD).
 Structural optimization 111

Table 3. Comparison of final designs for example 1 including restriction on the displacement
Trust region = 0.25 x xo Trust region = 0.15 x xo
-
DL RL ML QD DL RL ML QD DC
CPU 012646 0:19:33 0:25:28 0:19:19 0:29:2 1 0~3556 0:35:58 31:57 1:25:06
NOC 8 6 7 6 9 11 11 9 24
F 201679.9 21089.0 21031.4 21030.0 20777.2 21007.0 21011.1 21021.0 21018.6
G mar -3.1 -3.10 -0.32 -4.2 -4.50 -0.03 -0.06 0.0 0.44
Design vector 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
5.60 6.11 6.5 6.41 6.75 6.15 6.12 6.35 5.94
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
7.77 7.80 7.8 7.80 7.83 7.81 7.81 7.82 7.81
17.47 15.97 15.8 15.94 13.43 15.85 15.97 15.83 16.56
17.77 16.35 16.58 16.57 15.40 16.04 16.14 16.33 15.19
35.00 27.65 27.98 27.59 35.00 30.54 29.88 28.85 31.78
33.87 32.69 30.58 30.55 29.10 33.96 33.93 32.88 31.43
217.65 28.36 28.25 28.22 28.99 28.05 28.07 28.15 28.17
6.89 6.73 6.60 6.66 6.44 6.73 6.73 6.67 6.77
19.31 22.26 22.57 22.37 22.80 22.98 22.95 22.84 23.14
10.03 9.62 9.54 9.79 8.75 9.38 9.36 9.40 9.77
12.98 15.67 15.78 15.73 14.46 15.46 15.45 15.59 14.24

model. That is, better approximations are often coupling and the approximation concepts approach.
achieved at the expense of more computational effort. It is clear from both tables that the quadratic
In the previous two examples no restriction is approximation approach may be more expensive, but
imposed on the displacement at any grid point. is more robust than the others. At a move limit of
However, other nu.merical tests including restrictions CI= 0.15 the reciprocal and mixed linear approxi-
on the stiffness of the rocker arm, defined by eqn (27), mation converge to a local optimum far away from
have been carried out. The new constraint is: the optimum design space obtained by the other
approximation approaches.
SI’F > 56.5 N pm-‘,
5. CONCLUSION
where
In this paper an efficient optimization methodology
SFT = the Istiffness of the rocker arm, combining finite element analysis-based approximate
analysis model, a sequential quadratic programming
=- forceco.0WI algorithm incorporating an active set strategy and a
(27)
V,,“.r.)km1 + Vybdcr~
WI ’ direct method of design sensitivity analysis is
developed. Two design optimization problems from
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results obtained in the automobile industry involving a mix of behavior
both examples using analysis-optimization direct constraints as well as alternative objective functions

Table 4. Comparison of final designs for example 2 including restrictions on the displacement
Trust region = 0.25 x xo Trust region = 0.15 x x0

DL RL ML QD DL RL ML QD DC
CPU 0:23:08 26~43 0:29:01 0:24:09 0:19:15 0:13:26 0:13:20 3044 1:53:30
NOC 7 8 9 6 6 4 4 8 32
F 83.38 83.37 83.35 83.59 86.67 93.00 92.2 83.94 83.6
G nl*i -0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.04
Design vector 5.91 5.91 5.90 5.90 5.87 8.48 8.48 5.89 5.85
8.33 8.32 8.32 8.33 8.44 8.38 8.35 8.36 8.34
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
8.92 8.92 8.92 8.93 8.90 8.73 8.81 8.98 9.03
13.03 13.06 13.05 13.11 12.89 12.00 12.02 13.18 13.56
10.32 10.20 10.16 10.23 12.46 18.51 17.10 10.46 10.25
33.97 35.00 35.00 35.00 23.13 17.12 17.11 30.59 30.77
21.62 21.71 21.78 21.69 19.83 17.31 17.63 21.52 20.83
35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 33.40 35.00 34.50 35.00 35.00
9.92 9.94 9.94 9.97 9.85 18.36 18.36 9.96 10.01
26.75 26.73 26.80 26.7 26.30 20.39 21.60 26.77 26.26
8.37 8.36 8.36 8.34 9.43 13.05 13.05 8.38 8.33
9.00 9.03 9.00 9.03 10.56 14.62 14.62 9.28 9.78
112 K. G. Mahmoud
have been solved. The numerical examples have
indicated that the approximation concepts approach
is a powerful and rather general approach to
structural optimization. Convergence to a feasible
near-optimum design have been obtained after six to
11 actual analyses, depending on the problem and the
move limit. It has been shown that the introduction
of a high quality explicit approximation for the
objective function and behavior constraints improve
the convergence characteristics of structural optimiz-
ation problems.
Acknowledgements-This work has been supported by the
Austrian Forschungsfiirderungsfonds fiir die gewerbliche
Wirtschaft and by AVL-List GmbH Graz. The author
thanks Professor H. Engl for his valuable suggestions and
contributions and Dr Gotthard Rainer (AVL-List GmbH)
for his efficient cooperation.
REFERENCES
1. L. A. Schmit, Structural design by systematic synthesis.
In: Proc. 2nd Conf. on Electronic Comvutation. AXE.
New York, pp. 105-322 (1960). _ method for structural optimization. Int. J. numer.
L. A. Schmit, Structural synthesis-its genesis and
development. AIAA J. 19, 1249-1263 (1981).
G. N. Vanderplaats, Structural optimization-past,
present and future. AIAA J. 20, 992-1000 (1982).
J. Haslinger and P. Neittaanmtiki, Finite Element
Approximation for Optimal Shape Design: Theory and
Applications. Wiley, New York (1988).
5. F. Moses, Mathematical programming methods for
structural optimization. ASME Struct. Optim. Symp.
AMD 7, 35-48 (1974).
6. L. A. Schmit and B. Farshi, Some approximation
concepts for efficient structural synthesis. AIAA J. 12,
692-699 (1974).
7. C. Fleury, A modified approach to structural weight
minimization. Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng 20,
17-38 (1979).
8. L. A. Schmit and C. Fleury, Structural synthesis by
combining approximation concepts and dual methods.
AIAA J. 18, 1252-1260 (1980).
9. M. B. Fuchs, Explicit optimum design. Int. J. Solia!s
Struct. 18, 13-27.(1982):
10. C. Fleury and V. Braibant, Structural optimization: a
new dual method using mixed variables. Znt. J. numer.
Meth. Engng 23, 409428 (1986).
11. G. N. Vanderplaats and E. Salajegheh, A new
approximation method for stress constraints in struc-
tural synthesis. AIAA J. 27, 352-358 (1989).
12. H. L. Thomas. A. E. Semdveds and L. A. Schmit.
Improved approximation for control augmented strut:
tural synthesis. AZAA J. 30, 171-179 (1992).
13. R. M. Haiali and M. B. Fuchs. Generalized aonroxi-
mations bf homogeneous constraints in optimal
structural design. In: Computer-Aided Optimum Design
of Structures: Recent Advances (Edited by C. A. Brebbia
and S. Hernandez), pp. 167-177. Springer, Berlin
(1989).
14. R. Xia and H. Huang, Structural optimization with
adaptive and two level approximation techniques. In:
Computer-Aided Optimum Design of Structure! Recent
Advances (Edited bv S. Hernandez and C. A. Brebbia). II
pp. 155-167. Springer, Berlin (1991).
15. A. E. Sepulveda and L. A. Schmit, Approximation-
based global optimization strategy for structural
synthesis. AIAA J. 31, 18&188 (1993).
C. Fleury and V. Braibant, Prise en compte de
16.
contraintes lineares dans les methodes duales
d’optimisation structurale. LT AS Report SF-107,
University of Liege (1982).
17. J. H. Starnes and R. T. Haftka. Preliminarv design of
composite wings for buckling, strength, and disGace-
ment constraints. J. Aircr. 16, 564570 (1979).
18. B. Prasad, Explicit constraint approximation forms in
structural optimization-part I: analyses and projec-
tions. Comput. Meth. appl. Mech. Engng 40, 1-26
(1983).
19. B. Prasad, Approximation adaptation and automation
concepts for large scale structural optimization. Engng
Optim. 6, 129-140 (1983).
20. C. Fleury and H. Smaoui, Convex approximation
strategy in structural optimization. In: Discretization
Methods in Engineering-Procedures and Applications
(Edited by H. A. Eschenauer and G. Thierauf),
pp. 118-126. Springer, Berlin (1988).
21. K. Svanberg, Methods of moving asymptotes-a new
Meth. Engng 24, 359-373 (1987).
22. R. Mahnken, E. Stein and D. Bischoff, A stabilization
procedure by line-search computation for first-order
approximation strategies in structural optimization. Znt.
J. numer. Meth. Engng 35, 1015-1029 (1992).
23 H.-R. Shih and E. Sandgren, Optimization in structural
design. In: Computer-Aided Optimum Design of
Structures: Recent Advances (Edited by S. Hernandez
and C. A. Brebbia), pp. 99-113. Springer, Berlin (1991).
24. K. G. Mahmoud, H. W. Engl and L. Holzleitner,
Optimum structural design using MSC/NASTRAN and
sequential quadratic programming. Comput. Struct. 52,
437447 (1994).
25. R. Fletcher and M. J. D. Powell, A rapidly convergent
method for minimization. Comput. J. 6,163-168 (1953).
26. C. G. Broydon, The convergence of a class of double
rank minimization algorithm, parts I and II. J. Inst.
math Appl. 6, 7690, 222-231 (1970).
27. R. Fletcher, A new approach to variable metric
algorithm. Comput. J. 13, 317-322 (1970).
28. D. Goldfarb, A family of variable metric methods
derived by variational means. Math. Comput. 24,23-36
(1970).
29. D. F. Shanno, Conditioning of quasi-Newton methods
for function minimization. Math. Comput. 24, 647-656
(1970).
30. MSCIMASTRAN Programmer’s Manuals. MacNeal-
Schwendler, Los Angeles, CA (1986).
31. K. Schittkowski, On the convergence of a sequential
quadratic programming methods with an augmented
Lagrangian line search function. Math. Ops statist. Ser.
Optim. 14, 197-216 (1983).
32. G. Ph. Rainer, MSC/NASTRAN as a key tool to satisfy
increasing demands for numerical simulation tech-
niques. In: MSC European Users Conf., Vienna,
pp. 20-22 (1993).