Scribd
Upload
160 views5 pages

Texas A&M University MEEN 683 Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization (MSADO) Spring 2021 Assignment 5, Part A

The document describes an assignment to optimize the design of a bridge to minimize cost while satisfying structural constraints. Students are asked to: 1) Use a heuristic optimization technique like simulated annealing or genetic algorithms to solve the bridge design problem and compare results to gradient-based approach. 2) Find the cheapest possible bridge design that spans 30 meters and supports a load of 1x106 N, selecting beam and support dimensions and materials to minimize total cost. 3) Propose a set of bridge designs with costs at least 10% higher than the minimum that satisfy the load requirement to allow the customer to choose based on price and load capacity needs. Determine the Pareto front tradeoff between cost and maximum load capacity.

Uploaded by

Boba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
160 views5 pages

Texas A&M University MEEN 683 Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization (MSADO) Spring 2021 Assignment 5, Part A

The document describes an assignment to optimize the design of a bridge to minimize cost while satisfying structural constraints. Students are asked to: 1) Use a heuristic optimization technique like simulated annealing or genetic algorithms to solve the bridge design problem and compare results to gradient-based approach. 2) Find the cheapest possible bridge design that spans 30 meters and supports a load of 1x106 N, selecting beam and support dimensions and materials to minimize total cost. 3) Propose a set of bridge designs with costs at least 10% higher than the minimum that satisfy the load requirement to allow the customer to choose based on price and load capacity needs. Determine the Pareto front tradeoff between cost and maximum load capacity.

Uploaded by

Boba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

MEEN 683 Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization (MSADO)


Spring 2021

Assignment 5, Part A
You are expected to solve Part (a) individually. Each person must submit their own Part (a) (and
any code created for the assignment).

Topics: Heuristics, Isoperformance, Multi-Objective Optimization


(P1)
Repeat the numerical experiments of Assignment 4, but this time using a heuristic technique of
your choice (e.g., SA, GA, ...). Explain how you “tuned” the heuristic algorithm.

Compare your two algorithms (the gradient-based approach and the heuristic approach) from above
quantitatively and qualitatively for the three problems as follows:
(i) Dependence of answers on initial design vector (start point, initial population)

(ii) Computational effort (CPU time [sec] or FLOPS)

(iii) Convergence history

(iv) Frequency at which the technique gets trapped in a local maximum

(P2): OPTIONAL, Extra Credit TBD.


Your objective is to design the cheapest possible bridge to span a highway. The total span of the
bridge (across both halves of the highway) must be L = 30 meters, and it must support its own
weight and a load q = 33 × 104 N/m along its span (a total load of about 1 × 106 N plus its own
weight). The bridge span will be supported by between one and four I-beams. In the figure below,
the I-beams would be parallel to each other going into the page, for example it could be one I-
beam in the middle of the bridge, or one I-beam on both sides of the bridge, etc. and this will be
represented by the design variable, nIbeams . The shape of the I-beams will be represented by three
continuous design variables, the height, h, the flange width, b, and thickness, t. The middle support
will be rectangular (when viewed from above), and will have two design variables, the width, w,
and depth, d. Let, ρIbeams be the density of the material used for the I-beams, then the mass of the
I-beams can be computed using,

MIbeams = [2bt + (h − 2t)t] LρIbeams nIbeams .

Let ρSupport be the density of the material used for the support, and H = 5m be the height of the
bridge above the ground, then the mass of the middle support can be computed using

MSupport = wdHρSupport .
I-beams
Center support
Direction of loading

There is a constraint that the stress of the I-beam is less than the material failure stress for the
I-beam, σFailure-Ibeams . (Note: g is the gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2 ).)
2
q L2 + MIbeams L4 g h
  
σIbeams = ≤ σFailure-Ibeams ,
8IIbeam nIbeams 2
where IIbeam is the moment of inertia for the I-beam given by
" 2 #
(h − 2t) t3 3
t b

h t
IIbeam = +2 + tb − .
12 12 2 2
In addition, there is a constraint that the shear stress in the I-beams is less than the material failure
stress:
MIbeams g + qL
τIbeams = ≤ σFailure-Ibeams .
4 [2bt + (h − 2t)t] nIbeams
For the middle support there are two constraints, the column cannot buckle and the stress must be
less than the material failure stress. Buckling is based on a requirement that the applied load is less
than a critical load:
MIbeams g + qL
PApplied = ≤ PCrit ,
2
where the critical load is a function of th slowest moment of inertia of the support and the modulus
of elasticity of the support material, Esupport ,
n 3 3
o
π 2 ESupport min w12d , wd
12
PCrit = 2
.
4H
The stress requirement is that the applied stress is less than the support material failure stress,
PApplied
σSupport = ≤ σFailure-Support .
wd
The bridge span (I-beams) can be made from A1 6061, A36 Steel, A514 Steel, or Titanium; how-
ever, the support can be made from A1 6061, A36 Steel, A514 Steel, or Concrete. The reason for
the difference is that concrete cannot be loaded in tension. The material properties and prices are
listed in the Table:
Material Density Modulus of Elasticity Failure Stress Cost($/kg)
(kg/m3 ) (GPa = 109 N/m2 ) (MPa = 10 N/m2 )
6

A1 6061 2700 70 270 2.05


A36 Steel 7850 210 250 0.62
A514 Steel 7900 210 700 0.90
Titanium 4500 120 760 16.00
Concrete 2400 31 70 0.04
Your objective is to find the dimensions of the I-beams, number of I-beams, and material type for
the I-beams, as well as the dimensions of the support and material type for the support to minimize
cost of the bridge. Where cIbeams and cSupport are the cost per kilogram of the materials used for the
I-beams and Support. The total bridge cost is then:

C = cIbeams MIbeams + cSupport MSupport .

Please use the problem formulation posted on eCampus as a starting point for this problem.

(a) Please explain what optimization algorithm you chose to find the cheapest possible bridge
and why.
(b) What are the design variables and cost for the cheapest bridge?

(P3): OPTIONAL: Revisit of Bridge Design, Extra Credit TBD.

This problem will revisit the bridge design problem. However, this time you are going to propose
a set of designs to the department of transportation so that they can choose a bridge based on the
load it will carry and the price they have to pay for the bridge. In other words, they will select a
bridge based on the load it can carry, F = qL, where q is a load per unit length (N/m), L is the
length of the bridge, 30m, and the cost, C, in dollars. Please use the problem formulation posted
on eCampus as a starting point for this problem.
(a) For the optimal cost solution from (a-2), what is the Jacobian of the cost and load? (An
estimate is fine.)

(b) Find at least two substantially different bridge designs that each has a cost 10% higher than
the optimal you have found, while satisfying the same load condition.

(c) Find the Pareto front of cost and load with respect to the continuous variables using the
optimal values of the discrete variables from (a-2). Please describe what algorithm you used
and why.

(d) Using your Pareto front estimate, what is the trade between the cost of the bridge and the
load it can carry at the minimum cost design you found?

(e) Is this Pareto front convex?


Part (b)
(b-1) Multiobjective Optimization
Select two objective functions for your project (e.g., range [km] and cruise speed [m/s] or vehicle
acceleration [0-60 mph time] and cost [$], etc). Optimize your system for both objectives simulta-
neously using any multiobjective method of your choice. Answer the following questions:

(b1.1) Are you objectives mutually supporting or opposing? How do you know?

(b1.2) What is an estimate of the Pareto front? Show this graphically.

(b1.3) How sensitive is your answer to the scale factors or weights you have chosen (if you use a
method that requires weights as in the weighted sum method)?

You might also like