A Penalty Approach for Nonlinear Optimization with Discrete Design Variables

  • Dong K. Shin
  • Z. Gurdal
  • O. H. GriffinJr.
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Engineering book series (LNENG, volume 42)

Abstract

A penalty approach for the solution of nonlinear discrete optimization problems is proposed. In general, the penalty approach is used for converting a constrained op-timization problem into a sequence of unconstrained problems. The objective function for the unconstrained problem at each step of the sequential optimization includes terms that introduce penalty depending on the degree of constraint violation. In addition to the penalty terms for constraint violation, the proposed approach intro-duces penalty terms to reflect the requirement that the design variables take discrete values. A variable magnitude penalty term in the form of a sine function is introduced and implemented with the extended interior penalty method of the optimization package NEWSUMT-A. The performance of the proposed method is investigated by several numer-ical examples.

Keywords

Assure Sine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Reinschmidt, K., “Discrete Structural Optimization,” ASCE, J. Struct. Div., 97, 133–156, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garfinkel, R. and Nemhauser, G., “Integer Programming,” John Wiley, New York, 1972.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    John, K. V., Ramakrishnan, C. V. and Sharma, K. G., “Optimum Design of Trusses from Available Sections - Use of Sequential Linear Programming with Branch and Bound Al-gorithm,” Engineering Optimizations, Vol. 13, pp. 119–145, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmit, L. and Fleury, C., “Discrete-Continuous Variable Structural Synthesis Using Dual Methods,” AIAA J., Vol. 18, pp. 1515–1524, 1980.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olson, G. R. and Vanderplaats, G. N., “A Method for Nonlinear Optimization with Discrete Design Variables,” AIAA Paper No.87-0789, Dynamics and Materials Conference, April 6-8, 1987, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiacco, A. V. and McCormick, G. P., “Nonlinear Programming : Sequential Uncon-strained Minimization Techniques,” John Wiley, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marcal, P. V. and Gellatly, R. A., “Application of the Created Response Surface Technique to Structural Optimization,” AFFDL-TR-68-150, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, WPAFB, Ohio, 1968.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haftka, R. T. and Kamat, M. P., “Elements of Structural Optimization,” Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haftka, R. T. and Starnes, J. H., Jr., “Applications of a Quadratic Extended Pen-alty Function to Structural Optimization,” AIAA J., Vol. 14, pp. 718–724, 1976.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grandhi, R. V., Thareja, R. and Haftka, R. T., “NEWSUMT-Â : A General Purpose Program for Constrained Optimization Using Constraint Approximation,” ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions and Automation in Design, Vol. 107, pp. 94–99, March 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ringertz, U. T., “On Methods For Discrete Structural Optimization,” Engineering Optimizations, Vol. 13, pp. 47–64, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong K. Shin
    • 1
  • Z. Gurdal
    • 1
  • O. H. GriffinJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering Science and MechanicsVPI & SUBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations