한국CDE학회논문집 (Korean Journal of Computational Design and Engineering)

  • 제16권3호
  • /
  • Pages.236-245
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 2508-4003(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-402X(eISSN)
한국CDE학회 (Society for Computational Design and Engineering)
권호 표지

순차 및 병렬처리 환경에서 효율적인 다분야통합최적설계 문제해결 방법

An Efficient Solution Method to MDO Problems in Sequential and Parallel Computing Environments

  • 이세정 (서울시립대학교 기계정보공학과)
  • 투고 : 2010.09.16
  • 심사 : 2011.05.12
  • 발행 : 2011.06.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Many researchers have recently studied multi-level formulation strategies to solve the MDO problems and they basically distributed the coupling compatibilities across all disciplines, while single-level formulations concentrate all the controls at the system-level. In addition, approximation techniques became remedies for computationally expensive analyses and simulations. This paper studies comparisons of the MDO methods with respect to computing performance considering both conventional sequential and modem distributed/parallel processing environments. The comparisons show Individual Disciplinary Feasible (IDF) formulation is the most efficient for sequential processing and IDF with approximation (IDFa) is the most efficient for parallel processing. Results incorporating to popular design examples show this finding. The author suggests design engineers should firstly choose IDF formulation to solve MDO problems because of its simplicity of implementation and not-bad performance. A single drawback of IDF is requiring more memory for local design variables and coupling variables. Adding cheap memories can save engineers valuable time and effort for complicated multi-level formulations and let them free out of no solution headache of Multi-Disciplinary Analysis (MDA) of the Multi-Disciplinary Feasible (MDF) formulation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 이장효, 이세정, "재구성이 가능한 다분야통합최적 설계 프레임웍의 개발," 한국 CAD/CAM학회논문집, 제14권, 제3호, pp. 207-216, 2009.
  2. Allison, J. T., Kokkolaras M. and Papalambros P. Y., "On Selecting Single-Level Formulations for Complex System Design Optimization," Trans. of ASME, Vol. 129, pp. 898-906, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2747632
  3. 이세정, 안문렬, "다분야통합최적설계 방법론의 병렬처리 성능 분석," 대한기계학회논문집A권, 제31권, 제12호, pp. 1150-1156, 2007.
  4. Yi, S. I., Shin, J. K. and Park, G. J., "Comparison of MDO Methods with Mathematical Examples", Struct. Multidisc. Optim., Vol. 35, pp. 391-402, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0150-2
  5. Tedford, N. P. and Martins, J. R. R. A., "Benchmarking Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Algorithms," Optimization Engineering, DOI 10.1007/ s11081-009-9082-6, online 2009.
  6. Marriage, C., Automatic Implementation of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Architectures Using piMDO, MS Thesis, Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, 2008.
  7. Perez, R. E., Liu, H. H. T. and Behdinan K., "Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Optimization Approaches for Aircraft Conceptual Design," 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA Paper 2004-4537, Aug.30-Sep.1, Albany, N.Y., 2004.
  8. Sellar, R. S., Batill, S. M. and Renaud, J. E., "Response Surface Based, Concurrent Subspace Optimization for Multidisciplinary System Design," Proc. of the 34th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Reno, NV). AIAA, Reston, VA, 1996-0714.
  9. Tedford, N., Comparison of MDO Architectures within a Universal Framework, MS Thesis, Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, 2006.
  10. Roth, B. and Kroo, I., "Enhanced Collaborative Optimization," 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Victoria, BC, September 6-8, 2008.
  11. Roth, B. and Kroo, I., "Enhanced Collaborative Optimization: A Decomposition-based Method for Multidisciplinary Design," Proc. of ASME IDETC/ CIE, DETC2008-50038, Brooklyn, New York, Aug. 3-6, 2008.
  12. Tosserams, S., Etman, L. F. P. and Rooda, J. E., "A Classication of Methods for Distributed System Optimization Based on Formulation Structure," Struct. Multidisc. Optim., DOI 10.1007/s00158-008-0347-z, online, 2008.
  13. Lophaven, S. N., Nielsen, H. B., Sondergaard, J., DACE-A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox Technical University of Denmark, Technical Report IMMTR2002-12, 2002.