Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L. Berke
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
and
N.S. Khot
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
sized just not to fail locally and globally under its critical
loads, then it must be an optimum structure, because one could
not reduce the sizes and therefore the weight, any further.
What is missing is the important influence of internal force
distribution, also the function of the size variables in indeter-
minate structures.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Single Constraint
[la]
ac.(X) dc .. (x. )
J 1J 1
ax.1 dx.
i=l, ... , n [ lb]
1
n
minimize W E
i=l
w.1 (x.)
1
[ 2a]
subject to G. C. - C.
J
0, j =1, ••• , m [ 2b]
J J
n
where C.
J E
i=l
c 1J
.. (x.1 ) [3]
n m n
L(x,\) E w.1 (x.)
1
+ E \. E C .. (x.)
1 J 1
- C.
J
[4 ]
i=l j=l J i=l
m
ClL
ax.l. = W. .
l.,l. + L A. C . . .
J l.J,l.
=0 i=l, ••• , n [5 ]
j=l
and
respectively.
We now specialize Eqs. (5) and (6) to a single constraint
by dropping the index j and the summation on j. Equations (5)
and (6) become
wl.,l.
.. + AC . .
l.,l.
o i=l, .•• , n [7]
and either
A > 0; G o [8 ]
or
A = 0; G < 0 [9]
If the condition AG = 0 is satisfied through Eq. (9), we do
not have a problem, constraint G is satisfied a priori because
of some stronger requirement on the sizes. Equation (7) can
be rewritten in a more enlightening form by simply dividing
through I:>y w . . and to obtain
l.,l.
C .•
1
~
wl.,l.
.. I = constant i=l, ••. , n [10]
or in words:
CHANGE IN CONSTRAINT
CHANGE IN MERIT FUNCTION = "COST OF IMPROVEMENT" = CONSTANT
280
substituting Eqs. (11) and (12) into Eq. (7) the following
simple expression is obtained:
[14]
x. = "l/p+l(c./w.)l/p+l [15]
1 1 1
or
x.
1
= ,,( c 1. /w.1 xI?)
1
[16]
x.k+1
1
= "l/p+l (c./w')kl/P+l
k 1 1
[17]
or
[18]
D. p+1
AC./W.X.
1 III
[19]
is introduced for the right hand side of Eq. (14) which then
becomes
1 -= D. i=l, ... ,n. [20]
1
x.k+1
1
= X~(D,),:/q
1 1 ....
[ 21]
x.k+l
1.
Xk1.' (1 + (D. - l»l/q
1. k
[22a]
or
x~+l
1.
= x~/(l - (l/g)
1.
(D.
1.
- 1»
k
[22b]
k+l
x. [24]
1
C* = C - CO [27]
Application to Trusses
W. (x.) [31]
~ ~
C.(x.) _- p v
(8.S.I..) / (E.A.) c./A. [32]
~ 1 ~~, ~~ ~ ~
p V 2
D. A (S. S . ) / (E . p . A. ) [33]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 n
C* E
i=l
[34]
287
p. density
1.
Ei Young's modulus
A~+l
1. = (1
C*
~
L..J [35 ]
R,=1
Displacement Constr.aints
C [36]
where
r' transpose of r
Kr P = P [37]
KrV V [38]
K.r.V
1. 1.
= s'!1. [40]
L En wixi + A(T
'P
Kr
V
- C*) [41 ]
i=l
r'P aK V [ 42]
MX-:- r
1
289
[43 ]
'P
~rx. K + rIP aK_ o [44]
a ax.
1 1
from which
ar'P _rIP aK K- l
ax i - = [45 ]
ax~
1
[46]
aK 1
K. [47]
axi xi 1
1
w.
1
- A x. r.'P K . r.V
III
0 [48]
1
or
290
1 [49]
Eq. (49) is equivalent to D'~ of Eqs. (20) and (22a) and (b).
[50]
o [ 51]
n
L ~ w.x. + A(y'Ky - ~*Y'KGY) [52]
i=l ~ ~
291
y'Kiy
1 = A - --
W.X.
i=l, ••• ,n [53]
1 1
Ky - w2 My [55]
n *2
L = .E wix i + A (y'Ky - w y'My) [56]
1=1
to yield the optimality criteria
2
y'Kiy - w y'Miy
1 = A w.x. i=l, ••• , n [57]
1 1
with the use of Eq. (55). The derivation follows the same
steps as earlier, but one remark has to be made concerning
sca1inq of the variables to achieve the target value w* once
the relative values of the design have been obtained. Because
292
MULTIPLE CONSTRAINTS
The modification to multiple constraints of the expressions,
developed for single constraints is trivial on the surface, but
it eliminates simple scaling as the method to evaluate the
Lagrangian multipliers A. that appear in Eq. (5). The modi-
J
fications necessary are to replace Ci(x i ) with Cij(x i ),
A with Aj and retain the summation as indicated in Eq. (5).
To follow the forms of the expressions presented for single
constraints, Eq. (5) is rewritten as
n C ...
1 = E
j=l
Aj
lJ,l
W• •
[58]
1,1
m
1 = 1: AJ. [59]
J=l
m
D.
1 = .E
J=l
A.
J
[60]
D.1 .f
)=1
A.J (S~ .S". .)/ (p 1.A~)
\ lJ 1) 1
[ 61]
where S~.
lJ
and sv..lJ are again the member forces, but for
the j-th combination of the actual load condition Pj and
virtual load Vj associated with the j-th constraint
condition.
with
where
n
c ..
C. =
J L
i=l
21
x·1 [64]
294
L
c ..
1 = A. 2.l_ i=l, ... ,n [65]
J w.x.2
~ ~
j=l
( 66al
C*1 C*2 C*
m
w [66b]
k k
A. + PkG. [ 67a]
J J
and
A~+l [ 67b]
J
[~]
1
1
[681
mxn
1
nxl
1
1 [ 691
nxm
1
nxl
substituting Eq. (69) into Eq. (68) one obtains the linear
equations for the A (with summation on repeated i)
[701
[ 711
where
[ 721
[73]
STRESS CONSTRAINTS
EXAMPLES
[77]
Fig. 7(a). The elastic modulus and weight density of the mate-
rial were 107psi and 0.1 lbs/in. 3 . A nonstructural mass of
0.1 lb-s 2 /in., was attached at the top eight node points 4 to
18. The relative cross-sectional area of all the members for
the first iteration was equal to unity. The minimum gauge con-
straint was equal to 0.005 in. 2 • The truss was designed to
satisfy three constraint conditions. These were: (1) wf
= w~ = 2500 (Case A): (2) w~ = 2500, w~ = 5000 (Case B):
(3) wi = 2500, w~ = 5000 (Case C). It was also required
that for Case B, the vibration Mode 1 (Fig. 7(b)) and Mode 2
(Fig. 7(c)) be associated with wi
and w~ respectively.
However, in Case C, w~ was required to be associated with
Mode 2 and w~ with Mode 1. The iteration history for the
three constraints is given in Table IV. The designs satisfying
these constraints were obtained in sequence. The distribution
of cross-sectional areas of the members for the three designs
are given in Table V. Details of the design procedure are given
in Ref. 61.
t 100 lb.
l
'------"-_ _-">L_---....:~:::::::~
1 - - - 100 In - -.-+-1.0----100 In ~ ~ A1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-
NO.
DlFlNlTlOII 0' ,0UIt PItOeU...
1
I
1'1
100.
-
C......,
1'1
100.
-
C1 CI
II.",",
-
-
L
L
I -100. 100. 00.1 0.1
4 100. 100. L I.
1 .. 10,000 ....
p.O'1....,.....
OI'TIOII 1C
OI'TlONIC
PROBLEM 1 OI'TlOIIIC
~~---~/
~. 411.011111 Iba
/
w".= 111.1254 lb.
~'--_"'--_..J..-_--'-_---'-_--' ~'--_-L-_....l..._--l.._--J._~
o 5 10 15 20 25 o 5 10 15 20 25
ITERATION NUMBER ITERATION NUMBER
PROBLEM 3 PROBI.£M 4
T •
LA,~"
10.. 1
I· 410 In
(8) 38 MEMBER muss ·1
(b) MODE 1
~ (c) MODE 2
Figure 7. 38 Member Truss and
Vibration Modes
~
I.
~ 188
1400 In .1
In
;;~1I~~100
13,804 Ibs
_(\ 120
in
in max
,?>r;§:;' ' 20,000 Ibs
110 in max
40 ,000 Ibs '
( top and bottom)
6X12 (1,027)
17,455 Ibs
a 25 50 75 100
ITER ATIO N NUMBER
Figur e 10. Conve rgence Curve s for
3-D Truss Proble ms
308
2,,,
19 1.275857
1.275857
2. 36824!l1
2.368244
7kl.710678
70.7H1678
151.268097
151.268127
151.268112
151.268234
0.999923
121.999925
1.0r,l;;IW,11
1• !lj!')!lJ~l)!l) 1
REFERENCES
1. Klein, 8.: Direct Use of Extremal Principles in Solving 27. lCiusalaas, J.: Optimal Design of Structures with Buckling
Certain Optimizinq Problems Involving Inequalities. J. Constraints. Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 9, no. 1, 1973,
Opere Res. Soc. Am., voL 3, 1955, pp. 168-175, 548. pp. 863-878.
2. Schmidt, L.A.: Structural Design by Systematic 'Synthesis. 28. Berke, L.t and Khot, NO'S.: Use ot Optimality Criteria
proc-.edinqs of the Second Conference on Electronic Com- Methods for Large Scale Systems. Structural ontimiza"
putation, ASCE, 1960, pp. 105 ... 132. tion, AGARO-LS-10, 1974, pop. 1-1 to 1-29.
l. Razani, R.: Behavior of Pully-Stressed Design of Struc- 29. Berke, L.: and Venkayya, V.B.: Review of Optimality
tutes and its Relationship to Minimum Weight Design. Criteria Approaches to Structural Optimization. Struc-
AIAA J. vol. 3, no. 12, Dec. 1965, pp. 2262-2268. tural Ootimization Symposium, L.A. Schmit, ed., ASKE,
Nev York, 1974, p~. 23-l4.
4. Kicher, ,T.P.: Optimum Design-Minimum Weight Versus Fully-
Stressed. J. Struct. Div. All. Soc. elv. Eng., voL 92, 30. Wilkinson, K., Lerner, E.7 and Taylor, R.P'.; Practical
no. ST6, Dec. 1966, OP. 265-279. Desig" of Minimum weight Aircraft Structures tor Strength
and Flutter Requirements. AIAA paper 74-986, Auq. 1914.
5. Melosh, R.J.: Convergence in Fully-Stressed Designinq.
SYmposium on Structural O'!;)timization, AGARD CP-36, 1959, 31. Venkayya, V.B.: and Khot, N.S.: Design ot Optimum Struc-
pp. 7-1 to 7-15. tures to Impulse Type Loading. AIM J., vol. 13, no. 8,
Aug. 1975, pp. 989-994.
6. Prager, W.: and Taylor, J.E.: Problems of Optimal Struc-
tural Design, J. Appl. Mech., vol. 90, no. 1, Mar. 1968, 32. Khot, N.S.; Venkayya, V.B.~ and Berke, L.: Optimum Struc-
Pp. 102-106. tural Design vith Stability Constraints. Int. J. Numer
Methods Eng., vol. 10, no. 5, 1976, pp. 1097-1114.
7. Venkayya, V.B.: IChot, N.Sd and Reddy, V.S.: Energy Dis-
tribution in an Optimum Structural Design. AFFDL-TR-68- 33. Khot, N.S.: Venkayya, V.B.; and Berke, L.: Optimum Design
156, Sept. 1968. of Composite Structures with Stress and nispiacement Con-
straints. AIAA J., vol. 14, no. 2, Feb. 1976, pp. lll-132.
9. Taylor, J .E.: The Strongest Column: An Energy Approach.
J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 89, no. 2, June 1967, pp. 486-487. 34. Rizzi, P.: Optimization of Multi-Constrained Structures
Based on Optimality Criteria. 17th Structures, structural
9. Sheu, C.Y.; and Prager, W.: Recent Oevelopme"ts in Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIM, 1916, pp. 448-462.
Optimal Structural Design. Appl. Mech. Rev. r vol. 21,
no. 10, Oct. 1969, pp. 985-992. 35. Segenreich, S.Ad and McIntosh, S.C., Jr.: Weight Optimi-
zation under Multiple Equality Constraints using an Opti-
10. prager, W.: and Shield, R.T.: Optimal Design of Multi- mality Cr iter ia. 17th Structures, Structural Dynamics,
purpose Structures, Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 4, and Materials Conference, AIM, 1976, Additional Pa1?er
no. 4, 1968, pp. 469-475. No.3.
11. Sheu, C.Y.: and Prager, W.: Minimum-Weight Desiqn with 36. Dobbs, H.W.; and Nelson, R.B.: Application of Optimality
Piecewise Constant Specific Stiffness, Journal of Criteria to Automated Structural Desiqn. AIAA J.,
Optimization Theory and Application, vol. 2, no. 3, Mav vol. 14, -no. 10, Oct. 1976, ,!;)p. 1436-1443.
1968, l>P. 179-186.
37. Taylor, J .F!.: and Rossow, H.P.~: Optimal St::!:'Jctural Design
12. prager, W.: Optimization of Structural nesiqn. Journal Algorithm "Using Optimality Criteria .....dV.;;,ilces in
of O-ptimization Theory and Applications, vol. 6, no. 1, Engineer tng Science, vol. 2, NASA CP-200l-vol-2, 1976,
July 1970, Pl>. 1-21. pp. 521-530.
13. Shield, R.T.: and Prager, W.: Optimal Structural Oesiqn 38. Khot, N.S., ct al.: Opt ilium Design of Composite wing
for Given Deflection, A. Angew. Math. Phys., vol. 21, Structures With TWist Constraint for Aeroelastic Tailor-
no. 4, 1970, op. 513-523. ing. AFFDL-TR-,76-1l7, Dec. 1976.
14. Berke, L: An Efficient Approach to the Minimull weight 39. Khot, N.S.l Venkayya, V.B.: and Berke, L.: Experiences
Design Qt Deflection Limited Structures. AFFDL-TM-70-4, vith MinilluM Weight Design of Structures Usinq Optimality
1970. Criteria Methods. 2nd Internatidnal Conference on Vehicle
Structural Mechanics, SAE-P ... 71, Society of Automotive
15. Gellatly, R.A.; and Berke, L.: OptimuJQ Structural Engineers, 1977, pp. 19l-20l.
Design. AFFDL-TR-70-165, Apr. 1971.
40. Wilkinson, K., et at: FA-STOP: A Flutter and Strength
16. prager, W.; and Mareal, P.V.: Optimality Criteria in Optimiz3.tion Program for Liftinq-Surface Structures, J.
structutal Design, AFFDL-TR-70-166, May 1971. Aircr., vol. 4, no. 6, June 1977, pp. 581-587.
17. Venkayya, V .B., et al.: Design of Optimum Structures for 41. Sanders, G.; and Fleury, C.: A Mixed Method in Struc-
Dynamic Loads. Proceedings of the Third Conference on turalOptimization. Int. J. Numer. Methods Enq., vol. 13,
Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, R.M. Bader, no. 2, 1978, pp. 385-404.
et a1., eds., Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab, Oct. 1971.
42. Berke, L.: and Khot, N.S . : A Simple Virtual Strain Energy
18. Berke, L.: Convergence Behavior of Iterative Resizing Method to Fully Stress Design Structures with Dissimilar
Procedures Based on Optimality Criteria. AFFDL-TM-72-1- Stress Allowables and Material properties. APPDL-TM-77-
FBR, 1972. 28-FBR, Dec. 1977.
19. Gellatly, R.A.: and Berke, L.: Optimality-Criterion Based 43. Khan, M.R.; WlllmeC"t, IC.D.; and Thornton, W.A.: A New
Algor ithm. Optimum Structural Des 19n, R.H. Gallagher, and Optimality Criterion Method for Large Scale Structures.
O.C. Zienkievicz, eds., John wiley & Sons, 1912, 19th AIAA/ASME/SAE Structures, Structural Dynamics and
"p. 33-49. Materials Conference, AIAA, 1978, pp. 47-58.
20. Kiusa1aas, J.: Minimum Weight Design of Structures Via 44. Isakson, G., et .ilL: ASOP-3: A Program for Optimum
Opt~lDality Criteria. NASA TN 0-7115, 1972. ' Structural Design to Satisfy Strength and Deflection
Constraints, J. Aircr., vol. 15, no. 7, July 1978,
21. Nagtegaal,J .C.: A New Approach to Optimal Design of pp. 422-428.
Elastic Structures. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Enq.,
vol. 2, no. 3, July-Aug . 1973, pp. 255-264. 45. Markowitz, 3.; and Isakson, G.: FASTaP-3: A Strenqth,
Deflection and Flutter Optimization Program for Metallic
22. Khot, N.S., et al.: Application of Optimality Criterion and Composite Structures, Vol. I Theory and Application,
to Fiber Reinforced Composites. AFFDL-TR-73-6, May 1973. Vol . II - Program User's Manual, AFFDL-TR-78-50, May 1978.
21. Venkayya, V.B.: Khot, N.S.: and Berke, L.: Application 46. HalJg, E.J.; and Arora, J.S.: APplied Optimal Desi9n,
ot Optimality Criteria Approaches to Automated Design of Wilev-Interscience, 1979, p. 215.
Large Practical Structures. Second Symposium on Struc-
tural Optimization, AGARO-CP-123, 1973, pp. 3-1 to 3-19. 47. Schmidt, L.A., Jr.: and Fleury, C.: An Improved Analysis/
Synthesis C",pability Based on Dual Methods - ACCESS 3.
24. Khot, N.et., et al.: Optimization of Fiber Reinforced 20th Structures, Structural Dynamic and Materials
Composite Structures. Int. J. Solids Struct. vol. 9, Conference, AIM, 1979, pp. 23-50.
no. 10, 197), po. 1225-1236.
48. Fleury, C.; and Schmit, L.A. Jr.: Dual Methods and
25. Khot, N.S.: Venkayya, V.R.; and Berke, L.: Optimization Appr~xillation Concepts in Structural Synthesis. " NASA
and Structures for Strenqth and Stability Requirements. CR-3226, 1980.
AFFDL-TR-73-98, Dec. 1973.
49. K~ot, N.S.: Berke, L.: and Venkayya, V.B.: Minimum Weight
26. prager, w.: Minimum Weight Oesign of Statically Deter- Design of Structures by the Optimality Criterion and pro'"
minate Truss Subject to Constraints on Compliance, Stress, jection Method. lOth Structures, Structural Dvnamics and
ana Cross-Sectional Area. J. Appl. Mech., vol. 40, no. 1, Mater ials Conference, AIM, 1979, pp. 11-22.
Har. 1973, pp. 313-314.
311
o. Lerner, E.: The Application of Practical Optimization 56. Gellatly, R.A.r and Thom, R.D.: Force Method Optimiza-
Techniques in the Preliminary Structural Desiqn of a tion, AFWAL-TR-80-3006, Feb. 1980.
Forward-Swept wing. Second International Symposium on
Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Deutsche 57. Gellatly, R.A., and Thom, R.D •• Optimality Criteria
Gesell.chaft fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt, Bonn, Germany, Using a Force Method of Analysis Approach. Foundation.
1985. p\>. 381-392. of Stl:'uctural Optimization: A Unified Approach. A.J.
Morris, ed., Wiley-Interscience, 1982, pp. 237-272.
1. Lerner, E. rand Markowi tz, J., An Efficient Structural
Resizing Procedure for Meeting Static Aeroeleastic Desiqn 58. Adelman, H.M., Haftka, R.T., and Tsach, U.l Application
ObjectIves. J. Aircr., vol. 16, no. 2, Feb. 1919, of Fully Stressed Design Procedures to Redundant and
pp. 65-71. Non-I8otl:'opic Stl:'uctures, NASA TM-81842, 1980.
2. Cros., H.I The Relation of Analysis to Sttuctural Desi9n, 59. Walsh, J.: Application of Mathematical Optimization
All. Soc. Civ. Eng. proc., vol. 61, no. 8, Oct. 1935, Procedutes to a Structural Model of a Large Finite-
pp. 1119-1130, and vol. 61, no. 10, pt. 1, Dec. 1935, Element Win9, NASA TH-87597, 1986.
pp. 1551-1557.
60. Prager, W.: Unexpected Results in Structural Optimiza-
3. Khot, N.S •• Berke,I..,and Venkayya, V.B.: Comparison of tion, J. Stt'uct. Mech., vol. 9, no. 1,1981, pp. 71-90.
Optimality Criteria Algorithms for Minimum Weight Design
of Structures, AIM J., Vol. 17, no. 2, Feb. 1919, 61. Khot, N.S.: Optimization of Structures with Multiple
pp. 182-190. Frequency Constraints. Comput Struct., vol. 20, no. 5,
1985. pp. 869-876.
4. Bertsekas, D.P.: Constrained Optimization and Lagtange
Multiplier Methods. Academic Press, 1982, p. 104. 62. Khot, N.S., and Itamat, H.P.: Minimum Weight Desiqn of
Truss Structut'es with Geometric Nonlineat' Behavior. AXAA
5. Gellatly, R.A.r and Berke, I..: A preliminal:'Y Study of a J., vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 1985, pp. 139-144.
New Approach to the Optimization of Stten9th Limited
Structures, AFFOL-TM-15-l62-FBR, Sept. 1975 ••