COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN APPLICATIONS

Non-linear programming algorithms play an important role in structural design optimization. Fortunately, several algorithms with computer codes are available. At NASA Lewis Research Centre, a project was initiated to assess the performance of eight different optimizers through the development of a c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal for numerical methods in engineering 1996-05, Vol.39 (10), p.1761-1774
Hauptverfasser: PATNAIK, S. N., CORONEOS, R. M., GUPTILL, J. D., HOPKINS, D. A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Non-linear programming algorithms play an important role in structural design optimization. Fortunately, several algorithms with computer codes are available. At NASA Lewis Research Centre, a project was initiated to assess the performance of eight different optimizers through the development of a computer code CometBoards. This paper summarizes the conclusions of that research. CometBoards was employed to solve sets of small, medium and large structural problems, using the eight different optimizers on a Cray-YMP8E/8128 computer. The reliability and efficiency of the optimizers were determined from the performance of these problems. For small problems, the performance of most of the optimizers could be considered adequate. For large problems, however, three optimizers (two sequential quadratic programming routines, DNCONG of IMSL and SQP of IDESIGN, along with Sequential Unconstrained Minimizations Technique SUMT) outperformed others. At optimum, most optimizers captured an identical number of active displacement and frequency constraints but the number of active stress constraints differed among the optimizers. This discrepancy can be attributed to singularity conditions in the optimization and the alleviation of this discrepancy can improve the efficiency of optimizers.
ISSN:0029-5981
1097-0207
DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19960530)39:10<1761::AID-NME925>3.0.CO;2-Q