TY - GEN
T1 - Numerical Comparison of Multi-Level Optimization Techniques
AU - de Wit, AJ
AU - van Keulen, F
N1 - niet eerder opgevoerd
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - Multi-level or multi-disciplinary design optimization techniques rely on a decomposition of the optimization problem into separate levels or subsystems. In this overview we distinguished six established approaches. Namely, Optimization by Linear Decomposition (OLD), Concurrent SubSpace Optimization (CSSO), Collaborative Optimization (CO), Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS), Analytical Target Cascading (ATC) and Quasi-separable Subsystem Decomposition (QSD). The methods were compared on the basis of a structural two-bar truss optimization problem. Convergence curves towards the solution, the number of local and multi-level iterations were compared with respect to an All-in-One optimization. This study showed that, CO with an inexact penalty method and ATC performed equally well in terms of number of function calls. OLD, BLISS and QSD were more expensive, due to costly approximations. CSSO did not converge. In future work we plan to integrate CO and ATC into a multi-scale analysis method, while adapting certain approximation concepts of the other multi-level techniques.
AB - Multi-level or multi-disciplinary design optimization techniques rely on a decomposition of the optimization problem into separate levels or subsystems. In this overview we distinguished six established approaches. Namely, Optimization by Linear Decomposition (OLD), Concurrent SubSpace Optimization (CSSO), Collaborative Optimization (CO), Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS), Analytical Target Cascading (ATC) and Quasi-separable Subsystem Decomposition (QSD). The methods were compared on the basis of a structural two-bar truss optimization problem. Convergence curves towards the solution, the number of local and multi-level iterations were compared with respect to an All-in-One optimization. This study showed that, CO with an inexact penalty method and ATC performed equally well in terms of number of function calls. OLD, BLISS and QSD were more expensive, due to costly approximations. CSSO did not converge. In future work we plan to integrate CO and ATC into a multi-scale analysis method, while adapting certain approximation concepts of the other multi-level techniques.
KW - conference contrib. refereed
KW - Conf.proc. > 3 pag
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/34547524671
M3 - Conference contribution
SN - 1-56347-880-3
SP - 1
EP - 31
BT - Conference Proceedings of 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
A2 - AIAA, null
PB - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc. (AIAA)
CY - Hawaii
T2 - 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
Y2 - 23 April 2007 through 26 April 2007
ER -