Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A method to improve computational efficiency for CSSO and BLISS

Abstract

A considerable portion of the computational cost results from the solution of sensitivity information in concurrent subspace optimization and bi-level integrated system synthesis. A novel method to update sensitivity information is suggested to improve the computational efficiency in this brief note. Firstly, both the approximate insensitive terms and approximate linear terms in sensitivity information are identified, and then their values are temporarily kept constant for multiple multidisciplinary design optimization cycles. A practical engineering case study is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

i :

the i-th MDO cycle

j :

the j-th term of sensitivity information

A(j,i) :

the sensitivity value of j-th term in the i-th MDO cycle

cr(j) :

the criterion to evaluate j-th term sensitive or insensitive, if absolute value of the j-th term is below cr(j) the j-th term is insensitive.

sr (j) :

stabilization range for the j-th element in sensitivity information

to :

the total number of terms in sensitivity information

ex :

coefficient to enlarge stabilization range, ex is an integer and more than 1

re :

a coefficient to reduce stabilization range, re < 1

c (j) :

the number of MDO cycles of j-th term after sr (j) is updated

va (j,i) :

sensitivity value variation ratio of the j-th term between the (i-1)th MDO cycle and the i-th MDO cycle

p (j) :

the criterion to evaluate j-th term linear or nonlinear, if va (j,i) < p (j), the j-th term is considered as linear item

sa (j) :

update the sensitivity value of the j-th term in sensitivity information

References

  1. Bloebaum CL (1995) Coupling strength-based system reduction for complex engineering design. Struct Optim 10:113–121

  2. Braun RD (1996) Collaborative optimization:an architecture for large-scale distributed design. PhD Thesis, Stanford University

  3. English K, Bloebaum CL, Miller E (2001) Development of multiple cycle coupling suspension in the optimization of complex systems. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 22:268–283

  4. Giunta AA, Balabanov V, Burgee S et al (1997) Multidisciplinary optimization of a supersonic transport using design of experiments theory and response surface modeling. Aeronaut J 101:347–356

  5. Hosder S, Watson LT, Grossman B et al (2001) Polynomial response surface approximations for the multidisciplinary design optimization of a high speed civil transport. Optimization and Engineering 2:431–452

  6. McCulley C, Bloebaum CL (1994) Optimal sequencing for complex engineering systems using genetic algorithms. AIAA 4327:718–730

  7. McCulley C, Bloebaum CL (1996) A genetic tool for optimal design sequencing in complex engineering systems. Struct Optim 12:186–201

  8. McCulley C, Bloebaum CL (1998) Comparison of heuristic convergence strategies for multidisciplinary analysis. AIAA 4943:1–11

  9. Patnaik SN, Guptill JD, Hopkins DA (2005) Subproblem optimization with regression and neural network approximators. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194:3359–3373

  10. Renaud JE, Gabriele GA (1994) Approximation in nonhierarchic system optimization. AIAA 32(1):198–205

  11. Rodriguez JF, Renaud JE (1998) Convergence of trust region augmented Lagrangian methods using variable fidelity approximation data. Struct Optim 15:141–156

  12. Rodriguez JF, Renaud JE, Wujek BA et al (2000) Trust region model management in multidisciplinary design optimization. J Comput Appl Math 124:139–154

  13. Rodriguez JF, Perez VM, Padmanabhan D, Renaud JE (2001) Sequential approximate optimization using variable fidelity response surface approximations. Struct Multidisc Optim 22:24–34

  14. Rogers JL (1989) DeMAID a design manager’s aide for intelligent decomposition user’s guide. NASA Technical Memorandum.101575

  15. Simpson TW, Mauery TM, John J (2001) Korte et al. Kriging models for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary design optimization. AIAA J 39:2232–2241

  16. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition:a step from hierarchic to nonhierarchicsy stems. NASA CP 3031

  17. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14:1–23

  18. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Tulinius J (1991) MDO can help resolve the designer’s dilemma. Aerosp Am, pp 32–35

  19. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Agte J, Sandusky R (1998) Bi-level integrated system synthesis. AIAA Paper, AIAA-98-4916

  20. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Altus DT, Phillips M, Sandusky R (2002) Bi-level System Synthesis (BLISS) for concurrent and distributed processing. AIAA-2002-5409

  21. Stelmack MA, Batill SM (1998) Neural network approximation of mixed continuous/discrete systems in multidisciplinary design. 36th Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibiting, AIAA98-0916

  22. Tappeta RV, Renaud JE (1997) Multiobjective collaborative optimization. J Mech Des 119:403–411

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars under the Grant no. 10725208, Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China under the Grant no. 20070532021, the national 973 program under the grant number 2010CB832705, and the National Science Foundation of China (10802028).

Author information

Correspondence to Xu Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tao, Y.R., Han, X., Jiang, C. et al. A method to improve computational efficiency for CSSO and BLISS. Struct Multidisc Optim 44, 39–43 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-010-0598-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multidisciplinary design optimization
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Decomposition schemes
  • Computational efficiency