NUMERICAL COMPARISON OF NONLINEAR-PROGRAMMING ALGORITHMS FOR STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION

被引：95
作者：
SCHITTKOWSKI, K
ZILLOBER, C
ZOTEMANTEL, R
机构：
[1] Mathematisches Institut, Universität Bayreuth, Bayreuth
[2] IWR, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg
[3] CAP debis Division Industrie, München
来源：
STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION | 1994年 / 7卷 / 1-2期
关键词：
D O I：
10.1007/BF01742498
中图分类号：
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号：
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要：
For FE-based structural optimization systems, a large variety of different numerical algorithms is available, e.g. sequential linear programming, sequential quadratic programming, convex approximation, generalized reduced gradient, multiplier, penalty or optimality criteria methods, and combinations of these approaches. The purpose of the paper is to present the numerical results of a comparative study of eleven mathematical programming codes which represent typical realizations of the mathematical methods mentioned. They are implemented in the structural optimization system MBB-LAGRANGE, which proceeds from a typical finite element analysis. The comparative results are obtained from a collection of 79 test problems. The majority of them are academic test cases, the others possess some practical real life background. Optimization is performed with respect to sizing of trusses and beams, wall thicknesses, etc., subject to stress, displacement, cement, and many other constraints. Numerical comparison is based on reliability and efficiency measured by calculation time and number of analyses needed to reach a certain accuracy level.
引用
收藏
页码：1 / 19
页数：19
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Abadie J., The GRG method for nonlinear programming, Design and implementation of optimization software, (1978)
[2]  
Arora J.S., Belegundu A.D., A study of mathematical programming methods for structural optimization. Part II: Numerical results, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., 21, pp. 1601-1623, (1985)
[3]  
Asaadi J., A computational comparison of some nonlinear programs, Nonlinear Programming, 4, pp. 144-154, (1973)
[4]  
Bertsekas D.P., Multiplier methods: a survey, Automatica, 12, pp. 133-145, (1976)
[5]  
Broyden C.G., Attia N.F., Penalty functions, Newton's method, and quadratic programming, J. Optimiz. Theory Appl., 58, pp. 377-385, (1988)
[6]  
Eason E.D., Fenton R.G., A comparison of numerical optimization methods for engineering design, Trans. ASME, 96, B, pp. 196-200, (1974)
[7]  
Fiacco A.V., McCormick G.P., Nonlinear sequential unconstrained minimization techniques, (1968)
[8]  
Fletcher R., An ideal penalty function for constrained optimization, Nonlinear programming 2, (1975)
[9]  
Fleury C., Structural weight optimization by dual methods of convex programming, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., 14, pp. 1761-1783, (1979)
[10]  
Fleury C., Shape optimal design by the convex linearization method, The optimum shape: automated structural design, pp. 297-326, (1986)
12345