Advertisement

Optimization of Dynamic Response of Cantilever Beam by Genetic Algorithm

  • Javad Zolfaghari
Chapter

Abstract

Optimization is one of the important subjects in various engineering fields. Until now, not much work has been done in optimizing the dynamic response of mechanical structures with large amplitude of vibration.

In recent years, genetic algorithm has been introduced in many engineering areas (robotics, neural networks, fuzzy control, etc.) and has found numerous applications. In this chapter, this method is used for optimization, by maximizing the tip velocity of cantilever beam with constraints of stress and constant volume. In order to increase the optimization power of this algorithm, a penalty function is used along with nonconventional operators (fuzzy crossover operator, artificial selection, and dynamic mutation operator).

Also, the results obtained by the above-mentioned method are compared with the results of other solutions acquired by different optimization methods. It can be concluded that genetic algorithm can be used as a powerful and reliable method to achieve the global optimum for dynamic response of structures.

References

  1. 1.
    Yamakawa, H. (1984). Optimum structural designs for dynamic response. In R. H. Atrek, K. M. Gallagher, & O. C. Zinkiewicz (Eds.), New directions in optimum structural (pp. 245–266). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Szyszkowski, W., & King, J. M. (1992). Optimization of frequencies spectrum in vibration of flexible structures. In Fourth ALAA/USAF/OAI symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, number AIAA-92-4775-CP, Cleveland, OH, September 21-23 (pp. 695–700).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grandhi, R. V., & Venkayya, V. B. (1988). Structural optimization with frequency constraints. ALAA Journal, 26(7), 858–866.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olhoff, N. (1980). Optimization of transverse vibrating beams and rotating shafts. In E. J. Haug & J. Cea (Eds.), “Optimization of distributed parameter structures”, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, 1981. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Optimization of Distributed Parameter Structural Systems, May 20-June 4 (pp. 177–199). Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthff & Nordhoff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niordson, F. I. (1963). On the optimal design of a vibrating beam. Quarterly Journal of Applied Mechanics, 23(1).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Venkayya, V. B., Khot, N. S., Tischler, V. A., & Tailar, R. F. (1971). Design of optimum structures for dynamic loads. In Proceedings of the third conference on matrix methods in structural mechanics (pp. 619–658). Athens, OH: Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Air Force Flight Dynamic Lab, University of Ohio.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khan, M. R., & Willmert, K. D. (1981). An efficient optimality criterion method for natural frequency constrained structures. Journal of Computers and Structures, 14(5-6), 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jan, C. T., & Truman, K. Z. Optimal design with multiple frequency constraints. In S. Hernandez & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Optimization of structural systems.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turner, M. J. (1967). Design of minimum mass structures with specified natural frequencies. ALAA Journal, 5(3), 406–412.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan, M. R., Thornton, W. A., & Willmert, K. D. (1975). Optimality criterion techniques applied to mechanical design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 100, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Truman, K., & Peruska, D. (1991). Optimum design of dynamically excited structural systems using time history analysis. In S. Hernandez & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Optimization of structural systems and industrial applications (pp. 197–220). Boston: Computational Mechanics.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paeng, J. K., & Arora, J. S. (1989). Dynamic response optimization of mechanical systems with multiplier methods. Journal of Mechanics Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 111, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chahande, A. I., & Arora, J. S. (1993). Development of a multiplier method for dynamic response optimization problems. Structural Optimization, 6, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, E. H., Moore, G. J., & Izadpanah, K. (1992). Example of dynamic response optimization using MSC/NASTRAN. In Fourth ALAA/USAF/NASA/OAI symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization number AIAA-92-4814-CP, Cleveland, OH, September 21-23 (pp. 959–967).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brach, R. M. (1968). Optimum design of beams for sudden loading. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 94(EM6), 1395–1407.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abolbashari, M. H. (1995). A numerical approach for optimization of velocity response of structure, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskachcnan.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1992). Numerical recipes in C: The art of scientific computing (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michalewcz, Z. (1992). Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tong, S. S. (1986). Coupling artificial intelligence and numerical computation for engineering design. ALAA 24th Aerospace Science Meeting, number ALAA—86-0242, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Powell, D. J., Skolnick, M. M., & Tong, S. S. (1991). “Inter digitation: A hybrid technique for engineering design optimization employing genetic algorithms”, expert systems, and numerical optimization. In L. Dais (Ed.), Handbook of genetic algorithms, Chapter 20 (pp. 312–331). NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joines, J., & Houck, C. (1994). On the use of non-stationary penalty function to solve non-linear constrained optimization problem with Gas. In Proceeding of the first IEEE conference on evolution computation (pp. 579–584). Orlando, FL: IEEE.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herrera, F., Lozano, M., & Verdegay, J. L. Fuzzy Connective Base Crossover operators to model genetic algorithms population diversity. Technical Report DECSAI-95110. University of Granada, Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence University of Granada, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janillow, C., & Michalewics, Z. (1991). An experimental comparison of binary and floating point representation in genetic algorithm. In Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, (pp. 31–36). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javad Zolfaghari
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ResearcherTehranIran

Personalised recommendations