Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of MDO methods with mathematical examples

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, engineering systems are quite large and complicated. The design requirements are fairly complex and it is not easy to satisfy them by considering only one discipline. Therefore, a design methodology that can consider various disciplines is needed. Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) is an emerging optimization method that considers a design environment with multiple disciplines. Seven methods have been proposed for MDO. They are Multiple-discipline-feasible (MDF), Individual-discipline-feasible (IDF), All-at-once (AAO), Concurrent subspace optimization (CSSO), Collaborative optimization (CO), Bi-level integrated system synthesis (BLISS), and Multidisciplinary design optimization based on independent subspaces (MDOIS). Through several mathematical examples, the performances of the methods are evaluated and compared. Specific requirements are defined for comparison and new types of mathematical problems are defined based on the requirements. All the methods are coded and the performances of the methods are compared qualitatively and quantitatively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexandrov NM, Kodiyalam S (1998) Initial results of an MDO method evaluation study. AIAA Paper AIAA-1998-4884

  • Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2002) Analytical and computational aspects of collaborative optimization for multidisciplinary design. AIAA J 40(2):301-309

    Google Scholar 

  • Balling RJ, Sobieszcznski-Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approach. AIAA J 34(1):6-17

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Balling RJ, Wilkinson CA (1996) Execution of multidisciplinary design optimization approaches on common test problems. AIAA Paper AIAA-96-4033

  • Barthelemy JF, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1983) Optimum sensitivity derivatives of objectives functions in nonlinear programming. AIAA J 21(6):913-915

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Braun RD (1996) Collaborative optimization: an architecture for large-scale distributed design. Stanford University, Ph.D. Thesis

  • Chen S, Zhang F, Khalid M (2002) Evaluation of three decomposition MDO algorithms. Proceedings of 23rd International Congress of Aerospace Sciences, Toronto, Canada, September

  • Cramer EJ, Dennis JE, Frank PD, Lewis RM, Shubin GR (1993) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. Center for Research on Parallel Computation Rice Univ., CRPC-TR93334

  • DOT User’s Manual Version 5.4 (2004) Vanderplaats Research & Development, Inc

  • Giesing JP, Barthelemy JM (1998) A summary of industry MDO applications and needs. AIAA Paper AIAA-1998-4737

  • Haftka RT (1985) Simultaneous analysis and design. AIAA J 23(7):1099-1103

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hajela P, Bloebaum CL, Sobieszcznski-Sobieski J (1990) Application of global sensitivity equations in multidisciplinary aircraft synthesis. J Aircr 27(12):1002-1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoenlinger HG, Krammer J, Stettner M (1998) MDO technology needs in aeroelastic structural design. AIAA Paper AIAA-1998-4731

  • Hulme KF, Bloebaum CL (2000) A simulation-based comparison of multidisciplinary design optimization solution strategies using CASCADE. Struct Multidiscip Optim 19:17-35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimization-some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1):3-22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HS (2004) Sequential approximate individual discipline feasible method using enhanced two-point diagonal quadratic approximation method. Hanyang University, Master Thesis (in Korean)

  • Padula SL, Alexandrov N, Green LL (1996) MDO Test Suite at NASA Langley Research Center. AIAA Paper 96-4028, http://mdob.larc.nasa.gov/mdo.test/Problems.html

  • Park GJ (2007) Analytic methods in design practice. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Park CK, Lee JS (2001) Improvement of sensitivity based concurrent subspace optimization using automatic differentiation. Transactions of Korean Society of Mechanical Engineering (A) 25(2):182-191 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • Renaud JE, Gabriele GA (1994) Approximation in nonhierarchic system optimization. AIAA J 32(1):198-205

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Salas AO, Townsend C (1998) Framework requirements for MDO application development. AIAA Paper AIAA-98-4740

  • Shin MK, Park GJ (2005) Multidisciplinary design optimization based on independent subspaces. Int J Numer Methods Eng 64:599-617

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shin JK, Yi SI, Park GJ (2005) Optimum sensitivity of objective function using equality constraint. Transactions of Korean Society of Mechanical Engineering (A) 29(12):1629-1637 (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1982) A linear decomposition method for large optimization problems-blueprint for development. NASA TM 83248

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non hierarchic systems. NASA CP 3031

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1990) On the sensitivity of complex, internally coupled systems. AIAA J 28(1):153-160

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1996) Multidisciplinary Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments. AIAA Paper AIAA-96-0711

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Barthelemy JF, Riley KM (1982) Sensitivity of optimum solutions to problem parameters. AIAA J 20(9):1291-1299

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Agte J, Sandusky R (1998) Bi-level integrated system synthesis. Proceedings of AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. AIAA Paper AIAA-98-4916

  • Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Altus DT, Phillips M, Sandusky R (2002) Bi-level System Synthesis (BLISS) for concurrent and distributed processing. AIAA Paper AIAA-2002-5409

  • Tappeta RV, Renaud JE (1997) Multiobjective collaborative optimization. J Mech Des 119:403-411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tappeta RV, Nagendra S, Renaud JE, Badhrinath (1998) Concurrent Sub-Space Optimization(CSSO) MDO Algorithms in iSIGHT: validation and testing. GE Research & Development Center

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan City, Gyeonggi-do, 426-791, South Korea

    S. I. Yi

  2. Research & Development Center, Doosan Engine Co., Ltd, Changwon City, Gyungnam, 641-370, South Korea

    J. K. Shin

  3. Division of Mechanical and Information Management Engineering, Hanyang University, 1271 Sa 1-dong, Ansan City, Gyeonggi-do, 426-791, South Korea

    G. J. Park

Authors
  1. S. I. Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. K. Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. J. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yi, S.I., Shin, J.K. & Park, G.J. Comparison of MDO methods with mathematical examples. Struct Multidisc Optim 35, 391–402 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0150-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0150-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation