A Unified Discrete–Continuous Sensitivity Analysis Method for Shape Optimization

  • Martin BerggrenEmail author
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 15)


Boundary shape optimization problems for systems governed by partial differential equations involve a calculus of variation with respect to boundary modifications. As typically presented in the literature, the first-order necessary conditions of optimality are derived in a quite different manner for the problems before and after discretization, and the final directional-derivative expressions look very different. However, a systematic use of the material-derivative concept allows a unified treatment of the cases before and after discretization. The final expression when performing such a derivation includes the classical before-discretization (“continuous”) expression, which contains objects solely restricted to the design boundary, plus a number of “correction” terms that involve field variables inside the domain. Some or all of the correction terms vanish when the associated state and adjoint variables are smooth enough.


Topology Optimization Shape Optimization Directional Derivative Adjoint Equation Discrete Case 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. N. Arnold, F. Brezzi, B. Cockburn, and L. D. Marini. Unified analysis of discontinuous Galerkin methods for elliptic problems. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 39(5):1749–1779, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund. Topology optimization. Theory, methods, and applications. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott. The mathematical theory of finite element methods. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2002.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Bucur and G. Buttazzo. Variational methods in shape optimization problems. Birkhäuser, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Di Cesare, O. Pironneau, and E. Polak. Consistent approximations for an optimal design problem. Technical Report R 98005, Laboratoire d’Analyse Numérique, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. C. Delfour and J.-P. Zolésio. Shapes and geometries. Analysis, differential calculus, and optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Glowinski and J. He. On shape optimization and related issues. In J. Borggaard, J. Burns, E. Cliff, and S. Schreck, editors, Computational Methods for Optimal Design and Control, Proceedings of the AFOSR workshop on Optimal Design and Control (Arlington, VA, 1997), pages 151–179. Birkhäuser, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. D. Gunzburger. Perspectives in flow control and optimization. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2003.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. E. Gurtin. An introduction to continuum mechanics. Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Haslinger and R. A. E. Mäkinen. Introduction to shape optimization. Theory, approximation, and computation. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Laporte and P. Le Tallec. Numerical methods in sensitivity analysis and shape optimization. Birkhäuser, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Mohammadi and O. Pironneau. Applied shape optimization for fluids. Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Pironneau. Optimal shape design for elliptic systems. Springer Series in Computational Physics. Springer, New York, 1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Sokolowski and J.-P. Zolésio. Introduction to shape optimization. Shape sensitivity analysis. Springer, Berlin, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations