Abstract
The choice of evolutionary computing to support industrial multiobjective design has two strong motivations, i.e. global search and robustness (Di Barba 2009). Even if convergence towards global optimum has been proven only in an asymptotic way, on a heuristic basis it can be stated that algorithms inspired by evolutionary computing are always able to find an improvement of an existing design. Moreover, they are robust because they work independently of: Type of analysis problem (static, transient, time-harmonics) Nature of design variables (real-valued, integer-valued) Properties of objective functions and constraints (e.g. non-smoothness, non-convexity, non-linearity).
Nevertheless, from the industrial point of view, the time available to complete a design should be considered as a fixed quantity. More and more the never-ending tendency to keep R&D costs low calls for virtual experiments, so stimulating the development of cost-effective procedures of automated optimal design. This remark implies some consequences in terms of speed requirements. In fact, the optimisation procedure should be implemented with highest efficiency, including the link to the finite element software. Moreover, the designer should be given the freedom to choose the compromise he/she needs between accuracy and computing time. A practical consequence is the implementation of non-standard stopping criteria, like user-defined runtime, i.e. an arbitrary time window after which the optimisation stops and the current design, possibly improving the prototype design (starting point of the optimisation), is taken as a result. Conversely, user-defined improvement can be implemented as a stopping criterion; in that case, the runtime is not controlled, but – if the procedure converges – the result fulfils the level of improvement required by the designer.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Di Barba, P. (2009), “Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization Methods for the Shape Design of Industrial Electromagnetic Devices”, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1436–1441. Invited paper from CEFC-2008 conference, Athens
Paul, P., Guimaraes, F.G. and Webb, J.P. (2009), “Reducing the Computational Cost of Inverse Scattering Problems With Evolutionary Algorithms”, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1514–1517
Sasaki, D., Morikawa, M., Obayashi, S. and Nakahashi, K. (2001), “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Supersonic Wings by Adaptive Range Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms”, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Issue 1993 on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization, Springer, pp. 639–652
Wanner, E.F., Guimaraes, F.G., Takahashi, R.H.C., Lowther, D.A. and Ramirez, J.A. (2008), “Multiobjective Memetic Algorithms With Quadratic Approximation-Based Local Search for Expensive Optimization in Electromagnetics”, IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1126–1129
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barba, P.D. (2010). Multi-Scale Evolution Strategy. In: Multiobjective Shape Design in Electricity and Magnetism. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 47. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3080-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3080-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3079-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3080-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)